HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP2700190(2) fin
-
�R1�'lA/�f irk
I
t
C� �a2�✓� ���i1,c��c'L �
aOR
✓ J �i," J.�sat(� �r
Lk- 6nAi_t0r4-,
_10
TE F6,L.,vir6 AR.c. Po:c NcT YEr cr1 Doe'a Li,T' 6UT AKE Br_jniG
R�QUFSTED Fo(L RATING
rn � 4&k, W,4k;% , Gso 2
01*4 f-4tA,,,o csc, .?
hLtl�c .2
I
STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON ayrocw,waM,yi„ xaa ar ,:.i znn
\f D/+i'e'y Lee Rav
y.p
July 21, 1978
Mr. John Lampe
Metro
Exchange Bldg.
821 2nd Ave.
Seattle, Washington 98104
Dear Mr. Lampe:
Our meeting on June 22, 1978, held here at the Department of Ecology,
was a productive step toward determining the proper strategy for involving
the 208 planring agencies in our construction grants priority rating
process.
I believe that the group agreed on the following general points:
1. The designated agencies should be involved in compiling the
total list of all projects to be rated in their area. The
department will compile a list from our needs survey and other
sources, and will arrange to meet with the designated agency
to discuss any additions to the list. Projects which the
designated agencies feel should be deleted from the list can
be addressed under point Number 4.
2. Once the list is established, the departmental staff performing
the actual ratings will need technical information and data
from the local agencies regarding water quality problems
related to specific projects. The technical evaluation forms
(which are enclosed) should be used for this purpose. The
format is similar to our priority rating sheets except that
the evaluation forms do not address a point system. Instead,
we are asking for narrative comments pertaining to each of the
rating p.irameters that is used by our department. This informa-
tion will then be used by our raters at such time as they
assign points to individual projects.
3. Each of the projects on the established list (as well as all
other projects lying outside the designated areas) are rated
by departmental (and DSHS) staff using the informarion and
data at hand. All rated projects within the designated area
will be listed by numerical score and the list will be discussed
with the designated agency before forwarding to Olympia. This
will afford the opportunity for input, argument, etc.
i
July 21, 1978
Page two
4. Once discussion is completed on the project rating sheets, the
designated agencies will use the list to complete certifications
of conformance. (See Enclosure 2) The purpose of these forms
is to provide a documented verification from the designated
agency (or appropriate local legislative authority) that the
project is in conformance with local comprehensive plans or
general sewer plans. You only need to complete this form for
projects being rated for Step 2, but they must be signed and
submitted to the grants administrator in Olympia before the
Step 2 projects will be included on the draft project priority
list. Due to time constraints, this requirement will be ,
waived for the FY 1979 project list. However, we do suggest
that you try to certify as many of your Step 2 projects as
possible so that our staff will know which projects are not in
conformance with the general sewer plans. The question of
which "general sewer plan" should be certified against will be
left to the judgment of the local governments.
5. ^' the same time point Number 4 is proceeding, the completed
and signed rating sheets for all projects will be forwarded to
the grants administrator in Olympia who will constitute a
draft project priority list which will be available to the
public 30 days before the public hearing.
6. All local governments will be afforded the opportunity for
comment on the draft project priority list at the public
hearing.
In the June 22 meeting, it was also agreed that the department would
prepare a "time line" indicating key checkpoints in the process of
developing the project priority list when interaction with the designated
agencies should take place. This "time line" has been included as
enclosure 3.
The June 22 meeting also emphasized the critical timing of the process
this year and general agreement was reached that adequate time would not
be available for proper interaction. With that explanation - the tech-
nical evaluation forms are due in the departmental regional offices by
August 1 because the rating period is onl from July 24 through August 7.
The series of public hearings conducted between July 13 and 17 have not
resulted in changes to the rating system, so we are proceeding with last
year's system.
p July 21, 197E
Page three
I hope that this letter clarifies the somewhat: complex strategy for
involving the 208 planning agencies in our construction grants priority
rating process. If you have any questions, please call me at 753-2846
or SCAN 234-2846.
Sincerely,
Norman L. Glenn, Supervisor
Water Quality Management Section
NG:sw
cc: Glen Fiedler
John Spencer
Bruce Cameron
Chuck Carelli
Bob Bottman
Enclosures (3)
S':ATE OF WASHINGTON
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
FOR
WASIEWATER FACILITIES
Documentation of
the Priority Rating and Ranking System
and
The Administrative Procedures for
Developing the Project Priority List
i
July 1978
Office of Water Programs
Water Quality Management Division
Department of Ecology State of Washington Office of Water Programs
Wilbur G. Hallauer Dixy Lee Ray John F. Spencer
Director Governor Assistant Director
Washington State
Department of Ecology,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
i -
The Washington State Department of Ecology hereby gives notice
s of three public hearings to consider adoption of regulations
relating to municipal waste water co-struction grants .
The proposed regulations ar,
ii Chapter 173-240 WAC, Submission of Plans and Reports for
Construction of Waste Water Facilities , which will replace
C—hapter 372-20 WAC, adopted December 3 , 1973 .
Chapter 173-250 WAC, Municipal Grants Program: Priority
Rating System and Project Priority List, which concerns
the methods used to establish the rating system and the
priority list.
Chapter 173-255 WAC, Limitations on Use of Referendum 26
Grant Funds for Water Pollution Abatement.
The Department of Ecology will Id a fourth public hearing to
r receive comments and statements on the priority rating system
and the administrative procedures for the formulation of the
annual project priority list. Revision of the rating system
f and priority list procedures will be considered.
+ The four public hearings to receive comments on these proposals
will be held as follows at the Spokane Falls Community College ,
Building 1700, Spartan Student Center, Lounge C . , Spokane:
j Thursday, July 13 , 1978 - 9 :00 a.m. , Chapter 173-250 WAC
10 : 30 a.m. , Chapter 173-255 WAC
1 : 30 p.m. , Nearing on priority
r•,ting system
Friday, July 14 , 1978 - 9: 30 a .i,,. , cnapter 173-240 WAC
Copies of the proposed regulations are available at the Department
of Ecology Headquarters Office and regional offices :
Department of Ecology Department of Ecology
Central Regional Office Eastern Regional Office
2802 Main Street Fast 103 Indiana
Union Gap, WA 98903 okane, WA 99207
Department of Ecology
Headquarters Office
St. Martin 's College Campus
Olympia, WA 98504
Further information regarding proposed Chapter 173-240 WAC may
be obtained by contacting Mr. George Houck, Department of Ecology
Headquarters Office, telephone (206) 753-2825 . Further informa-
tion regarding the other two proposed regulations and the special
hearinc, may be obtained by contacting Mr. Rick Pierce of that
office at (206) 753-3885 .
People unable to attend the hearings but wishing to comment
s.iould forward written statements to the Department of Ecology,
Attn: Hearing Officer, Olympia, WA 98504 , prior to July 12 ,
1978 for inclusion in the record at the hearings. The record
of the hearings will remain open for written statements until
July 25, 1978 .
The regulations will be considered for adoption at an adoption
proceeding on August 17, 1978 at the Department of Ecology
Headquarters Office, Lacey. The adoption proceedings are
scheduled as follows:
10 :00 a.m. , Chapter 113-240 WAC
10:15 a .m. , Chapter 173-250 WAC
10: 30 a.m. , Chapter 173-255 WAC
i
i
j
4
State of Washington
Cons ruction Grants Program
for
Wastevater Facilities
Documentation of the Priority Rating and Ranking System
and
i the Administrative Procedures for Dev_loping
the Project Priority List
Contents
Page
1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 .2. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3. Purpose and Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Priority System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Rating Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 Water Quality Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 4
Surface water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ground water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2. Significance of discharge. . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3. Public Health Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.4. Quality Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.5. Rating Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.6. Limitation on Certain Categories of Projects . . 13
New collector sewers and appurtenances. . . 13
New interceptors and appurtenances. . . . . 13
Definition of interceptor . . . . . . . . 13
Rating of interceptors. . . . . . . . . . 14
Correction of combined sewer overflows. . . 14
Separate storm sewer systems. . . . . . . . 15
Second, y treatment with discharge
tolakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Certification of conformance with area
wide planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . i6
2.2. Project Ranking Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.1 Numerical rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2. Readiness for grant award. . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.3. Proper mix of projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.4. Sequencing of projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.5. Other administrative procedures. . . . . . . . . 18
i
i
k
2.2.6. Revisions to approved list . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3. Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4. Submission of the priority rating and ranking system
toEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. The Project Priority List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. 1. Development of the Proposed List . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2. iublic Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
qR
,;. 3.3. Approval and submission of the Project Priority
: ist to EPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
t.
1. General
I.I. Introduction
The goal of the FeLeral Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
(Public Law 92-500) was " . . . to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters. . . The provisions of the law dictated that "fish-
able and swimmable waters" were to be achieved by 1983, with
the elimination of all pollutant discharges by 1985. The 1972
law specifically directed municipalities to provide "secondary
treatment" of wastewater discharges by July 1, 1977.
The construction grants program was initiated under Title II
of that Public Law as a means of helping municipalities con-
struct new or upgrade xisting wastewater facilities. The
federal share has been 75 percent of the total eligible cost
of a project, although recent amendments now allow 85 percent
federal involvement on certain types of projects. Through
fiscal year (October 1, 1974 to September 30) 1975, $18 billion
was authorized for construction grants in accordance with the
1972 Act.
The amendments to the 1972 Act, the Clean Water Act of 1977
(Public Lzw 95-217) , extended the deadline for compliance with
the secondary treatment requirement to 1983. The construction
grants program was also extended for another five years, to
1982. The new amendments authorized $4.5 billion for the
fiscal year 1978 grant program with $79.6 million earmarked
for the State of Washington. Over the next four years, Congress
authorized the expenditure of $5 billion per year for the
grants program with Washington acquiring $88.44 million annually.
The State of Washington has a matching grants program which
provides 15 percent of the total eligible cost of a project
although the recent amendments now result in the reduction of
the state share to 9 percent on prcjects eligible for 85%
federal funding.
1.2. Definitions
"Priority rating and ranking system" means the process and
criteria used by the Department of Ecology (DOE) to rate and
rank projects in the state that are considered eligible for
assistance under the construction grants program. Ranking
criteria include the administrative and management procedures
for constituting and revising the project priority list. It
will he referred to throughout this document as the priority
syr _em.
"Project" means any one of the following: (a) facility plan-
ning (step 1) , (b) design (step 2) , (c) or constrx;ction
(step 3) .
1
"Project priority list" means the annual list of rated and
ranked projects for which federal and state grant assistance
is expected during the five-year planning period starting at
the beginning of the next federal fiscal year. It will be
referred to throughout this document as the list.
"Fundable list" means that portion of the list which contains
projects scheduled for award during the first year of the
five-year planning period.
"Extended list" means that portion of the list containing all
projects outside the fundable list that may, under anticipated
federal and state funding levels avid current rating and rank-
ing procedures, receive funding during the five-year planning
period.
"Category of projects" means one of the following: (a) second-
ary treatment, (b) more stringent treatment, (c) infiltration-
inflow correction, (d) major sewer system rehabilitation,
(e) new collection sewer and appurtenances, (f) new interceptors
and appurtenances, and (g) correction of combined sewer over-
flows.
"Surface water segment classification" means the delineation
of the stat.e's surface waters into logical segments, based on
similar water quality characteristics of the various drainage
basins. The currently identified segments, numbering 167 in
all, have been prioritized on the basis of a set of rating
parameters devised in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR 130.
"Water quality standards" means the . . . rules and regula-
tions relating to standards of quality for waters of the state
and for substances discharged therein in order to maintain the
highest possible standards of all waters of the state .
(Quoted from RCW 90.48 .035. )
"Bypass procedure" means the method used to defer a project
which has not met certain ranking procedures and substituting
in its place the highest ranking project(s) of similar step
from the extended list.
"Point source" means the waste flow gathered to a single point
of discharge.
"Needs inventory" means that listing of all existing and
future needs for wastewater facilities as projected to the
year 1u00 and recorded with DOE.
1.3. Purpose and Authority
DOE, as the state administering agency for the construction
grants program, is required to publish a priority system
annually, which is to be used for the purpose of cc tituting
2
9
a project priority list. Furthermore, DOE is to publish the
administrative, management a�,d public participation procedures
which DOE must follow for ultimate approval of the list.
This document, referred to as the "fact sheet" in 40 CFR
35.915 of the Congressional Federal Register and the proposed
Chapter 173-250 of the Washington Administrative Code comprises
the published priority system and procedures.
NOTE: It is important to recognize the distinction between the
"administrative, management procedures, and public partici-
pation procedures" which comprise the ranking portion of
the priority system and the "administrative, management,
and public participation procedures" which are necessary
for approval of the list once it has been constituted
using the priority system.
3
1
2. The Priority System
2. 1 . Rating Parameters.
The parameters are grouped as follows: 1) water quality
considerations, 2) significance of this discharge compared to
the other discharges within the surface water segment and
3) public health considerations. The maximum number of points
that may be awarded to a project is 500. Of these points, 250
are for water quality considerations, 150 are for sigut.ficance
of discharge, and 100 are for public health considerations.
The maximum points (500) are awarded immediately for a docu-
mented public health emergency. A copy of the rating sheet
has been included in Section 2.1.4.
2.1 .1 . Water Quality Considerations
The water quality section (page 1 of the rating
sheet) considers both surface and ground water
quality. Surface water parameters include low
dissolved oxygen (a maximum of 55 points), toxicity j
(55 points) , coliform excess (55 points) , algae, k�'
slime, or other bacterial growth (30 points) , sludge ,`
beds (30 points) , and nuisance or aesthetics (25
points). A relative magnitude can be assigned to
each parameter by choosing one of the three categories
of water quality degradation: low, medium, or high.
Zero points are assigned for "low" impact; "Medium"
impact warrants the award of one half of the maximum
number of points, while maximum points are awarded
for "high" water quality degradation due to an
existing condition.
Ground water quality is rated by determining the
relative magnitude (low, medium, or high) of the
toxicity (150 points) and coliform excess (100
points) parameters due to existing ground water
pollution.
The water quality considerations section rates the
specific effects of an existing discharge upon the
water quality in Lite project area. Ratings are
based on EXISTING problems as they relate to the
EXISTING population in the proposed service area.
Prospective projects are NEVER rated on the basis of
potential problems, such as might be caused by
anticipated future growth.
Surface Water
Frequency of water quality standards violations
and/or the time of the year at which violations
occur must be taken into consideration.
4
Generally, if the discharge results in chronic
violations of water quality standards for dissolved
oxygen, fecal coliform, toxicity, or aesthetics
within that surface water segment, then the maximum
number of points are awardt_d. Medium or low points
are awarded for lesser degrees of these problems.
There are no precise units which quantify the nuisance
or aesthetics problem. The project engineer must
take into consideration the existing uses of the
surface water segment and determine if the discharge
is the cause of objectional discoloration, turbidity,
scum, oil slick, floating solids, or odor problems,
and to what extent these problems occur.
If the discharge creates toxic conditions that are
deleterious to humans, fish, or related forms of
aquatic life or affects the potability of drinking
water, then the maximum number of points are awarded.
If the toxicity is primarily to lesser aquatic
species and does not occur frequently, then the
problem should be rated as m•:dium. If the effects
are small the problem should be rated as low.
Algae, ime, or other bacterial growth is not
specifically addressed as a water quality criteria
in the state water quality standards; however, the
water quality problems associated with these para-
meters should be judged by the extent to which the
discharge causes the growth of algae, slime, or
bacteria and by the extent that these growths impair
the existing beneficial uses of the water.
S:udge deposits or the formation of any organic or
inorganic deposits should be rated as a problem
based on the extent to which they are due to the
particular discharge and the extent to which these
deposits are deleterious to fish or related forms of
aquatic life or injurious to public health, recrea-
tion, or industry.
Y
Ground Water
The problem of toxicity and coliform excess in the
ground water should be compared to the state drinking
water standards (Chapter 248-54 WAC). High points
will be awarded if the standards are exceeded,
medium if the standards are approached, and low if
there is no significant affect on the ground water.
5
r
2. 1 .2. Significance of Discharge
1
The "significance of discharge." parameter (page 2 of
the rating sheet) necessitates the use of the surface
water segment classification (See definitions.) and
an awareness of the '_otal pollutant loading of the
discharge as comoa .l to all other point source
discharges in that .urface water segment.
The "priority points" for the surface water segment
in question (as determined from the Surface Water
Segment Classification) determines which one of the
four ranges of priority is appropriate (See rating
sheet) . Each range of priority has an associated
significance of discharge rating, i.e. , upper 20
percent, middle 60 percent, or lower 20 percent.
The points assigned to the significance of discharge
section decrease as a function of the surface water
segment priority and the pollutant load of the
discharge.
'he objective of this parameter is to quantify the
significance of the particular discharge. All
dischargers in the water segment must be evaluated
in terms of the same water quality parameters as
used in Part l of the rating sheet.
Discharges to ground water receive zero points in
this section. If the discharge is to ground water
and it impacts the water quality of adjacent surface
water, the points will then be awarded based upon
the "priority points" of the particular surface
water segment being affected.
2. 1.3. Public Health Considerations
The third page of the rating sheet discusses public
health considerations. The Public Health Hazard
Evaluation Form (the fourth page of the rating
sheet) is sent to the Department of Social and
Health Services (DSHS) , Water Supply and Wastewater
Section, for completion. The appropriate field
person from the regional DSHS office, usually the
district engineer, visits the project ite and makes
his evaluation of the effect of the existing discharge
in terms of the four broad rating parameters:
1) protection of water supply source, 2) potential
for human contact with sewage, 3) protection of
shellfish growing areas, and 4) protection of water
oriented recreation. Each of these general concerns
is subdivided into five or seven detailed parameters
for rating purposes.
6
t
Normally, the maximum number of points that may be
assigned is 100. However, under certain extreme
conditions, a public health emergency may to declared
by DSHS and the maximum 500 points may be awarded.
This emergency must be documented and certified by
the Dirr -tot of the Health Services Division of the
DSHS.
The DOE project engineer uses the numeric& . rating
as completed by DSHS unless contradictory, documented
data is available. In the event that the DOE engineer
makes such a change in the public health points, ,
the engineer will attach a written explanation to
the DSHS rating sheet explaining why the change was
made. Any such changes i❑ the ratings are usually
done in conjunction with DSHS.
DOE has final authority for the numerical scores
assigned to prospective projects.
The final page of the rating sheet (page 5,) summar-
izes and totals the various rating points. The DOE
district supervisor also briefly defines the scope
and intent of the project, provides estimated project
costs for each step and the basis for the estimates,
and signs the rating sheet.
2. 1 .4. Quality Control
To ma�_tain uniformity throughout the state, the
grants administrator, water quality management
division, DOE, reserves the right to review any
project rating for completeness and accuracy.
Discrepancies in a rating w be forwarded to the
rater for comment and/or resolution. The applicant
will be notified of possible changes before they are
made.
7
2 . 1.5 Rating Sheet
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
RATING SHEEP
Project
APPLICANT__—____—_—__--__ Number C53-
SECTION 303(e) SEGMENT TO
SEGMENT RANK _ REIMBURSABLE STEPS (circle) 1 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
STEP_ POPULATION (circle one)
< 3,500 > 3,500 - < 25,000 > 25,000
I . WATER QUALITY CONSIDERA'iIONS (maximum points - 250)
IA. Discharge from subject source(s) affects water quality
of the surface water in the project area in the following
manner.
L M H 1
Low Dissolved Oxygen 0 25 55
Toxicity 0 25 55
Coliform Excess 0 25 55
Algae, Slime, or other 0 15 30 _
Bacterial Growth
Sludge Beds 0 15 30
Nuisance or Aesthetics 0 10 2�
TOTAL IA
IB. Discharge from subject source(s) affects the water
quality of the ground water in the project area in
the following manner.
•.:e L M H
Toxicity 0 75 150
Coliforn Excess 0 50 100
TOrAL 16
TOTAI. of IA and IB (Maximum 250)
i 8
RATING SHEET (Continued) (Page 2)
II. Significance of the discharger compareo to 0.. point sou,! c_is-
chargt ; wiV n thin surface water segment (Maximum points - t50)
SURFACE WATER SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCHARGE POINTS TO
SEGMENT PRIORITY COMPARED TO OTHER DISCHARGES BE AWARDED
POINTS IN THAT SEGMENT (Check one
box only)
1
Upper 20% ------ 150
LAKES and 60 Middle 60%, 100
Lower 20% 25
20% -- -.--� 125
40-53 Middle 604 75 _
Lower 20% — - 25 -
Upper 20% -- 100 ----
n
26-36 Middle 60% 50
Lower 20% 0
i —
Upper 20% 75
0-25 Middle 60% 25
Lower 20% 0
POINTS A'4tRDED (150 MAXIMUM)
I
j 9
a
t
r
RATING SHIET (Continued) (Page 3)
I11 . Public Health Considerati, ns (Maximum Points = 100)
Health hazards and restrictions: Attach ➢SHS Public
Health Hazard Evaluation Form.
NOTE: if points assigned by DOE differ from
those shown on the DSHS evaluation form,
please explain rationale.
Public Health Emergency (maximum points = 500)
Public health emergency certified by the director of the
Health Services Division of the Department of Social
and Health Services. If yes, attach document.
10
A
RATING SHEET (Continued) Page 4)
1_ Y N L I C. 11 r 1 1 r' I! Y A t n I l' A 1. 1' A T 1 0 F O A M
t.CN-µAL I IM.IIM.? + R%I.IW I('I rr II'v1A /.7.111'.11 A r i l l r"Or VA611-S iol'4i
• rAYABLT!:0. I �S[lOSiP
st,ri rr emi'r s-.x k v.. CRtN'YO WATER SOL'RLE
Aqull.•t tyl" Wt /,I lla nil.' /hwenf lard•rRorcalw � is LennnW yy
_--
1:<IIIIq`i5I:IO,NmI• t:>IU,MlOy n
� Rot Appllhle
WtI:R I Sl renw � m
SIMPLY
ROIIRCr 1 rr kl.lty of Y.'vto to 0 1n 114 wl. i/: :��. to / nl. )?wl, IN, ft. lallr IOOO lCM It --_
Ire 4l ,w In- i.d..•vv intnkc-IO nMwv In- •1y fl
t nkt-)S _ }tAkc
type el Ywtr MnI/ $.wlAr nr Srpt tr. - Friw.Sry Rff larvt"10 Seeor»I:vy f.Iflucnt•3
T:W.. I.fUW.nt 11,
Nn. w[ Trorle Strwd ).1pM - is_-- 200 to low - 10 by the Affected Voter I jU0 • 5 f
Aystro
1 TOtAI NIINl$
-- __ (yLralm•,a Pne•lllc•60)
Avv"v I..t St" 1, -1 elo.m01t_2 • s MIMI)to 70,000 rt.2A2 >2o,00o rt.- I -
Affected Arra 1
r011RI'IAL S-11 rwreulAttm Lnt . y20 wlnotr•;1»ek@ to to it m4mte.7l web•! <10 wlnul,R/tn<b•O
r00. -- -- — ---—
AvtrARa LAId 61wpe -yl yt - :
NllFi\II s 4e IS% • 1 <52 0
eORMR T."eated rAlture Rate - WE • 5 10 to M% • 1 - -- <101 - I i
4i WIT" of on-sift S'mema
!t.'J SCRAMS 1ff. - At Pondlrr on I:nm 1n:IA 11Y Ot�+rrva4le Sramrnaliy Oh;:er v»l.lc inf rrryurntlY Nrwrev-
CrauW So,Ott- . 1 ---_._.-- — - a.._—..__— tble - r -�
rrr.leltY of W.1, to Yllhln 100 • 6 Im tN "o rt.
Rov/dt,lcrA nrt/,r M1d•- i
Ill. Arm•
Toteldlal Rurl.r ,f >l000.i ----- 100 to I'MM . t-. ___--
People Ativetrd t100 -
TOTAL y'OINT$
_ _ ____ _ {� (IUtlriw rrnslhle•T0) 1 -!
AA-nj.t Top,a.tl(,x--- lk,wr • 2
YROTFMON Type of ",'I've" creacrclnl ro.•.'re lNl t
hAltr hrr...hllfty yrtcl lent 7 Good2 -_I poor 1
SHELLFISH GNIN:RIC IOU 7r`• k 1-----
Proae.ty o[ Yante Te�WUIIn 1 • Y ^ ) >IOM yd.. 1 j I
I 100 to IorM d .
Grrvl nf, Anv 1 '
AREAS
i L'M lm.ne Y..ate %0...r• >0.3 Nc11 • 1 0.1$ to 0.•• t" y I t-o j5 wn - I
Type of OI.cM•Iry1r al-Slu.•,' (tntrrlfd.,i)• l.- II Crf-Str.,
Type of YJett 0.nv $re:ge• ur ".ptlt i•t I—ry Err 6,cnt•? Sccnodary tltlumt•1
TJu:. I:f(leurt ? 1
T111'F p01 xTS
Tyre' sf Ym cr Y..e Svl vw41g • 7 {LLlny; j ple.•,ure Ik•atlrA -
r1MTrl'TION LIh nN ply of V.c hvA") • 2 Avrr:..;, 1 1.10a 0.5
01' ana1-11Y rf Y.rer- --_-Olreet ly Llthle Area y Ad)aernt to Area - l
YAtfR-Onl/Ylt to V•.e A, n
` kl:CkfATlte? rcl(w,l V..!te \'uL I )0.5 !T.O . 2 ,IS• 4S P' 1 -- t..15 1N:h • 0.5
_ type of Un•ar _ k..v S=vdpr ri %..1".it p,,.nl,
TU rAI. PUlYTS
---,—��_---_--_`..._.. (1'.rn true Yr•'a lNle•10) �.-'-
RATING SHEET (Continu-d) (Page 5)
POINT SUMMARY
1. la ----
3
Total
DISTRICT SUPERVISOR
DEFINED SCOPE OF PROJECT:
CONTACTS_MADE AND COMMENTS ON RATING: q
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Cost :
Present North Year:
Basis for Cost Estimate:
Cost Curves
Consul taut
Municipality
Other
TV. NAME OF RA'rER Date
12
r
Y
1
2.1.6. Limitations on Certain Categories of Projects
New collector sewers and appurtenances
The following conditions mus' be met tefore new collector
sewer projects will be rated:
A. A public health emergency must be documented and
certified by DSHS.
B. There must br suffic,ent documentation of the exten-
sive nature of the i. .)blem to warran, issuance of a
regulatory order signed by the Directs of the DOE.
Such cn order would generally be issued when the
following circumstances are found to exis` :
(1) Extreme health hazard caused by human waste
entering an extensive surface water system,
and
(2) Extreme ..ealth hazard caused by human waste
entering an extensive aquifer system, and
(3) An increasing rate of water quality degradation
caused by the inappropriate disposal of human
waste, and
(4) Other serious water quality problems such as
accelerated eutrophication of lakes, estuaries,
embayments, or reservoirs resulting from the
increasing disposal of human wastes.
C. Overriding consideration of public interest.
This condition is intended to emphasize the signifi-
cance and economic effect of the order which may be
issued. Generally, this condition would be met
where a docket or order issued by our agency places
sanctions upon units of local government which
severely affect the economy of the area. Such
s ictions will normally preclude or restrict addi-
tional development in an area (through denial of
septic tank permits, prohibition of new connections
to an existing sewerage system, limitation on lot
size and other such actions.) until specified corrective
actions are taken.
New interceptors and appurtenances
A. Definition of interceptor
A sewer pipeline can be considered an interceptor
if:
13
•6
( 1) It intercepts sewage from the final point of a
collection system and conveys it directly to a
point of treatrzient , and/or
(2) It serves in : -eu of an existing sewage treatment
plant, and/or
(3) It transports a substantial existing discharge
of sewage to a surface water or ground water.
Note: A pump station and force main and a gravity
sewer in any combination may be considered
an interceptor if it meets the above
condir I Otis.
Main and trunk sewers are defined as
collectors of multiple sources or systems.
They will not meet the definition of
irterceptor under (1) , above.
B. Rating of interceptors
(1) All new interceptors propnsed in the Facility
Plan (Step 1), that are otherwise eligible for
funding, will be rated separately for design
and construction (Steps 2 and 3) . If the
interceptor has a higher ratit:g than the asso-
ciated treatment facility, it will be included
in the treatment faciliLy project and will then
assume that rating.
If the interceptor has a lower rating than the
associated treatment facility, or there is no
associated facility, it will maintain its
separate rating.
(2) All existing interceptors identified in the
Facility Plan as needing sewer system evaluation
survey (SSES) work will be included in the
associated treatment facility rating.
Cor,ection of combined sewer ov lows (CSO)
CSO problems should be the subject of discussion between
DOE and the consultant during facility planning. The DOE
and EPA project engineers should work with the consultant
to determine which CSO's will be considered eligible.
Although the fH)E performs the priority rating on all
CSO's, and th!a determines wh-n the project will be
funded, EPA, through its P ..gram Guid.,nce Memorandum No.
14
N
61 M-61), determines the total amount of CSO project
costs that are eligible for federal funning.
All CSO's in the facility planning area should be grouped
logically for purposes of correction. Determination of
groupings are based upon water use, sensitivity of the
surface water segment, geography of area, hydraulic
relationships, economics-of-scale, control techniques,
and beneficial use impairment (as defined in PG-61).
In order to define each CSO grouping is a single point
source discharge, frequency of overflow data will be
averaged. This overflow average calculation will be
weighted according to both the frequency of each particular
CSO and the average volume of discharge per overflow.
CSO's will be incorporated into the existing priority
rating by applying a frequency of discharge factor to the
priority rating "water quality consideration" points, as
listed in Section IA, (page I of the rating sheet). :he
frequency factor (shown in Table 1) is multiplied by the
tabulated point total of Section IA.
Table 1
Average Frequency of Discharge
(Discharges/Year _ Frequency Factor
Greater than 90 1.0
30 - 90 0.8
10 - 29 0.6
Less than 10 0.4
The modified water q,iality point total will then be
summed with the significance of discharge and public
health considerations puint totals. This sum will be the
final numerical score.
With the exception of the inclusion of the frequency of
overflow factor to Section TA, the rating is identical in
every respect to the priority rating of other projects.
S�arate Storm Sewer Systems
Storm sewer collection, interception, and treatment
systems are not grant eligible and will not be rated.
Secondary Treatment with Discharge to Lakes
Secondary treatment systems with proposed discharges to
lake class waters will not be rated for Steps 2 and 3.
15
i
k
Certification of conformance with areawide planni,
Before a Step 2 project can be rated, the legislative
authority empowered to approve meal comprehensive
plans, or the authorized 208 planning agency in
designated areas, must submit written certification
that the project conforms with the general sewer
plan for the area. It no general seer p.an exists,
then the certification must so indicate.
Note: For a definition of general sewer plan see proposed
WAC 173-240-020(3) .
2.2. Project ranking procedures
2.2. 1. Numerical rating
When the priority ratings have been completed, the
prospective projects can be ranked according to
numerical scores. This preliminary ranking is only
the first of a number of administrative and management
ranking procedures which the grants administrator,
water quality management division, must consider
during the process of constituting the project
priority list; ether procedures follow.
2.2.2. Readiness for grant award '
A. A project should be ranked for inclusion on the
funda` le portion of the list only if it is
ready to proceed during the next fiscal year.
Generally, the following are reasonable indica-
tors of readiness-to-proceed:
Sty 1 Rrojects
If an approved pl .0 of study and a resolution from ,
the applicant are on file. In the case of multijuris-
dictional projects, a signed interlocal resolution
is required.
Step 2prUects
If the project will be ready for a Step 2 grant
award within six months after the start of the next
fiscal year. (If a Step 2 project does not receive
a grant award within six months it becomes a candidate
for the bypass procedure. )
Step 2/3�rojeccs
If the project will receive a Step 2 grant award
within three (3) months after the start of the next
16
fiscal year and the Step 3 total estimated co.t is
$2,000,000 or less.
Step 3 projects
(1) If a Step 2 grant has been awarded thirty (30)
days prior to the public hearing, (excepting
sewer line rehabilitation sequences) .
(2) Jf the project has multiple sequences, of which
.,ne or more are presently under construction,
end this is a continuing sequence.
B. A project should be ranked for inclusion on the
extended portion of the list if it is expected to
proceed during the ensuing four (4) years. Current
numerical scores will be used. Since this rating
may change, e.g. , several unanticipated Step 2
projects resulting from a single Step 1 rated
project, project ranking is approximate and may
change with revised rating or ranking information.
Step 1 projects will be identified and ranked for
only the first two years of the extended list.
2.2.3. Proper mix of projects
It is important for continuity in the construction
grants program that there be a proper mix of facility
planning, design, and construction projects. The
numerical scores alone cannot be counted upon to
ac- lish this mix. For this reason, one of the
ce :xercises in the ranking process (following
the ranking by numerical score and readiness for
grant award) is to divide the projects into groups
by Step (1, 2, or 3) . A management level decision
is then made as to the number of Step 1, 2 and X3
projects to be included in the fundable partion of
the list. This decision is based,in part, on the
dollar amount of the projects involved in each group
and the total federal or state grant funds available
during the next fiscal year and anticipated during
the ensuing four fiscal years. Generally, the
Step 2 group will include lower rated projects than
the Step 3 group, while the Step 1 group will include
the projects with the lowest numerics'. scores on the
fundable portion.
2.2.4. Sequencing of projects
A sequence is defined as one portion of the Step 2
or Step 3 work (each sequence may be made up of
several engineering or construction contracts)
needed to complete the total e'.igible project.
Projects may be sequenced when requested by the
17
i4
j`
:lt
i
r
grantee or determined by the DOE (usually on projects
larger than $15 million) . The need for and amount
of sequencing will be determined on the basis of
both administrative and management procedure;.
Project sequencing will also take into consideration
the cost, implementation, and project managability.
2.2.5. Other administrative procedures
A. Determine how much money is to be put in the
grant increase reserve, the suspense fund, and
the reserve for Step l and 2 grants. The
increase reserve covers cost increases which
occur after contracts have been awarded. It
usually amounts to 10-15 percent of the federal '
allotment. The suspense fund covers the cost
changes which occur prior to gram award, but
after the estimated costs have been documented
on the approved list. It usually amounts to 10
percent of the federal allotment. The Step 1
i and 2 reserve is for currently unidentified
projects which by virtue of an inordinately
high rating mad require immediate attention.
It usually amounts to $100,000 or less.
B. Determine whether there is a minima of 4 per. ..
of each Fiscal Year's federal allotment identi-
fied for innovative and alte native systems for
rural communities as defined in Appendix E, 40
CFR 35.917. These types of projects are eligible
for up to 85 percent federal grants.
6 C. Determine the amount of "pipe" projects (see
1.2 D_efinitions, Category of Projects, subpart
(d) , (e) ,(f) and (g)) on the fundable portion
of the. list. No less than 25 percent of the
federal allotment must be devoted to "pipe"
projects which meet the enforceable requirements
of the Clean Water Act (given in 3.3.2.n) .
2.2.6. ', visions to approved list
The list will be reviewed six months after its
approval . At this time, It will be determined if it
is necessary to make changes to the list.
A. Significant revisions to the approved list will
mandate a public hearing. Significant revision
means removing a project(s` from the fundable portion
of the list that meets all ranking procedures (includ-
r readiness for grant award) and replacing it with
,ject(s) of high priority rating.
18
i
i
i
s
M
B. Nonsignificant revisions to the list will warrant
using the bypass procedure which involves written
notification to the grantee that he has not met
specified ranking procedures and his project is
being dropped from the fundable portion. Bypassed
projects will be replaced by the highest ranked
project of similar step on the extended list that is
ready to proceed.
C. Other projects routinely added to the fundable
portion of the approved list using Step 1 and 2
reserves must, as a minimum, have a numerical score
higher than the lowest project (of like step) on the
list.
D. Revisions to the extended list will be proposed at
the anraal pub'_ic hearing on the list. An interim
update wi-1 be published twice per year to provide
current information on cost and recommended project
timing (anticipated target funding dates will be
modified only at the annual public hearing).
2.3 Public participation
One of the main goals of Public Law 92-500, Public Law 95-217
and the Washington State Administrative Procedures Act is to
encourage and provide for public participation. The state in
cooperation with EPA, is to develop and publish regulations
which specify the requirements for public participation in
such processes as the development, approval and revision of
the priority system.
Prior to EPA approval of the priority system, adequate public
participation must be demonstrated by the state. This involves
conducting a public hrdring. Prior to this . DOE must prepare
a fact sheet for public review that describes the priority
system, along with all other administrative and management
procedures which are nec,ssbry for approval of the list one
it has been constituted using the priority system. These fact
sheets are distributed to the public 15 days in advance of the
hearing. They are available in the DOE headquarters office,
in addition t,, each of the four regional offices.
According to state law, h-e public must be notified of any
public he.�. ing at least 30 days prior to the hearing. This
process entails the publishing of a public hearing notice in
• daily newspapers across the state in addition to announcements
in the State Register and the Journal of Commerce.
Tn addition to public comments madt at the hearing, public
•ti.mony will be accepted for the record 30 days prior to the
ticaring and 7 days following the hearing. Based upon the
public hearing testimony, DOE will revise the priority system,
if appropri.,ce, will draft written responses to public comments,
19
i
i
f
Y
I
and will submit a summary of such comments along with the
proposed priority system to EPA.
2.4. Submission of priority system to EPA
The priority system is submitted to EPA as a part of the
state's annual water quality management program plan. The
regional administrator of EPA shall review and approve the
state priority system for procedt-1 completeness and insure
that it is designed to obtain compliance with the goals and
purposes or the enforceable requirements of P.L. 95-217. This
approval (or disapproval with reasons) muut take place within
30 days.
1
i
1
20
S-190 SAN-I MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE #1
lg
TO FPA/DOF GRANT
r
q
3. Development and approval of the list
3.1. Development of the proposed list
t
3.1.1. The list of prospective projects should, generally,
& be consistent with the most recent needs inventory,
although other prospecti%o , ^rojects w.11 be identi-
fied from time to time by the local governments and
Ihealth districts.
3.1.3. During May of each year a draft list will be cunsti-
tuted and will be sent to the DOE Regional Offices
i for review before being subjected to the public '
hearing process and EPA review.
3.2. Public participation
Public participation requirements for the list are identical
to those for the priority system. Prior to the annual submis-
sion of the list to EPA, the state insures adequate public
participation by giving proper notice and holding a public
hearing. Prior to the hearing the state is required to circu-
late copies of the list for public review. The list, as
revised by public hearing comments (if appropriate), will be
submitted to EPA for review. A summary of DOE responses to
public comment and hearing testimony will be prepared and
submitted with the list.
A public hearing is also required with respect to any signifi-
cant revision to the list. This process has been explained
j - in section 2.2.6.A.
i3.3 Approval and submission of the project list to EPA
3.3.1. The project priority list shall be approved by the
Director of DOE prior to submicsion to EPA for
review.
3.3.2. The state submits the priority list to EPA as part
of the annual state program as required by federal
regulations. The EPA review will consist of insur-
ing that the list was constituted in conformance
with the approved priority system list, tb.L all
public participation procedures were followed and
that the list contains the following required informa-
tion.
a) EPA project number
b) Legal name and address of applicant
c) Project name and description
d) Priority rating and ranking
e) Project step number
f) Relevant needs authority/facility number
21
I
i
{
g) Parent project number
h) For Step 2, 3, and 2/3 projects, code indicative
an alternative system for a small community
("R") (FY 79 only required on fundable list) .
it For Step 2, 3 or 2/3 projects, that amount. (if
any) of the eligible cost to apply separately
to alternative and innovative systems(IY 79
only required for fundable list).
j ) Date project is expected to be certified by
state to EPA (target funding date).
k) For Step 3, or 2/3 projects, the total eligible
cost subdivided by Needs Categories for "pipe"
projects (FY 79 aggregate :nto singly lump sum
^s costs of Categories IIIb. , IVa, IVb, and V) .
1) Total eligible cost of the project.
ynr; m) Estimated EPA assistance (75-85%)
n) Enforceable requirements to be satisfied by
this project, including NPDES number:
A - Project satisfies the conditions or limita-
;Z Lions of a 402 or 404 permit.
B - Permit has not been issued but project
±" satisfies a condition or limitation which would
be included in a permit if issued.
C - Permit is not applicable but project satis-
fies a requirement anticipated to be necessary
to meet applicable criteria for M47T.
D - Project does not meet an enforceable require-
ment of the Act.
The regional administrator has 30 days to review the
proposed list. No project may be awarded a grant
until this review is complete.
22
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PRIORITY RATING SYSTEM
FOR
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
(Modified for use by 208 Planning Aiencies)
Project
APPLICANT Number C53-
SECTION 303(e) SEGMENT ID $ WQL EQL
SEGMENT RANK REIMBURSABLE STEPS (circle) 1 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
STEP __POPULATION (circle one) >25,000 <25,000
NOTE: The modifications from the department's standard rating system
consist of removing all references to the numerical scores and replacing
them with spaces for continents. Technical data should be provided to sup-
port cr,iments made.
An i,,struction sheet for interpreting each of the project rating parame-
ters is available upon request.
Name of Com.ientor:
Phone Number:
{
(Revision 6/78)
-1
{
9
��e
s
l
E '
t
1 . Water Quality Considerations
IA. Discharge fror, subject source(s) affects the water quality
in the project area in the following manner.
Low Dissolved Oxygen Algae, Slime or Other Bact_rial Growth
Toxicity Sludge Beds
r
Coliform Excess Nuisance or Aes,.hetics
Comments:
-2-
M
l
16, Discharge from subject source(s) affects the water quality
of the ground water in the project area in the following
manner.
7oxi;ity
Coliform Excess
Comments:
-3-
0
2. Significance of the discharger compared to other dischargers
within this river segment.
RECEIVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCHARGE
PRICfiITY COMPARED TO OTHER DISCHARGES
IN THAT SEGMENT
Lakes and 60 Upper 20%
Middle 60%
Lower 20%
40-59 Upper 20%
Middle 60%
Lower 20%
26-39 Upper 20%
Middle 60%
Lower 20p
0-25 Upper 20%
Middle 60%
Lower 20`:
Comments:
_4_
j5.
r
i-
J. ruin lb IICUI bI, ,u,U luC, CIIVrN
P Y 0. 1. I C 11 E A L T R 0 LA O F t' A I AT 10 :1 F O R M
GC':LEAL FA'ITIUS i V\:.LOAII011 C�LTCRIA MI) IIELAfn'1: POINT VALLT:S
SU'nl'ACF L'ATCR SOGRCL I CP.OLVD UAT[R SOIREE.
i Mulls t�/
PV07r_LaU•1 I D' Net aD;llcab lC I UteonlLM Ceuf.nc.
W uflu[l, M: ME cau.,-: ,Gt., ITC1O r
l�aJl to l::0,M10i 1:>10.C9G [ ADPI lc.ble
YATI:R � Scrme I
, I
SUPVLT
SOL 0.CC Prnxielt, of '.'..Ic to 0 " 114 el.,l/: es. to ) n[. )2 L. too ft. Inn an LOCO 1000 fc.
ttource .Love !n- labnaa lnui< ,aMv< In- too
i tab I [.L<
_ 1
Ty,,,< of Yst< R.v 5cvwpC or S.PUC I FEE." Efflvent I Se:o1w4rY Effluent
Tan%. Lf:lu ,t
Rn. of y�elteAffvct Sp rand I
by the Af lcrtvJ uat C[ ' )`1(aq 30o to 1000 � <10-.�
:Yetcn � t
Comments:
I Avnrag, Lot Stze In g0,000 et.) r 10,000 to)0,000 -t.2 ))0,000 FE.l
Affect, I I IJ Arc. I —
POMNTIAL Soll Percolation 0. Cns ))0 to 9 cs/Inh 4_10
FOR u olnv<es/IneA
IIN'_VI Avc ra Ue LonJ rloVe )t 32 S [a 131 $Z
GO:TfACT Evr lnnaea Faf luty RArn )301 ---- _ 10 to 50% [lOZ
Vint i of Oe-Sttc SY<tean
SPY.<OE WWI., Pnndt., on Contlm,ally OS...uAble S<as,nALy Otr:ermbic Inlre,ucntly OUserv-
Crour.J 5v,face ------ <bla
Proe lnitY of Y..,te to L'itLln 100 Ft. 100 to 500 Ft. )500 F[.
'Cu td I.e I nnC(or Pub-
lic Areav
rot.nUai 4.rlsvC of >1000 100 to 1000 noo
PvoVle Affcrr<J
Comments:
i
E
A An[n�I Pu po:a[[cm--�Den c A ernes {e -
PPOTEC7104 Type e[ Ptn'est Ca,tse[e lal ..Id Spore T�c.u[n re lnl _ Spart
Pnhl Le act es.le[it[Y Eseel lent eood Poor
SHELLFISH
CRP.'I-;c Preuali, of ua.te To Within IW rd`• I 100 to 1t" Tds. >I000 yds-
Cr.vins Arm -- - --- ---+ t
ARLIS
Es[truc .aat¢ to l.ne '>0.3 M. ' 0.15 to 0.5 Itt:J T�.p.13 K. �
TYp• It of n<ha r+;e On-S+rore (L trrf tdaU �_—ot(-SI ,. (suf.tma;) i
T,pn ofRav Srwte er s•p[ic Pr irnry [[t loco[ Second,rr ffllucn[
Tani Eltlwnt
Comments:
J '
TyCe et vur,r L•+• sv laalnS t'I cn Ln; P:ca rota [ +tin[
PrOrE:Tl08 lntrns lry of Vse Nravr Aver,pe Llpnt
of Pro[1=1[. of ves[e olrrctlY vitnin Area — Adjac.t to Are,
YATLR�Gllf�rtn to C-a Arrs
[ELM(A:1 LLI Estleatr 'L.[e Pelaae tY.O .I S Lo 0.5:1113 e0.15 MA
Ty{w o[ Va+[c R.r srwrr er srp:ic Pr iv ry Ct[lo.nt 5eeon Sa rY [([7 cone 1
T.[n: tl(Iurnt
Comments:
-6-
a
with
LOCAL GENERAL SEWER D:.A`+S
PROJECT NXAE
PROJECT LOCATION:
POLITICAL JURISDICTION:
GENERAL SEWER PLAN TITLE:
This statement certifies that the above-named project
has been reviewed by (agency) and has been
found to be in compliance with the local general sewer
plan.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
AGENCY
DATE
Enclosure 2 7/78
r..
t e
RECEIVED
® Date
OCT 19 IN it_
To: V. Lee 'T:—tiumbett t
R. Houghton J. Williams
D. Miller Jean
R. Nelson Other �.
R. Puhich _.
FROM: WARREN OONNASON
IFk�R63'.h.. -� .ne: a ". U ,• n.,. c a rr � v.-
i' ➢� JN
Bevifu awd report back.
_ see Te.
_ ROY to aYJ returY.
_ prepare respovY for ay ei9ncture.
_ Toke appropriate nation.
prepare epeciat report.
_ $et up netting.
Per year ieforwation.
_ File.
^.I
I
t
1 mr=TRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave.,Seattle,Washington 98104
October 18, 1978
3
a TO: Affected Agencies within Metro's "208" Planning Area
" FROM: John B. Lampe; N
SUBJECT: Annual Sewerage Facility Rating
a
I wanted to remind you that the Department of Ecology is holding
a public hearing to consider statewide funding priorities for
sewerage facilities. The hearing will be held in Olympia at
10: 00 a.m. on Fziday, October 27 , 1978 in the Olympia City Hall
Council Meeting Room.
I have recently received from DOE the proposed fy 1979 priority
list to be discussed at the hearing. I have included a copy of
this list for your information. If you have questions about the
enclosed list, 1 suggest you contact Dave Nunnallee at DOE's
Redmond office - telephone number 885-1900.
r�
l
' i
JBL:mb
Enclosure
r
PPopostA QG! Fu,,1bin1G ALLocATWA
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EP. ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTf9N '
Aberdeen C53-0556-05 3 3-79 6,000,000 Upgrade STP
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 Facility
Bremerton C53-0851-02 3 9-79 1,350,000 Upgrade Charleston SIP
I
Bremerton C53-0851-01 2 3-79 900,000 Upgrade Charleston STP
Brewster C53-0840-04 3 9-79 900,000 Upgrade STP Phase 2
Brewster C53-0840-03 2 6-70 75,00; 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 Up
grade STP
Cathlamet C53-0589-03 3 3-79 825,000 Interceptor to STP
Centralia C53-0847-04 3 3-79 307,503 Ford Prarie Interceptor
Page 1
`s
9
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Centralia C53-0847-05 3 3-79 367,500 Waunch Prarie Interceptor
1
� Chelan County PUD C53-0709-02 2-3 3-79 206,000 Dryden Co®. Drain field
7
Chelan, City of C53-0757-02 2 1-79 275,000 New Chelan Falls STP
Clark County C53-0715-02 2 3-79 150,1)00 Meadowglade - New STP
College Place C53-0720-05 3 3-79 1,500,000 Upgrade STP
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 STP
Eastsound W.D. C53-0734-03 3 6-79 705,000 Irterceptora, New STP
i
Eklund Park S.D. C53-0813-03 3 9-79 562,500 Interceptor to South Bend
Ellensburg C53-0932-03 3 3-79 1,203,000 Sludge Handling
Farming'.on C53-0910-01 1 9-79 18,750 New STP and Interceptor
Goldendale C53-0601-04 3 6-79 1,980,750 STP Upgrade Pbase II
Page 2
i
i
*4
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUY.BER am YBAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Grand Coulee C53-0741-02 2 1-79 375,000 Discharge to land
Green River Comm. College C53-0819-02 2 9-79 25,000 Training Facility
Roquim C53-0829-07 3 9-79 3,137,000 Bay west/east Rehab.
Hoquiam C53-0829-05 3 1-79 900,000 Queen Sewer Rehab.
Hoquiam C53-0829-06 3 1-79 1,425,000 Raymer Sewer Rehab.
Kelso C53-0743-02 2 9-79 143,000 Upgrade STP (I/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 C53-0596-04 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 C53-0669-03 3 3-79 975,000 Sewer Rehab.
Page 3
r
APPLICANT NAME GRANT 1D 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
Olympia C53-0579-05 3 1-79 22,500,000 STP
i
Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-05 3 3-79 8,100,OOP 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.
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 4
ex
i
.:.. wwwd nrw,.i ..as^«w�w�w.,w-ra..r++w.�r�..we,,.s,......,�,•-.r„ ..« .w�.ia..i.....,a
APPLICANT NAM GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Seattle C53-0787-02 2 9-79 750,000 Lake Wash'ngton South CSO
Seattle C53-0787-02 2 9-79 225,000 Longfellow Creek CSO
Skagit County S.D. Y1 C53-0622-03 3 6-79 212,000 Upgrade STY
Spokane C53-0792-02 2 6 .79 1,500,000 Elimination of Combined
Sewer overflows
Steilaroom C53-0797-03 3 9-79 1,050,000 Upgrade STP'
Steilaroom C53-0797-04 3 3-79 123,000 Sewer Rehab.
1
Tacomo C53-0558-04 3 3-79 8,670,000 STP Upgrade (Phase I)
Walla Walla C53-0911-01 1 9-79 75,000 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
$ • ✓Qa"'d7 d 1#+•t` �"F .a".tt�Xxw�."�9'�''4" t, F Vi .d" 4i + 9 YF ,°g� t� ,X, •'(' 4' r V
t� ++,�yj�Y.�$^
a 1 h Y•x �r"� ,�•€ 'k ,% 4 Y.S° `!°x"�'+ ° r ,�.1 TK7.� {!F•
a rt "" q S v r^°k x „@5 :•3 ^,1y d$ ' %,r+i9 9� s �✓�° s M ��-
a
ff �'�y $$a �w,trey ula� .. .J 4 a 1. G.� rx{ P•4X �.e. 9
+, .+9x • ..: 'k�*'�`"d ° % u u Y� "r g % 'W+ v �. Y ta¢+- t �{' " .y�,y -i'•;'
.%Y�1,}S / �4r�T'R}4 '"• �`h "� 1 - It Y �"x '!'�" x a
` %��',, +A Y•% % ;1'. ,�%' t a 9 t J .r t sr ` `' rsQ � a, ,�
m
X e
Xtt X
F
I. tee,
yU
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE FROJECT DESCRIPTION
Aberdeen C53-0556-06 3 BO 6,375,000 Downtown/Central Rehab.
Beacon Hill S.D. C53-0702-03 3 80 530,000 llpgrace 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 Ct.elan Falls STP
Clark County C53-0715-03 3 80 1,500,000 Mteadoarglade - 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 C53-0?41-03 3 60 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-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
Creek/Clover Creek tunnel
Page 6
1
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-11 3 80 1,050,000 Bridgeport Area 3
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
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 BG 600,000 Upgrade STP
Seattle 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.
a Whatcom County C53-0866-02 2 80 30,000 Nor-Bell Interceptor
Page 7
+vK««..Mel,.•r.W„»a,.e,.rw. .e.w:mr-,,r,w. ... ...ax,,, .,. .. ..::. �-««.,�.a...,u..r�w.6..a;� — '.Mrw..a.+a,w�r.ul.,.a-....wrt4a,.,.r..a...s,.d.ru..
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Bonney Lake C53-0652-08 3 81 7,125,000 New STP
Bremerton C53-0851-04 3 81 6,750,000 Upgrade Char.eston 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 SIP (I/1)
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 II
Creek/Clover Creek
Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-14 3 81 900,000 Bridgeport Area 4
Creek/Clover Creek
'eattle 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 81 3,750,000 North Suburban Area Inter.
Page 8
Y
F
T
1
µ�
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tacoma C53-0558-05 3 81 15,000,000 STP Upgrade (Phase I1) A
Whatcom County C53-0866-03 3 81 300,000 Nor-Bell Interceptor
Page 9
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIFrION
Almira C53-0838-03 3 82 600,000 Upgrade STP
Bonney Lake C53-0653-04 3 82 840,000 Fennel Creek Interceptor
Bonney Lake C53-0653-05 3 82 1 ,050,000 Fennel Creek II Icterceptor
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 1'pgrade 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 STP
Elbe W.D. C53-0853-02 2 82 30,000 Upgrade STP
Ferndale C53-0862-01 1 82 -1,000 Upgrade STP
Kitsar Co. S.D. 5 C53-0950-03 3 82 3,150,000 Retail STP
Page 10
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 SIP and Interceptor
Metro C53-0914• 2 82 172,500 Lake Washington South CSO
Metro C53-0585-02 2 82 1,125,000 Upgrade Alki STP
Moses Lake C53-0609-02 2 82 750,000 ➢ischarge 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-Chambers C53-0565-15 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 C53-05 i-18 3 82 2,850,000 Brookdale Area l
Creek/Clover Creek
Page 11
Y
n
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pierce County-Chambers C53-OS65-19 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 15,000 Upgrade STP
Seattle C53-0787-02 I82 300,000 Lake Washington North CSO
Skagit County C53-0917-01 1 82 22,500 Similk-Dewey New STP
SpoLaue C53-0792-05 3 82 11,250,000 Elimination of combined
sewer overflow
Tacoma C53-0558-05 3 82 15,000,000 STP Upgrade (Phase II) B
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
i
i
R
1
K
4A
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP 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
Hoses Lake C53-0689-03 3 83 3,750,000 Discharge to land (phased!
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 Cre.
Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-2' 83 975,000 Westside Interc.;ptor
Creek/Clover Creek
Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-24 3 83 2,100,D00 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 C53-0558-35 3 83 15,000,000 STP Upgrade (Phase 1I) C
Page 13
APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Walla Walla C53-0911-03 3 83 4,500,000 Upgrade STP
i
1
Page 14
i
j
f
y�OM.
' ' * *
�e r gate
. Williams
fo : t). Bennett R. Nelson
V . Lec Cheryl
p, Miller other
M. Touma r_
R, HouRhtory'--2—�
From: Warren meson
3
Re
Review an('- report hack .
-" Scc me .
Route and Teo�y�' for my lgnature .
Prepare resp
fake appropriate action .
Preparr special report .
Set up
meeting-For your information.
--7 File .
Remarks:
KING -OUNTY RECUVED
WATER DISTRICT MAR � s 1977
NUMBER 107
5806A 119TH AVENUE S.E. BELLEVUE,WASH.98006 PH.746-0751 NKK
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REPL1" TO
Henry F. McCulloigh -.
?resident
M
Jchn R, Janson arch 23, 1977
Secretary
Elmo, F. Foster -
Member
MANAGER
Sam Macrl -
Department of Ecology '
4350 - 150th Avenu, N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052
Attn: Mr. Mark Premo
SUBJECT: GRANT APPLICATION - 110TH AVENUE S.E.
SANITARY SEWER - STEP 3 -
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a grant ,application for Step 3, 110th Avenue S.E. Sanitary
Sewer, Step 3, which we are submitting fir consideration of the Depart-
ment of Ecology for prioritizing in the FY 1978 program.
Very trui, yours,
RING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107
ay !�
Henry F. McCullough, £resident -
JRW:HFMc:jad
Enclosures
cc: Renton -.Karr.en Gonnason
Metro - Dick Hibbard
DOE - John Spencer
L
.'�'�A ��� di -. ri w Ili. n k3r� L,■_ i
4 A stir
�k z .•�«+. "Lin ni:. 5
awl
:t
j
Form Approved
_ OMB No. 158-R0110
1-State Clearinghouse Identities
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2/363/74
(FOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS)
PART I
Z.Applicant'.Application No.
__-
3.Fe sal Grantor Agency 4.Applicant Name
jj ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107
Organizational unit
apartment rvmon
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS --_
Administrative OHice treat Adtlress— ox
l
PF.GION 10 HE_,DQUARTERS 5806-A 119th Avenue S.E.
Streit Address—P.O.Box City County
1200 SIXTH AVENUE BELLEVUE KING
City State Zip Coda Stare Zip Code —�
SEATTLE WA 98101 WASHINGTON 98006
5.Descriptive Name of the Project
110TH AVE.. S.E. SANITARY SEWER INTERCEPTOR LINE - STEP 3
6.Federal Catalog No. 7. Froderal Furling Requested
66.400
$ 168,750
S.Grant"Type
_—_State, _County__rity.X__p.ner (Specify) WATER DISTRICT
S.Type of Application or Request
' X Navy Grant, Continuatlon,___Su_ pWm aent._ Ocher Changes(Specify)
10.Type of Assistance
X
yr Grant, Loaq_ Other!Specify)
11.Population Directly Benefiting from the Project 13. Length of Project
SEE ATTACHED STATEMENT 3 MONTHS
ngressional District _-- 14. Beginning bee
_a. 7th SEPTEMBER 1977
�. b. 15. Date of APPticauon
MARCH 23, 1977
' 16.The applicant certifies that to the best of his knowledge and belief the data in this application are true and correct,and that
he will comply with the attached assurances if he receives the grant The applicant agrees that if a grant is awarded on the bash
of this application or any ievislon or amendment thereuf, it will comply with all applicable statutory Provisions and with the
applicable remit, conditions, and procedures of the Environment Protection Agency grant regulations (40 CFR Chapter 1,
Subs:hapter BI and of the grant agreement.
f
Typed narrN _ Title
HENRY F. CCULLOUGH - j Telephone Number
RMAN OF BOARD Are.Code Number Fxt.
Signature of Authorized Representative
206 746-0751 For Federal Use Only
L
EPA Form 5y0632(11-73) PAGE / of It
1
4
r
4
t
y f
PIN
INSTRUCTIONS
777ddd PART 1 Item 9-Check the type of application or request. If the"Other
Chang"" block is checked, specify, the type of change. The i
This form shall be used to apply for Federal assistance for all definitions for terms used in Item g are asfollows:
construction, land acquisition or lard d aalopment projects Also,
this form shall be used to request supplemental assistance, a. Naar grant - a request which is being submitted by the
I propose changes or amendments to approved grants, and request applicant for the first time.
Continuation or refunding for approved grants originally
submitted on this form. b. Continuation grant -- a request that pertains to the
continuation of multi-year grant [e.g., the second year
Submit the erigiral and three copies of the forms. If an item award for aproject which willexrendows,five years.)
cannot be answered or does not appear to be related or relevant to
the assistance requested, write"NA" for not applicable. When a a Supplemental grant - a request which pertains to an
request is made to, supplemental assistance, amendments or increass in the amount of the Federal contribution for the
Y changes to an approved grant,submit only those pages which are same period.
appropriate.
d. Other changes-specify one or more of the following: r
Item 1 -Enter the State clearinghouse identifier.This is the coda (1) Increase in duration-a request to extend the grant
1 or number assigned b y the c1?aringhoum to pplicaupns requiring period.
Stab clearinghouse coordination for programs listed In Attach- 12) Decrease in duration-a request to reduce the grant
Mont D,Office of Management and Budget Circular No.A-95. period.
(3) Decream in amount - a request to decrease the
Item 2-Enter the applicant's application number or other amount of the Federal contribution.
identifier. If a pmapplication was submitted, show also the
number that appearad on the prernplication,if different than the Item 10-Check the
! application mimbw. type of assistance requested. If the
assistance involves more than one type,check two or more blocks
Item 3-Enter the name of the Federal grantor agency,the name and explain in Part Its' -Program Narrative.
of the primary organizational unit to which the application is
addressed, the name of the administrative off" having direct Item 11 -E'ttr the numbw of persons directly benefiting from
operational responsibility for managing the grant program, and this project. For example, if the project is for the construction of
the complete address of the grantor agency. a neighborhood health center, enter the estimated number of
residents in the neighborhood that will use the center.
Item 4-Enter the legal name of the applicant, the name of the
primary organizational unit which will undertake the grant- Item 12
supported activity,and the complete address of the applicant. a. Enter the congressional district in which the applicant is
located.
Item 5-Enter the descriptive nerve of this project. Is. Enter the congressional districts) in which mos. of the
actual work on the project will be accomplished. If the
Item 6-Enter the appropriate Catalog cumber as shown in the work will be il-)mplished citywide or Stetawids,cover-
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. If the assistance pertains irg several congressional districts, vvits ''city-wide" or
_ to more than one catalog number, fee" this space blank and "State-wide".
Prep"a separate set of Pan III Forms for each catalog number.
Item 13-Enter the number of months that will W needed to
Item 7-Enter the amount that is requested from the Federal complete the project after Federal funds are made available.
Government in this application. This amount ffiould agree with
the amounts shown in Pan III,Section 8, Line 22.For revision., ]tam 14-Enter the
changes or amendments show only the amount of the increase or approximate date the project is expected to
decrease. begin'
Item 8-Check one grantee type. If the grantee is other than a Item 15 -Enter the date this application is submitted.
State, county,or city government,specify the type of grantee on !
the "Other- line. Examples of other types of grantees are council Item 16-Complete the certi6catlan before submitting the �+
1. 1 of governments,interstate organizations,or special units application.
i`
NI'
EPA Form 5700-32 111 73) PAGE 20F 11 t
Fumr AD➢mved 1 OMB No. 158-RO110
PART It
PROJECt APPROVAL INFORMATION
SECT,"N A
Item 1.
Does this assistance reques,require State, local, %ame of Governing Body_ State of Washinzton
regione,or other priority rating? r riority Rating
X Yes_^Mo
Item 2.
Does this assistance request require State,or local Name of Agency or
advisory,educational or health clearances? Board__ Department of Health
— X Yes_ (Attach Documentation) r
Item 3.
i
Does this assistance request require clearinghouse review (Attach Comments)
in accordance with OMB Circular A-957
_ X Yes—No SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS
Item 4.
Does this assistance request require State,local, Name of Approving Agency City of Renton, METRO
regional or other planning approval? Date
X Yes
Item S.
Is the proposed project covered by an approved Check one: State ❑
comprehensive plan? Local
Regional ❑
_N Yet No Location of plan Water Digtricr No_ 107
Item 6.
Will the assistance requested serve a Federal Name of Federal Installation
installation? Federal Population benefiting from Project
_Yes X No
Item 7.
Will the assistance requested be on Federal land Name of Federal Installation
or installation? Location of Federal Land _
Percent of Project
Yes—XL Yes-2L No
Item 8.
Will the assistance requested have an impact or effect Sae instruction for additional information to be
on the environment? provided.
X -Yes—No SEE ATTACHED STATEMENT
Item 9. Number of:
Has the project for whica assistance is requested caused, Individuals
since January 1, 1971,or will it cause, the displacement Families—
of any individual, family,business,or farm? Businesses__
Farms
- -Yes X No I -
Item 10.
Is there other related Federal assistance on this See instructions for additrooa, information to be
project previous,pending,or anticipated? provided.
Yes X No
EPA Farm 3790-32(11.73) PAGE 3OF 11
l
INSTRUC71ONS
PART II—SECTION A
the plan. Give the location where the approved plan is available
for examination and state whether this project is in conformance
Negative answers will not require an explanation unless the with the plan. I
Federal agency requests more information at a later date.Provide
supplementary dam for all"Yes"anstwers in the space provided in Item 6 —Show the Federal population residing or working on the I
accordance with the fallowing instructions. federal installation who will benefit from this project
Item 1 —Provide the name of the governing body establishing the Item 7—Show the percentage of the project work that will be
priority system and the priority rating assigned to this project. conducted on federally owned or leased land.Give the name of
I tarn 2—Provide the lama o1 the agency or board which issued the Federal installation and its location.
the clearance and attach thsdocumentation of status or approval. Item 8—Briefly describe the possible beneficial and/or harmful
impact on the environment because of the proposed project If an
Item 3— Attach the clsannghouse comments for the application advcse environmental impact is anticipated,explain what action
in accordance with the instructions contained in Office of will be -,ken to minimize the impact Federal agencies will r
1 Management and Budget Circular No. A95. 11 comments were provide separate instructions if additional dam is needed,
submitted previously with a preapplication, Jo not submit them
spin but any additional comments received from the clearing- Item 9—State the number of individuals,families, businesses,or
house should be submitted with this sppiication, farms this project will displace Federal agencies will provide
separate instructions if additional data is needed.
Item 4—Furnish the name of Me approving agency and the
approval date. Item 10—Show the Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog
number, the program name the type of assistance, the status and
Item 5—Show whether the approved comprehensive plan is amount of each project where there is related cirmous,pending.
State, local or regional,or of none of these,explain the scope of or anticipated assistance.Use additional sheets,if needed.
r
i
EPA Form 5700,32(e1-73) PAGE a OF 11 j
Ij
r
M'
1
s"
Fonn Approved
OMB No. 158-R0110
;
i
I
;
INSTRUCTION
PART 11 —SECTION B
11. SITES AND IMPROVEMENTS: Not required,.__ Attached as exhibits
Applicant intends to acquire the site through:
Easemen's and Franchise
I —Eminent domain.--Negotiated purchase, X Other means (specify) k
12. TITLE OR OTHER INTEREST IN THE SITE ISOR WILL BE VESTED IN:
1
X Applicant, Agency or institution operating the facility, Other(specify
13. INDICATE WHETHER APPLICANT/QPERATOR HAS: Easement and Franchise
Fee simple title, Leasehold interest, X Other(specify)
14. IF APPLICANT/OPERATOR HAS LEASEHOLD INTEREST, GIVE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
a. Length of lease or other estate interest ,and n,mber of years to run
b. Is lease renewable]—. _Yes__No
c. Current appraised value of land $ N/A
d. Annual rental rate $
15. ATTACH AN OPINION F90M ACCEPTABLE TITLE COUNSEL DESCRIBING THE INTEREST APPLICANT
OPERATOR HAS IN THE SITE AND CERTIFYING THAT THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IS LEGAL&VALID N/A
16. WHERE APPLICABLE,ATTACH SITE SURVEY,SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORTS AND COPIES OF LAND APPRAISALS. NIA
17. WHERE APPLICABLE,ATTACH CERTIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF
IMPROVING EXISTING SITE TOPOGRAPHY. N/A
18. ATTACH PLOT PLAN. SEE ATTACHMUT
j 19. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ESTIMATES: _Not required,—Being prepared,—Attached as exhibits
Percentage of completion of drawings and specifications at application date:
Schematics 75 _96 Preliminary % Final %
i
i 20. TARGET DATES FOR:
Bid Advertisement 8/77 Contract Award 9/77
Construction Completion i2/77 Occupancy , 12/77
5
i 21. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY: Not Required x. _Attached as exhibits
Drawings— Attach any drawings which will assist in describing the project.
M'># Specifications—Attach copies of completed outline specifications.
(It drawings and speciRterions ham not been/Wig completed.please attach copies or working drawings that have been :ompteted.)
NOTE: ITEMS ON THIS SHEET ARE SELF EXPLANATORY;THEREFORE,NO INSTRUCTIONS ARE PROVIDED.
t
4
1
EPA Form 5700-32(11-73) PAGE SOP 11
k
t.'
IeVYR4�yI1NF...`-!tr wanes..... ..a...»::«..«.:......r.wu.wui.�n.:.+vw+re..awiw.u.•e+..+....a,.:.Mw•..rw .. .': ..K
Part I - Item 11
Approximately 170 units of housing in the 110th Avenue S.E. area are served
by septic tanks. Many of those tanks and fields are failing or have
failed.
It is estimated that the population in 2000 would be 2,000 if sewerage
facilities were available.
1
E
Part II - Item 8
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed interceptor will serve the southwest portion of King County Water
District No. 107. This line will connect into the Jones Avenue Interceptor,
which in turn will be connected to the existing Metro Interceptor. The
majority of the line is proposed to be constructed within existing King County
right-of-way. The other portion would connect into that line constructed within
the right-of-way (110th Avenue S.E.) at approximately S.E. 84th Street and
follow drainage contours to the intersection with 116th Avenue S.E. Most of
this line would require easements. The sewer line is expected to be construct=d
within the four to eight-foot depths. It is anticipated that the size of this
interceptor would be an eight-inch line due to the slope of terrain. Type of
pipe to be used will be determined d,iring the final design stage.
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
At the present time the area that the interceptor will serve is serviced by
septic tanks which in many places the effluent drains into roadside ditch and/or
into the natural drainage pattern. The Seattle-King County Health Departm nt has
reported fifteen failures in three sections of this area to be served by the
11.Oth Avenue S.E. Interceptor as of May 15, 1975. One of the shortcomings in
reviewing the Health Department records is that their method of locating troubled
areas had only been in effect the past few years. Even if all failures in the
past were noted, a completely accurate record of all septic tank-drainfield
failures would not be possible, since only a small percentage of homes have been
tested. Tests of systems after insta_lation are only performed after a complaint
has been filed. Quite often, there are problems (failures) existing, but
neighbors or the property owners themselves: seldom file complaints because of
friendship or they have a problem and do not want the expense of constructing a
new drainfield.
That portion of the interceptor constructed within the right-of-way would create
minor environmental problems during construction. These can very effectively be
negated by proper construction techniques. That portion constructed on easements
will primarily be in open areas. By controlled construction and immediate restor-
ation, the impact in this area will be of short duration. The impact of construction
would be the relief provided those properties presently encountering septic tank-
drainfield problems. Two of the long-term environmental impact benefits are
improved health conditions and the elimination of effluent as a pollutant into
the watercourses.
The area is presently zoned R-1 and S .R. Therefore, it is anticipated that there
would not be a change in zoning with the construction of sewers within the area.
With the availability of sewers, it would eliminate the construction of buildings
utilizing septic tank-drainfield methods of disposal, thereby assuring the elimina-
tion of effluent into the drainage courses. A partial scattered buildup has
already taken place throughout the area and in several areas complete buildup of
residential development has taken place. Since the buildup of land in this area
has already taken place, there would be little effect on wildlife, flora or water-
shed.
9
f•
'rux.W..t.Wtia:dw"r..u...uu......,wrrr.. _....... ...:.—a...u.a'....—.�..—.' _ ...
a p
rt II - Item 8 (cont'd) f
More detailed information of the area is contained in Volume III-A - Final
Environmental Assessment, January 1976, and Supplement to Volume IV - Cost
Effectiveness Analysis, and Volume V - Summary Report, Community Facilities
Plan for Wastewater Treatment Works, May Creek Drainage Basin.
a
Form Approved
O.NB No. 158•R0110
PART III - BUDGET INFORMATION—CONSTRUCTION
SECTION A—GENERAL I
1. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No. .. . ... .... ... .. .. . .. 66.40G
2. Functional or Other Breakout .. .. . . . .... . .. ....... .. .....
SECTION B—CALCULATION OF FEDERAL GRANT
Lim only for revision,
Total
Cost Clasitiotion Latest Approved Adjustment Amount
Amount *or l—) Required
1. Adminirtration expense
l 2. Preliminary expense
3. Land structures,righl-ofrvay
5A5 I 4. Architectural engineering ba..1c fees
ConstruCcloy
5. Other archaectu ral engineering fees Survey 5,000
S,
I{�'I C. Project inspection feet 9 000
7. Land development
8. Relocation Expense,
9. Relocation pavment,to Individuals and 8usinpues
10. Demolition and removal
{' it. Construction and project improvement 181,000
12. Equipment
13. Miscellaneous 5.3% State Sales Tax _ 9,500
++..�..i 14. Total (Lines 1 through 13) 204.500
N 1
15. E5tirnated Income ifa I
N ( applicable)
r
16. Net Protect Amount(Line 14 minus 151 4
,500
17. Lea: Ineligible Exclusions
_ 18. Add: Contingencies 10 percent 20,500
19. Total Projea Amt.(Exdudrng ReAabilibtion Gran ts) 225.000
20, Federal Share requested of Line 19 168.750
ca
21. Add Rehabilitation Grants Requested (100 Perntl
22. Total F Wen;I grant requested (L in.20 d 21) 168,750
23. Grantee share 22,500
24 Othersheres State of Washington 33,750
26.. Total projea(Linn 22,23624/ S $ S 225,000
EPA Form 5700-32(11-73) PAGE 6 OF 11
INiTRUCTIONS
PART III develcped land under a third parry contract.Reduce the costs on
this line by the amount of expected proceeds from the sale of
♦egUoo A. Gamral selvage, if so instructed by the Federal grantor agency.Otherv,ise,
show the procaeds on Lim 15. 1
1. Show the Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number
from which the assistance is requested. When more than Lim 11 --Enter amounts for the actual construction of,addition
one program or Catalog Number is involved and the W. or restoration of a facility. Also include in this category the y -
amount cannot bedistrlbutad to the Federal grant program amounts Of project improvements such as sewers, streets, land-
or catalog number on an overall percentage basis,prepare a scaping and lighting.
separate set of Pan III forms for each program or Catalog
Number.However,show the total amounts for all programs Lim 12-Enter amounts for equipment both fixed and movable
in Section 9 of thebasic application form, exclusive of equipment used for conshoction. For example,
include amounts for permanently attached laboratory tables,
2. Show the functional or other categorical breakouts, if built-in audio visual systems, movable desks. chairs, and labora.
required by the Federal grantor agency. Prepare a separate tory equipment.
set of Pan III forms for each category.
Lim 13 -E rater amounts for items not specifically mentioned
Section 9. Calculation of Fedeal Grant above.
When applying for a new grant,use the Total Amount Column Line 14-Enter the sum of Lines 1-13.
only. When requesting revisions of previously awarded amounts,
use all columns. Line 15-Enter the estimated amount of program income that
Lino 1 -Enter amounts needed for administration expenses will be earned during the grant period and applied to the program.
including such items as travel,legal fees,rental of vehicles and any Line 16-Enter the ditference between the amount on Line 14
other expense items expected to be incurred to administer the and the estimated income Shown on Line 15.
grant Include the amount of interest expense when authorized by
Program legislation and also show this amount under Section E Lim 17-Enter amounts for those items which are part of the
Remarks
project but not subject to Federal participation (See Section C,
Lim 2-Enter amounts permining io the work of locating and Anne 26g,Column(1)1.
designing, making surveys and maps, sinking test holes, and all
- - Lim III-Enter the estimated amount for contingences.
other work r equired pliOr ID actual COM1rUCIrOn, CamPutf this amOYmf as follows. $UbtlMf from She net projec\
amount shown on Line 16 the ineligible project exclusiois shown
of land,existing structures,and related Lena 3- Enter amounts directly associated
t- with the acquisition On Line 17 and the amount which is excluded from the
ed rig contingency provisions shown in Section C,Line 26g,Column(2). '
Lim 4-Enter basic fees for architectural engineering Multiply the computed amount by the Percentage factor allowed
y rg services.
by the grantor agency to accordance witt the Federal progrtm
guidance. For •hose grants which provide for a fixed dollar
Line 5.-Enter amounts other architectural engineering allowance in lieu of a percentage allowance, enter the dollar
services,such as surveys,testas,,and borings.
amount of this allowance.
Line 6 -Enter fees for inspection and audit of construction and Line 19-Show the total amount of Lima 16,17,and 19.(This is
related programs. the, amount to which the matching share ratio prescribed in
1 program legislation is apPlied.l
Lim 7 -Enter amounts associated with the development of land
when the primary purpose of the gait is land improvement.Site Lim 20-Shuw the amount of FedeW funds requti ted exclusive
work normally associated with major construction should b• of funds for rehabilitation purposes.
excluded from this category and shcwn on Lim 11.
1 Lim 21 -Enter the a ''-mated amounts needed for rehabilitation
Lino 9-Enter the dollar amounts needed to provide relocation expense if rehabilitatiot. wants to -ndlviduals are made for which
1 advisory assistance, and th net amounts for replacement Mast grantees arc reimbursed 100 percent by the Federal grantor
` resort) housing. Do not include relocation administration agency in accordance with program legislation. If the grantee
expenses on this Line;include them on Lim 1. shares in part of this expense show the total amount on Line 13
instead of on Line 21 and explain in Section E.
Line 9-Enter the estimated amount of relocation payments to
be male to displaced persons. business concerns and non-profit Line 22-Show the total amount of the Federal grant requested.
organizations for moving expenses and reuia-_ec housing.
Lim 23-Show the amount from Section D,Line 27h.
Line 10-Enter the gross salaries and wags of employees or the
grantee who will be directly engaged In paApming demolition or Line 24-Show the amount from Section D,Lim 29c.
nmi Of structures from developed land.This hM should show
i also the cost of demolition or removal of dmproverants on Lim 25-Self-explanatory.
EPA Form 570"2 111 731 PAGE ?OF 11
1
... ... . .. .....:.
Form Approved
OHS No. 158-R0110
SECTION C-- EXCLUSIONS
Ineligible for Excluded from
Classiftcetion Participation Contingency Provision
26 (11 (21
a. S _0_ S
b.
C.
d.
e.
1.
9. Totals $ $
SECTION D—PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING NON-FEDERAL SHARE
27. Giant"Sham ----- $
22,500
r a.Securities _--
It.htortgages
c.Appropriations(By Applicentl 22,500
d.Bonds
e.Tax Levies
f.Non Cash
g.Other(Explain)
h.TOTAL—Grantee share
22,50
28. Other Shares
A.State
--. _ 33,750
b.Other
c.Total Other Shares 33,750
29. TOTAL $
56,250
(pgp' SECTION E — REMARKS
EPA Fo.m 5700-32(11-73) PART IV PROGRAM NARRATIVE (Attach—See Instructions) PAGE 8 OF i i
•
F
-' INSTRUCTIONS
' PART III Line 27 h—Show the total of Lines 27 a-g.This amount must
equal the amount shown n Section 8,Line 23. )
Section C. Exclusions t
Line 28 a—Show the amount that will be contributed by a State
fLim 26 ag—Identify and list those costs in Column (1) which or state agency, only d the applicant is not a State or state
are part of the project cost but are not subject to Federal agency. If there is a noncash contribution, explain what the
participation because of program legislation or Federal grantor contribution will consist of under Section E RermrkS.
agency instructions.The total amount on Line g should agree with
the amount shown on Line 17 OI Section B.Show in Column 12) Line 28 b—Show the amount that will his contributed from other
thou protect costs that are subject to Federal participation but sources. If there is a noncash contribution, explain what this
are not eligible for inclusion in the amount used to compute contribution will consist of under Section E Remarks, t
contingency amounts as provided in the Federal grantor agency
Instructions. Line 28 c—Show the total of Liras 28a and 28b.This amount
must no the same as the amount shown in Section 8,line 26.
Section O. Proposed Method of Financing Non-Faderel Share
r Line 29—Enter the totals of Lim 27h and Line 28c,
Line 27 ag—Show t,.a source of the grantei s share. 11 cash is
not immediately available, specify the actions completed to date
and thou actions remaining to make cash available under Section Section E. Other Remarks
E Remarks indkate also the period of time that wil!be required � 13
It execution of the grant agreement to obtain the funds If Make any remarks pertinent to the project and provido any other yy.
Mere is a noncash contributioi, explain what this contribution information required by these instructions or the grantor agency.
will consist of. Attach additional sheets,if necessary. `
!
i
1
i
(
• I
1
EPA Form 5700-32(11-731 PAGES OF 11
S•
I
PART IV—NARRATIVE STATEMENT 1
i
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
R
Section A. Introduction Is. Satisfactory evidence of compliance all the user
Marge provisions of 40 CFR 3=.925.11 end 35.93,13.
Construction or federally financed waste treatment works
generally is accomplished in three steps: Step 1 facilities a Satisfactory evidence of compliance with the industrial
plans and related elements; Step 2 preparation of con- cost recovery provisions of 40 CFR 35.925-12,35.928,
struction drawings and tpecihtalions, and Step 3 fabrication and 35.93513,if applicable.
and building of a treatment works.Under special conditions, d. A statement regarding availability of the proposed sim.
a project may be funded involving a combination of Steps 2
and 3, providing that facilities planning requirements haul ii relevant.
been met. An application must be submitted to the State
c. Satisfactory evidence of a proposed or existing pro-
agency for each proposed treatment works. The basic
application shall meet the requirements for the project set gram for compliance with the R>location and Land
forth in Section B. Submissions required for subsequent Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 in accordance with 40 r
related projects shall be provided in the form of amendments CFR 30.403(d)and 40 CFR Part 4,if applicable.
to the basic application. Each such submission shall be
submitted throw the Stare agency, I. Satisfactory evidence of compliance with other appli-
gh or cy, must be complete,and
must relate to a project for which priority has been cable Federal statutory and regulatory rquiremenri
determined by the State agarzy. If any information required (see 40 CFR Part 30,Subpart C).
has been furnished with an earlier application. the applicant
he
need only incorporate by reference and, d necessary update 9 Proposed method
or an explanation of per-
or revise such Information utilizing the previously approved intended method of awarding o,tion eof the
for per-
application. Prior to completion of an application applicants
tormance of any substantial portion of the project
# should be thoroughly familiar with all EPA grant regulations work.
which apply to this program.
n. Required comments or approvals of relevant State,
local, and Federal agencies (including "clearml use'
requitements of OMB Circular A-951 of a grant applica-
Section B. Application Requirements
tion has not been previously submitted.
1. Project for facilities plan and related elements required to 3. Project for building and erecting of a treatment works
apply for Step 2 grant assistance(Sop 11, An application for (Thep 31. An application for a grant or grant amendment for
a grant for Stop 1 shall include: the building and erection of a treatment works shall include
I*) the items in paragraph 12)of this section,lb)two sets of
a. A plan of study presenting (it he proposed planning the construction drawings and specifications, suitable for
area, (,i) an identif icatlon of d a entity or entities that bidding purposes, and (c) a schedule for or evidence of
will be conducting the planni g; (m) the nature and compliance with 40 CFR 35.925-10 and 35.935.12 concern
scope of the proposed Step 1 project, including a ing an operation ano maintenance program,must have been
schedule for the completion of specific tasks;and 0vt Ivrn shed.
an itemized description of the estimated costs for the
project. (See 40 CFR 35.917). 4. OesignlConstrucl Project. An application for a grant or
grant amendment for a design/construct project shall include
b. Proposed subagreements, or an explanation of the the items in paragraphs (2) and 13) of this section, except
intended method of awaidmg subagreements for per- that, in lieu of construction drawings and specifications, the
formance of any substantial portion of the project proposed performance specifications and other relrvant
work. designfoonstruct criteria for the project shall be li
c. Required comments or approvals of relevant State, 5. Training Facility Project.An application for as. tar
local, and Federal agencies lincludirq "ckaringhr ere'- construction of a training facility pursuant toS^ct.-n ..
• requirements of 0MB Csmulor A95Ir of the Act shall include la) a statement concer ring r
suiteNlity of the treatment works facility for tralnusg
2. Project for preparation of construction drawings and operation and maintenance personnel for treatment sv.nks
specifications (Stop 2). An application for a grant or grant throughout one or more States; lb) a written commitment
amendment for preparation of construction drawings and from the State agency or agencies to carry out at such facility
specifications shall include'. a program of training approved by the Regional Adminis.
traitor;and let an engineering report,including facility design
a. A facilities plan (including an environmental asses- data, coat estimates for design and construction of the
ment in accordance with 40 CFR Part 61m accordance facility, and a schedule for completion of design and
with 40 CFR 35.917 through 35.917-9. construction. I
EPA Form 5700-32(11-73) PAGE 10 OF It
a'
PART V
ASSURANCES
The applicant hereby assures and certifies that he will comply with the regulations,policies,guidelines and requirements,
including Office of Management and Budget Circulars Nos. A-87, A-95. rd A-102, as they relate !a the application,
acceptance and use of Federal funds for this federally-assisted project. At he applicant gives assurance and certifies wit
respect to the grant that:
qa• 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant,and to ducting inspections I,insure Compliance with these specifics,
finance and construct the Proposed facilities; that a rasolu. tions by the contractor.
tion, motion or simitar action has been duly adopted or
passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, 9. It will cause work on the j roec p t to be commenced within
alrthorizing the filing of the application, including all a reasonable time after receipt of notification from the
understandings and assurances contained therein, and direct. approving Federal agency that funds have been approved and
ing and Authorizing tle Person identified as the official that the project will be prosecuted to completion with '
representative of the applicant to act in connection with the reasonable diligence.
application and to provide such additional information as
may be required. 10. It wile not dispose of or encumber its title or other
interests in the site and facilities during the period of Federal
2. It well comps with the provisions of: Executive Order inter st or while tte Government holds bonds,whichever is
11296.relating to evaluation of flood hazards. the longer.
i
3 It will have sufficient funds available to meet the 11. It well comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
s' non-Federal share of the cost for constructed prnjects. 1964 (P.L. 88 3521 and in Accordance with Title VI of that
Sufficient funds will be available when construction is Act, no person in the United Statas shall, on the ground of
completed to assure effective operation and maintenance of race,polar,or national origin,be excluged from participation
the facility for the purposes constructed. in. be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under any Program or activity for which the
4. It will obtain approval by the appropriate Federal agent/ applicant receives Federal financial assistance and will interne
of the final working drawings and specifications before the dately take any measures necessary to effectuate this
-g, project is advertised or placed on the market for bidding;Mat agreement. If any real property or structure thereon is
it will construct the Project,or cause it to be constructed,to Provided or improved with the aid of Federal financial
i final completion in accordance with the application and assistance extended to the Applicant, this assurance shall
t.. approved Plans and specificatont;that it will submit to the obligate the Applicant.or in the case of any transfer of such
appropriate Federal agency for prior approval changes that property,any transferee,for the period during which the real
alter the basin of the project, use of space, or functional Property or structure :• used for a purpose for which the
layout; that it will not enter into a construction contract(s) Federal financial assistance is extended or for another
for the Project or undertake other activities until the purpose involving the p-cerwon of similar services or benefit:.
conditions of the construction Scant programs) have been
met, 12. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employe%from
using their positions for a purpose that is or givers the
5. It will provide and maintain competent and adequate appearance of beirq motivated by a desire for private gain for
themselves a-others,particularly those with whom They have
architectural engineering supervision aril ins^ecton at the
construction site to imure that the completed work conforms family,business,or other ties.
with the approved plans and specifications; that it will
11 It will comply with the requirements of Title 11 and Title
furnish progress reports and such other information as the III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Federal grantor agency my require. Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provides for
fair and equitable treatment of Persons displaced as a result
8. It will operate and maintain the facility in xcOrdanre of Federal and federally assisted programs.
with the minimum standards as may be required or pre.
• scribed by the applicable Federal.State and local agencies for 14 It will comply with all requirements imposed by the
the malntenanc:and operation of such facilities. Federal grantoragency concerning special re
quirements of
law, program requirements, and other administrative require-
7. It will give the grantor agency and the Comptroller ments approved in accordance with Office of Management
General through ere authorized representative access to and and Budget Circular No.A-102.
the fight to examine all records,books,tapers,ordocuments
elated to the grant. 15. It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act
which limit the political W!rvity of emplOysea
8. It willreqmre the facility to be designed to comply with
the"American Standard Specifications for Making Buildings 16, It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum
and Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by. the :hvsically hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act,as
Handicapped;' Number A117.1.1961, as modified (41 CPR they apply to hospital and educational institution employees I
101-17.7031. The applicant will be responsible for con. of State and local governments.
y;
EPA Form 5700-32(11-73) a p, a. GOVEIMMENT P MTne OeFWZ;1171 nil-etaAes PAGE 11 OF 11
�gg
4
}
Cq d Centrat on the Park•First and So.Main•Se� %Vishin ton 9,1104•206 464.7G90
G C \ Puget Sound Gov nmental Conference
PSGC File No. 2/363/74
f '
Mr. Sam Macri, Manager
King County Water District No. 107
5806-A 119th Avenue SE
Bellevue, Washington 98006
r
Subject: Step 1 and 2 - May Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Line
Dear Mr. Macri:
Please find enclosed the REVIEW AND REFERRAL COMMITTEE MEMO-
RANDUM containing the comments and recommendations of the Puget Sound
Governmental Conference, with respect to the subject project, as required
by the U.S. Office of Managernei., and Budget Circular A-95 (Revised).
Attached to the memorandum which has been adopted by the Puget Sound
Governmental Conference, are comments submitted to this agency by
affected local jurisdictions, special districts and agencies.
Inclusion of this letter, the memoranda i and all attachments with your
formal application to the funding agency, will constitute adequate compliance
with the A-95 review procedures required by the U. S. Office of Management
and Budget.
fiery trLIly ours,
Mart Kask
Executive Director
MK:he
Encls.
cc: Environmental Protection Agency
Hemstad, OCD
Matthews, Metro
Rottsolk, King County
Bergner, Seattle/King County Health Dept.
Fde, Renton
�97�
r
IF
FYpI -
• (ram lia Gra( 'rat on the Park• -st and So.Main•Se:( 'ashin,M,On 98704 •206/464J090
Illll� r(`V� C Puget Sound Governmental Conference
REVIEW AND REFERRAL COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION PSGC Pile No. 2;302; . 4 I
Jurisdiction: King County
Project ;itle: Step 1 and 2 - May Creek Sanitary Sower Interceptor Line
Applicant: King County Water District No. 107
Fond-na: Federal StF Local Other Tota'
Cost: 137, 500 37, 500 25, 000 250, 000
Agency: EPA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposal is to extend May Creek Interceptor from Highway 405
to serve additional areas of the drainage basin includirig the southerly portion of W.D. 9107
and the northerly portion o° the City of Renton. Project is consistent with METRO
Comprehensive Plans.
LOCAL COMMENTS King County commented on possible effect en May Creek Park
propert, acquisition. Since federal funds arc involved for the park, HUD approval wilt
be necessary to allow Sewer lines through the park. The water district should coordinate
with the County as early as possible.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS Since the proposed project is to serve existing low density
residential development, there does not appear to be potential conflicts with the Interim
Regional Development Plan. However, the Committee requests an opportunity to review the
results of the Step I planning study prior to project implementation. Also, the water district
should coordinate with the King County Park Department regarding the location of sewer
lines through the park.
--------------------—-------------------------------------------------------
I HEREBY CERTIFY that at its meeting, held on . SEP,1 , the Puget
Sound Governmental Conference concurred in this REVIEW AND REFERRAL COM-
MITTEE MEMORANDUM and incorporated it into the; minutcs bf that meeting.
i i + 1• i r, !
:, I , :
DATE SEp 1. 1 3311 1 ! �t` t` , •..�„
PSCC Form R -•i
Marc Kask,-L'xecutive Director
-
(Revised 12/20/72)