Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WWP2700190
TO EPA/DOE GRANT lX r' Y ti r � e e r k t•�J s w • 1 ytl" r� •� . INhY1H4M1 AGENDA ITEM of RF�� j PUBLIC, WORKS DEPARTMENT WARREN C GONNASOM, P,E. • DIRECTOR b MUNICIPAL BUILDING Tt,t MILL AVE SO RENTON,WA 9B055 T06 735-2509 P "tO SEPTEof CHARLES J DELAURENTI MAYOR RECEIVto DEC 171975 ' Dectmber 16 , 1976 Honorable Charles J. Delaurenti , Mayor Members of the City Council Re : amendment to the Extension to the May Creek Interceptor Agreement Dear Mayor Delaurenti and Council Members : We are transmitting herewith a proposed amendment to the agreement with Water District 107 and Metro to provide £Dr a change in the method o. reimbursement and providing for a new estimate of the total amount of City participation. The original agreement was dated January 16 , 1975 , and since that time the consultant and the District have had to provide all of the preliminary engineering financing for the development of the facilities plan. This agreement provides that. the City would advance its share of the funds as the engineering work progresses and as the construction progresses . Since the original agreement was executed. the scope of the work has increased, and it is estimated that the total City cost will be approximately $124,000 . This represents the City's 10 percent share of the interceptor project. It is therefore recommended that the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of the City. he City Attorney has reviewed this agreement and approved it as to form. It is proposed to •itilize the funding available from the 1975 Water and Sewer Bond Fund. Sincerely, /7 I / WARREN C. GONNASON, P.E . Public Works Director WCG: cah cc : V Dick Houghton i AMENDMENT TO THE EXTENSION TO THE MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR THIS AGREEMENT made and executed as of the day of o,9_, between KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. :�7, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, (hereinafter referred to as the "District") and the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, (hereinafter referred to as the "City") , W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the parties have previously entered into an Extension to the May Creek Interceptor Agreement dated January 16, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") whereby the District agreed tc construct for Metro an i extension of the May Creek Interceptor; and WHEREAS, the work required by the Agreement included said extension to the May Creek Interceptor as well as other proposed sewer facilities of the District and the City of Renton, (all of said work hereinafter referred to as the "Project") ; and WHEREAS, the state Department of Ecology (hereinafter referred to as "DOE") and the federal Environmental Protectlon Agency (hereinafter referred to as "EPA") Intend to award grants to the District for construction of the Interceptor and City sewers In phases thereby changing the original project development program as set forth in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the District has received a Step I grant from DOE and EPA for a portion of the Project and has prepared a facilities plan therefor, ncluding the extension of the May Creek Interceptor; and other facilities of the Cistrict and the City; and WHEREAS, the effect of DOE and EPA changes in said grant award procedures has delayed completion of the project i.nd will increase project cost thereby requiring the "City's" payment and reimbursenent schedule to the District to be amended; NOW, THEREFORE, it is mv:ually agreed as follows: Section 1 . Amendment of Section 7 - Method of Reimbursement The provisions of the City's payments to the District and reimbursement schedule are hereby deleted from Section 7 and a new Section 14 is hereby added to the Agreement; "Section 14, Method of City Reimbursement. (a) Payments to District. The City hereby agrees to reimburse the District the local share of the cost of the City sewers , hereinafter referred to as the City reimbursement; however, the City reimbursement shall not exceed the maximum amount of $1240oo without prior written approval by the City. For the purposes Of this amendatory agreement, City reimbursement shall include actual contract construction cost, sales tax, costs of permits and rights-of-way, facility j planning, engineering design and inspection costs, legal costs, and road and property restoration costs. (b) Reimbursement Schedules. Subject to the reimbursement limitation of the preceding subparagraph (a) , the City reimbursement shall be paid to the District in accordance with the following schedule: Sty 1 - Facility Planning, Upon completion and acceptance by DOE and EPA Of the facilities plan for aqy urtlon of the project Including the City sewers the City will within 35 days after both receipt of said notice of acceptance and a properly documented invoice pay to the District an amount equal to 35% of the cost of the local share of the preparation of the facility plan for the project. Sai- 35t represents the City's pro rata share of the cost of the facilities plan as based upon the estimated construction cost of the project. Total City reimbursement for this planning work Is estimated to be $14,000.00. Step 2 - Design. Upon completion and acceptance of plans and specifications and approval to advertise for construction by DOE and EPA for any portion of the City sewers, the City will within 35 days after receipt of sold approval notice and a properly documented invoice, reimburse the District for the cost of prepara- tion of said plans and specifications for said portion of the City sewers. Total City reimbursement for this design work less grant funds Is estimated to be $ 10,000.00. Step 3 - Construction. First Payment. Upon receipt of notice to proceed for construction of a portion of the City sewers, the City will within 35 days after receipt of said notice reimburse the District for 25% of the estimated reimbursement amount for inspection and construction of said portion of the City sewers. Second Payment. Upon receipt of notice that 50% of the installation of said portion has been completed and after approval of the work by the City, reimburse- ment of an additional 25% of the estimated reimbursement amount for inspection and construction of said portion of the City sewers will be made by the City. Third Payment. Upon receipt of notice of that said portion of the City jY. R.i F swwers has been completed and after acceptance of the work by the City, the femaining reimbursement amount due the District for that portion of the City sewers will be paid by the City within 35 days of a properly documented invoice. Total estimated City reimbursement less grants for this construction work is estimated to be $ 100,000.00, If because of any rircumstance the City pays more than the reimbursement amounts actually required under this Section, the District shall promptly refund the excess. The District shall promptly inform the City If any additional grants appli- cable or attributable to construction of the Interceptor are received by the 1 District after the District has been reimbursed as provided herein, and the District shall pay the City its pro rata share of said additional grant funds upon written request therefor." Section 2. Agreement Otherwise Unchanged. Except as otherwise provided herein, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as written therein. Section 3. Execution of Document. This amendatory agicement shall be execrted In two counterparts, either of which shall be regarded as the original . KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 101 By Henry McCullough, Coftilisloner By Elmer Foster, CommlssToner By__ R. Janson, Commissioner ATTEST: By John R. Janson, Secretary CITY OF RENTON By Charles J. De aurenti , Mayor ATTEST: By Delores A. Mead, City Clerk, Rehton ?i IF 1 f i sepa information guide a for water supply & waste a section activities j � i r .ro ,y . . �l:1MrrYMY�iw........:....;............,.....�,.-...a...w.«........:,,..-::..:...............w...�..s:.i.•_._ _.. ...�.t.6. , RV 4 SEPA INFOMATION GUIDE Pertaining to Department of Social and Health Services Water Supply and Waste Section Activities This guide is directed towards the Department of Social and 4ealth Services (DSHS) District Engineers as well as those who submit proposals for approval by the Water Supply and Waste Section. Its purpose is to summarize and discuss procedures for integrating the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with ongoing activities con- ducted by the Water Supply and Waste Section as established in the DSHS SEPA regu- lations. The user of this guide must give careful consideration to both the DSIIS and state SEPA regulations when dealing with specific proposals covered by SEPA (WAC's 248-06 and 197-10, respectively) . In order to assur,, consistency a,d take advantage of experience with SEPA, Richard Siefert or Alan Rowe of the Water Supply and Waste Section should be contacted whenever SEPA-related questions arise. They may be contacted at the following address: Water Supply and Waste Section Nail Stop 4-1 Olympia, Washington 98504 Phone: 753-5986 or 753-4299 A" oval Ac'. i✓ leg '- .a1v� :61,_ r ! Water Supply and Jaste Section conducts many different types of approval acti- ities. Following is a description of the only five which ate subject to SEPA: 1. Water istem Plans. 'ihts includes plans submitted for ruvic.w end approval par- suant to WAC 248-54-280, Public Water Supply Regulations. 2. New Public Water SYatema. This refers to approval of plans and specifications (or Engineering Report if ,ne is required) for new tyatems, but only in instances where the system is designed fit , or capable cf serving 10 or more dwelling units. (See WAC 248-54-290 and 300) . 3. Najor Extensions to Existing Public Water Systems. This includes plans and specifications (or Engineering Report if one is necessary) for development of additional source, storage, transmission, or distribution (WAC 248-54-300). but only in instances where such additions are designed for, or capable of serving 50 or more dwelling units. Distribution mains which have been coveted as part of an a,proved Comprehensive Water System Plan are not included In this category. (See WAC 248-54-300 (6) . 4. Water General Plans. These are the mandatory water system plans developed by counties establishing water systems pursuant to the County Services Act (RCW 36.94) . The plans must be reviewed and approved by DSHS. It is recommended that, in order to avoid preparing duplicate plans or SEPA documents, the Water System Plan (or Engineering Report if appropricte) should incorporate the Water General Plan. 5. Coordinated Water System Plans. This refers to the two-stet planning process developed in conjunction with reservation of future water supply (WAC 173-590- 60). The first step includes Water System Plans or Engineering Reports for individual water •systems within a region. The second step consists of - Pam. : a regional supplement addressing development of areawide joint-use facilities and other types of coordination. Individual plans snould already be covered by a SEPA document, but the regional supplement will also require DSHS approval, 7 ;hus subjecting it to SEPA. Besides those activities listed above, the only other likely involvement the Water Supply and Waste Section will experience with SEPA is in adoption or amendment of regulations containing standards controlling use or modification of the physical environment. Other approvals, such as wellsite inspections and review of swimming pool plans do not require consideration of SEPA. Lead Agency Determination In most Instances, determination of the agency or person(s) responsible for meeting SEPA requirements of the preceding activities will t.ot be necessary for the District Engineer. Generally, if a Water District, P.U.D., City, or other public entity prepares a plan covered by SEPA, that agency must also prepare a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Statement for that plan. If a plan for a private water sy.Lgm is prepared, one of three possibilities will occur: I a.) If any permit from a cif or count is needed for an i Y Y y part of the fatal develop- ment, that city or county becomes responsible (WAC 197-10-220) ; b. ) If no city or county permits are required and approval Is required from the Department of Ecolog\ , the Department of Ecology becomes responsible (WAC 197-10-255) , and; c .) If no other approvals are required, MIS becomes responsible. Should this be i the case, Richard Siffert or Alan Rowe of DSHS, Water Supply and Waste Section, should be notified immediately. Whoever prepares and submits the affected plans for approval should determine the lead agency. It will be to their benefit to do so early in order to avoid costly delays as the proposal progresses. If the District Engineer receives plans for a proposal covered by SE: , but a Negative Declaration or EIS has not been prepared, the Water Supply and Waste Section will be responsible for determining lead agency. Richard Siffert or Alan Rowe should be consulted immediately. Procedures for Integrating SEPA with AMroval Activities The major objective of SEPA is to make environmental information about major pro- posals available to decision-makers when they take action leading to enactment of the proposal. Thus actions taken by DSHS District Engineers in approving water system plans identified in this guide must be covered by SEPA. Following is the process for carrying out that responsibility: 1. Plan Submittals. For proposals which must be covered by SEPA, plans received for approval should be accompanied by the appropriate environmental document (Negative Declaration or Final E.I,S.) following the format established in WAC 197-10-355 or WAC 197-10-440. Ideally, the document should be included as a chapter or appendix of the plan. Thus, it would be attached and presumably referred to during the course of plan formulation. If there is doubt whether the Negative Declaration or EIS is Final or official, the District Engineer may request a letter from the lead agency certifying its status. i , t yp Pale i r. 2. Revlgpl_yg pja Ls. The Negative Declaration or E.I.S. should �e referred to in the course of reviewing plans for approval. The District Engineer should keep two Items in m.nd during his review: a. ) The DSHS District Engineer is not involved in approval of either a Negative Declaration or an E.I.S. , although he may be consulted during preparation of either document, and; b. ) It is unclear whether SEPA has a "substantive effect" upon decisions - that is, whether approval of the subject plans can be withheld because of possible environmental consequences unrelated to responsibilities of the Water Supply and Waste Section. Section policy will be to use the environ- mental document as a decision-making tool insofar as it relates to the District Engineer's program responsibilities. 3. Plan A royals. The approval letter for a proposal which must be covered by SEPA will contain a statement indicating that either a Negative Declaration or E.I.S. was received and consldere+, prior to granting of an approval. The environmental document should then be filed with the approved plan in the pro- Ject file. 4. Proposals Having More Than One DSHS Approval. If an approval is r uestA for a proposal covered in a previously approved plan which included a :., gative Declaration or E.I.S., and the proposal must be covered by SEPA, one of the fol- lowing is appropriate: a.) The transmittal letter to the District Engineer or text of the proposal should include a statement verified by the lead agency explaining why the previous Negative Declaration or E.I.S. to still valid, or; u. ) If the lead agency does not consider the previous E. I.S. adequate, due to change of conditions or lack of sufficient detail, a supplemental F.I .S. should accompany the submittal (See WAC 197-10-660). It would be to the benefit of the person or agency requesting approval to carefully consider the scope and detail of an E. I.S. , if required, in order to avoid extra work .n preparing additional environmental documents at a later date. r, a APPFNDIX A - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE APPLICANT Private .�pplicant (Wher DSHS is lead agency If DSHS has been determ tied to be lead agency for a major action proposed by a private applicant and covered by the DSHS SEPA regulations, the privat.• applicant shall be responsible fo completing an environmental checklist, furni, ing any additional intormatton needed by DSHS to make the threshold deLerminat . .n, and preparing the draft and final Environmental Impact Statement under the direction of DSHS if one is required. Private Applicant When another agency is lead agency) In the case where a private applicant proposes a major action covered by DSHS SEPA regulations and submits it to the Water Supply and Waste Section for approval, it must be ac.ompanted by a Negative Declaration or a Final Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant should rvtablish which uthet agencies have jurisdiction over the proposal in order for th. .+e agencies to make an early determination of which one will assume lead agency responsibilities. If the proposal 1s submitted to the District Engineer for approval without the necessary Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Statement, DSHS must determine 'cad agency. The lead agency will then initiate the SEPA process, resulting delay of the requested approval. �&ency Proposal_ When an agency proposes a major action covered by DSHS SEPA regulatlot.s, that agent, is responsible for all SEPA requirements. This will include making the threshold determination and submitting either a Negative Declaration or a Final Environmental Impact Statement along with the proposal for Water Supply and Waste Section approval. , APPENDIX B - TIMING AND PROCEDURES WHEN THE WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE SECTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEAD AGENCY DJTIES `r Richard Stffert or Alan Rowe will be responsible for carrying out these procedures. The District Engineer's only involvement may be consultation during preparation of a Negative Declaration or EIS. It is likely that the Water Supply and Waste Section will become lead agency in only a very few instance&. The following steps apply when the Section has been determined to be lead agency: 1. A threshold determination is the first requlrnment. This will be accomplished by r,:vtewing the environmental checklist prepared by the applicant, along with any additional information furnished by other agencies with ,jurisdiction or expertise. The Section should complete the threshold determination in approx- imately 15 days. Z. If it appears that the proposal will not have a significant adverse environ- mental impact , a "propoatA declaration of non-significance" will be issued. The Section will complato the form outlined in the state gutdaltnes, notify all other agencter with ,jurisdiction, and list the proposed declaration in the "Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance Register" at the DSitS SEPA Public Information Center. If no comments are ruceived within 15 days of listing, a Negative Declaration will be issued. If comments are received on the proposed declaration, the Section will recon- sider its proposed declaration of non-significance; however, it is not manda- tory that the determination be modified. If no other agencies bes'des DINS have +uriedic. lon, and the proposal will not have a significant sdverse invironmentai impact, a Negative Declaration will be issued directly. 3. If the proposal will have a significant adverse environmental impact, a "de- claration of aignificance" will be issued. The Section will then complete the declaration of significance form outlined in the state guidelines and list the proposal in the "ETS in Preparation Register" at the DSNS $EPA Public In- formation Center. 4. The applicant is then responsible for preparing the Draft EIS under direction of the Water Supply and Waste Section. No time frame has been established for completing the Draft. However, if othe. agencies are consulted in the process, they have 45 days to submit their input. The Draft EIS will be placed in the "EIS Available Register" at the DSNS SEPA Public Information Center once it is published. 5. Upon ompletion of the Draft and Its accertaoce by 0,v Section, it will be cir- culateu to interested parties for review and comment . They have 35 days in which to comment , with an extra 15 day extension if necessary. 6. A Final EIS will be orepared within 75 days of listing of the Draft in the "EIS Available Register". The Section will incorporate into the Final EIS any ap- propriate comments received from circulating the Draft. When the Final EIS has been completed, it will also be listed in the "tIS Available Register at the DS14S SEPA Public Information Center. 7. Finally, there is a 7 day waiting period after the final EIS is listed until the Water Supply and Waste Section may issue their approval of the ortgint.l proposed action. f FLOW CHART FOR HANDLING SE PA PROPOSALS C y![ F oes proposal require DS11S DSHS Disregards { approval4Covered by SEPA1 If No SEPA Procedures I Yes Lead Agency Determination Other Agency lnpu Threshold Non- Neg'Itive (Optional) Determination Significant Declaration Sig;niii Other Agency InputS t(Optional) tionIL al)eISPublic Input �� te Public Hearing t (If Required) Other Agency Input--(Required) IS Circulate Final Use Final EIS In Making Decision VFW 5 NO 77. dray Creek interceptor fa�c�s co unty cue a information before it could consider in a law suit filed against King Coun- proposed interceptor were in- by at least two years. In addition, Fournier Newspapers' such a proposal. ty and Red Samm Mining Co. by significant. the conclusions were cogncil legislative aide Bill county bureau Thu, council should be reluctant, Quendall Terminals, Inc. and contained in a final envnonmental Frederick expressed concern that day Creek interceptor which deputy prosecutor John Keegan Barbee Mills. The suit, which is assessment prepared by Water Dis- EPA funding for the projr�-- WaterDistrict107wantstobuildin warned, of entering into an scheduled for triilin Superior Court trict 107 on the impact of the scheduled for next month could the May Creek area in northeast agreement in which a building April 26,seeks an injunction against proposed interceptor on the area. dropped and that future fundiiix Renton could be facing delays of up moratorium is i ivolved. He said Red Samm and others from deposit- The Environmental Council also could prove uncertain. to two years or . ore. there are serious gtestions of wheth- ing any further drainage water, disagreed with the district'sconclu- Two years ago.district engineer_ A King County Council com- er a moratoriuw :a a reasonable sand, or silt into May Creek and sion that benefits of building the in- estimated that 4,700foot long sewer mittee Monday put on a back burner approach to solving the drainage $100,000 in damages over siltation t e r c e p t o r o u t w e�i g h e d its line would cost S2.3 million to build. a draft agreement between Renton question in the May Creek Basin,or occurring at the creek's mouth. environmental and economic dis- The water district is the lead agency and King Com..y setting drainage whether it would penalize future The drainage agreement was an advantages. for the project,which is designed to standards and providing for a build- developers by what %as already attempt to overcome objections If the Environmental Protection serve the Kennydale and Hoacy ing moratorium is the basin when occurred. made by Quendall Terminals and Agency (EPA) is required now to Creek areas in Renton SEAMe Ilwb arose standards are exceeded. In- Keegan also warned the council the Washington Environmental write an environmental impact Avenue Northeasta'—w lofMayy stead,the council's Public Facilities that such an agreement could im- Council to a finding 'hat primary statement — as seems likely—the Creek and the lake t}' Committee decided it needed more pact theccanty'sliability—if any— and secondary impacts of the interceptor project could be held up Kathleen - 90 - '".#l '� •' ;- gig+►' '- .+�nt�. -_. __ _-_...1... _ -_._..__ .,. ._,..e... � -� �-..y.,-• � .. _ __.— .•�`;p'r arat•t pull Mat art 'ind their taxes increasing Z)y 79.1 $210. in South Central,where uses Picket siga yet,aceordingtoautd residents will find their pm By VIRGINIA BURNSIDE taxes boosted by 90.4 per cart over per cent from 5373 to$679--a$297 .011 g1. -.�t7'P per cent,the owner header. Property taxes will go up in all those they p� this Year. Largest increase. of such a home will find his tax bill Talks between theta re"TIM nt- Valley-area school districts except tax decrease will be in the Sno- In Auburn,the same homeowner incrersing from 5578 to 5635—a SS7 sid more than 3n0 dietary personnel - :..creme. aides, Janitors end office personnel Federal Way next year by qualmie Valley where property will pay a 67 per cent increase — and Valley General have resumad. oercentage increases ranging frmn taxes will go down by 23.7 per cent, from 536.5 to fb44. Hoppe reported the largest in- "Talks went pretty gad Yester- 9.6 is:cent increase in South Centr- Hoppe reported. Owner of the SM,000 hc'tte in the creasr in real property values day afternoon,•'Bob Robinsanof the al to a South County high of 79.8 per Seattle's tax increase of.51.6 per Tahoma School District, where among South County school districts Hotel, Motei, Restaurant and cent increase lo the Rent School Dis- cent rest x t year r o ,g h 1 y there will be a 55.8 Per cent tax In- approxir e s the average increase crease,will find the tax bill increas- occurred m the Renton and''edera° Bartenders Employes L oc. "'d trict. Wednesday ' Thingn Look ittk Valuations for 1977 tax rolls were in South County school districts, he inBirnmf376 to SW increase of Way areas. better." sxrtified Wedne+day to local tating noted, Members of Robinson's orlon, districts by County Assessor Harley Tax increases property, owners public Employes Union and Local 8 Hoppe. can expect here, based on informs- 1976 1977 Percent Percent of the office and Professional Work- He said the county's total tion provided by each school district, Assessed Assessed kerease Increase ere (Union had noted to strike the -" assessed valuations would climb chiefly reflects the failure or valuation vshuidon of assessed of proper': hoepi"al this weak if contracts were from $16.6 billion to$18 billion next usage of school levies for the 1976- valuation tax not signed or talks were not year — a $1.4 billion increase. 77 school year. 267118 0.08 56 7� -esumed. Significantly, the value of new con- Figured un a hc.me assessed at Renton f1,1g9,81o,835 $1,284, structlon countywide has increased S30po, property owners in Renton Kent $858,678,630 5954,305,310 G.II 7^.8% Negotiato to r for Va+•r•n G to$248.4 million. will fib their tax tri'I boosted by 56.7 Auburn $492,164,BSs S5�932,418 0.09 1.8% propo0% are sal to the board Biggest �~,r- Biggest tax-increase in the coup- per cent from S430 to$674 —an in- Tahoma `lu •2"' 0 12 " " scheduled for 7:30 a.m. ty next year will occur in the Lake crease of$244. In Kent,owners of a Federal Way 5559.537,445 $628,899,630 0.11 ".8% the hospital's rANer�, Washington School District r here pow: assessed at that Figure will S. Central 5220,381,285 $244,372,650 - _ y •?n E a 1574.026 ENGINEERS • PLANNERS SURVFYORS September 15, 1976 Department of Ecology 4350 - 150th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Attn: Mr. Cecil D. Carroll EPA SUBJECT: C-530749-01 - MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN SEWER INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM - ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gentlemen: Reference is made to your letter of September 10, 1976 in regard to the archaeological survey for May Creek interceptor and the request contained therein for a letter modification to the contract with the University of Washington to provide such service. Attached is a copy of the letter modification which we are submitting for your approval. Very truly yours, RECE0 1) MOORE, WALLACE b KENNEDY, INC. SEP 1 6 1975 By i ll! 1 e ' R. Wallace, 41 JRW:Jad Attachments cc: KCb/D No. 107 Commissioners - Dick Hibbard-METRO i0ick Houghton-City of Renton 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 •1206)62A-2623 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Ja�eO sr REGION X �rFs �p A >= 1200 SIXTH AVENue RECEIVED M SEATT L E, WASH INGTON 9 810 1 a SEP 13 1976 ;r114t PaoTEc' SEP �916 r M.W.K. � • Rf PLY LJ ITT. 'X Mr. John Wallace Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. 1915 First Avenue Settle, Wa;hin3ton 98101 Re: C53G749-01 May Creek Drainage Basir, Sewer Interceptor System - Archeological Survey- Dear :'r. Wallace: I have reviewed the proposal for the archeological Survey, as submitted by the Univer>iity of Washington. The proposal is hereby approved, suo,ject, however, to the following condition: 1. That the archeologist agrees in writing that he will limit the scope of work for auger borings and test excavations to only the primaiy impact areas that have a high degree of probability that cultural resources can be expected ' o be found. Primary impact areas are those areas where ground will be disturbed for the protect, such as the plant site, pumping stations, access roads, and rights of way for interceptors. Intensive surveys , auger borings and test excavations should be conducted only when a sufficient amount of information exists to indicate that there is a reasonably high probability of discovering important cultural resources. The final report should include a description and locations of the areas i of high probability. Please submit to th.`.s office a letter from the archeologist agreeing to this stipulation. A copy of the completed survey needs to be submitted to the State Historic Prese vation Officer (SHPO) for his concurrence with any mitigating mea: ires. e, I P I K I! { 1 If I can be of iurthe-: assistance, please feel free to call me at b85-1900. Sincerely, Cecil D. Carroll Project Officer Washington Operations Office cc: King County Water District 107 Washington Slate Department of Ecclogy, Redmond Mark Johnson E.P.f , Seattle I i e,. x . ,.", 1M;^ 'yyYWYMWWIwiwair.MT!M r4YY1.w.rwMMY�,Ye•.+.r.wwl.e..a.rr:�....�•._...r RECEIVED UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEf 14 1976 SEATTLE, WASHINGTCIN 98105 M.Vtl.K• Office of Public Archaeology September 13, 1976 Institute for Environmental Studies 230 Engineering Annex, FM-12 Mr. John R. Wallace, Jr. Moore, Wallace b Kennedy, Inc. 1915 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Subject: Clarification of Scope of Work, May Creek Archaeological Survey Dear Mr, Wallace: The present letter is intended to clarify certain aspects of the scope of archaeological investigations to be undertaken along the proposed interceptor system in the May Creek vicinity, King County, Washington. In our proposal of June 29, 1976 for "An Archaeological Survey of the May Creek Area, King County, Washington", this office noted that the investigation would be divided into three phases as follows: documentary and archival re- search, an intensive surface reconnaissance of available horizontal and verti- cal exposures, and the placement of a series of auger boring and test excavations in areas having a hiah potential for containing archaeological remains. While the first two phases , -e self-explanatory, the third is such that additional clarification is perhaps necessary. Specifically, the term concept of "high potential" warrants further attention. First, auger borings and/or test excavations would be employed as a site-disco- very technique only if surface reconnaissance proves ineffectual. That is, in the event that the vegetation cover in the project area is such that the surface cannot be adequately examined, the aforementioned techniques might prove to be the only effective means of locating cultural resources. We would stress, how- ever, that even if these techniques are found to be necessary, their use would be limited to those restricted portions of the project area having a "high archaeological potential". As used here, the concept of high potential refers to those situations where, based on experience in similar contexts and the circumstances as they obtain in the May Creek area, there is a high probability of encountering archaeological remains. Becausr, these circumstances are neces- sarily tied to the particular environmental and topographic characteristics of the project area, we cannot enumerate them in advance of on-site activities. We can, however, prumise that the criteria used to delineate high probability areas would be spelled out in our final report. Test excavations might also be employed at those archaeological sites discovered during the surface reconnaissance phase. The use of this technique in that par- ticular circumstance would seek to provide sufficient information for a determination of resource "significance" and potential eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places as required under the provisions of 36 CFR Parts 63 and 800. 4 Finally, we should again stress that the final report of our activities and findings will include not only an enumeration of are and all cultural remains encountered as a consequence of our reconnaissance tu' also this office's recommendations for any impact mitigation measures to be implemented either before or during project construction. I hope these comments have served to clarify certain of the Items included in our contract proposal . While they do not modify either the content or scope of our original intentions, they should better inform you of our proposed activities and permit you to make a more knowledgeable judgment of our eventual findings. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at your earliest convenience. lr !y -- — Jerr `dQ mann, Director Offic� of P.bllc Archaeology Principal Investigator JVJ:ch U AGENDA ITEM 0 r PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WARREN C. GONNASON, P E. • DIRECTOR ,a. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO RENTON. WA.•MM • M 23e-23610 P "co SEP.%Eo# August 31, 1976 aftf1vto CHARLES J DELAURENTI { MAYOR JEP 119jS ' u144 N\a lirotll[tlrlfifi Honorable Charles J. Delaurenti , Mayor Members of the City Council i Re: May ( reek Interagency Agreement and face Water Run-off Ordinance Dear Mayor Dclaurenti and Council Members ! We have been negotiating with King County , Metro, Water District 107 , the dashington Environmental Council , and Don Norman regarding the May Creak Interceptor. The only environmental objector to the May Creek Interceptor program, including the Kennydale and Honeydew trunk sewer facilities , is the Nashington Env a oawental Council. The Environmental Protection Administration has indicated to the State Department of Ecology that an environmental impact statement will be required for the May Creek Interceptor Program unless the Washington Environmental Council withdraws their objection to the project. The attached draft of an agreement between King County and the City of Renton provides the basis for the Washington Environmental Council with- drawing their objections to the project . This agreement will provide for monitorin, if the ''ay Creek drainage basin from the storm water run-oi and erosion point of view and provides for a moratorium on develop . ent within the basin unless appropriate corrective action is taken by the parties involved. One of the requirements in this connection is that the City of Renton adopt a surface water run-off ordinance similar to that of King County. This agreement is being introduced to the King County Council , and it is our desire to have the Renton City Council consider the agreement concurrently. We are also attaching a draft of an ordinance to be known as the "Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance . " This ordinance is in the preliminary draft form and has been revised to incorporate 4 i Honorable Charles J. Delaurenti , Mayor Members of the City Council Page 2 August 31 , 1976 the City Attorney' s comments and recent revisions made to King . County's ordinance . Wr are in receipt of some additional comments from the Renton City Planning Department , however, have not as yet incorpurated those items in the draft ordinance. It is our desire to proceed and have this ordinance and agreement referred to the appropriate committe^ for consideration and hopefully ultimate adoption. Sincerely , ��� �Mw►l..I.�.Mxry %Y-a'rren C. Gonnason, P. E. Public Works Director WCG:cah Attachments cc : City Attorney Resign Engineer //Utilities Engineer f f Y tt tAw On,Ccst�Of 1`erqu5oit h burdell �F N /t110 WOF O 1.Y.YYI•fN.JP tiN•NL{!L.YuwbfLL M1Y1L ,1JQ P[OH.G1 N•gONIL YNF HulUl»O Y/eou»uL pN Nfbb[L "' '1- t PONA\D .NL fty.lx ON y0�'a-,69tob 98171 'MLLI•N O biiilb lOF•PD NI GACE JN. YPyt:,t P Y•bOltf MONt!J OPCEN1N Ito&621 Ill, ,..'.P NI Ow'" NLNPY tl 0 0 JONN N w000La• MLLNN O YOOP[ C.011110/'w9P )NON w•Nt a Yt.m YN[PP•FO August 16. la'18 »[»P�,-+•N/'D» S N.J '•!/iPOUION ^` KOYt O OINUPNt JiN[!t 1 I� 1 1dr. William Frederick King County Council King County Courthouse Third and James Seattle, Washington 98104 j i Rc May Creek/Interagency Agreement DAa� Mr. Frederick: Enclosed please find the fourth draft of the Interagency Agreement between King County and Rentun with regard to May Creek. By envy of this letter, I am forwarding copies of the fourth draft to the ^arious parties i,ho have been involved in preparation of the Agreement. Very truly yours , FERGUSON ✓1 HURDELL r By: Henry C. Jameson HCJ/srn Enclosure cc: Mr. Sam Macri cc: Mr. Warren Gonnason cc: Mr. Richard Hibbard R v lit, AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT entered into by and between KING COUNTY, § (hereinafter referred to as "County ") and the CITY OF RENTON, • municipal corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Renton"). as follows W I T N E_SS T H: WHEHKAS, proson "union occupsncy slid settlement of the May h Creak drainage basin (hereinafter referred to as "the basin") has created health and water quality problems associated with the abaerro of a sanitary sewer system to J.'"Ouos thereof; and WHEREAS, the Muu.hpality of Metropolitan Seattle thereinafter referred to as "Metro"), Renton and King County Water Distrim No. 107. a municipal corpor- atlun of the State of Wastnugton (hereinafter referred to as "District") are parties to an - "Extens.on to the May Croak IntNh.Yplor Agreement" dated the Will day of January, 1975, for the construction of sit uxl,msiun to Metro's May Crook Interceptor so that Renton and the Disu'wt tray expand their loca: "war system In the basin for the pur"o of aiieviating said health and wstar quality problems, and WHEREAS, the parties hereto recognise that the proposed interceptor program else has the potential of encouraging Increased residential and associated real estate development hh the May Crook drainage l saht, and that said development may adversely affect the rate of now of May Croak and the bed loud and sediment lead content of the creek at peak flows, welch may produce health and water quality problems in the basin, .rising from increased erosion and siltation the"in, and WHE. AS, the parties Mreto recognise the desirability of"dditional protective — asuns in order to luinimi" or rodueo the possibllit) of such a futuro kin- desirable effect; and c t WHEREAS, County has enscted its Ordinance No. 2612 in an effort to v control flooding and consequent erosion and siltation arising from real estate develop- ment within County, and Renton to in the process of prepuring a cociparable ordinance for enactment; and WHEREAS, King County and Renton have the power to regulate deve.opment activity within .he basin, and such regulation is an appropriate method of further implementing the Ordinances hereinabove described, and WHEREAS, it is desirable that such regulutions be consistent through- out the basin, w:dch is partial!, within the jurisdiction of each of the parties; and t WHEREAS. Metro is the lead agency fee p,separation of the Section 208 plan under the Water Pollution Control Act and will therefore be involved in the study of drainage problems in the Green River and Cedar River drainage basin, of which May Creek is a part, and WHEREAS. Metro and District have indicated the desirability of and Chair wilhngncas to approve execution of the within Agreement by County and Renton. NO.,, THEREFORE, the parties hereto age" as follows: 1. Es'oblishm.ra of Drainage Standards. The parties hereto shell establish standards to measure the rate of Pow of May Crack and the bed lead and sedi- ment lead content of the creek at peak flows, which standards shall be used to implement this agreement. These standards shall he developed as follows: Existing United States Geological Survey records from 1948 to the preset: with regard to the water flow of May Creek shall be utilized to establish the historic levels of U.S.G.S, mean dailv flow, U.S.G.S. mean minimum flow, and U.S.G.S. mean peak now from the creek. Renton and King County agree to utilize the United States Geological Survey to determine historic instant and annual transport rates of bed load and sediment lead content of Mev Creek, which figure shall be used as a standard for implementation _2-. k r-r of this agreement. Y. Mvtitoring of May Creek. The parties specifically agree that they •dhall immediately reactivate the gauging station located at the Metro Wier on May -r^ k to be operated by the United States Geological Survey. Records shall be main- W ITI d of the dairy flow of Mry Creek at this gauging station. In addition, they •!ill add at the gauging station as soon as possible, and in any event no later than January 1. 1977. o 19vice or devices, of a type mutually acceptable, to monitor the bed load and sediment loud content at Alay Creek. Said gauging station shall be operated at all times under this agr The cost of operation of said station shall be shared between Renton and King County, who shall agree upon the means of Amding to be i utilised mad the proportion of costa to oe be,ne by each. 7. Building hlotetorium. In the event the water flow of May :;reek - exceeds the U.S.G.S. mean daily now, falls Wow the U.S.G.S. mean minimum flow, t or exceeds the U.S.G.S. mean peak now esti:blished pursuant to paragraph 1 of this i agreement, Renton and King County shall not thereafter within the May Creek drainage basin (ea defined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this refetronre made a part hereof) issue any new grading or building permits, or approve any plats or subdivisions until the cause for the deviation from the standards set forth in paragraph fl have been ascertained by the parties. In the event the cause of such deviation is a non-recurrent, natural cause, the morstorium may be lifted immediately: it such natural deviation has caused the May Creek water now to exceed the U.S.G.S. mean peak now establishe.;pursuant tc paragraph 1 of this agreement, said nee mean peak now shall be the May Creek mean peak now for the balance of the term hereof. In .ic event the cause for such deviation arises from developmeat 4n the May Creek drainage basin, the moratorium shall be continued until the cause of the deviation ' has been ascertained and appropriate gnv".rumental action taken to remove the source of Increased run-off. Such actions may hr•lude the amendment of legal proceedings i .o ebi.tr the source of run-off, expenditures by the partb-s to cure the source of the y_ t 1 i r- t _.2 1 i deviation, establislgnent of loosl improvement districts to control run-off, and such caller governmental fections as may be appropriate. Once such actions are commenced, the moratorium maylbe lofted. The parties recognize that some deviation from the i historic rate of mea6 daily now will inevitaoly occur. Accordingly. Renton and King County will develop reasonable tolerance standards to prevent the imposition of the moratorium hergtn described as a result of inconsequential deviations from the t mean daily now. l t*parties r -ther agree that in the event the transport rates of bed lead and sediment load content of May Creek exceed the instant and annual transport rates dets�rmined pursuant to paragraph l above, King County and Renton shall impose a mor0orium "outlined above within the May Creek drainage basin until the cause for tilt deviation has been ascertained by the parties and appropriate gov- ernmental action fatten. The parties hereto recognize that some deviation from the historic instant transport rate of bed load and sediment lead content of May Creek will inevitably me*. Accordingly. Renton and King County shall determine f reaeonaole toleranc*a from the historic instant rate In order to preclude the imposi- tion of the moratorlum as a result of inconsequential deviations from the historic instant transport rate of tsid lad and sediment lead content. 4: Severability. The tnvalid.y of any provision hereof shall not affect any other provision hereof, it being the intention that this agreement would have been entered into+thout including any provision subsequently held to be invalid. 6Termination. The parties hereto recognize and agree that this sgreeme nt is enter/"into to obtain. for District the federal grant necessary for con- struction of the May Creek interceptors and that this agreement is to be considered a condition of said grant. This agreement may be eminated upon transmission by one party to the other of written notice of Intent to lerr-..inate. which notice shall speci fy the reasons therefor. The party transmitting notice of intent to terminate shall cause copies therso to be concurrently transmitted to the Department of Ecology i i 1 I i I< l of the State of Washington and to the Environme! tal Protection Agency of the United States, or the successor agency of either. Th:., agreement may not he terminated without the approval of the Department of Ecology and the Environmental Protection Agency, E which approval shall not be granted uplass those agencies determine that the secondary effects of the construction of the May Creek Interceptors on drainage in tf� the May Creek drainage basin have been mitigated by other• appropriate governmental actions. r(RR t D4TEU this__Gay of RING COUNTY } By: ATTEST: t I By: CITY OF RENTON i By: ATTEST: By. City Clerk ORDINANCE 130. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING AND CREATING A SURFACE WATER RUNOFF ORDINANCE, TO BE HEREIN AFTER KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "RENTON STORM AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE ORDINANCE" AS CHAPTER 29, TITLE IV (BUILDING REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 1628 KNOWN AS THE "CODE OF j GENERAL GRDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON" REGULATING THE DESIGN, STANDARDS, PROCEDURES AND THE SUBMISSION CT DRAINAGE PLANS 13 CON.IUNCTION WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. SECTION I. TITLE. This ordinance shall be hereinafter known as the "Renton Storm and Surfa-e Water Drainage Ordinance," may be :sited as such, and will be hereinafter referred to as "This Ordinance". SECTION II. PURPOSE. It is the purpose of this Ordinance to promote and develop policies with respect to, and to preserve the City's water courses and to minimise water quality - ' degradation by preventing siltation, sedimentation, and pollution of creeks, streaes, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water within the City to protect property owners tri- butary to developed land from increased ruroff rates and to insure the safety of City roads and rights-of-way. SECTION III. DEFINITIONS. Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the t _ — I meaning of terms used i.i this section shall be as followae ` "Department" shall mean the Public Works Department of the City of Renton. "Director" shall mean the Director of the Department of Public Works. e � "Storm Sewer" and "Storm Drain" shall mean a sewer which carries storm surface water, subsurface water and drainage. "Drainage Area" shall mean the total area whose drainaqe water flows to and across the subject property. Drainage Plan" shall mean the plai for receiving, handling, transporting surface water within the subject property. "Peak Discharge" shall mean the maximum surface water runoff rate (cfs) 6etermined for the design storm frequency. "Detention/Retention Facilities" shall mean facilities designed either to hold runoff for a short period of time and then releasing it to the point of discharge at a con-rolled rate or to hold water for a considerable length of time and then consuming it by evapora- tion, plants, or infiltration into the ground. "subject Property" shall mean the tract of land which is the subject of the permit and/or approval action. -2- "Developmental Coverage" enall mean all developed surface areas within the subject property including and not limited to rooftops, concrete or asphalt Laved driveways, carports, accessory buildings and parking areas. "Computation" shall mean calculations, including coefficient and other ?er'tinent data, made to determine the drainage plan with rate of flow of water given in cubic feet per second (cfs) . "Receiving Bodies ct Water" shall mean creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, storm sewer.; and other bodies of water into which surface waters are directed, either naturally or in man- made ditches or open and closed system. SECTION IV. ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY. The Director of Public Works is designated as the exofficio administrator and responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Ordinance. SECTION V. SUBMISSION OF DRAINAGE PLANS. (a) All persons applying for any of the following permits and/or approvr.le shall submit for , ,)proval a drainage plan with their application andfor request; (1) Mining, Excavation and Grading Permit (2) Shoreline Management Substantial D^•relopment Permit (3) Flood Control Zone Permit (4) Major Subdivision Approval (5) Shore Plat approval, except where the lots are 35,000 square feet or larger. (6) Special Permits (7) Temporary Permits (8) Building permits where the permit related to 5,000 or more square feet of development of impervious surface within the property. (9) Planned Unit Development (10) Parking Lot asphalt or concrete paving (b) The plan submitted during one permit/approval process may be subsequently sub- mitted with further required applications. The plan shall be supplemented with additional infoimation at the request of the Department of public Works. (c; The plan requirement established in this section will not apply when the department determines that the proposed permit and/or activity; (1) will not seriously and adversely impact the water quality conditions of any affected receiving bodies of water, and/or, (2) Will not substantially alter the drainage patterns, increase the peak discharge, , i i E 4 and cause any other aiverse effects in the drainage area. SECTION VI. DRAINAGE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. All persons applying for any of th, nermits and/or approvals contained in Section V ot: this Ordinance shall provide a drainage plan, } for surface water flows entering, flowing within, and leaving the subject property. The detailed form and contents of the drainage pl shall oe described in procedures pro- vided by the Department. The procedures will set forth the manner of presenting the following required informations (a) Background computations for aiming a., &#nage facilities: (1) Loyal description of the drainage +.red with a contoured topographical map (minimum 5 ft. intervals) , wit),: acreage indicated and existing storm drainage facilities in the immediate vi inity of the improvement. (2) Calculations of the peak rat* '. discharge and amount of surface water , currently entering and leavi:.r, the subject property in cubic fast per second. (3) Indication of the peak discharge and amount of runoff which will be generated within subject property if development is allowed to proceed. (4) Calculations and determination of the peak discharge and amount of runoff which will be generated by a 10 year storm within a drainage area less than SD acres or producing a runoff of less than 20 cfs. For drainage areas greater than 50 acres or producing a runoff greater than 20 cfs, a 25 year design frequency will be used. (b) Proposed improvements for handling the computed runoff. SECTION VII. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ALL DRAINAGE PLANS. (a) Surface water entering the subject property shall be received at the naturally occurring location and surface water exiting the Subject property shall be dis- charged at the natural location with adequate ensigy dissipators to minimize downstream damage and with no diversion at any of these points; and (b) The peak discharge from the subject property may not be increased due to the proposed development; and (c) Retention/detention facilities must ue provided in order to handle all surface water in excess of the peak discharge. (d) Oil separator must be provided when the surface water o' a developed area flows over asphaltic surfaces and directed into any receiving bodies of water. 3 a- < (e) Where open ditch construction is used to handle drainage within the subject property, a minimum of 15 feet shall be provided between any structures and the top of the bank of the defined channel. (1) in open channel work the water surface elevation will be indicted on �*e plan and profile 3cawings. The configuration of the finished grades constituting the banks of the open channel will also be shown on the draw- ings. (2) Proposed cross-section of channel will. be shown with stable side slopes. ' Side sloper will be 3:1 maximum unless paved or stabilirel in some ether manner approved by the Department. (3) The water surface elevation of the design flow will be indicated on the cross-section. (f) where a closed system is used to handle drainage within the subject property, all structures shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the closed :,ystem. Variances from any or all of the foregoing requirements may be permitted only after a determination by the Department employing the following criteria: (a) Capacity of downstream facilities; (b) Acceptability of rec;iving bodies of water; (c) Possibility of adverse effects of retention; (d) Utility of regional retention facilities; (e) Capability of maintaining the system. SECTION VIII. DEVELOPMENT IN CRITICAL FLOOD, DRAINACE AND/OR EROSION AREAS. Development which would increase the volume of discharge from the subject property shall not be permittea in areas where existing flooding, drainage, and/or erosion conditions present an imminent likelihood of harm to the welfare and safety of the surrounding community, until such a time as the community hazard is alleviated, There applications of the provisions of this section will deny all reasonable uses of the property, the restriction of development contained In this section may be waived for the subject property, provided that the resulting development shall be subject to all of the remaining terms and conditions of this ordinance. SECTION IA. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLAN. All storm drainage plans prepared in connection with any of the permits and/or approvals listed in Section V shall be sub- mitted for review and approval to the Department of Public Works. i SECTION X. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be five days after its enactment and publication. Further, all plats receiving preliminary approval subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance must comply with the terms of the ordinance. In the case of all additional actions enumerated in Section 3, the terms of this ordinance will apply where final action by the City has not been taken prior to the effective date of the ordinance. SECTION XI. FEES 6 PERMITS. The drainage plans shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount of $25.00 for residential and $1.00 per one thousand square feet for industrial development, but not less than $25.00. The permit application shall be supplemented by any plat..,, specifications or other infor- mation considered pertinent in the judgement of the Director or his duly authorized representative. Th3 permit and inspection fees shall Se as follows, (a) The sum of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) for a residential storm sewer permit. (b) The sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for a basiness or commercial storm sewer permit. (c) The sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for an industrial storm sewer permit. (d) The sum of Five Collars ($5.00) for a permit for the necessary repair of any of the above sewer connections and all such fees shall be paid to the Director of Financ, or her duly designated repre- sentative at the time the -pplication for such a permit is filed. SECTION XI1. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or property is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. SECTION XIII. BOND. The Public works Department shall require all persons constructing retention/detention facilities to post a performance bond or cash bond in the amount of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the estimated cost of constructing such facilities, and to assure that the work is performed in accordance with the approved plans. After deter- mination by the Department that all facilities are constructed in compliance with the approved plans, the performance bond shall be released. ) t r r o u to * Date : To : D. Bennett J . Williams V Lee R. Nelson D. Miller "— Cheryl M. Touma V--�• Other R. Houghton i+� 7 From: Marren Gonna., ■ I■ w. ■ I Re : Review and report hack. See me. Route and return. repare response for my signature . Take approrriatr action. 1`repare spezial report . Set up meeting. For your information. ` File. Remarks : P ! f i K. f k 1 i .� �� ` �` � . �_ T - ' . _. 4 . _ _ . _.. OV ftF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT W/1RREN C GONNASON, P.E. 00 DIRECTOR a MUNICIPAL. BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON.WA, 90055 206 235-2569 O �{,Q f4rEO SEP�Eo CHARLES J DELAURENTI MAYOR May 19 , 1976 Mr. Henry F. McCullough, President King County Water District 107 5806A 119th SE Bellevue , Washington 98006 Dear Mr. McCullough: This is in response to your letter of April 23, 1976 , requesting reimbursement of matching money for the Department of Ecology and EPA grant for the May Creek Interceptor System Step I Facilities P an. As you recall , we have reviewed this matter in the past and found that we could not legall/ make payment contrary to the provisions of the three-party contract between the City of Rentcn, Metro, and ` Water District 107 . We recognize that the delays in receipt of these grants have created a hardship on the consultant , and I feel that the City of Renton would be receptive to an amendment to the agreement which would provide for an earlier payment to the consultant . We would therefore suggest that this would be a good time to revise the agreement to reflect the changes in the project phases and the timing for payment . Sincerely , W&L N C. GONNASON, P. E. Public Works Director WCG : cah cc : �tl(ayor Delaurenti ✓ Richard Houghton City Attorney Ted Mallory , Metro 7 i I route * . Fat, fo D. Bennett J . Williams V. Lee —` R. Nelson D. Miller 1(Cheryl M. Touma ther R. Houghtor. ,J Warren GonnasorY' G Re : Review and report back. See me . —` Route and return. �' Prepare response for my signature . :;Take appropriate action . — prepare special report . Set up meeting. For your information. j File . +1 kema ks : i 7 2574.021 t,002E, VIALLACE ; KENNEDY, INC. ENGINEERS • PLANNERS •° +SURVEYORS C May 17, 1976 RECEIVED MAY 1 d J,97r, CITY oa R[NTON wnpRs Mr. Richard Hibbard PUSIIC METRO 600 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR a ?` Dear Dick: Attached is a copy of a letter from 'he Departr-,nt of Ecology in regards to the Step I Facility Plan. I thin) that we should have a meeting with Mr. Premo in regards to his comment However, before that meeting it seems advisable for yo. Peter Machno and myself to get together on the matter. Very truly yours, MTORE, WALLACE & KENNEDY, INC. By John R. Wallace, Jr. JRJJ;pas Enclosure cc: King County Water District No. 107 Mr, warren Gonnason - City of Renton 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 •(206)62A.2623 r tiiilk t A May 6, 1976 WiAiil>f xi IkTlwlrmxenl RECEIVED u)I 14 n)k 14AY 1 C 191;; 04, pp►► h10�M"d11ca King County Water District #107 5806-A - 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attention 'hr. Henry F. !McCullough Gentlernen: SUBJECT: REVIEW OF MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN SEWER INfERCEMR SYSTEMS FACILITY PLAN GRANT 12,1BERS C-530749-01-02-03 The subject Facility Plan has been reviewed by this office anti must be revised to include the following comments: Population Projections - The high range value of e year 2000, was used for design purposes, Volume I, pages ?8-34; but in Volume V, page 7 it is stated that the low range of 14,000 in the year 2000 might be more appropriate. Some added Justification must be presented as to the use of the high range figure since :t appaars the low range is more appropriate. Service Area - The total service area to be served is presenteU at least three times in the report with three varying areas. Volume I. page 40, 8,700 acres; Volume II, rage 4, 7,700 acres; Volume IV, pale 1, 8,978 acres. Which is correct? I/I Jsed in Design Flaw - The use of 1,100 gal/ac/ a aeceptallee figure, but using it in con- junction with the total servica area for design calculations is not. This figure is only acceptable to areas that will--be served; areas such as open space, parks, end unsuitable land for buildings, and also land which is still undeveloped at the end of the design period (2000 AD), etc., must be deleated prior to applying this figure. It is suggested that Table 2, Volume V be used as a reference. 4350 1501h Avenua N E North��esl Regiona Olke is;�rro-,d. Washmgton 98052 THephone. (206) 885-1900 Kis>1 County -2- ,day 6, 1976 Water District #107 Total Flow - The total flow must be revised to include revs flows and domestic flows as it relates to population projections. Cost .ffective Anal sis - This analysis must he re- y Ik l)i1ri ;1(11 evauat to uic e the following Items: I �f•I>itrinxylt llttdey+� - Use of present worth calculatioc>s to , determine total cost per alternative. , - Cost to respective agencies that :cost assume Uieso (,)sts. i - Phased construction of the May Creek Interceptor. Environmental Assessmort - The assessment, pru.:ertly, es not tc f e the Toflowing which are necessary - No cement from the Stato Historic 1l Preservation Officer (SIM) is contained i regarding the scope of the project. - description of the future �dn+ironment without the project-c —not cover Ule same area as described under description of existing environment without the rroject. Incl this section should be a discussion of the storm drainage problem as it pertains to existing and future entirionment without the project. Flood Plai-s - No dis�-ussion of May Creek as it relates to oo�Ic—,,lams is given; this must be addressed. 'Ilia plan is not acceptable for review and certification until afore- mentioned items are addressed satisfactorily. Should you have any questlous regardinp tnis subject, please feel fre3 to contact this office. Sincerely, NtW PR@K) District Engineer Envirosmental Quality cc: Dave Wright, DOE, Redmond Cecil Carroll, EPA/WOO, Redmond A(arren Gonnason, City of Renton John Wallace, Moore, Wallace 4 k�aledy /350-1501h Awew N. E No-•these;" Regional Office. �.dRedmond. Washington 96052 'oiephone, t206) P',-190o R i - C route * pace : N.2-7Z � o : D. Bennet V. Lee wi11ialas l p• Miller — R. Nelson M. Touma --- Cheryl R. Nou Other -- fi h//j//on � °rom: Warre nnason 1 ��•ll V Re : r ; Review and report back. i See me. i Route and return. Trepare i'esCo>ise for my s` gnature. v Take appropr, ate action. j Prepare sppclai , e art . !1 Set up meeting. p Far your information. rile. Remaris : r rtA,y March 12, 1976 t City of Renton Planning Department j 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: KING COUNTY 4 APPLICANT: METRO - KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 {tltl SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT NN1035-17-A (SM 37-75) (INTERCEPTOR SEWER CONSTRUCTION) The 45-day review period by the Department of Ecology and Attorney General 's Office for the above Shoreline Management Permit will terminate on March 14, 1976. If no notice of appeal is received by the above date, construction pursuant to the permit may then commence provided, however • all other local , state, and federal laws regulating such construction have been complied with. Sincerely, • ROBE.RT K. McCORMICK Regional Manager Northwest Regional Office RKM: 11 cc: METRO 600 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 King County Water District No, 107 5806-A 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 O�SC•ISOi r. KINO-:' IN �E�Et�`t , T WATER DISTRICT FEB s 197 s ^--� NUMBER 107 5806A - 119TH AVI_NUE S.E. BELLEVUE, WASH. 98G06 • PH. 746-0751 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.F gEPLY T9,Henry F. McCullc.. -•, 7E: President John R. Janson January 26, 15176 Secrotary Elmer F. Fcater Member t MANAGER Mr. Richard Houghton Utilities Engineer Sam Macrf City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 r t • r Su',.IfCf: HAY Chr-.LK"RAINAGE BASIN SEWR IN�`�"ftC' VIh1SMF III-K, FINAAL 04\ IR(AQ!,4ENTA ASSESSMENT, V01 U_E-V, SU; tARY RF-PU T i �IY j I GontImen: l Enclosed are cop;us of VoIunru ill-A, Final EnvIrunmFtntr! Asse,s- mont, and Voiutno V, Sut`znary Ropor'. , fur the i'"ay Creole Lira i age :3,i= it1 7 Sowagr Intxircepior System, Phased i and 11 . The t4iy CIe9h Drainage Basin intercopfor Systen is a Jofnt uf'jrt of King County W4. tcr District No. 107, the City of Renton >tnr'. N_1R0. Tho Water Disirici , as spoor.oring >grncy for the ptoject, cntici ate; the adopting of the: rocommairdatio °,, as containod in Volumo V, in coitd with tho construclion of the nrojoct at its next regular meets-iq t, ti on robruary 11, 1976. It Is to be notud th-it the Fnclased �OIIPpO 111-A and '.olur-•„ IV, Cost-Elfcefivari?sy An.lysls, contunplottnt three altarnativns for pro- Adin,; inter^cplbr sFw rs io -ih{, bti+,in, lh>::a altr.r;11'{ ivtt c i l.;rel rf .t l construction of t!i- May Creek In, ,�-Jrptor Ix;rtion cf th•1 10,r !.1 l� ip I �3 i r: i i u rt ' January 28, 19751.,, Page 2 d ,4 whole r n part adjacent to May Creek from the terminus of the ex- istingP-iy Creek Interceptor on Jones Avenue (Manhole "B") to 136th Avenue S.E. As a result of the June 30, 1975 hearing, a fourth al- 1 tornative, that is with no construction in the May Creek flood plain, a was added and this consideration is included in Volume V. The following table is included to provide easy cross-references to the various alternatives. i Volume V Volumes I , 11 , 111 , I11-A d IV j Alternative No. 1 ("A" 8 "A-A") Alternative "A" d "A-A" r Alternative No. 2 None Alternative No. 3 ("B") Alternative "B" Alternative No. 3 ("C") Alternative "C" IAlternative "A-A" is a variation of Alternative "A". If you wish further information, please do not hesitate to contact John R. Wallace, Jr., P.E. d L.S. Moore, Wallace 8 Kennedy, Inc. 1.915 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 624-9623 Very truly yours, KING CO(1N I Y WATER DI TR I CT NO. 107 ci�c d Henry F. McCullough, President HF t4:sh enclosures r OF 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7. WARREN C. GONNASON, P.E. • DIRECTOR p_ 00 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.9LV55 400 4 206 235-2569 4TEO SEPZC0 4UIr0(V) RRLTxXMy►W January 16, 1P76 �Jkzrles J. Delaurenti, Mayor Mr. John Wallace Moore, Wallace 6 Kennedy, Inc. 1915 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Re.: may Creek Facilities Plan Dear Mr. Wallace r The City of Renton Public Works Department, upon review of the May Creek Facility Plan, rnncurs with the recommendations of the report. The May Creek drainage area is the last major unsewered area inside the City limits. The lack of sewers in the area has caused serious public health and water quality problems. Our Department rccwrmende that the various phases of this project be impl.-menteU as soon as possible.. Very truTy yours, Warren C. Connason, P.E. Public Works P"r ctor NCR:Tr Ip t k DATE: 2 :' TO: V. Lee V. TeGantvoort J. Williams _ D. Hamlin R. Nelson D. Hcughton D. Bennett T. Touma Cheryl FROM: Warren Go n SUBJECT: Review and report tack. See me. t Route and retu-n. S trepare response for my signature. ake appropriate action. Prepare special report. Set up ooeting. For your in ormation. File REMARKS: 2574.027 2574.057 k M00REMALLACE &KENNEDY,INC. ENGINEERS PLANNERS • SURVEYORS L t I,rZ^ i December 20 , 1975 King County Water District No. 107 5'06-A 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Attn: Mr. Sam Macri, Manager , SUBJECT: MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM - VOLUMF. V - SUbDMY REPORT Gentlemeu: j Enclosed is a copy of the Final Draft of Volume V - Summary Report, as F prepared by tnis office. We are submitting this final draft to interested 9 parties for their review, comments and criticisms prior to final printing of the document. Volume V will be in the same format as previous vol•.mes. The attached maps are Xerox reductions and do not properly reflect the quality of the fin- ished map which will be similar to the attached yellow example map. - We hope to obtain these comments prior to the next District meeting on January 14 in order tc ,o to rinal printing shortly thereafter. If you have any questions, please call me. Verb truly yours, MOORE, WALLACE & KElNNEDY, INC. By -�u/4 John R. Wallace, Jr JRW:jad Enclosure cc:w/encl) : Henry F. McCullough John R. Janson Elmer Foster Arnold Robbins ✓Warren Connason - Renton (2) Ted Mallory - METRO (2) Gorden Wegwart - DOE Warren Montgomery - FPA 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 •(206)624.2623 , ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECC(I0xI AGENCY ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE ! !7ITI.E l7. Cll,j RIGHTS ACT OF 7064) f I City of Renton, Washington thereinafter called -Asaumr') { NaMf O' APPL IC tNT-HECIPIENi It 17 RE BY AGREES THAT IT %rill complc with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 83-352) and aii tcyuirements of tLe Envi•oamvntat P:oiertion Ageacr, (hereinafter called "EPA') issn,td pursuant to thot title, to the end that in accordance v-ith Title VI of t:%at Act, no person in the United States shall, _ on the ground of race, color, or nationn! „rigin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of. r be Ahert%isr subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Asssror re- ceives financial assistance from EPA and hereby gives assurance that it will no.v and hereafter take ill a..xe>snry :measures to effectuate, this agreement. If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of financial assistance extended to the As.;uror by EPA, this Assurance obligates the Assuror, or to .ae case of any trans- - 7 fec of sec}: property, any transferee for the period during which the real property or structure is used for f a purpose in%ol%-ing the provisions of similar services or benefits. If any personal property is so pro- tided, this Assutanceohligates the Assurer for the period during which it retains ownership or posses- i Sion of the pr Derty. in all other cases, this Assurance oh!igates the Assuror for the period during which the financial ussistance is extended to it by EPA. THE ASSURANCE is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grant, loans, contracts, property discouals or other financial assistance extended after the date horeof to the Assuror by EPA including installment payments after such date on account of arrangements for t Federal financial assistance which were approved before such date. The Assurur recognizes au' agrees that such Federal fiarlacial assistance will to extended in reliance on the representations and agreements ; made in this Assurance and that the United States shall reserve the right to seek judicial enforcement of this Assurance. This Assurance is binding o:. the Assuror, its successors, transferees, and assignees, and the person or persons whose eignature appear below ::re authorized to sign this Assurance ci behalf of the Assuror. - The ob!i gations assumed by the Assuror hereunder are in addition to any obligations which may be im- posed on the Assuror by any applicable regulation now outstanding or which may hereafter be adopted by EPA to effectuate any provision or goal of the said Title VI, and no part of this Assurance shall be tend so as to in any way detract from of modify any obligation which may be imposed on the Assuror by any such regulation standing rloue. I October 3, 1975 DATE ASSUROR -- fly-Director, Dept. of Public Works PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OR COMP A P411LF AUn10RIZFD OFFICIAL Renton, WA 98055 iU%'J�k'S 61AILt4G AOt)Ha54 �— '.: F0 M 47J0.1 0.n May Creek Drainage Basin, Phase I U. S. ENV'( «^ENT.AL PROTECTION AGENCY COMPLIANCE REPORT FDnn A; roved ('Lic)" V1, Civil Rik.hts Art of 1964 and Section 13. Federal OMB Nc. 158—R0034 i Water Pollution Control Act, An Amended) I r NOTE: READ INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM. -�f 1. A. APPLICANT(Narne. .0 Stan) 'B. PFOJF.1 N- Cit of Re-.ton, Washington 111 It. IF ENTIkL POPULATION I,' T HE Ail. ICAHT'S J 'RISOIC}'ION IS SERVED NOW LY TREAT M_N! SYSTF'N.OR W; _- bE Uaf4 7r,;LF- TION OF PR '�OSFO EPA GRANT Pk ?T AND ON-GVING • SSOCIATEO CONSTRUCTION, CHECK HERE 111. COMPLETE THE FOL..O'WING ONLY IF ABOVE BLOCK IS NOT C"�_CKED A. SUBMIT A MAP WHICH DELINEATES THE APPLICANT'S: 1. OEOCRAPNICAL JURISDICTION FOR PROVISION OF TREATMENT SYSTEM SER'.ICE: _. EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM COVERAGE; - 3. CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED UNDER EPA GRANT PROJECT ANO rN♦ON-GOING ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION: 4. AREAS OF PLANNED F'UTUHE TREATMENT SYSTEM CONSTRUC3 ON. 6. COMPLETE THE TABLE BELOW: ' I' PRECENT E. POPULATION T' ADDITIONAL 4. POPULATION POPULATION CATEGORY POPULATION PRESENTLY POPULATION REMAINING TO BE OF APPLICANT SERVED TO BE SEPVEO SERVED AFTER THIS BY THIS PROJECT PROJECT IS COMPLETED 4Va;IC1.i INOI AN _ __ CHINESE. FILIPINO. Jae aN_,!v_ ---- 1 N ECROreucK 218" 190;";'" 15 10 Sw ANI Ill DESCENT __ _ ' wHl T 26 627 22 860 2 460 1,270 orHER `_-- [+32" -- _ 450't'kYe 2 2 akYeie TOTAL22 C. GIVE THE SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE COTS fRUC ION BY WHICH TREATMENT SYSTEM SERV 'E WILL BE PROVIDED TO ALL INHABI- TANTS WITHIN APPLICANT'S JURISOICT!Oh. i If Assumes 1970 census percentage *** Estimate ** Ufftcial 1975 State census data t* Y House counts Second phase, Interceptor Construction, May Creek Drainage Basin, will be . constructed in 1977 or 1978. Future construction of sewers in other l unserved areas 141ll occur as development takes place. D. IS A40THER FEDERAL AGENCY BEING ASKEO TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH Y - THIS PkO)ECTt DYES [-INO_ I 1. IF'YES- LIST THE OTHR"P FEDERAL AGENCY(10 S ' 3. DESCRIBE THE ASSOCIATED WCRK 1 IV. CERTIFICATION I "Hit,that Ihr ivrurr.Phcn given obovo Is true and correct to the beat of my knowledge or belief. (A willfully false Ramm,nt 6X f Imi.,D.bf^ Ay F.n.—V.S Code, T.R, IS. Seerlon 100t) A. SI RE FAU O12ED OF FILIAL B. IITLE OFA UTHORIZE 00F FIC1A1. C. 047E / _ Director, Dept. of Public kg. � FOR U.F. ENVIRONMEN(AL PROTECTION AGENCY DIH�f�"A, APPROVED r]DISAo ROVED EPA FORM F WI'C A.T':,8 1P-e)1 'aHICH I b OBSbL E TE X L �': 'n} ..ry-.. +'CI]A' d n." .. .... •: e•r'.ifq•4vLM4iY1MRyAYMMY.WWWC'AvIO'.'ti�MM.¢'x w. ''�''y ' b 4 l`1 Y(K C(II k • j of = O ri or PIPE ii � \\ ' \�,1 .DIY �Yr•�. �I `� f'R ] �. � � - :�� i -•p 731 rlF Yr.4111 1 �� •\. 1 .i Q ' ',,i/ , ;; /� i ,] , i ',y"�`•+p.�. aR R RRRl11■Mqt ,.■�YlOaii p,w=Pl4t YlO. 1 I r it 1 Y • �/d o ]IOC OI!O'N R1R�. . 1 , � , 1 �j� •. _� , �F•�` • f•]; AK]. I,IRR IIOiT I •( �., i• M , I I f u ' 1 I KING ,AUNTY IVATU DISTRICT WMRER 107 -= 5 i. v:t.1. Uk,WASH, 'kW,,- • oil 745.(1751 iY15 d ) , , sr,i Ecology r ngtc•n 98502 �. Attention: Mr. ,ordon W, ;wart f oUb4ECT; STEP 1 CONSULTING ,SERVICES Gentlemen: This letter is written to clar ' iy that Step 1 rCi rtics Plan work wbi performed on the May Creek Intl ceptor Syst^rr, im-1 .,ing the branch inter captors serving the southerly portion of Water Di t ic+ Nc. 107 and the northerly portion of the City of Renton ,prior to i ,rrr i , 1975. Undo,-standably, there has been considerable c,,nri rhi; matter be cause of the changes in phasing designation ' h n : < t and the dit- ferent inter-es- ; of the three agencies involve- ` ii pnases of they= t? work. d; �r• c f 1 _ The originai application by the Ulstric' c.r a Ioan j,:d urant was made to the Department of Ecoloyiy on June 14, 1 i4V4. Th application was a request for Step 1 and Step 2 funds for i1io Vey Crovlm Interceptor only; however, the application referred tc nc +hc coriho ly por- i Lion of the CIty of Renton and thi. souther ;! y t ei ,�, < dat.'r .. 1, irict 1 Na. 107. e ' Shortly theraafter, meetings were held =et r;ianton and `< the District in r,agard to an agreement be t.oea aticn ie, Navin,; to do with the May Cr,.,,e interceptor only (eir•Itainal nha.;w 1 ; At rria time, Phase II (original ) con istoa of atl .t th,� t intrrr.cptors ;°� i 1 into the District and Renton. Unt rccnot .iy, ,+ u 1 c, n;ucb r of `rrer months for the, preparation, revlow ,ni r,-.,it t, ' itoj ,; it a,)re,.vrien+ :"—Ch tinily was signed by all ag: ,cies or, Ja•wary lr >' n rnbroary 17, Via next requiar meeting r,' r, ., Uistr is t, appl ioan and grant funding of Pnii .x 11 (the .,rda ch Also during July, several meetings ware halt wi rr r v t': iy )fdeter- mine their needs in regard io the to* O itrl it the. w-ther•1) portion of Renton. As a result of tieSv ctj-t- do pon.ion of I =,the detall_ of the District`,, crriprrei in4tV+_< hcr;y portion ( r 1 1 Ye i • i r ' r� g, October 14, 1975 75-1-125-S Page 2 ' l { 1 �f the District, a conceptual plan was prepared for the entire i, ..j be- tween Manhrles "9" ana "D" (136th Avenue S.E. ) . This piar was divided into two phases of which Phase I Included the May Creek Intarceptor and all branch interceptors within the King County Park area (the second } Phase 1 ) and Phase It (second) included all work OUTSIde of the park area I and lyir,y in the northerly portion of Renton and the southerly portion of the Disirict. rho reasoning for this method of phasing at that time was it seemed unrealistic to believe that grants could be obtained for 1 tto entire project and that the project should be divided into two phases. The first phases w.,uld resolve the environmenta4 problems within the park -'area and the record phase which would be concerned witt, the environmental problem exterior of the park and not be clouded with the park issues. w This plan was submitted to Metro and Renton for approval . Shortly after August 13, a meeting was neld with Mr. Norman L. Giwn of DOE in re- gard to the loan for Steps 1 and 2, based on the above plan (the second phasing). We were advised that loan funds would be available for the May Creek Interceptor only. In order to qualify, the application was revised to reflect this need and the branch interceptors in the park we-e moved from Phase 1 to Phase It (a return to the )riginal phasing) . This change was submitted October 10 and resulted In a loan offer on Novc+mber 6, 1975. On October 24, a revised grant application for Phase 11 3s submitted to DOE. Concurrent with these efforts, the District's consult.3nt continuously worked on tho Facilities Plan for the entire project and on December 13, 1974 made an Initial Oistribution of a rough drat, including exhibits, to in- terested artencir job as DOE and EPA 'n order to obtain comments from those agencies. ils draft and the drawings display the fact that con- slderabie thought had already been given to the branch InterceDtors. During the next three months, the Step 1 work was essentially ccm- plete and on March 27, 1975. a public information hearing was called In the :'Renton City Council Chambers. Following this meetin„ the tour-vol- ume Facilities Plan was finalized, printed and distributed by late May. The required public hearing was held on June 30, 1975. About the middle of March, the DOE and EPA requested that the entire project be rephased Into its current pbisirrg (the fourth) as, follows: Phase 1 'o consist of: a. The May Creek Interceptor from Manhold "H" to a con.iection with the Honey Dew Interceptor. b. The Honey Dew Interceptor. ;~ v tk elFc7 9 October 14, 1975 75-1-12b-5 Page 3 c. The Kennydale Interceptor. { !� A d. The S.E. 91st Street Interceptor. e. The 110th Avenue S.L. Inter^eptor. Phase la to consist of: a. The May Creek Interceptor from the point of ca,nnectlon of the Honey Dew Interceptor to Manhole "D" ( 1361h Avs- nue S.E. ) . { b. The Northeast Interceptor. c. The Lake Horen Interceptor. J. The Southeast Interceptor. this r-ephasing required a rc, tructuring of the four volumes of the ities Plan and accounts for the time lapse between the Informal p_, is hearing of March 27 to final publishing of the facilities Plan for the June 30 hearing. Tile agrefxrent between Metro, Renton and the District provides thet Metro will advance the 10% matching money to construct the May Creek In- terceptor only. The District and Renton has guaranteed the repayment of i the funds advanced by means of connecting sewer service • to the inter- ceptor. This, of course, can only br: accomplished by the branch Inter- ceptors running Into the existing developed areas. troth the District and Renton have an ongoing ULID and LID to provide financing and ,cervices for a portion of the developed areas. ' In summary, the concept from the beginning was t,) provide sewage services to the entire drainage basin in the areas from Manholes "IT' ar,c "D". Financing of the project required connecting exi•,-ing served and '1 unserved residences to the system. Financial studies ir, July 1914 in- dicated that sufficient residences existed in the area to make the pro- Ject feasible if they could be connected. Ttero+ore, from the very be- ginning. the complete project has been considered in detail . The fact i that phasing parameters have changed four times in the ensuing period f in no way changes the tact that work stared on the, entire project in I June 1974 and was not 11mited to the May Creek Interceptor only. We hope this chronological recap of events will resr>lvo the matter.. Very truly y. s, ' KiNG COUNTY '01EG Dljh7RICT NO. 107 r Henry F. McCullough, President HM: +v of fenton r ar A DATE: TO: V. Uce V. TeGantvoort J. Williams D. Hamlin R. Nelson D. Houghton D.Dennett T. Touma Cheryl FROM: Warren Go on " SUBJECT: Review and report back. See me. Route and return. Prepare response for my signature. Take appropriate action. Prepare special report. Sat up meeting. For your information. File q REMARKS: Al k 1574.0)4 ENGINE=RS PLANNERS SURVEYORS Octolaor 9, 1975 ' 'K f �p Mr. Bob Jacobs _ Park Capitol Improvements Manager - r r' l i .1 1975 ! King County Department of Community and Ec.virora:ental Development crcveeeenroq wnwrs Parks Division W-226 King County Courthou .: Seactle, Washington 90104 , SUBJECT: METRO'S IL,\Y CREEK INNTFRCEPTOR - PHA E I Dear Mi. Jacobs: We have ii red Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Geotachnical Consultants, to per'ur;,, ,oil investigation along the proposed newer interceptor. We request prrmissior for representatives of Shannon and Wilson, Inc. ana a drill rig to enter May Creel: Park to drill about five to seven borings, and take samples. IbKploration shall be started as soon as authorization to enter the Park is received and shall last about t-n d, •s. Very truly yours, MOORE, WALLACE & KENNEDY, INC. 'athi Y. Mustafa FYM:mer i 1915 FIRST AVENUE •SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 9a 101 •]2061 6 2 4-2527 r, 2�r,.osa V.� ENGINEERS PLANN--F-.5 SURVc`lORS October 8, 1975 P'rector i Land Use Management Division 1 4;-217 King County Courthouse i Seattle, WA 98104 i . SUBJECT: SHORELINE P4MNAGEMENT PEWMIT FOR MAY CREEK SEWER INTERCEPTOR, PNASF'. I {{ Centlemen: 3 t We are in receipt of your letter dated October 2, 1975, together with t ? Attachment "A." We are enclosing a print of a site plan map showing 4y the proposed sewer interceptor and the City of Renton "Outline of Per- mit Procedure" which includes a map indicating the bodies of water in the City of Renton, under the Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. Referring to these attachments and to Attachment "A" of your letter, it can be concluded that the portion of the sewer interceptor requiring a P Shoreline Management Permit is withir the City of Renton Limits. We have prepared and are in the process of submitting a Shoreline Management Permit application to the City of Renton. I hope the above attachments will help you to advise us as to the need for a Shoreline Management Permit from King County. y� Your early reply will be appreciated. J Very truly yours, MOORE, WALLACE & KENNEDY, INC. By_ Fathi Y. Mustafa MI:jad Attachments 1415 FIRST AVENUE •SEATM,WASHINGTON 99101 +(20.+)624-2623 y 2 ENGINEERS PLANNERS S' IRVEY1ORS Seutemter 16, 1975 Mr. Die' Hibbard, Water Pollution Control Consultant, Supervisor METRO 60C First Avenue Seattle, Washington 91104 SUBJECT: MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR _ PHASE I - STEP 2 Dear Mr. Hibbard: Enclosed are three (3) copies of the "Hydraulics Permit." Please have two of them signed and one copy each mailed to: Department of Fisheries Stream Improvement & Hydraulics 5803 Capitol Blvd. South Tumwater, Washington 98501 and Departmel. Came 600 North �-pitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Very truly yours, MOORE, WALLACE & KENNEDY, INC. i By_i Fathi Mustafa FM:jad Enclosures 1915 FIRST AVENUE •SEAI'TILE,VfASHINGTON 98101 •(206(624.2623 •; IA 4 . APPLICATIOi. FORM TO THE DEPARTMENT T FISHERIES AND GAME ON PROPOSED HYDRAULIC PROJECTS Deparmenr of Fisheries t and Ihpartment of Game Gentlemen: The following is on application for approval in accordance with State lav s. It is agreed that no work will be . started on the praise[ described Klow, until a signed approval is received from the two departments. NAMF!.-._ T PPl Vl,ity_gf )•ietrop9li.tan Seattle__,__.1 __ ......._...._.. PHONE:__ 447-67k1 ADDRESS:..6OQ_ Ar,t...flY.IZnue.........................,._._...... ...._.._.Scd.t.t1t%..__....__......._..._........_._4Q 94_........._..-. ..... ;�. t (Strew N+mbar or R.F.P.) 32 CITY ZIP CODE 33 Z4N SE LOCATION OF _._._.,�.. .y.. .__ dL....._ 5z-- (t)uader SoUbn) (Sw.doa) (Township) (Rana. IF. or W)) (County) ¢ ROAD DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM NEAREST TOWN:._._.__ 4 Within the,_City_ of. Renton ............ ,�__ . Creek _._. (Nutt) (Tdb,naq op TYPE OF WORK:.........._........._.......__Sanitary ,Sewer ,Construction _ _._ , . (Cutter[. lnamel CMtge, Drainaae. Gmwt Operattoa. Ftood W Eroalon Control, Road or &idea Censtrucbon, Droastaa) DESCRIPTION OF WORK AND EQUIPMENT TO BE USED:._ __._.._...__..__.......__... ._.______.___ Sanitary sewer construction_on road and_ along_May._Creek with four stream croesinas. Heavy conatruction equipment,,,. PROPOSED STARTING DATE:_Decembec 1975 FINISHING DATE:_ September 1976 ' PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATION (if any)..--...-. —. __. _..___._._.--._.__ DATE: _. __ _ _. ._.._.. SIGNATURE ......._... NOI E An, n4tiva may be placed on the back of this shact. If nec-scary more comptcte plans and i -forc granting final approval. (Pf_EASii COMPLETE ATTACHED MAP) i= Ste_ : .-........., To hip..... ..........North, Range..... or (%V) [i='C. `+t- f ;%�:o-'T'::5 � LJ Plo ring %c'S SKETCH MAP ( 1 2-7 I 1 I-�—CITY' OF r11t=—A/7-0;V Z-IM17-5 N t II-- _ ' � ' ! `�\ I CROSS;ys l \ I CROSS!!✓ ---✓ .�--.vUlJG>' D�W 1206 ' N { Ocbr,.s & Grtavel bier ve -nov-1 The sample map to the left indic--us th- type of {' :?Go yds ^ 0y information which should he provided. A q n tle i' 1 `Yan�\el may be used and the space does not oecrosarily 1 -h-1 have to represent a Section. please indicate clearly ek all pe: �nent data on the space provided .hove for River a sketch map—type of project, area of stream in- u vo'ved, landmarks, distance and direction to nearest town, etc. \� e tivert \ rZlacemer k Staler' idicJhway�`'vr. \ ` Scale-2" 'n3� AAP 1 t: i ' •�. Ml4bMWrY,mMvO�iwW MM.w.e..•nwN.•sear...-._..,.... .....w ar...uw..w'.._.. I i THE E CITY OF RENTON 7 MUNICIPAL BUI. "ING 200 MILL AVE. SO MENTON, WASH 98055 3 a 0 4 b AVERY GARRETT, MAYOR 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 4), 235 - 2550 E fOSEPZE� July 17 , 1975 111 Mr . John R . Wallace , Jr . , P. E . & L . S. r Moore , Wallace 1 Kennedy , Inc . 1915 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Mr. Wallace: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assesment Volume III , prepared for the King County Water District ilo . 107 project titled , "Community Facilities Plan for Waste Water Treatment Works i „ the May Creek Drainage basin . It is our feeling that due to the size of the project and the various DOtential signi - ficant impacts resulting from it a full Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act is necessary. In our review we noted a number of areas of concern that we believe need to be addressed in preparation of subsequent } Environmental Reports , i The specific i, that we are most concerned about are as `ollows : 1 . The City r n Comprehensive Plan indicates a green- belt - r,:i nal use district in the May Creek & HonevOew Cr, , valley and hillside areas . Urbanization of c.. .e areas would not be in conformance with the intent of our Comprehensive Plan . Documentation of the desirability of urban growth in these areas needs tc: be presented . 2 . The secondary environmental inrpacts associated with the urbanization of the areas around the May Creek & Honeydew Creek Ravines need to be studied in detail . Such impacts as loss of natural vegetation ,changes in vegetation types , loss of natural wildlife , increased run-off that could negatively impact the water Ruality of the Creeks , increased erosion , increased siltation , the reduction Of shade in the r.ivine areas affecting water temcnerature and quality , anc the effects of urbanization On the fish r1ins . T S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE #1 TO EPA/DOE GRANT 2X 1 i Mr. John R. Wallace July 17 , 1975 ` Page Two ! 4 3 . There should be a more detailed analysis of the impacts of construction on the creeks and valley floor areas , and the design and construction alternatives available . 4 . It was noted that the coliform count in May Creek is hi _ n due to human and animal wastes . If these high counts are primarily due to animal wastes or— .ert+++71*r's , a sewer line in this area would do little to reduce this coliform '.count unless urbanizatior displaced the agri - cultural uses in the area . The sources of these cortar- inants need to be documented and the affects of a sewer interceptor clarified . 5 . More detailed study should be made of the compatibility with future County and City Recreation and open spare !!! plans . 6. Specific problems associated with the various soil .ipas in the May Creek & Honeydew Creek areas needs to be studied . Also there could be serious erosion proble s in the ravine areas prior to site restoration as per your proposal . We also noted that hydroseeding is pro- posed for erosion control . Hydroseeding probably will not he sufficient erosion control on the steep slopes , and would not constitute a sufficient mitigating meas,.re for the loss of the natural vegetation in the ravine : areas . 7 . There is also a question as to whether alternative systems and modifications to existing systems could adequately serve future development at a lesser cost and at the same time negate the need to run the interc�_ t: - directly through the fragile May Creek and Honeydew Creak ravine areas . These additional alternatives to the proposed action need to be studied in detail . Some exa -ples are as follows : , A . 110th Place S . E . interceptor : I Th 's project connects to the ongoing Jones Ave ue Sanitary Sewer Project . The 110th Place S .E . interceptor project is independent of the May Creek trunk line . Does this project qualify +: r funding as an independent project? Does it serve communities in existence before 1972 as required in PL 92-500? i Mr. John R. Wallace July 17 , 1975 Page Three B. Kenneydale West and East Interceptor : This project is tributary to the existing sanitary sewer at Kenueydale elementary school . It seems that this existing sanitary sewer is adequate to serve this . same sub-basin . Is the proposed May Creek trunk necessary to serve this sub-basin? C . Honeydew Creek Interceptor: There presentlyexists two �pump Stations in the honeydew creek area teat seem to be capable of handling the majority of the load that the honeydew interceptor trunk is proposed to carry. It seems that the addition of another pump station near the north end of the Honeydew inter- ceptor line pumping into the Kenneydale area connecting with the existing sewer at the Kennydale Elementary school would eliminate the need for the Honeydew Interceptor altogether . We feel that this alternative definitely needs further study. D . We also recommend studying the feasibility of allo,ring no connections into the Mav or Honeydew Creek ravine areas in that future urbanization of these sensitive areas could have substantial and irreversible impacts . Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft state rent . We hope that our comments will be helpful to you in stuuyin; r the impacts and alternatives to the proposed project . Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen Planning Director WCT :MLS : kh r. 6 John C. Barnes 5704 37rh N.E. Seattle, Wash. 4)8105 July 10 . 1975 John Wallace Moore , Wallace & Kennedv , Inc. 1915 First Avenue Seattle , Washington 98101 Re : Community Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatment Works Under PL 92-500 (May Creek Drainage Basin) It has been stated that "the Mav Creek Vallev iF a wonderful biological reserve inside the urban city. "1 The value of such a close-in open space is increasing , snd becoming more realized , as ever-more land is cummitted to urbanization . In as much as "construction of the sanitary sewer project will allow develop- ment in the area , as envisioned by King County and City of Renton comprehensive plans , "2 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) should prepare a full Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS). There are three main reasons for this course of action; 1 . Rules and Regulations concerning the prepar ion of EIS' s by the EPA , 2. the legislative history of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding coordinated advance r planning , and 3. the role of this project in stimulating urbanization. 1 . Draft Environmental Impact Statement . Jones Ave. NE Sanitary Sewer . t Abstract Sheet . Page i . 2 . Ibid. Page ii . t I. Final Rulci. and Regulations (Fedt r:+l Itc Vol .40.No.92.part 1111 both beneficial and detrimental effects should be classified as having significant effects , even if EPA believes that ihr net effect will be beneficial . " The net effect will actually he no change in water quality , as construction of the interceptor would exchange one source of pollution for another . "Surface run off water quality problems and development impacts will re- place sanitary sewer wastes the major environmental problems in this area .113 "In determining the significance of a proposed action' s impact , the unique characteristics of the project aree should be carefully considered . For example , the proximity to park- lands , historic sites or wild and scenic rivers may make the impact significant ." (section 6.200 (a ) (4) ) The significance of the proposed action is also affected by the level of contro- versy , according to part (a ) (4) of this same section . "In a public hearing , held in December 1974 those present at the public meeting were generally opposed to further land develop- went . " 4 The interceptor , as proposed in the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan , would go beyond elimination of current drainfield failures to the point of allowing and promoting a five-fold increase in the areawide population. The direct relationship between the proposed facility and consequent land development 3. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Jones Avenue Northeast Sanitary Sewer. Abstract Sheet . Page ii . 4. Volume I of the Community Facilities Plan. Page 11 . -3- c makes vital the preparation of a "de ailed statement " on the part of the EPA. ' Section 6.304 contains the followitg directive in part (e) . The instructions are that the "EIS shall describe the extent to which the proposed action involves trace-offs between short term environmental gains at the expense of long term gainc or vice- versa . . . Consideration should be given to significant decreases or windfall gains in current property values from implementing the proposed action. " The beEt vehicle fir analc^ing these and other important questions remains the Unvironmental Impact State- ment . Subpart E of the Rules and Regulations concerns "Guidelines for Compliance with NEPA in the Tile II Wastewater Treetnent Works Construction Grants Program. " Section 6.510 shall serve as the conclusion for this first portion of these comments . 116.510 Criteria for preparation of environmental impacts state- ments . In addition to considering the criteria it S ,.200 , the Regional Administrator shall assure that an EIS will be prepared on a treatment works facilities plan , 208 plan or other appropriate wr.ter quAlit.y management plan when : (a ) The treatment works or plan will induce significant changes (either absolute changes or increases in the rate of change) t in industrial , commercial agricultural or residential land use a R 1 i -4- concentrations or distributions . Factors that should be con- sidered in determining if these changes are significant include Ir I1 but are not limited to: the vacant land subject to increased development pressure as a result of the treatment works; the increases in population which may be induced; the faster rate of I 1 change of population; changes in population density; the poton- tial for overloading sewage treatment works; the extent to which landowners may benefit from the areas subject to increased develop- ment ; the nature of land use regulations in the affected area aad their potential eifects on development : and deleterious changes in the availability or demand for energy The case of the May Creek Drainage Basin includes all but a few of these factors , therefore the action is one of significance. II . NEPA and its legislative histort, "What NEPA infused into the decision making process in 1969 was a directive as to environmental impact statements that was meant to implement the Congressional objectives of Government coordination, a comprehensive approach to environmental manage- ment , and a determination to face problems of pollution "while they are still of manageable proportions and while alternative 'olutions are still available" rather than persist in environ- mental decision-making w herein "policy is established by default and inaction!' and environmental decisions "continue to be made in i -5- 1 i small but steady increments" tha , perpe ua ,e the mistakes of the past without being dealt with until 'Rhev reach crisis pro- portions".,, 5 This is from a decision of the circuit court in National Resources Uefonse Council versus Morton. In a later decision (1972) the court agreed with Green County , Ntrw York, that the Federal Power Commission should prepare their own EIS rather than rubber-stamp the statement prepared by the New York Power Authority. A final pr + r i t' i � r ;.1� , uy the Auburn "ttter- ceptor , for the uses rare similar in several respects. Auburn Interceptor is the last major core facility in the Metro plan while "the May Crook drainage basin is the last major basin adjacent to Lake WAshington without sanitary sewer interceptor and collection sys ,cros . " 6 The Auburn Interceptor was originally designated to have no significant impact on the environment . An EIS was deemed necessary when the full scope of the proposed action became evident . III. Urbanization , May t.7eek and the Interceptor The Environmental Assessment (Volume III of the Facilities Plan) contains , on page 29 . the following one sentence conclusion. "This project has an insignificant impact on the environment , based upon the findings listed in this report and supported by the S_ Anderson . F.R. NUA ib the Courts . John Hopkins University Press. 1974. page 181 . b. Jones Avenue . EIS, page 2 . appendix." Yet on the same page the question of secondary impact is dismissed as unavoidable. "Once sewers are built , the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin will become urbanized. Nothing would prevent this from happening. " Are we to assume that urbanization and multiplication of the population are insignificant impacts? The EPA , of course is required to make its own judgment , but the stated conclusion in the assess- ment can only serve to confuse the issue . QgI1g],yui,�on. � The May Creek Drai+iage Basin has the potential to become a unique open space preserve inside the urban city. It also has the potential to become a lucrative land development . Achievement of a balance bevween these two directions could best be served by the preparation and circulation of an Environmental Impact Statement . The responsible official could be those in charge of King Countv Water District Number 107 , since this is the lead agency. The EPA . on the other hand , is bound by its own regulations and by legal precedent to prepaic an CIS of its own. It might be more economical for a single EIS to be prepared. Therefore , let the EPA perform its function as a protector of environmental quality , let the EPA prepare an EIS which explores all the alternatives , allots the maximum of expert input and comment and insures the highest quality utilisation of this unique twelve-square-mile open space . 'Phe most economical i _7_ and beneficial use of the May CXeek Drainage Basin can to provided for only via the EIS process and its in terdi :ciplinary approach to environmental and land use planning . i • i 1 5' 'toy - Al. E ut 3 oq ?9 r f Y. of PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT i WARREN C GONNASON. P. E • DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVi. S0. RENTON.WASH.8805S V 206 235.2569 1 ,TFO SEP-t0, AVERY GARRETT. MAYOR ,IUIIC' l o , 10 i Mr. Frank Monahan Grants ;�dmiuistration Department of Ecology office of Water Programs Water Quality Management Section Olympia, Washington 98504 Dear Sir : This letter is written in response to your letter of May 22 , 1975, and John Wallace' s letter dated May 30 , 1975, and confirming the conclusions reached at a meting in the City of Renton June 9 , 1975, with the undersigned and Mr. Thomas McCann and Mr. Gordon Wegwart of your department , Mr. Charles Flood of 1: 1A, and Mr . hick Houghton, Utilities Engineor, and Mr. Tom Tolima, Design Engineer, of this office. This will serve to confirm that W'atct District No. 107 will be the sponsor for the Honeydew and kennydale interceptors on behalf of the City of Renton. We are enclosing a copy of the agreement dated January 16 , 1975, between Metro, Water District No. 107, and the City of Renton. This agreement provided the basis for the May Creek Interceptor program, and it originally anticipated that the eligible work would be accomplished as one project . It was later determined that the Kennydale and Honeydew interceptors would be accomplished as separate projects ; however, it was our intention to proceed with Water District No. 107 as the sponsor as per the original intention. A copy of this agreement was given to Mr. 'tom McCann at this meeting. There was some concern expressed regarding the District 's authorization to proceed with Step I for the lloncydew and Kennydale interceptors as was referred to in Mr . Wallace's letter of May .30 , 1975 . We are enclosing a copy of my memorandum to Richard lioughton dated January 31, 1975 , which indicates the authorization given for the infiltration and inflow analysis in connection with the May Creek trunk program. It was determined that it is the responsibility of the consultant, John Wallace, to sce that the appropriate steps are taken to comply with the Federal and State regulations to insure that all elements are appropriately eligible for Federal funding and/or reimbursement. RECEIVED JUN i t975 il J H..Mh JV1IFfi fNG1,HbN0 i Mr. Trunk Monahan Page 2 June 10, 1175 It is hoped that the information contained herein will clarify the situation and allow Moore, Wallace & Kennedy to proceed with the program with Water District No. 107 as the prim- sponsor pursuant to the agreement with the City of Renton. If there are any additional problems or concerns in connection with this program, we would certainly be willing to meet further to clarify the situation, as we desire this project to proceed as rapidly as possible. Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON 6,0 {Marren C . Gonnason, P.E. Public Works Uirector WCG:cah Attachments cc: Mr. John R. Wallace i Mr. Thomms McCann Mr. Gordon Wegwart Mr. Charles Flood Mr. Henry F. McCullough k DATF • TO., V. lee V. TeGantvoort �, J. O. Hamlin R. Nelson D. Houghton D,Bernett. T. Touma Cheryl FROM: Warren Gonnason SUBJECT: Y� _ Rsview and report back. See me. Route and Return. Prepare response for MY signature. Take appropriate action. Prepare special report. set Jp meeting. For your information. File i*EMARKS: �,--- -- —_ �a JUNZ 19T5 M0©RE,I+YALLACE &KENNEDY,INC. ENGINEERS PLANNERS • SURVEYORS �aws w May 30, 1975 i Mr. Frank Monahan Grants Administration Department of Ecology Office of Water Programs Water Qualit�y Management Section Oly-npia, Washington 98504 SUBJECT: REFERENCE TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 22, 1975 Dear Mr. Monahan: In regard to the first paragraph, the draft Environmental Statement for the r:ay Creek Interceptor is being mailed today. This will be followed shortly p by the Comprehensive Sewage Plan. These plans, if course, must consider ( the entire May Creek drainage area. The public hearing is scheduled for June 30, 1976. In regard to the second paragraph, please be advised that by contractural j agreement between Metro, the City of Renton and Slater District No. 107, i the District was elected sponsor for this project, including the Honey Dew and Kcn:-:dale Interceptors. Perhaps the ccnfusion arises due to th-- fact that Renton is the sponsor of the Jones Avenue Interceptor, which is also a - joint effort of Renton and the District. The loan to the District is for Steps 1 and 2 for the May Creek Interceptor only. The District was authorized several months ago by Renton to proceed with Step I for the Honey Dew and Kennydale Interceptors due to anticipation that Step 1 at least wou:d be prioritized for FY-1976. Likewise, the District would proceed or Step 1 of the 110th Avenue S.' . Interceptor on the same basis. Currently, Steps 1 and 2 and partial Step 3 have been prioritized for all of these Interceptors. Warren Gonnason, Director of Public Works and myself, contacted Tom McCann /.' in regard to the aforementioned agreement who, in turn, referred ps back ` to you. In your abe,ence we talked to Norman Glen and explained the situation. We advised Mr. Glen that if it was the desire of EPA and of DOE the project be divided into that sponsored by the District and that sponsored by Renton, we would be glad to provide the necessary applications to do so. However, from our viewpoint, there is no need to do so. The coordination between the two entities is complete and our only desire is to get the much needed facility completed as is exemplified by the fact that Renton is sponsoring the Jones Avenue Interceptor, whereas the District 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 •(2061 624.2623 M y • Department of Ecology May 30, 1975 Page 2 is the sponsor for the other Interceptors. As a further example of this effort, our fire; has bren requested by Renton to s-ibmit a proposal to prepare the Kennydale LID, which will bring a large unsewered area into the Kennydale Interceptor. The following is the schedule for the work: PROJECT BID CALL DATE, May Creek - Ma0iole B to Honey Creek October 10, 1975 Kennydale Interceptor October 27, 1975 x; Hone; Dew Interceptor January 1, 1976 3 110th Avenue Interceptcr February 1, 1976 It is the desire of the District and Renton to in no way jeopardize the funding of these projects. We hope the above explanation will provide you with the necessary information, but please do not hesitate to call me if you desire any additional information. Sincerely, MOORE, WALLACE & KENNEDY, INC. By J John R. Wallace, Jr.� JRW:sg cc: Mr. Warren Gonnason✓ Mr. Thomas McCann Mr. Gordon Wegwart Mr. Norman Glen Mr. Arnold Robbins Y BAT V. TeGantvoort 0. Hamlin _ D. Houghton ` D.Bennett T. Touma Chervi MOM: Warren Son „SUBJECT: Review ant report back. See me. Route and Return. Prepare response for my signature. Take appropriate action. Prepare special report. Set up meeting. For your information. File REMARKS: • I e ) Y 1100RE.' IALLACE &KENNEDY,INC. j ENGINEERS PLANNERS • SURVEYORS Call :Or RENp og ...iiif May 29, 1975 Mr. James E. Hurt 1700 People's National Bank Building Seattle, WA 98171 Dear Mr. Hurt' C Thank you for our thoughtful letter of May 27. Unfortunatel t y }• g y y, you were a` le to read only our very rough preliminary drafts, which you asked for, and which we gave you for your personal convenience since you wanted to make comments prior to final publication. In the next few days we will mail a draft environmental assessment to you which, I believe, is more complete and addressee many, if not all, of your comments. We would appreciate your review and comments on the Draft Environmental Assess- bent. Yours very truly, MOORE, WALLACE S KENNEDY, INC. BY i [fJ: John R. Wallace, Cr. i JRW:lag cci Donald 0. Norman Warren G. Gonnason • ' Arnold B. Robbins Thomas M. Ryan Don 3enson 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 • )206)624-2623 I T0: V. Lee V. TeGantvoort J. 'Williams D. Hamlin R. Nelson D. Houghton - D.Bennett a FROM: Warr* nnason a EJECT: _ V Review and report back. See me. y' Route and Return. prepare response for my signature. Take appropriate action. ,Prepare special report. { Sat up meeting. qi Fc your information. File REMARKS: _.. i 3. Rrr -. Y+ M� F May 22, 1975 �4 iA G'tJiks ! k'�w11111k 1q Mr. John Wallace, Principal Consultant Moore, Wallace, 6 Kennedy, Inc. 1915 First Avenue Seattle. WA 98101 Dear Sir: , Pursuant to our discussion of the F1' 76 project list, I would like to clear up the question or, the May Creek Interceptor. The project on the FY 7c project list entitled "King County L.D. O107 key Creek Int. section 2" refers to the section of interceptor from MH(B) to 138th Street. However, if the EPA deter- mines that an EIS Will be required on the portion of the interceptor above the Honeydew connection, this project's scope will be reduced to omit that portion. This ster would be taken to insure alacrity in the project's progress. There does seem to be a misunderstanding on the Honeydew and Kennydale inter- ceptors. :he Northwest Regional Office of the Department of Ecology and the City of ,Renton maintain that Renton and not King County O.D. #107 is the appli- cant for all three steps. The regional ffice also pointed out that the step 1 loan was for the May Creek interceptor only and did not include the Honeydew, Kennydalr, or any other connecting interceptore in the scope of work. The phase II loan. which has not yet been approved, does, however, address these inter- cepters. In order to protect the eligibility c. work, past and present, on these pro- jects. I would advise you to arran;;e a meeting of all the principals as soon an possible. Mr. Thomas McCann and Mr. Jrordon ri. Wegwart should be the rep:e- sentatives for the Department of Ecology. I hope this works out to everyone's satisfaction and thank you for bringing this to our attention. i Very truly yours, Frank Monahan, Grants Administrator Hater Quality Management Section cc: Mr. Warren Gonnaaon Office of Water Programs Mr. Henry F. KeCullough Mr. Thomas McCann k ev,.t:m v v v , ,e MOORE.WALLACE&KENNEDY.INC. ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS we 1 April 2j 1975 i Mr. Warren Gonnasonp Director ` Renton Department of Public Works City Hall Renton) WA 98055 SUBJECTS DRAFT COPY OF COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE PLAN Dear Mr. Gonnasons Enclosed is a draft copy of our Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. Maps are not enclosed but will generally reflect the maps we included in our previous submittal. Please let us know It you should have any comments. Yours very truly, MOORED WALLACE & KENNEDYO INC. I y John R. Wallace JRWtjad Enclosure ADR 4- Mh CITY cr 1 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 .(206)624.2623 TO' V. k a Williams V. TeGantvoort , R, Nals D. Hamlin D. NnUQhtOn or I �_ ;. Touma FROM: Warren Gon SUBJF.CT: _ __�_�---- Review and report back. See me. Route and return. Prepur- response for my signature. Take appr,)priate action. Prepare special report. Set Up meeting. For your information. File REMARKS: } King County State or %hington John D.Spellman,Cot .ty Executive A!" John P. lynch, Director DEPARTMENT Of BUDGET AND PROGRAM PLANNING Room 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104 (206) 344 3489 March 28, 1975 APR ?' 1975 CITY C*0 Ir A Mr. Mart Kask Executive Director PSGC Metropolitan Clearinghnuse First & South Main Seattle, WA 98104 Re: A-95 Review o May Creek Interceptors - Phase II Dear Mr. Kask: This project is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan to the extent that it fulfills policy G-8: "Where pollution conditions now exist, all possible steps should be taken to . orrect such conditions" . Since additional population will be encouraged in the May Creek area, an Environmental Impact Statement should be required as a condition of approval for this project grant. In the future, it would be appreciated if the Conference would furnish maps with their A-95 review packages. Sincerely, Rosemary Aragon, Manager Intergovernmental Relations Division RB►/gj L,,dcs Warren Gonnason, Renton Public Works Director t stateot Wc� lllOfl ?0.1-APPLICATION (A-93) ADDENDO`: V` � wAl'rR POLLUTION k SOLID WASTE GRANT/LOA4 REFERENDUM 126 Return to: Office of Community ngv elopwsst 100 Insurance Building Olympia, Vuhtogtss 98564 oaf DOE SD. STATE APPLICATION IDENTIFIER ---, 1 ?ROJECT JUSTIFICATION rif No Is this project resulting from a State and/or Federal order or directive? LJ In this project resulting from a serious existing hull? hatardT Is this project an extension. modification. or addition to •wisttng facilities' E j'0.6_CONSTRUCT SON ACTIVITTtS_ Ir. Local DOE DOE Pro •rattan A royal A royal A roval Date ?LAMNTMC } gNC SNtER NC TATUS ncy cl Ten Nu Ton No Tam. No Oate urrt� other Comprehensive Planning••• 0 ® XX _ feasibility Study ... ................... Enginoring Report ... ... . . ...... ...... XX ?lone and Specifications .. .... •• •... XX Environmental Aan ssee.at or E.I. XX Operation and Maintenance Agresoents.... . 3 lROtO}[D_�ROJtCT SCME ULLNCi Requested funds necessary to lnittets construction by June 1976 ate After construction funds are offered. construction contract will be let 1n 3 eoeths. A ►0.t_ OC NETRQ�IaQM C09�g _� RCNEDUL INf•t Engineering Report piano and Spec ifltatiome Other JTotn I eotr s so 0`0o s iso 000 !_ zoo 00 bnrE La lees requested a p[... .teuttio. teat, y*a go S FA ILITT V.1APITAL COSTS: ,_. facility Cost Test soffit Cost 1year facility Cost Year 160 lsl,675,000 E 9 f g S o • •a tr •p t• Dace 6 Far solid waste facility only( N/A List axtating facilities in allocation associated with this project. Attach list. f for solid waste facilities only: L tat jurlgdicttens covered or of :ctod by this project. N/A 9 Pot solid wants facilities Daly: List the povernmental structure elements which Are or will be operational by the ties applications are submitted. N/A 9 For savage systems emir: Attached A layout map color coded to red showing that portion of the 7roject eligible under PL 92-SOO. 10 The applicant represents that the date in this application are true and correct to the beat of his knowledge and belief and that the filing of this application has been duly authorized by t\e governing body of the eppltunl. .__ Exact Legal (Corporate Name of Applicant: Water (115triC f Attest: (A{�neture of at..Clot •[[leer - g : ant re of out or L•d officer)1 bate: � I Secretary President ...__ .—'. _. ._e____..__ __.. ._ ..-. ....a .. .....nn.e ♦hie eon11[etlon. A....,e♦ Psis I STATE. OF WASHINGTI DIRECTUR, STATE DIRECTOR, [+` CLEARINGHOUSE DISTRICT CLEARINGHOUSE GRANT REVIEW Office of Community Development i InRurance Building Olymni.. Washington 98504 1 NO 111'I.IH IN TNN r OLRAluNGHoIOH in CARD TYTH• g ON i k., IINIAW;AITM.IcAT1ONA AAM,tt AN r Y OJ I I Y.E I -71 —�— 01 May Cr k wer Interceptors - Phase II A177.IO AN f A:ai Nllr . 14VISION aA-W Water District No. 107 & City GI Renton A x s ( A.n CITY A c [mm 5806-A 119th Avenue S. E. Bellevue King 98006 CONTACT PERSON II.1. ARIA 0-0ISIp1E N•.. CRT. W`Mr. Sam Macri Manager 206 Sit 6-0751 17 7. PROJECT OESCRII'i ION Il4e S JIM.It naeJd; I.IMI This project provides for sewer service to urban areas throughout the May Creek 061 I.71 I Arr I Drainage Basin. O7 roaI LIM Y 09 I.Inr S .' 10 ntSTAICT CLEARINCIRY(SH LOCATION II-71 Pultet So Gov, rn ntal Conterenc eGrand Central on the Park. Seattle, WA 98104 PROJECT LO(-ATHN1 E; Northern portion of Renton and southern portion of W. D. No. 107. FEOHRAL I LINLAS STATE RNus AMACANt FUME TONAL PUNKS 12 Grant lE an Ciotti I~ CAN N•LInA (XIWr $1,406,250 281,250 $187,500 1 $1,815,000 13 i'I.I a: A FIN Nl:AL1 N('Y F A -A..NIY Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Water Programs 14 PL %RA1 A 11. AL N Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works 66.015 \1'A n. 1'INIRN:1 A11(NCY MATE PROGRAM 111 L1; 15 Dc t. of "Co logy Referendum 26 TYPE'M ZIA MANTI(CMAL(XI Me.Ingle moat.pPlla.Mt Raul INTER. SCNOLYI, SPRCIAI. COMIAUNII'Y SPONSORED \IATL Sl'A TC CCR1NTV CIT;IY VISTRICT tFNITT ACrFo�ON ORGANEATION DINER f U C3I3 011 #pit ❑IA Q7 l„IIA []la L. r rym.or AC LION I(Mel,(x)..man.In,e+..AWIr m MI. •cNan NEW CINTINVATION Sl'PM.EMEN't INCREASE DrO:REASE INCREASE URCRRASE CRANI' GR T GRANT 171RATION EVRA11ON CAW I.ATION DpL1{--A1R.\ DOI..IARS �? II 1. II , tf �M IJ7'+ IS STATE M.AN IS REGIONAL PLAN IS n/ERE A ENVIR RNTAL IIAS F. L TA FUN. NG R RY}(RARO7 RPf„IIIIEM COMPRHIIENSIVF IMPACT P(NOINC.AGF.NI:Y AGENCY HORN NOTIPIP,OI YES Nll YEA /IO R.AN` Y�EIS� NV EPIN NOTIFIED, YES No Op I lI CII'Y®rIM'N1y Y/ US ❑b YE ,I. Nl Sq IS HORSING RELOCATION NF.CESSARY/ IF WATER AREA N INVOLVKOY INDICATE 6 SHURHLNR MANAGEMENT SIIORF- TIOft- PERMIT RMORRO7 YES NO JIB 1 F 1 AND LAND OnIER ® O •L EXTIMATCD IVATE(W N NVIELSION FIN:.,.APPLICATrt1N PROJECT DATES(Eat. MPIn tF.'R. w Iiil Aril 1975 June 1975 - June 1977 1. �1'Nl'I n lalrc.pr10e rt once to u ue, r.cal"I"with the"J.cO This project is art of the com rehensive plan for the City of Renton A a^d W. D. No. 107. FORM PCAA-CH-1 revised MAY CREE!C 1NTEKCEPTOR PIIASE I1 (Projected to July 1, 1976) A. LAKE BOREN - 5700 L.F. Clearing 6 Grubbing L.S. $ 500.00 8" Force Main 700 l.f. @ 13.10 = 9,170.00 12" Concrete 1250 l.f. @ 15.45 = 19,313.00 15" Concrete 1400 l.f. @ 17.00 = 23,800.00 18" Concrete 2200 l.f. @ 18.60 = 40,920.00 18" C.I.P. 150 l.f. @ 43.50 = 6,525.00 Pipe Bedding 5000 l.f. @ 1.50 = 7,500.00 Manholes 24 ea. @ 850.00 = 20,400.00 Restoration, Roadway 5000 l.f. @ 6.50 = 32,500.00 Restoration, Unimproved 700 1. ;. @ 1.00 = 700.00 Rock Excavation 300 c.y. @ 20.00 = 6,000.00 Creek Crossing 1 ca. ? 10,400.00 = 10,400.00 Pump Stations 2 ca. CQ 35,000.00 = 70,000.00 METRO Manhole 1 ea. @ 20000.00 = 2,000.00 Sub-Total $ 249,728.00 B. 110Th AVENUE S.E. - 5600 L.F. Clearing 6 Grubbing A. @ 2,000.00 = 2,000.00 12" Concrete 3700 l.f. a 15.45 = 571.65 12" C.I.P. 1900 l.f. @ 28.20 = 535.80 Pipe Bedding 3700 l.f. @ 1.00 = 3,700.00 Manholes 17 ea. @ 900.00 = 15,300.00 Restoration, B.I .T. Roadway 3700 l.f. @ 6.50 = 24,050.00 Restoration, Unimproved 190n l.f. @ 1.50 = 2,850.00 METRO Manhole 1 ea. @ 2,000.00 = _ 2,000.00 Sub-Total $ 160,645.00 C. S. E. 91ST STREET - 2050 L.F. Clearing 6 Grubbing 1 A. @ 3,900.00 = 3,900.00 10" Concrete 700 l.f. @ 10.00 = 7,000.00 10" C.I.P. 1350 l.f. @ 20.55 = 27,743.00 Pipe Bedding 700 l.f. @ 1.00 = 700.00 Manholes 6 ca. @ 900.00 = 5,400.00 Restoration, Roadway 200 l.f. @ 6.50 = 1 ,300.00 Restoration, Unimproved 1850 l.f. @ 2.00 = 3,700.00 METRO Manhole 1 ea, 0 2,000.00 = 2,000.00 Sub-Total $ 51,743.00 -1- 4 D. S. E. 93RD STREET - 2350 L.F. Clear;.nt, & Grubbing 1 A. @ 2,000.00 = $ 2,000.00 10" Concrete 1450 I.f. @ 8.50 = 12,325.00 10" C.I.P. 900 l.f. @ 23.50 = 21,150.00 Pipe Bedding 1450 l.f. @ 1.00 = 1,450.00 Manhulas 7 ea. @ 900.00 = 6,300.00 Restoration, Unimproved 1450 l.f. @ 1.50 = 2.175.00 6zosion Control, Restoration 900 l.f. @ 3.00 = 2,Y00.00 Creek Crossing 1 ea. @ 10,000.00 = 10,000.00 METRO Manhole 1 ca. @ 2,400.00 = 2,400.00 Foot Bridge I ea. @ 11,180.00 = 11,180.00 Sub-Totai $ 71,680.00 E. KENNYDALE - 8800 L.F. Nillside Trait Clearing & Grubbing 1 ea. @ 3,900.00 = 3,900.00 Grading 1225 l.f. @ 1.30 = 1,593.00 Rock Walls 75 c.y. @ 26.65 = 1,999.00 Trail Culverts 50 I.f. C, 6.50 = 325.00 Crushed Rock 65 c.y. @ 15.60 = 1,073.00 Seeding 1 A. @ 1,560.00 = 1,560.00 Footbridge 1 ea- 11,1;,0.00 = 11,180.00 Sub-Total 21,630.00 Sewer Line 8" Force Main 875 l.f. @ 13.10 = 11 ,463.00 12" C.I.P. 12?5 l.f. @ 28.20 = 34,545.00 12" Concrete 670a l.f. @ 15.45 = 103,515.00 Pipe Beddinp 7575 l.f. @ 1.25 = 9,469.00 Manholes, P.V.C. 2 2a. @ 1,560.00 = 3,120.00 Manholes, Concrete 20 ea. @ 9UO.00 = 18,000.00 Restoration, Grassed Area 960 I.f. @ 2.00 = 1,920.00 Restoration, B.I.T. Road 4800 l.f. @ 6.50 = 31,200.00 Restoration, Asphalt Road 1375 l.f. @ 7.50 = 10,313.00 Restoration, Unimproved Road 400 l.f. Cs? 1.75 = 700.00 Road Crossing, Jacked 1 ea. @ 2,500.00 = 2,500.00 Creek Crossing, May Creek I ea. @ 10,400.00 = 10,400.00 Pump Stations 2 ea. @ 40,000.00 = 80,000.00 METRO Manhole 1 ea. @ 2,000.00 = 2,000.00 Sub-Total 319,145.00 Sub-Total $ 340,775 -2- F. HONEYDEW CREEK - 6900 L.F. Hillside Trail Clearing & Grubbing 2,93 A. @ 3,900.00 = $ 11,466.00 Grading 6400 l.f. @ 1.30 = 8,320.00 Rock Walls 300 c.y. @ 26.65 = 7,995.00 Trail Culverts 200 l.f. @ 6.50 = 1,300.00 Crushed Rock 320 c.y. @ 15.60 = 4,992.00 Seeding 2.93 A. @ 1,560.00 = 4,571.00 Sub-Total 38,644.00 Sewer Line , Clearing & Grubbing 1.52 A. @ 3,900.00 = 5,928.00 18" P.V.C. 6300 l.f. @ 42.70 — 269,010.00 18" C .I.P. 110 l.f, Q 43.70 = 6,555.01 18" Concrete 450 l.f. @ 18.65 = 8,393 00 Pipe Bedding 6750 l.f. @ 3.00 = 20,250.00 Manholes, P.V.C. 8 ea. @ 1,560.00 = 12,480.00 Manholes, Concrete 2 ea. @ 900.00 = 1,800.00 Restoration, Asphalt Road 500 l.f. @ 7.50 = 3,750.00 Pit Run Gravel, Creek 750 c.y. @ 4.55 = 3,413.00 -` Construction Rock Cut-off Walls, Creek 75 c.y. @ 50.00 = 3,750.00 Construction Flow Division & Stream 3300 l.f. @ 25.00 = 82,500.00 Control METRO Manhole I ea. @ 2,000.CO = 2,000.00 Sub-Total 419,629.00 Sub-Total $ 458,473.00 -3- G. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST § 249,728.00 Lake Boren 160,645.00 110th Avenue S. E. 51,743.01` S. E. 91st Street 71,680.00 S. E. 93rd Street 340,775.00 Kennydale 458,473.00 Honeydew Creek i,333,044.00 TOTAL B. INDIRECT COSTS & CONTINGENCY State Sales Tax (5.3%) § 70,651.00199,957.00 Contingency (157.) 50,000.00 Facilities Plan 50,000.00 Desig!, Survey 100,000.00 Plans and Specifications 71,348.00 �. Construction Survey and --- Inspection § 541 956.00 TOTAL $ 1,875,000.00 1, TOTAL PROJECT COST 1 -4- PLAN OF STUDY FOK STEPS ].• & 2 MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR SEWERS PHASE II I. PROPOSED PLANNING AREA The proposed planning area is the western portion (urban area) of the May tpt Creek Drainage Basin, consisting of approximately 6 square miles. kt . II. PLANNING ENTITIES The planning entities are: City of Renton City Hall Renton, Washington 95055 t.: Attn: Mr. Warren Gonnason �' - Director of Public Works Water District No. 107 5806-A 119th Avenue S. E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attn: Mr. Sam Macri Manager Water District No. 107 is the lead agency for the project. The District Engineer is Mr. John R. Wallace, Jr. , P. E. , who is a principal in the consulting firm: Moore, Wallace 6 Kennedy, Inc. 1915 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 The firm of muore, Wallace 8 Kennedy, Inc. will do the planning work under contract. II1. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED STEP 1 PROJECT Schedule Proposed Protects Begin End Cost Estimate 1 . Community Facilities Plan 5-75 11-75 9,000 2. Inflow/infiltration Analysis Not needed None -1- M Schedule * Proposed Projects Begin End Cost Estimate 3. Enviro:anental Assessment 5-75 10-75 $ 15,000 Statement Public Hearing(s) ' 4. Industrial Recovery and Not needed None Industrial Payments 5. Cost Effectiveness 8-75 10-75 10,000 6. Relocation and Land 10-75 11-75 3,500 Acquisition Plan 7. Permits: Shoreline Management 9-75 1-76 4,000 Fisheries 500 Contingencies ® 20% 8,000 $ 50,000 IV. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED STEP 2 PROJECT Schedule Proposed Projects Begin End Cost Estimate 1. Design Firvey 17-75 2-76 $ 50,000 2. Preparation of Plans & 1-76 6-76 100,000 Specifications $150,000 V. SUB-AGREEMENTS There is a contract between Water District No. 107 and the City of Renton, which provides for Water District No. 107 to be the lead agency and provide all engineering and construction contract services. There is an engineering contract between Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc.. an engineering firm, and Water District No. 107, authorizing the engineering firm to pruvide assistance as requested. A separate authorization for this project has been made. -2- RETURN TO I(' ronN 73 ,. ATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON FUTURE PROGRAM WFl•5 '.� WgSHINGTON f uTURE FUNDING OU ESTIONNAIRE 1 Office of Proyron Planning and Fiscal Management Olympia,WMhinglon 98504 (U) APPLICANT Inama 6 In) PROJECT CONTACT ( ama S Mlle) (Icl TELEPHONE Np Water Districtt N Noo.. 107 5806-A 119th Ave., S. E., Bellevue, WA 98006 Sam Macri, Manager SH 6-0751 z (ga) PROJT PERIOD IZbI TOTAL COST OF PROJECT EC -- _ 1975 - 1978 __ $ 1,875,000 pa)PROJECT LOCATION f]b) MUNICIPALITY ISq COUNTY ^—May. Creek Drainage Basin Kin Count 6 Rout Kin (Jo)LEGISLATIVE INST. 8 8 Y _ 8 41st F FERAL LE WAS-INGTON FUTURE OTHER HI FUNDING PERCENTAGE: 75 1D % l5 IKI None % 151 HAVE YOU COMPLETED AND ATTACHED a) THE LOCAL FISCAL CONDITION REPORT? ❑VES O I Nashington Future Number: p) THII-S�PROJECT CONFORMSEE,T�-�`O�-�THE COMPREHENSI,VVEEI PLAN�t rS) DURING THE. RVCTION PERIOD _— GaLOCAL IiknEGIONAL ail OR STATE INDICATE THE AVERAGE WORK FORCE. 40 (9) WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THE ENVI R&NMENTAL IMPACT STATE' i This project will accelerate urbanise ni it will improve water quality. 1101 IS THIS PROJECT THE RESULT OF A FEDERAL � Ill)WILL THE. NECESSARY FUNDS FOR OPERATING OR STATE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT? ❑YES a Iil NO THE COMPLETED PROJECT BE AVAILABLE? )w YES ❑ NO (5i PROJECT 9E0;EFIT MEASURE Pollution control would occur, thereby safeguarding public health and safety. 'I J) CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED TO DATE FOR THE PROJECT: U PLAN DESIGNED ❑ PLAN APPROVED ❑ ENGINEERING COMPLETED Irr—J PLAN AUTHORIZED CWJ PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING APPROVED ❑ ENGINEERING APPROVED AND ACCEPTED PLAN COMPLETED of ENGINEERING AUTHORIZED (141 IDENTIFY ORGANIZATIONAL ANO CITIZEN SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT. —� City of Renton, Renton City Council Water District No. 107 Water District Commission IIS) DOES THIS . OJECT PROVIDE THE FOLLOWINGI R --�- — --� lltl URBAN EXPANSION ❑ SERVE THE UNDERPRIVILEGED OR HANDICAPPED (❑�`�I NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INDUSTRI IL DEVELOPMENT ❑ SAVE HISTORICAL SITES lrriLL''! PRESERVE NATURAL SITES ❑ PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RECREATIONAL AREAS lL ELIMINATE OR REDUCE LOCAL NUISANCE CONDITION BI PROTECT THE. rIATURAL ENVIRONMENT LJ PROVIDE SEASONAL OR YEAR-ROUND USE OF SITE (16) DOES THIS PROJECT SATISFY AGRICULTURAL OR INDUSTRIAL WATER DEMANDS? __ ____ _.YES NO 11?) DESCRIBE THE MULTI PURPOSE POTENTIAL OF THIS PROJECT AND ATTACH A COPY OF THE PROPOSAL. WASHINGTON FUTURE USE ONLY n N I : FO!f`A t C 6 OF \Yn SNINf:TOv ` ;'.Fr1.673 T WVASHINGT ON i"JsJRE LOCAL FISCAL CONDITION %"""\ 'xr to he a:eJ _.% L OF T•:XIMl Ur4IT •— TAX SUt`PO.^.TWO IN O_PTEON ENS AS OF ACT, F. 0 Ygt.0 OF TAXA9'_E Gk ?EkT o. Y IN King County Water Dist. N 107 dcn.av�� xrc\n1973 TAX.r+ .olsTwcT l --- ece.n _= d� '-- S47 s2$5,792 �J IPXE°TEUXESS FGR GENERAL PURPOSE° WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. LEGAL LPIIT 0 318 or 3!4 (ahiehever Applicable) of 1% on Property Vabre• • • • • • • • • • • $ 354,643.44 IN-GrIliEONESSINCURRED 1. G. C. Bond Liabilities. • • • • . . • . . S11,000.00 Less Redemption Fund Assets: a. Cash on Hand • • • • • • . 4 b. Un.aBected Taxes • . 54.51 Total Applicable Assets • • • • • . • • • • • • • 1,715.92 Excess of Lisbilities Over Assets • • • • • • • • . • . • ' S 12,715.9� 2. aen•-,ral Fund Liabilities Including Warrants, Conhacts and Others • & Bonds • • • $ 1 415 917.57 Ls;s Genera; Fund Aaats: _ r a. Cash on Hand • • • . . • . S 912.741.10 Is. Uncollacted Taxes • • • . • • . 341 c. Receivables (List in Derail! • • • • • 5 834.3 , it Total Applicable Assets • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 1 31�,480'99 Excess of Liabilities ovar Awls • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 102,4 6.58 3. S:raer at Road Fued Liabilitias Includn3 Warrants, Cataracts and Others • . • • • • ' ' Less Srreet or Road Fund A:sats: a. C%h on Hand • • • • • • • • • $ _ b. Umallsctad Taxes • • . • • e. Renicab%s (List in Detail) • . • . • Total Applicable Assets • • • . • ' • • • ' • -- Er.ccss of Liabihtias over Asset; • • • • • • • . • • . 4. 0:hetr Fund Liabilities (Ants: lot each Separate ':and iamv"-- as in 1 or 3 above.) • ' • . ' . . . • - • ' ' ' ' ' • ' ' • ' ' —� Total Net General l0abodnass • • • • • • • . • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . • . 115,152.50 Margin of Indehtadne;s Still Available • ' • . . • ' ' . . ' ' ' ' S 239,490�,�4 1. N1;29TEWIESS FOP GENERAL PURPOSES WITH A Y5 VOTE OF THE_PEOPLE :Applicable only to Cowin, Cities, Towns an.I Hospital Districts.) 1FGAL LI^dIT 0 2%%on Property Value . . . • . . . . FS ,R c'BTSUNESS INCURRED iPufscaot to n Vote) G. 0. 8n1.1 Liabilities• • • • • • • • • • . . • Letts RvWnption Find Assets: _ Caiv on Hand . . . . . . . . • a _ is. Ttatm. . . . . . . . _— Tata: A,".ph,Wt, .Atsan . . . . . . . _ E,eet:: of L:iui5ties Over Asws ' ' • • • ' • . • • • ' ' . ' '— J •—� ..+f if7l;i It L•t'1f111t1 Iron Sect!) 1 ) !rrad Ivdaat sdua:a .G..,.tut l rld (( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f-'--- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fc— a 1 s III-A. INDEBTEDNESS O CIAL PURPOSES 'TH A 3/5 VOTE OF THE PEOPLE (Applicable only to Cities and Towns for L .ty Purposes.) LEGAL LIMIT @ 2%% on Property Value • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • L".. INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED (Pursuant to a Votel G. 0. Bond Liabilities . • . . . . . . . . . . . Less Redemption Fund Assets: a Cash an Hand . • • . . - b. Uncollected Taxes . . -Total Applicable Applicable Assets - • - - • • . . • • . Fxcess of Liabilities Over Assets • • • • • • • • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t Margin of Special Indebtedness Still Available • . • • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-B. INDEBTEDNESS FUR SPECIAL PURPOSES WITH A 31S VOTE OF THE PEOPLE (Applicable only to Cities and Towns for Parks and Open Space Purposes.) LEGAL LIMIT @ 29N on Property Value . • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . INDEBTEONESS INCURRED (Pursuant to a Vote) ----.--. G. 0. Band Liabilities • . . . • • • . Less Redemption Fund Assets: a. Cash on Hand . • • . . S b. Uncollected Taxes . . • Total Applicable Assets • - . • • • • . • • . . . —� Excess of Ltabdium Over Assets . • • . • • • • • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . ) — Margin of Special Indebtedness Still Available • . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . List separately tot each numbered category above the amount of any bond issues planned but not yet submitted for approval. Show the amount, estimated dote of issuanc and source of repayment funds it other than property taxes. Under a separate heauing also show the same data for planned issues of utility revenue bonds, i v `• UNrf TqY SUPPa RiFO rNo,'nTE ONE SS AS Or ACTUgI VAUUE of TqM gBLE PPUt•F.PTV Fe cn nr nc TAX.NO O,STRICT REAI TON ��t'91;ety 91, 11373 SS AS $ SR9r681,050.0t EBTEONESS FOR GENERAL PURPOSES WITNCUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. v LEGAL LIMIT P 318 of 314 (Whichever Applicable) of 1% on Property Value• • • • . • • • • • • . . . • S 4,422,60R.0 fNDEBTEONF,SSINCUHREU 1. G. 0. Bond Liabilities• . • • • • • • • . . . . • L1,620,000.00 Less Redemption Fund Assets: _ a. Cash on Hand • • • • • • . • . 193,697.00 Is. Uncollected Taxes Total Applicable Assets • • 193,697.00 Excess of Liabilities Over Assets • • . • . • • • . • • • • . . . . . S 1.426, 0-3.00 General Fund Liabilities Including Warrants, Contracts and Others • • • • • • • �$----� Less General Fund Assets: A. Cash on Hand • . • • • . . . . S b. Uncollected Taxes ; - • • • • C. Rece,vil (List in Detail) • • • • • Total Applicable Assets . • • • . . . . . . . . Excess of Liabilities over Assets Street or Road Fund Liabilities Including Warrants, Contracts and Others • • • • . • Less Street or Road Fund Assets: `'-------s a Cash on Hand S b. Recllected Taxes t, Re • ) • • . • ceaables (List in Detail) Total Applicable Assets . . • • • • • • . . Excess of Liabilities over Assets• • • • • • • • • • • • • _ . . . Other Fund Liabilities ` (Repeat for each Separate Fund some as in 2 at 3 aboee.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . otal Net General Indebtedness . . . • , , , , , �•. .,` _ • J, F—�— Rgm of Indebtedness Still Available . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • S ,996,M,0 EBTEONESS FOR GENERAL PURPOSES WITH A 3/5 VOTT OF THE PEOPLE Opliceble only to Counties, Cities, Towns and Ilospnal Oatncts I EGAI LIMIT P 2Y,%on Property Value • • • . • . . S 4,047, R8. OEBTEONESS INCURRED (Pursuant to a Vote) G. 0. Bond Liabilities• • • • • • • • • • • S 140,000.00 Less Redempl,on Fund Assets: 4, Cash on Hand • • • • • • • 1 b, Uncollerted Taxes . • • • • - Total Applicable Assets . • • • . . • . • • • • 96 R50.0 Excess of Liabilities Over Assets of General Indebtedness from Section I • • • . . . ' . . . . . 1.426.�Q,}i0 nnbnmd Intlehfeilness Socffun I and II - . . • • • • • . . . . . . . 1,469,453.4 ar4m o1 General Purpme Indvdethmss Still Available • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 12,577.735.4 I QFIJTEDN,RS INCURRED tPursoant to a Vote) G. 0 Bend Liabilities • • • . • • • • • • • •Lass Redemption Fund Assets: a Cash on Hand - • • • • • •b. Uncollected Toes • . • • • • • .Total Applicable NssetsExcess of Liabilities Over Assets • . • . • • . . • • . • • • • • • • • • •rgin of Special Indebtedness Stlll Available . . . . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • NOEBTEDNES_S FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES WITH A 3/5 VOTE OF THE PEOPLE e (Applicable only to Cities and Towns for Parks and Opus Space Psupoiim) A f GAL LIMIT @ 2y,%on Property Value • • . • • . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • ?- i DEBTEONESS INCURRED (Pursuant to a Vote) t G. 0. Bond habdnies . . . . . . . • . . . Less Redemption Fund Assets: a. Cash on Hand • • • • • • • • • S b. Uncollected Taxes .j Total Applicable Assets . . . . . . . . . . . Excess of Liabilities Over Assets . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r spin of Special Indebtedness Still Available - . . • • • • • • • • • —, r- p t separately for each numbered category above the amount of any bond issues planned but not yet submitted for approval, t aw the amount, estimated date of issuance and source of repayment funds if other than property taxes. der a separate heading also show the same data for planned issues of utility revenue bonds. II indebtedness for General Purposes with a 3/5 vote of the People 1. Fire Station $1,000,000.00 1975 2. Senior Citizens Center $ 300,000.00 1975 III Utility Revenue Bonds 1. Water Utility $1,500,000.00 1974 2. Sewer Utility $ 500,000.00 1974 ,,_ar,,..�,�_...._.. __. . .. _. __..—•------.raw K � • City of Renton - Waterworks Utility 'Jut( 'It of kovurnue auu 44erLve Ior the periou: January 1, 1973 to Dueuitbur 31, 1973 erating Revenue nme erea ales $ 701,20 Metered Sales Mrs 1,205,988.rs Protection Service 13,67o92 Other lies to Public Authorities 2.2 61 62, 1 .50 MisceUl noous Revunuo 61 Other Water Revenue 1,162.01 02 Total Operating Revenue 26 $ 1,284,685.11 PeratinL Revenue Deductions Before Depreciation vperat rue $ 655,001,43 Mlititetunee Expense Taxes 2U1�286.99 Total Operating 140 6—� T8�'2 Op ing Deductions Bofors Doprueiatiun _ 996,966,74 Not O,)oratinC Income Before Dopreciation $ 287,718.37 Less Depreciation 19:,27;.hh list Oparatiaa.Incema $ 105,442.93 Add Nono Income r sMTS 16,311.38 Total Income $ 121j,754.31 Less Nonoperating E:cpense eru.s xpwise - venuo Bonds $ 47,512,77 Interest Fxpunse _ Other Long Tom Debt 40136.88 Amortia.tion of Debt Discount and Experuu L 465.32 Total Nonoperating Expense 53.114.97 t Income to Retained_ Earnings $ 68,639.34 i i i FSGC METROPOLITAN VV CLEARINGHOUSE - ^aM Clot..]on thr Park pager sound gv/ernr^rent conference A.e. South E Snuth Maio 54. !y wde, WY>hingtun9elM f NU ITCL OF 1NTrLNI ON CLEARING110l'6E ID. SI'A'TL APPLICA nUN IULN77PIER I-9 CRANT APPLICATIONS CARD TYPE 7 , (A-95.'CER(7I l 10-I i Ai ILICAN T I'RU)EL I IIILE I2-71 —� 11 01 May Creep Sewer Interceptors - Phase IT. A 1'. M APPLICANT AGENCY 12-Ii DIVISION 46.79 �•"- �-/� Water District No. 107 & City of Renton }{ .1 i'PIIC.iNT AUDRE>S 1>r:c.O 12-aS CFI'Y a6.60 COUNTY 61-75 ZIP CUUE 76T Ir I . nl 5806-A 119th Avenue, S. E. Bellevue King 98006 t - CONTACT PERSON I7-I1 AREA 46-46 PHONE /9-SS EXT. 56-Y1 ( /1.11/-It Mr. Sam iIacri Manager 2006 SH 6-0751 '. IC. � 12 71 PROJECT DESCRIPTION flak S hnea If needed) RL ., I This project provides for sewer service to urban areas throughout 12.71 06� Llrcx the May Creek Drainage Basin. I 07 12-7I l.Ine 1 � `^A�'77 12.7I li "`" L," a 12-71 V,7/ Llx S Ulil'RICT CLEARINGHOUSE LOCATION 12.71 _ 10 pug?t sa.md go/on7¢nlial conto ce 1 PI.OJCCT LOCATION Northern portion of the City of Renton ant, southern portion of W. D. No. 107 FEDERAL FONDS GR.ANTLE FUNDS • STATF. FUNl15 r+ TOTAL FUNDS 12 Grant li•19 (hhtr 20-27 Cuh In-kind Sr \larch IXher 1 IL $1,406,250 $281,250 1S7,SC i _11 875.000 TYPE OF OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS 12-45 •• TYPE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNED a6-A� �� None DOE - Ref. 20; METRO; City; Water Dist. #107 FEUERAL PROGRAM TITLE 17-7I CATALOGUE NO. 14 Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works 66.015 FEDERAL AGENCY NAME 12•45 FEDERAL SUB-AGENCY 46.79 15 Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Water Program TYPE OF APPLICANT'.(Crack IN)the single most applicable boa) INTER- SCHOOL SPECIAL COMMUNITY SPONSORED STATE STATE cot Wry CITY DISTRICT" U[lN-I-IT'TL� ACTION ORGANIZATION OTHER 0I2 ❑13 ❑ 4, 015 ❑II E17 ❑ S Elio Dv) TYPE OF ACTION(Check IX)as many bones as apply to this action) NEW CONTtNI'ATION SUPPLEMENT INCREASE DECREASE INCREASE DECREASE GRANT GGRANT GRANT DURATION DURATION CANCELLATION DOLLARS DOLLARS p 17 +1e1)21 ❑22 it ❑24 025 ❑76 ❑ ❑?A INSTATE PLAN IS AEGIONAL PLAN IS THERE A ENVIRONUEN TAL HAS FEDERAL H..S STATE FL'NIRNG REQUIRED? REOUIRED? COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT FUNDING AGENCY AGENCY BEEN NOTIFIED' YES NO ��Y2f--E-�51 NO t�P3LAN? YES NO BEEN NOTI',�I,,E[[O�777__ YES NO R?9 030 I +YJsl ❑32 CIT1•.(b111 COL'NTY❑1a pis ❑f6 YES❑37 NZ5 `❑(10 ❑A) l IS HOUSING RELOCATION NECESSARY? IF WATER AREA IS INVOLVED, INDICATE IS SHORELINE MANAGEMENT I- SHORN.• TIDE- PERMIT REQUIRED? YES NO RIPER LAKE LAACN-76 LAND OT,f•H•''''llER Y��E••11S NO El ESTIM{TEO DATE OF SL W INSION FINAL APPLICATION PROJECT DATES(Elf. begin/Est. ending) 18 April 1975 January 1976 - December 1979 t UI AGENCIES OR I41U 117 H N'MI: YOU •A W LVA ING 19 City of Renton; Water District No. 107 METRO PSGC; 00E: EPA UESCRI E HOW THIN PROPOSAL FITS MTHIN REGt(XVAL PUNS IStte speci:te rete ranee to mro, Iwal L regional Plan. ich support It conflict Ulm Chi)project)fY'� This project is part of the comprehensive plan for W. D. No. 107, Gil the City of Renton. and the Municipality of Metro olitin l a tle n _ (IIETRO). ?1 !!.EME Lf7M PLLTE 7IIF.ATT.{CHED PRONPECTl'S tAtU<hment'A') — PSCC FORK R-1 (ReNaN March 77, 1913) t I wi aaYw� �.�riyYr�� .Tl��e'�.^awn.�.Fl.. MMFMIXtlMUe.-.is..u...w..w...muu..—�..a�r.�.r..u+...w. rw .: ... .t a: .:-.:. ....u........«._... .... ............_ _.. ..� `4 PUGET SOUND GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE PROSPECTUS FORMAT (A-95/CERC) i A. PROJECT TITLE, APPLICANT NAME AND ADDRESS May Creek Sewer Interceptor - Phase II - Water District No. 107 5806-A 119th t- enue S. E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 t Phone: (206) 746-0751 B. NEEDS 1. The nature of the human need problem is the pollution of soil through improl r drainage of septic tanks. 2. There are approximately 7500 people living in the drainage basin, of wh!'ch approximately 80 percent live in the urban area which will be benefited from this project. 3. The target population is predominantly "blue-collar" workers in the area south of May Creek, and a . xture of "blue-collar" and "white- collar" workers north of May Creek. The estimated average annual income of this population is $11,000 per family per year. A vast number of the employees in this area may work for The Boeing Company. C. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1. Approximately 80 percent of the people living in this drainage area will benefit from this service through the construction of the new sewer interceptor line. 2. During both the short and long range pericd, it is expected that land and water pollution within the urban area of the May Creek drainage basin will be eliminated. 3. This project will speed-up ttie urbanizati�. of the May Creek Drainage Basin and i•:crease the population growth therein. D. MET1,0DS 1. Additional new sewer interceptors and lateral sewer lines will be built in order to provide :Deans of sewering homes throughout the May Creek urban area. 2. State and Federal aid will be use,; to the maximum extent possible in order to meet the goals; local revenue bonds will provide local funding. Both L.I.D. and U.L.I.D. will be used to provide for lateral sewers. _l.- A PUGET SOUND a)VERNMENTAL CONFERENCE PROSPECTUS FORMAT (A-95/CERC) - continued - 3. It is expected that planning and engineering will be completed in June 1976. The constructi m is expected to be completed in 1977. k E. EVALUATION 1' 1. To date, Step 1, under P.L. 92-500, is bring completed for the main interceptor at May Creek (Phase I). A loan has been obtained from the Department of Ecology to do both Step I and Step 2 for the May Creek Interceptor (Phase I). 2. The Jones Avenue Interceptor is presently under design azid is being completed by both the City of Renton and Water Distric 'u. 107. This project is not ye.t constructed and, therefore, cannot be evaluated; however, the cooperative efforts between Renton and Water District No. 107 have worked satisfactorily. 3. This project relates well to the priorities and plans established for the community. 4. A Cost Effectiveness Analysis will be made to determine the program's cost effectiveness prior to the construction and design o` the project. Other programs including an Environmental Assessment Statemen* are being prepared to determine the impact ci the project on the environment. Upon completion of the proje , the Department of Ecology will assess the various programs that it .Las funded for effectiveness for treating pollution in urban areas. 5. The Department of Ecology has a program for measuring the needs of pollution co .trol projects with a point system, which measures this project against other projects in the State and in the Region. 6. Without the construction of this project, which provides sewer lines to residential areas, previous projects would not meet their designated purposes. F. COOPERATING AND/OR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES OR GROUPS 1. The City of Renton and Water District No. 107 are working together on this project, since this is a project that crosses jurisdictional lines. The City of Renton, Water District No. 107 and METRO are cooperating on all projects in this general area. METRO is working with Water District No. 107 and the City of Renton on Phase I. The Department of Ecology, Environmental Protection Agency and the loc-1 agencies are working together to fund this project. -2- PUCET SOUND GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE PROSPECTUS FORMAT (A-95/CERC) - continued 2. The City of Renton and Water District No. 107 have both had open s :etings on their municipal programs. Citizen groups have had the opportunity to comment, although most of the direct public comments have been made through City Council members and the Water District Commissioners. 3. Special programs Yos citizen participation a-e being developed as part of the decision-making process. Citizens will be asked to participate in the public hearings on the Environmental Assessment Statement, the Community Facilities Plan, and other meetings as stipulated by law. In addition, citizens will be asked to partici- pate in various other hearings as both the primary sewer inter- ceptors are being developed and as the secondary sewer interceptors are being planned. C. BUDGET 1. The anticipated total operating and maintenance costs will be developed as part of the project. 2. The anticipated capital costs are shown in the application and on the A-95 form and are $1,675,OOO. 3. The anticipated funding sources are shown on the application and on the A-95 form (EPA - 75%; DOE - 1'%; and Local - 10%). 4. The total anticipated vests are shown on the A-95 form ($1,875,000). 5. The anticipated future funding is limited to lateral sewers which will be determined as part of the Step 1 Program. H. ENVIRONMEOdTAL ASSESSMENT There will be an Environmental Assessment Statement needed and it will be developed as part of the Step 1 Program listed herein. I. CIVIL RIGHTS 1. Forms EEO-4 are not available from the local office. Form ED-503 is submitted instead. 2. Both the City of Renton and Water District No. 107 practice equal opportunity programs and observe non-discriminatory practices. -3- t DATE- TO: V: Lee J. Williams V. TeGantvoort R Ne,111" G. Hamlin D. Houghton T. TOUnId Othe+t FROM: Warren Go►rytason SUBJECT: Review report back. See me. Route and return.for my Signature. Prepare Yesponse action. Take apR P Prepare special report, JJ Set Up meeting. For your information. File REMARKS: _ I. •i� MOORE.VA LACE &KENNED;',INC. ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS 4 { r t March 21, 1975 { MAR 2 4 1915 lT 0�11941i•h wn11•y 1 Bellevue American Newspaper 10112 N. E. 10th f Bellevue, WA 98004 1 1. 8 Gentlemen: { Attached is a news release which we believe to be of public interests and would appreciate its being run in your newspaper at a time which s would allow interested people to attend the meeting. 1 Thank you. (r Very truly yours, g k MOORE, WALLACE & KENNEDY, INC. By John R. Wallaces Jr. i JRWijad Attachment eel Mr. Dick Hibbard - METRO ♦-�r. Warren Connason - City of Renton Mr. Cordon Wegwart - Dept. of Ecology Mr. Chuck Flood - Environmental 71rotection Agency l i x 19)5 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 •(2061 624.2623 IWO IMOOR1EMALLACE &KEN NEDY,INC. ENGINEERS PLANNERS • SURVEYORS K March 21, 1975 Renton Record-Chronicle 801 Houser `day S. Renton, WA 98055 Gentlemen: Attached is a news release which w_ telieee to be of public interest, and would appreciate its being run in your newspaper at a time which t would allow Interested people to attend the meeting. Thank you. Very truly yours, MOORE, WALLACE & KENNEDY, INC. syyr' John R. Wallace, Jr. JRW:jad Attachment cc: Mr. Dick Hibbard - METRO ✓Mr. Warren Connason - City of Renton Mr. Gordon Wegwart - --pt. of Ecology Mr. Check Flood - Envi. ,nmental Protection Agency 1915 FIRST AVENUE . SEAT�LE,WASHINGTON 98`01 •('1f16)11'2/-M3 y NEWS RELEASE Water District No. 107, the City of Renton and METRO, in a coordinated effort with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Prote_tion Agency, are proposing to extend the sewage interceptor line along May Creek from the existing interceptor line located on Jones Avenue to 136th Avenue S.E. (Coal Creek Road). The May Creek interceptor would provide the backbone to provide sew- age service to a portion of the Northern area of the City of Renton and the Southern area of Water District No. 107, which lies within the May Creek drainage area. Also under consideration is the funding of a number of interceptor riwer branches from the May Creek Interceptor to the areas in both Renton cnd Water District No. 107 that currently need such services to alleviate the failure of septic tank systems and to relieve over- 'oading sewage systems and pump stations. Funding for the work may be obtained through a 757 grant from the Environment Protection Agency plus a 15 gran_ from the Department of Ecology. The balance of the cost for the May Creek Interceptor, which is 107, would be provided by METRO, which will be reimbursed to METRO by the City of Renton and Water District No. 107 by means of sewage service charges to the individual properties lying within the drainage area. I 1 I Y q� tw.w, r i The 107. funding of the interceptor sewer branches would be provided by the City in the Renton area and by Water District No. 107 in the District area. The sources of these funds would be determined by the City and the District. Funds in the amount of $55,000 for the preparation of the Preliminary , Engineering Studies, the Environmental Assessment Statement, the Cost i y Effectiveness Analysis and the Inflow/Infiltration Analysis and $135,000 for the preparation of plans and specifications for the May Creek Interceptor have been obtained by means of a loan from the Department of Ecology. 4 A meeting to which the public is invited will be held in the Renton i City Council Chambers at the Renton City Hall starting at 7:30 p.m. J on March 27, 1975 to explain the proposed pro.-ram and to receive input 1 from tho people in regards to the program. Everyone interested is urged to attend to express his views on the matter. { s f i 5 v _KIN LINTY WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 107 5006A 119TH AVENUE S.E. BELLEVUE.WASH.96006 • PH.746-0761 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REPLY TO Henry F, McCullough 75-1-37—S I President 1 Paul C. Patterson March 2111, 1975 Secretary John R. Jansen Member MANAGER MAR 24 1975 $sm Macri Mr. Warren Gonnaeon Director of Public Works City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South I {{i Renton, Washington 98055 i SUBJECT: MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR, PHASES I AND II Dear Mr. Gonnason: x At a recent meeting, attended by Dick Houghton of the City of Renton, Gordon Wagwart and Tom McCann of the DOE and Chuck Flood of the EPA, it was tentatively determined that the phasing of the total May Creek Inter- ceptor project, Including the secondary to the City of Renton and Water i District No. 107, should probably be revised as follows: 1. Phase 1 is to consist of: a. The b'av Creek Interceptor to a connection with the Honeydew intercaptor, b. The Honeydew Interceptor, c. The Kennydale Interceptor, .� d. The S.1.:. 91st Street Interceptor, : * fl e. 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor. � i S 2. Phase II I { a. The May Creek Interceptor from the point of Connection of the Honeydew Interceptor to Manhole "0" (136th Avenue S.E. ) b. The 136th Avenue S.E. Interceptor, c. The Lake Boren Interceptor. and d. The E. 93rd Street In+erceptor. 63 1 y1 In accordance with the agreement between the City of Renton, Metro and Water District No. 107, the original Phase 1 (May Creek Interceptor), Steps 1 and 2, is funded through a loan under Referendum 26 in which the City of Renton shares in the cost and in which Metro has agreed to reim- burse the City and the District or those costs, should the program not iproceed to Step 3 (Constructior . By agreement between the City of Renton and Water District No. 107, j the District has authorized the consulting firm of Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. to proceed with the original Phase II (Secondary Intercept- ors), Steps 1 and 2, on the basis that a loan under Referendum 26 is obtained. The cost of this work is to be shared by the City and the District, should Phase 11 , Step 3, not be completed. 1 At a meeting between the City and Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc., prior to the ahove-mentioned meeting with the DOE and the EPA, Moore, W31lar_e & Kennedy, Inc. was requested to proceed w!th Steps I and 2 for the Honeydew Interceptor and the Kennydale Interceptor, regardless of the obtaining of the Ican finds for Phase II . Since Water District No. 107 is the agent for the City and Metro in regards to this effort, this letter is to advise the City that Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. has been authorized to proceed on Steps i and 2 !for the Honeydew Interceptor and the Kennydale Interceptor with the under- 1 standing that, it a loan is not obtained from Referendum 26 for this work, the City of Renton will reimburse the Water District for the costs of performing this 'work. The District will continue to make every effort to obtain loan funds. ' 4 Further, tnis letter is to advise the City that Moore, Wal ice 8 t Kennedy, Inc. has been authorized to proceed, in accordance with the F meeting with the EPA and the WE. to obtain ;,ceps 1 , 2 and 3 funds for the revised Phase I , as delineated above. Further, this is to advise the City that Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. wil ; continue witr, Steps 1 and 2 of the revised Phase 11 , the May Creek Interceptor from the Honeydew Intercepto- to 136th Avenue S.E. , which work has been funded by the loan already obtained. In view of the above changes in phasing, first emphasis will be placed on the completion of Steps 1 and 2 of the revised Phase 1 in order to obtain Step 3 funding, to be followed at a later date by completion of Steps 1 and 2 on the May Creek Interceptor portion of the revised Phase ll . We would appreciate your approval of the r( �ised program. 1 Sincerely, KING C NTY WATER D RICT NC. 107 Henry F. McCullough, President HFMcC:sh oc: Metro John Wallace Arnold Robbins f KING 'AUNTY WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 107 58D6A 119TH AVENUE S E. BEL..E VUE.WASH. 99M PH. 746 07!A a0AR0 OF REPLY TO 75-1-38-S prat:d,fit PaO C Palto.sc...lecreten r"3rch 21 , 1975 J94,a 9, .l.:n"m Uernbo, MANAf&', 3 Mr. Dick Hibbard, Water Pollution Cnntrr:l jt !,, t , Supervisor IaETRO 600 First Avenue } Seattle, Washington 98104 i 1 SUBJ EDT_. MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR, PHASe_,. Iu,�,AII .: Dear Mr, Hibbard: Enclosed Is a copy of s 1 , Renton in regards to the modifications of Phases ty the ODE and the fPA. As indicated 1n the enci -srn I :,! inuing to pro- ceed on Steps 1 and 2 of the M.;y k , of N I .•etween points "D" and "D", in accordance with 1h.., 'wN •n !:.•tro and the City of Renton, except that the t;trtie i! _ompletion of $Tees 1 and 2 on the May Creek Interceptor w,1 ,. ,neo somewhat due to ! the acceleration of the emph ,;ii. oi, rr;. v interceptors con- necting to the May Creek Interc�q)l• i !r jew connection downstream to Point 'B". Ir:•.ar.: I�, r rRiCT NO. 107 HFMcC:sh enclosure �Q75 cc: City of Renton MAR 2 1 John Wallace Arnold Robbins an" ` '• t e< , 2574.020 7 MOORE.IUVALLACE &KENNEDY,INC. ENGINEERS PLANNERS • SURVEYORS March 6, 1975 Department of Ecology 15345 N.E. 36th Street Redmond, Washington 98052 e Attention: Mr. Gordon Wegwart SUBJECT: HOME COUNT - NORTH MAY CREEK BASIN Gentlemen: f4 Enclosed is a print of a map showing the location of homes in the North May #! Creek Drainage Basin Tributary to the proposed May Creek Interceptor. The house count displayed was taken in July, 1974. Since the home building activities have not been great due to the high interest rates, I clank that not more than twenty homes have been added since 1974. We are currently cataloging septic tank failures in the drainage basin. We expect to have this accomplished by the middle of next. week. We will provide you a copy of that information as soon as it is available. We also have a house count in the South Drainage Basin if you should aesire it. Yours truly, MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. John R. Wallac 7r. JRW:ph .:c: Mr. Warren Gonasen, City of Renton King County Water District No. 107 `. � Mr. Henry F. McCullough Mr. Paul C. Patterson 19?;, Mr. John R. Janson MAR 7_• C1t'� o, � A 1� WPN✓9 1 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTO 198101 •(206)624�2623 KiNG I.JUNTY G WATER DISTRICT NUMBER IQl 5806A- 119TH AVENUE S.E. BELLEVUE.WASH. 98006 • PH.746-0751 I BOARD OF COM'MSSIONERS F . Henry F. McCullough President Para C. Patterson February 12, 197:i Secretary John R. Janson Member MANAGER Seth A9acri Mr. Claude Z. Lakcwold Washington future Coordinator ;dater Rer.curces Division j State of Was:.ington Department of Ecology 01)%. ;,ia, WA 98iO4 SUBJECe- fL1,9 CEZE%C INTERCEFTCR W 7 y_PHASE lI, -TEPS 1 AND. 2 Dear Mr, l.akeo:alda Attached are exhibit, which we wish to submit in application for loan frota Washington Future Funds, under Referendum No. 26, to prepare Step I - j Facilities Planning, and Step 2 - Preparation of Construction Dra•. tngs and Specifications, for the extk,nsion of the Phase II May Creek InLerck•ptor Sewer. Ii In 1971, the District was responsible, in coordination with Metro, for the construction of the °irst portion o: the May Creek Intere.eptor irate the Metro Trunk near the shores of Lake Washington to Jones Street, east of la. hway 405 ' (Point "B" on the map attached to the exhibits). Since that tame, the District has worked on Step 1 and Step 2 of Phase I of the Creek Iatter- ceptur Sewer. TLis application is for a .oan to complete Stens I and 2 in preparation for the construction of the May Creek interceptot hewer, Phase II, as shown by the attached map. The construction of these intercep. - services will pro- vide direct connections to residential areas in the balance of the southurn f! portion of Vater District No. 107 service area, and to a substantial part of th; northern portion of the City of Renton' s service area. This _,z��nsion is him It a_C0LdAl,C0 with the District' s and Renton's overall Con.prehensive ^l..n. Urban development of Lhr southerly portion of the District's service +rea by the use of septic taaks cc, Id only contribute to the degradation of ,,..y Creek. ' Th. alternate in to severely limit the urban developmenL of the area, which alrecAy has a censid.rabl.e contamination probttm - particularly in the lake Berm are.A. Typical of the need is a ULID now being formed, which will connect a portion of the District to the existing extension of the May Creek Into.rcepi or. i 1. 75-1-12-5 February 12, 1975 Page 2 i Concurrent with this submittel, an application is being submitted to the Puget Sound Governmental Conference for funding of Step 1 and Step 2 through Catalogue No. 66.015 - Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works. The total project costs are estimated to be as follows: Construction Costs $ 1,675,000 Engineering 200,000 Total $ 1,875,000 The District recognizes that if Federal Grants do not become available to the District$ that the loan funds will have to be reimbursed in five (45) years. ..... :,_..,.. ..,._.. .. �., ..__,.- . . . 1 King C unt Water Di�fx7ict No. 107 i Henry F. McCullough President, Board of Commissioners HFh[cC:jad cc: Office of Community Development 100 Insurance Building Olympia, WA 98504 1 District Clearinghouse jDepartment of Ecology Northwest Pegion 5345 N. E. 36th JRednond, WA 98052 Enclosures: Ma A-95 S A-95 Addendum WFI -57'3 t 1 s rY Lee DATE: D• ToGa pamI ntvoort �-- . Hamlin J. Williams oughton R• Relson T• Touma � C D.Ben�FRDM: Warren ason Cherylejt ; SUBJECT: R f1. _ . ,ew an, report — See ute eturn °reParenresponse ' Take for my aPProprla on signature. SetPure specialereport. P m2eting. For Your �t File i�'ormation. REMARKS: Stateq E.. ,{'�J�'��ma..--���^ PRT-APPLICATION (A-95) ADDENDUM v` t WATER POLLUTION ION i SOLID WASTE GRANT/LOAN OfEa*W RCPCAEN..IN t26 t. 4�f,eTA rt ^ Return to: d £ Office of Community Develotmant L 100 Insurance Ruildtng Olympia, Washington 98504 S - Y ,yf feM�Oy DOE ID. STATE APPLICATION IDENTIFIER t I I PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: I ' Yee In FRQ Is 'his project resulting from a State and/or Federal order or directive? t Is this project resulting from a serious existing health hazard? Is this project an extension, mndiflcation, or addition to existing facilities. 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: In Local DOE DOE. Pre &ration A roval A roval A roval Date PLANNING A ENGINEERING STATUS Yes No Ten No Ten No Date bounty City Other I Comprehensive Planning ••• Q XX XX �..'., Feasibility Study.... .. . .... .......... ... XX Snglneering Report ... .. . . ................ XX — Plans and Specifications .. ............... XX Environmental Assessment or C.I.S. ..... .. XX Operation and Maintenance Agreements.. .. . XX 1 I PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULING_ Requested funds necessary to initiate construction by June 1976 (date) After construction funds are offered, construction contract will be let in 3 months. A PRE-CON STRUCTI01 COSTS A SCHEDULING: Engineering Rs port Plans and Spetiftu done Other Total COST S 50,000 S 150 000 S S zoo 000 DATE Is loan requested for pea-construction Bost? Tom XX 5 FACILITY CAPITAL COSTS: arF , foontn I MN/A Facility Cost Year Factli[ Cost ult 160 $1f675,000 $to •e ty Capita oat•6 Fnr solid waste facility onlyList existing f.icilltlu Sn operation associated with this project. Attach li 7 For solid vaate facilities only: List jurisdictions covered or affected by this project. N/A R For solid waste facilities only: List the governmental structure elements which are or will be operational by the time applications are submiLted. N/A 9 For sewage systems only: Attached A layout sap color coded in red shoving that portit Of the project eltRible under PL 92-50n, 10 The applicant repreannts that the data in this application are true and correct to the bast d his knowledge and belief and that the filing of this application has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant. Exact Legal (Corporate Neu* of Applicants Water Oi St r' t E. : ture of attesting officer) � ( ;gnat aof •uther?zed e[(tcar) Date: 1 71t1a: Secretary Pres'Jent f 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, STATE DIRECTOR, t CLEARINGHOUSE DISTRICT CLEARINGHOUSE GRANT REVIEW Office of Community Development : Insurance Building pip Olymnia, Washington 98504 P NO I It 1.01'INTEN r OLE ARINGWXrE 117. SEAT APPLICATION If%NTR18 13 CARD TYPt ON I'ONIANG Ni"ItATONN APIMACAN f PROII'.Pr TITLE 1.0, i Ma Creek Sewer Interco [ors - Phase II MM AflM.ICA NI.AGES"Y 12-J5 DIVISION JA-NV VL Water District No. 107 & City Tf Rent('.' APPLWANf A AIRF%%(%,"1) - ('IiY J6- C LI 00' . .40 5806-A 119th Avenue S. E. Illevue King 98006 CONTACT PERSON 12-45 nREA 46-48 PION:A7.55 EXT. S6-Y) C Mr. Sam Macri, Manager 206 SH 6-T751 12-71-- PROJECT OESCRIYOON(Ux 5 hwm 1f N JeJ) 05 Lt.. I This prtiect provides for sewer service eo urban areas througl: .uc the May Creek ' ... � 17-n Lin-2 Drainage Basin. 07 12-71 I,IM �/'�A�� 12 71 Line J C 11-11 f Une 5 l� DtSTR1 AINGHO SP. LOCATION 12.71 f Pu e, ound Governmental Conference . Grand Central on the :ark Seattle WA 98104 PROJECT LOCATION 11 Northern portion of Renton and southern portion of W. D. No. 107. FEDEA lL FVNO.S STATE FUNDS APPLICANT FUNDS TUT AL FUNDS E12 Gr..[I7-IR LaAn fr.m LdnCAM In-kind O&W, e $1,406,250 281,250 $187,500 1 $1,875,000 I'LAILRAL 14'NOIN(:AGENCY FEDERAL -AGENCY 13 Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Water Programs F EDERAI.PROGRAM TITLEOCT-A—LOCUt NO 14 . Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works 66.01.5 "A TT.PION DING A(;"(*S SPATE PROGRAM TITLE 15 Dept. Of Ecolo Referendum 26 t,^ TYPE.OF APPLICANT.(Check Do the Mlle mwt ppik.bIl Gn.) 1■! INTER- SCHOOL SPECIAL COMMUNITY SPONSORED STATE STATE COUNTY CITY DISTRICT [Ni- ACTION ORGANIZATION OTHER i ❑I7 ❑IS 014 Q5 ❑ f, 017 ❑15 019 13 �rS TE OF AC NON(Click(X).. r,.n,Eom•s.APPIV a this.ctlm) NFW CONTINUATION SUPPLEMENT INCREASE DECREA°E INCREASE DECREASE GPnNr GRANT GRANT IIIRATION OIRATION CANCELLATION DOL�LAYRS DOLLARS ®II Ch. ❑2l ❑2J ❑25 ❑26 13D D" f 17 IS STATE P.AN IS REGII)NAL PLAN IS THERE A ENVIRONMENTAL HAS FEDERAL HAS STATE FUNDING 1 RF.OUIREnt REOUIRED7 COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT FUNDING AG8NCIY AGENCY BEEN NOTIFIED` ' V�--E-IlS� NO YrEE-YSS_ NO R.AN7 YffE��7S NO SEEN N0TIFII,EE0D7� YES No a, ❑'0 at ❑52 CITY®p COl'NTY®AJ tSOt ❑26 YE 37 ^•-UB ®59 1340 IS HOUSING RELO'AI'ION NECESSAPY7 IF WATER AREA IS INVOLVED. INDICATE IS SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORE TIDE- Pi P.MIT REQUIRED7 YES NO RIVER t.81: LAND LAND O fH-! YES �(N'''O'II p IDI ❑ ❑ l8. ® LI ESTIMATED DATE OF Si RMISSION FINAI, APJC<rl(N PROJECT DATES test. rRin lEst. eMmRl 18 i 9 June 1975 - June 1977 19 LSTAN 1U 5 INC C f W. D. No. 107 METRO PSGC p L r IN 1 h. _ (See.prcifl[rt fence[o snte, ma re{k.. an Ich wppSn ar cmfOm .11"this ptekcO. p This project is part of the comprehensive plan for the City of Renton and W. D. No. 107. FORM PCAA-CH-1 revised ,R MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR PHASE II (Projected to July 1, 1976) A. LAKE BOREN - 5700 L.F. Clearing & Grubbing L.S. $ 500.00 8" Force Main 700 l.f. @ 13.10 = 9,170.00 12" Concrete 1250 l.f. @ 15.45 = 19,313.00 15" Concrete 1400 l.f. @ 17.00 = 23,800.00 18" Concrete 2200 l.f. @ 18.60 = 40,920.00 18" C.I.P. 150 l.f. @ 43.50 = 6,525.00 Pipe Bedding 5000 l.f. C4) 1.50 = 7,500.00 Manholes 24 ea. @ 850.00 = 20,400.00 Restoration, Roadway 5000 l.f. @ 6.50 = 32,500.00 Restoration, Unimproved 700 l.f. @ 1.00 = 700.00 Rock Excavation 300 c.y. @ 20.00 = 6,000.00 Creek Crossing 1 ea. @ 10,400.00 = 10,400.00 Pump Stations 2 ea. @ 35,000.00 = 70,000.00 METRO Manhole 1 ea. t@ 2,000.00 = 2,000.00 Sub-Total § 249,728.00 B. 110TH AVENUE S.E. - 5600 L.F. Clearing & Grubbing 1 A. Q 2,000.00 = 2,000.00 12" Concrete 3700 l.f. @ 15.45 = 571.65 12" C.I .P. 1900 l.f. @ 28.20 = 535.80 Pipe Bedding 3700 i.f. @ 1.00 — 3,700.00 Manholes 17 ea. @ 900.00 = 15,300.00 Restoration, B.I.T. Roadway 3700 l.f. @ 6.50 = 24,050.00 Restoration, Unimproved 1900 l.f. @ 1.50 = 2,850.00 METRO Manhole 1 ea. @ 2,000.00 = _ 2,000.00 Sub-Total $ 160,645.00 C. S. E. 91ST STREET - 2050 L.F. Clearing & Grubbing 1 A. d 3,900.00 — 3,900.- ) 10" Concrete 700 1.f. @ 10.00 = 7,000.00 10" C.I.P. 1350 l.f. @ 20.55 = 27,743.00 Pipe Bedding 700 l.f. @ 1.00 = 700.00 Manholes 6 ea. @ 900.0c = 5,400.00 Restoration, Roadway 200 l.f. @ 6.50 = 1,300.00 Restoration, Unimproved 1850 l.f. @ 2.00 = 3,700.00 METRO Manhole 1 ea. @ 2,000.00 = 2,000.00 Sub-To ta1 $ 51,743.00 -1- D. S. E. 93RD STREET - 2350 L.F. Clearing h Grubbing 1 A. @ 2,000.00 = $ 2,000.nO 10" Concrete 1450 l.f. @ 8.50 = 12," 25.00 10" C.I.P. 900 l.f. @ 23.50 = 21,150.00 Pipe Bedding 1450 l.f. @ 1.00 — 1,450.00 Manholes 7 ea. @ 900.00 = 6,300.00 Restoration, Unimproved 1450 l.f. @ 1.5c = 2,175.00 Erosion Control, Restoration 900 l.f. @ 3. )O = 2,700.00 Creek Crossiub 1 ea. @ 10,000.00 = 10,000.00 METRO Manhole 1 ea. @ 2,400.00 = 2,400.00 Foot Bridge 1 ea. @ 11,180.0C = 11,180.00 Sub-Total $ 71,680.00 E. KENNYDALE - 8800 L.F. Hillside Trail — Cleariu h R rubbing 1 ea. @ 3,900.00 — 3,900.00 Crj.:' ;ng 1225 l.f. @ 1.30 = 1,593.00 Rock walls 75 c.y. @ 26.65 = 1,999.00 Train Gulxcrts 50 l.f. @ 6.50 = 325.00 (,� ,shed Rock 65 c.y. @ 15.60 = 1,073.00 Seeding 1 A. @ 1,560.00 = 1,560.00 Foo; ':ridge 1 ea. 11,180.00 = 11,180.00 Sub-Total 21,630.00 Sewer Line 8" Force Main 875 l.f, 0 13.10 = 11,463.00 12" C.I.P. 1225 l.f. @ 28.20 = 340545.00 12" Concrete 6700 ! .f. @ 15.45 = 103,515.00 Pipe Redding 7575 1.f. @ 1.25 = 9,469.00 -' oles, P.%'.C. 2 ea. 9 1,560.00 = 3,120.00 les, Con rete 20 ea. C 900.00 = 18,000.00 coration, Grassed Area 960 l.f. @ 2.00 1,920.00 Restoration, B.I .T. Road 4800 l.f. @ 6.50 = 31,200.00 Restoration, Asphalt Road 1375 l.f. @ 7.50 = 10,313.00 Restoration, Unimproved Road 400 l.f. C-) 1.75 = 700.00 Road Crossing, Jacked 1 ea. @ 2,500.00 = 2,500.00 Creek Grossing, May Creek 1 ea. @ 10,400.00 = 10,400.OU Pump Stations 2 ca. @ 4U,000.00 = 80,000.00 METRO Manhole 1 ea. @ 2,000.00 — 22000.30 Sub-Total 319,145.00 Sub-Total $ 340,775 -2- a ' ,:�:• _ -.a.rrMuuiw w.rJrr.... �..114...-w.� ....+.......+.w-- u ... _ . F. HONEYDEW CREEK - 6900 L.F. Hillside Trail Clearing & Grubbing 2.93 A. ® 3,900.00 = $ 11,466.00 Grading 6400 l.f. @ 1.30 = 8,320.00 Rock Walls 300 c.y. @ 26.65 = 7,995.00 Trail Culverts 200 l.f. ® 6.50 = 1,300.00 Crushed Rock 320 c.y. @ V'60 = 4,992.00 Seeding 2.93 A. @ 1,56u.00 = 4,571.00 Sub-.otal 38,644.00 Sewer Line i Clearing & Grubbing 1.52 A. 9 3,900.00 = 5,928.00 18" P.V.C. 6300 l.f. @ 42.70 = 269,010.00 18" C.I.P. 150 I.f. @ 43.70 — 6,555.00 18" Concrete 450 l.f. @ 18.65 = 8,393.00 Pipe Bedding 6750 l.f. @ 3.00 = 20,250.00 Manholes, P.V.C. 8 ea. @ 1,560.00 = 12,480.00 Manholes, Concrete 2 ea. 0 900.00 = 1,800.00 Restoration, Asphalt Road 500 l.f. 9 7.50 = 3,750.00 Pit Run Gravel , Creek 750 c.y. @ 4.55 = 3,413.00 Construction Rock Cut-Off Walls, Creek 75 c.y. @ 50.00 = 3,750.00 Construction Flow Division & Stream 3300 l.f. @ 25.00 = 82,500.00 Control METRO Manhole 1 ea. @ 2,000.00 — 2,600.00 Sub-Total 419,829.00 Sub-Total $ 458,473.00 -3- if +:. TOTAL C08SnUCTIOii COST Lake Doren ; 249,720.00 110th Avenu S. E. 160,645.00 S. E. 91st Street 51,743.00 S. E. 93rd Street 71,680.00 Kennydale 340,775.00 8cn:•vlev Creek 45SA473.00 TOTAL S 1,333,044.00 H. IKDIRECT COSTS A CCNTI\CEfi.;1 State Sales Tax (5.3:) $ ?0,651.00 Contingency (15%) 199,957,00 Facilities Plan 50,000.00 Design Survey 50,000.00 Plans and Specifications 100,000.00 Construction Survey and 71,348.00 Inspection TOTAL $ 541.956.00 I. TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,875,000.00 �Axt>MYeie*kRBikir*# .. E -4- 4 "vr w PLAN OF STUDY FOR STEPS 1 -2 MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR SEWERS PHASE 11 I. PROPOSED PLANNING AREA The proposed planvinp, ..rea is the western portion (urban area) of the May Creek Drainage 8asi.e, consisting of approximately 6 square miles. l il. PLANNINC ENTITIES o The planning entities are: City of Lenton City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 i Attn: Mr. Warren Gnnnason Director of Public Works Water District No. 107 5806-A 119th Avenue S. E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attu: Mr. Sam Macri Manager e. Water District No. 107 is the lead agency for the project. The District Engineer is Mr. John R. Wallace, Jr., P. E., who is a principal in the ` consulting firm: Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. 1915 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 The firm of Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. will do the; planning work under contract. NATURE AND SCUPE OF THE PROPOSED STEP 1 PROJECT Schedule Proposed Projects Begin End Cost Estimate 1. Community Facilities Plan 5-75 11-75 9,000 2. Iaflow/I.niiltration Analysis Not needed None -1- �.y A f Schedule P-000sed Projects BeLinn End Cost Estimate 3. Environmental Assessment 5-75 10-75 S 15,000 Statement Puolic Hearing(s) 4. Industrial Recovury and Not needed None Industrial Payments 5. Cost Effectiveness 8-75 10-75 10,000 6. Relocation and Land 10-75 11-75 3,500 Acquisition Plan 7. Permits: Shoreline Management 9-75 1-76 4,000 Fisheries 500 Contingencies ® 20% 8,000 $ 50,000 1V. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED STEP 2 PROJECT Schedule Proposed Pro ects Begin End Cost Estimate 1. Design iurvey 12-75 2-76 Z 50,000 2. Preparation of Plans & 1-76 6-76 1000000 Specifications $150,000 V. SUB-AGREEMENTS There is a contract between Water District No. 107 and the City of Renton, which provides for Water District No. 107 to be the lead agency and provide all engineering and construction contract services. There is an engineering contract between Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc., an engineering firm, and l4ater District No. 107, authorizing the engineering fi,n to provide assistance as requested. A separate authorization for tcis project has been made. -2 I F FORM ^ RETUR.4 D I I AF OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON FUTURE PROGRAM WF1.573 ASHINGTON FUTURE FUNDING OUESTIONNAIRF Office of Program Plannmy and Fiscal Manayalnent -- ---- Olympu, Washington 95504 _ (la) APPLICANT (nalM i aAArast) (lb) PROJECT CONTACT mama A tTI �s Water District No. 107 �11<) TELEVMDNE No 5806-A 119th Ave., S. E., Bellevue, WA 98006 Sam 14acri, Manager lSH 6-0751 l2a) PROJECT PF.R100 (2bl TOTAL COST OF PROJECT 1975 - 1978 $ 1,875,000 ------ pa) PROJECT LOCATION --- —� — (]b) MUNICIPALITY 13c) COUNTY - 1306 LEGISLATIVE DIST. May Creek Drainage Basin King Count-, & Renton King 41sG FEOERAL LOCAL WASHINGTON FUTURE OTHER (a) FUNDING PERCENTAGE 75 % 10 y 15 A Nome 9G (5) HAVE YOU COMPLETED AND ATTACHED Washington Future Number: THE LOCAL. FISCAL CONDITION REPORT? IDf YES Lx6O (71 TM?1--S^-�PROJECT CONFORMS�T�I0 HE COMPREHENS I.V" PLAN FOR: (a) DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD Ei LOCAL LERREGIONAL ill OR STATE INDICATE THE AVERAGE WORK FORCE. 40 (9) WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THE ENVIpONMEN TAI. IMPACT STATEMENT This project will accelerate urbanization; it will improve water quality. 1101 IS THIS PROJECT THE RESULT OF A FEDERAL III) WILL THE NECESSARY FUNDS FOR OPERATING OR STATE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT? —_ ❑VES ¢� NOI THE COMPLETED PROJECT BE AVAILABLE? YES NO (121 PROJECT BE NEFI7 MEASURE Pollution cortrol would occur, thereby safeguarding public nealth and safety. IISI CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT HAVF BEEN COMPLETED TO DATE FOR THL PROJECT: 1' PLAN DESIGNED ❑ PLAN APPROVED ❑ ENGINEERING COMPLETED C PLAN AUTIIORIZLD ❑ PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING APPROVED ❑ ENGINEERING APPROVED AND ACCEPTED 17 PLAN COMPLETED H8 ENGINEERING AUTHORIZED ._.._.._. 1141 IDENTIFY ORGANIZATIONAL AND CITIZEN SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT. City of Renton, Renton City Council Water District No. 107 Water District Commission ------ -- --- -------- (IrrySTI/DOES THIS PROJECT PROVIDE THE iOLLOWING: URBAN EXPANSION ❑ SERVE THE UNDERPRIVILEGED OR HANOICAPPEO L^ NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INOUSTRIAL. OEVELOI ❑ LAVE HIS TRICAL SITES PRESERVE NATURAL SITES ❑ PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RECREATIONAL AREAS W FLIMINATE OF REDUCE LOCAL NUISANCE CC ® PROTECT TIIE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PROVIDE SEASONAL OR YEAR-ROUND USE O: (161 DUES THIS PROJECT SATISFY AGRICULTL•.AL OR 1, UAL WATER DEMANDS? rq-I _,YES 93 NO (17) DESCRIBE THE MULTIPURPOSE Po TENTIA,.OF THIS PROJECT AND ATTACH A COPY OF THE PROPOSAL. WASHINGTON FUTURE USE ONLY _ v S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE �l TO EPA/DOE GRANT 3X a M p• �f Z• XUTP.: F09V j f f OF WASNINGTON /i.•a //Y111 tl IWr f0 aC flid/ ,F1_873 I\ I1.1 - iYASHINGTON i-JTURE LOCAL FISCAL CONDITION 'oFT,\XINF UNIT TAX SUr'.'ORTFO IN OFnTEONE55 AS OF —'ACTUAL ,STRI T 147,2 _5 PROC[RTV IN King County Water Dist. No. 1077 decenibei631")t1973 TnwNo aIsTRIcrS 47a285a792 I_fiDF2TEUSE55 FOR GENERAL PURPOSES 1YITHOUT A VOTE OF THc PEOPLE, • [S—354 643.44 LEGAL LIe11T 9,318 or 3A (14hichaver Applicable) of 1% on Property Vdble INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED 1. G. C. Bond Liabilities . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 511.000.00—� Leis limption Fund Asset: a. Can oil Hand 4 b. Uncollected Taxes • • ' . . ' 1 a715.92j—n Total !^plicable Assets ' ' ' • Excess of Liabilities Over Assets . • ' S 2 9 s 2. General Fund Liabilities tnsludind Warrants, Contracts and Others & Bonds . • • 1y415i917•57 Leis General Fund Assets: a. Cash on Hand • . . S 912 741.10 b. Uncollactad Taxes - 4 a Recaivablas (List in Detail) • . . ' S8,834.35 _ Total Applicable Assets • . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I 1,313,48U.1) Excess of Liabilities over Assets. . • ' ' ' ' ' . • • 10 a46.58� p( 3. Strait Road Fund Liaoac 1 Including Warrants, fontnv acts and Others Lass Street or Road Fund Assets: a. Ca;h on Hand • • ' ' ' ' ' S b. Uncollected Taxes • • • ' . ' ' r aivabs(List Detail) Tot . ' , Total Applicable Assets . ---1 Excess of LiebilAiea over Assets . ' .' ' ' 1 ( d. Other Fund ar each S , (Repast for each Separate Fmld .ama-- � as in 2 or 3 above.) —r� . . . .. . . . • • 115.152.50 Total Met General Ind,,001111ess • ' Margin of Ind^.htedness Still Available . • • • ' ' ' ' ' • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. '39.490.9, 4 11. ^JE9TEUMSS FOP GENERA_ PURPOSES WITH A 35 VOTE OF THE PEOPLE 'Applicebl!only to Counties, Cities, Towns an.; Hospital Ogiricts.) r LEGAL LI`tIIT @ 24);on PrhPWY value . . . . . . ', ;tiuEETEDNFSS INCURRED Wulsuant to 4 Vote) �— --1 G. 0. Bin.' Liabilities. • . . ' ' l� --•1 e:; Rerlo:ay:inn ford Assets: Caw in Hand . . . $ b. U;:ro;te-r,d Texts• . . . . . . . Tun! Asrlc . a:a set L'%,a tliaa Over As;Eis — --- it G,,,.r;: Pl.i pie:,. ,,•rv.hl'dn+b:Sli' Avdilab!R '. re,_ x r 11.1-A; INDEBTEDNESS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES in,TH A 315 VOTE OF THE PEOPLE t_.... IAppllcable only to Cities and Tnwns for Utility Purposes.! LEGAL LIMIT @ 27;% on Property Value . . . . _ . . . . . . INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED (Pursuant to a Vote) G. 0. Bond Liand'ties - - . . . . . . . . —� Less Redemption Fund Assets: a. Cash on Hand - . . . I � _ S�h Tease cted Total Applicable -- Assets Facers of Liabilities Over Assets . . . . . . . . . ��,• Martin of Speua; Indehledtins Still Available . . . . . . . . . . III-li. INDEBTEDNESS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES WITH A 31S VOTE OF THE PEOPLE (Appbeable only to Cin w n and Tons for Parks and Open Space Purposes A.) t LEGAL LIMIT @ 2Ye%on Property Value - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =L INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED (Punuant to a Vote) yy U. 0 Baud Liabilities . . Lou Redemption Fund Aborts: a. Cash on Hand h. eael Taxes . �.. Total al Ap ApnhcaLle Assets Excess of Lialadmes Over Assets • • . • • • . . . . . . . . • • . . . Mary.n of Stimal Indebted—ss Still Available . . . . . . . . . . . , List separately for each numbered calegnry above the amount of any bond issues planned tiut not yet submitted for approval. Show the amount, esGntated date of issuance and source of repayment funds if other than property taxes Under a sepivate headmq also show the same data for planned issues of utility revenue bonds. Y f' 4 i REVENUE BONDS 1. For each outstanding issue show. ` A. Date of issue B. Total authorization C. Balance outstanding D Retirement schedule including interest E, Bond fund balance F. Soixl reserve balance G. Coverage covenant W Provisions for a idmorial parity if applicable III Carlihetl coverage requuement (21 Reserve furxl requirement 13) Provisions relating to or restricting the inclusion of future revenue and/or expense projections (4) Special covenants regarding construction reserves,sinkinglunds,etc. 1. Requirements for construction or other special funds not related to issuance of parity bonds J, Any other spacial covenants or requirements 2. ;sold issues in process, committed or planned with detail•.; of maturity, interest, coverage and any spacial covaants to the extent available. 3. Operalinxl fund,nd special fund lalancos (cumulative reserves for construction,equipment,or,.). 4. Copy of water and sewer rate ordinances now in effect, indicating for each rate its nglral effective date. Include connection charges and requirements for connection, Also .huw any proposed rate or charge n creases under consideration with the proposed effective date. S. Pertinent information on service contracts with industry or other municipal.tiea not included under general rate rxslinarrces. B Policy on water and sewer hie extensions, both ganoral aid for developers. ,.o. LID, revenue, comitctitnr charges,etc. 7. Operating autsments A. Operating revenues and expenses for three latest years. B Non operetmg income and expenditures for same period. C. Projected revenues and operating expenses if anticipated to substantially differ from currant bmausu of rate change or changing conditions. If projections not available give rotated information. B. Six year utility capital improvement budget of best estimate of capital neds over that period. r y' ' r Bunn uir n INMOrf` NE%S AV .w Ac J:nL vtau! 0v 'Ax AnLF n""w"or, �1, aOF REHTOIJ ° c�'ii6cr' i'(1���vY973 r 'r"Siisicra SR9,6R7r050.0t DEBTEDNESS FOR GENERA( PURPOSES WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. i iX LEGAL LIMIT 0 318 or 3/4 (Whichever Apphrabal of 1%on Property Value• S 4,422.608.0 ' 1 INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED 7 1. G. 0 Band Uandities• . . S1 r fi20,000.00 Less Redemptsin Fund Assets. __ G a. Cash on Hand • • ' 1; 33,(97_00 r 697.00 b. Uncollected Taxes Total Applicahle Assets ' • • ' • . • —193 Excess of Liabilities Over Assets ' ' ' ' _—�-- S 1,426,303.00 2 General Fnnd Liabilities Including Warrants. Contracts and Others less General Fund Assets a. Cash ins Hand Is. Uncollected Taxes - c. Receivables (Litt in Detail) • ' . . • Total Applicable Assets - }]} Excess of Labihtns aver Assets' Lam_ 1 3 Street Of Road FLad Liabilities 11 Including Warrants, Contracts and Others T Less Street of Road fund Atift a Cash on Hand b. Uncollected Taxes c. Receivables (List in Detail) ' Total Applicable Assets Excess of Liabilities over Assets ' ' ' • • • • v - -1 4. Other Fund Lsahihhes �J (Repeat for earh Separate Fund tame as in 1 of 3 abovq,l Total Net General Indebtedness - .� . . . . . . P—�—a'+S•L�'38!��� Margin of Indebtedness Still Available . . . . . S $,99605.0 FBTEDNESS FOR GENERAL PURPOSFS WITH A 315 VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IApphcable only to Counties, Cites, Tqwns and Hospital Onlncts I LEGAL LIMIT Estts4%on Pnrperty Value ' • ' . . . . S4r047,181R._ INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED (Punuant to a Vote) G 0 Bond Liabilities' . . . . . . . . S 140 000.00 Less Redemption Fund Assets: a Cash on Hand b. Uncollected Taxes - Total Applicable Assets . ' • • ' ' • • 6 850 00 Excess of Liabilities Over Assets • • • • • . . ,'c'T`,—sc� ' 43r150.00 at General Indebtedness from Sectmn I .`4zo- a.Qa.,QQ nmlifud lndehfndnrrcs Serfinn land I ' • • • ' • • . . . . . . . . . 17469r433. nrgns of General Purpose Indehtrdn"s Still Avadahlr ' • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . S 12, •77.735.� E NOEB 'EONENS INCURRED (Pursuant to d Vote) G. 0. Bond Liabilities .Lass Redemption Fund Assets: a. Cash on Hand . . . . . . • S It. Uncollected Taxes Total Applicable Assets • • . t Excess of Liabilities Over Avos . • • • • . . . . . . . . . rtt aargm of Special Indebtedness Still Availobla . . . . . . . INDEBTEDNESS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES WITH A 315 VOTE OF_T_HE PEOPLE (Applicable unly to Cities and Tuwos tot Parks and Upon Space Purpuses.) r .EGAL LIMIT 0 2va%on Property value . . . . . . r NOEBTEDNESS INCURRED (Pursuant to a Vote) i`,{ , r, G. 0. Bond Liabilities . • . . . . i Less Redemption Fund Assets' r a. Cash on Hand t b. Uncollected Taxes • • • • Trial Applicable Assess . Excess of Uebditivs Ove! Assets . • . • • • • . • • • . • • • • . • . . agm of Specsal 'pdebtedness Still Available . • . i i l ist separately for each numbered category above the amuunt of any bond issues planned hot net yet submitted tot approval how the amount, estimated da.e of issuance and source of tepagment tunds it other than property taxes. ndei a separate heading also show the same data for planned issues of utdny revenue hinds. II Indebtedness for General Purposes with a 3/5 vote of the People 1. Fire Station $1,000#000.00 1975 2. Senior Citizens Center $ 300,000.00 1975 III Utility Revenue Ponds ].. water Utility $1,500,000.00 1974 - 2. Sewer Utility $ 500,000.00 1974 . ' City 0_ Runton - Waturworks Utility ;Utumunt of RuvUrluu ;lid I;xpwue For tha puriod: January 1� 1973 to Uuuwnbur 31, 1973 �qex Revenue nature ua os $ %01.20 Matured fwlcs 1,205,988,92 1"Ire Protection `+urvicu 051988.92 Other Salus to public Autho3-ltius IJ06.2.21 Miscellaneous Ruvunu• 1J2.OP Other Water Revenuu 1.530.26 Total Operating Revenue $ 1,2842665.11 oratinpRovcnuo Deductions IWforu 11 Pru,:i ,tion 7".t. .nterua, Expense C 655,00l.43 Maitttetuulca Er�wfse T;txeu 2oI,286.99 _ 140 678.32 Total Operating Deductions 1kfore Dupruciatio.r 996.966.74 Not Oporat' y! InCeme Ituf'oro Dupreciatiarl $ 287,713.37 Lass Depa eci.ation Not Operating Income $ 105,44..93 Add_ _ Nono ratinL Income ---n.trts rruugs 1F1s�8 Total Income $ 1213151.31 Less Nonoperating Expense t urus uusu - venue Bonds $ 47,512.77 Into rest txpunsu - Other Long Term Debt 4,136.88 Amortization of Debt Discount and Expwisu 1,465.32 Total Nonoperating Expense 53,114.97 Not Incase to Rat-Ainod Earnings $ 68,639.34 u PSCC METROPOLITAN CLEARINGHOUSE m tie U ARINGHSE pt Pr a+get sound ga+lmmmental conference A . Smith 6 5.M M.,In A. Seattle, W'aahhpoe98104 N(,TtCL OF I.\TLNT ON CLEARINGHOUSE IU, SIAIE. .U'YLICA IIUN IOENTII IER I-6 CARU TI'PE9 CR XT APPLICATIONS fA-o S'CERb IL-11 A,YLICA%T PHUIL4.I r11LE II-N 01 May Creek Sewer Interceptors - Phase 11 An•LICA.\T AG6:\C l' 11-aiiDIVUION 4649 Water DistrLct NO. 107 & City of Renton .Ai'PLICANT AUUAEaN UtrerU 17-4A cll'Y 16-fA 'COUNTY 61- 7.IY LVUL• e•6 03 5806-A 119th Avei wa, S. E. Bellevue I King 98006 CON TACF PE R6Oa 12-I5 AREA 46.48 PIIONF E9.55 EST. %-Se 041 Mr. Sam Macri, MaRAaer 206 SR 6-0751 12•111 PROJECT nESCRIFTION aw s lines H needed) 05 LlwI This project provides for sewer service to urban areas throughout 12-r1 Llor2 the May Creek Drainage Basin. ' 07 LAM Iaal L,ne a 09 j 1 Ljnr A DIS1 RICT CLEARINO/IOL'SE LOCATION 11•71 11 rROItCT LOCATION Northern un t: ,n of thr Ci .y o` R.m' un inc! �ochern portion of W. D. No. 17 FIFORRAL FUNDS OR UN TEE FCNUA •+ -?_- STATE lLtttG » TOTAL FLINGS 12 _ art I r•19 RheT 20.2T Coh In-41nJ SUN n M A1aA O[ r $1,406,250 $781 250 ld7 _ _ 875,000 I'YI'C OF On(ER FdrWAAL FUND,12.11 ^ TYPE OI NON FEDERAL.FL'NO6 aA-T#Af 13 None DOE - Ref. 26; METRO; City; Water Dist. #107 F6DLRAL PR WRAM lift. 12 11 CATALOGUE NO. 14 Construction Grants foz Waste rater Treatment Works 66.015 FFOLRAL AGENCY N.AML W-416 �- FEOERAI.NL -A :N Y i -.a 15 Environtnental Protection Agency OEi1ra of Air and Water Program TYPE:OF APPLICAN Tt ICheca vo the Single tmmn applicable hoa) INTER. SCHOOL SPECIAL COMMUNITY .SPONSOAPD STATE STATE CO�LINSTY CITY DISTRICT LIN�fr ACTION ORGANIZATION OTIILR all Is LJN s E16 Ell, (]la ❑ro []m TI PE OF ACTION(CMCE(A1 at many Iroaea a 1901Y W MU acttanl NEW CONTINUATION SI'PPL.CIIENT I INCREASE DECREASE INCSEASE DECREASE CRANT GRANT 1 GRANT DURAn rt OV DURATION CANCF L.ATIO.N DotE•'!'ARS DO L IN.ARS 36 1 IS STATE PLAN IS REGIONAL PLAN 15 THERE A ENVIRO\aIIEENTAL HAS F�?I.AL H.n 5'IATE FL NG ACQUIRED? REAL':F:rtv COMPREHENSr1•E IMPACTr-T FUNDING AGER„Y A(oNLY SEEN NOTIFIED" YESv NOS I 'SdJ21 N027 CITL , 11FITY 11 YES15 ❑M YF!❑SOTIIFI S MI, 0te IS HOLStNG RELOCATION NECESSARY? IF WATER AREA IS INVOLVEq INDICATE IS SHORF,LINE MANAGEMENT SNORE- TIDE. PERMIT REQUIRED? YES NO RIVER LAKE LAND LAND OTHER YES O ESTINIATED DATE OF Sl'SMISSION FINAL APFLICAI'1(NI 0 0PR`OJIECT RATES(Eat. Depin/Eu. endln�p) 18 April 1975 January 1976 - December 1979 19 LUl ASE,' 1 Olt f9.)G 1 WHILI INA INU City of Renton; Water District No. 107; METRO; PSGC; DOF• F.PA UESLRI L NOW IS ;X6AL FITS WI lllh REGIONAL PLANS (Site apec.9c reference to ante. I-al 6 n I..t plan oltich aoVpon or 20 conflict end,tlH,project) This protect is part of the comprehensive plan For W. D. No. 107, the City of 12cnton, and the Municipality of Mct op+l ' a S-attle (METRO). L1 fY.tASE C(YA PL I:TE IT/I: ATT.ACfIF.O PROSrECTI'S lAttunn•.ent'A'1 PSLC FORM R-1 (RcMvd Alaeeh 2I, 1073) PUCET SOUND GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE PROSPECTUS FORMAT (A-95/CERC) A. PROJECT TITLE APPLICANT NAME AND ADDRESS May Creek Sewer Interceptor - Phase 11 Water District No. 107 5806-A 119th Avenue S. E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 Phone: (206) 746-0751 B. NEEDS 1 . The nature of the human need problem is the pollution of soil through improper drainage of septic tanks. 2. There are approximately 7500 people living in the drainage basin, of which approximately 80 percent live in the urban area which will be benefited from this project. 3. The :argot population is predominantly "blue-collar" workers in the arum south of May Creek, and a mixture of "blue-collar" and "white- collar" workers north of May Creek. the estimated average annual income of this population is $11,000 per family per year. A vast number of the employees in this area may work for The Boeing Company. C. ORALS AND OBJECTIVES 1. Approximately 80 percent of the people living in this drainage area will benefit from thi; service through the construction of the now sewer interce-tor line. 2. During both the short and long range period, it is expec .o ghat land and water pollution within the urban area of the May Creek drainage basin will be eliminated. 3. This project will speed-up the urbanization of the May Creek Drainage Basin and increase the population growth therein. D. METHODS 1. Additiot.al new sewer interceptors and lateral sewer lines will be built in order to provide means of sewering homes throughout tl,e May Creek urban area. 2. State and Federal aid will be used to the maximum extent possible in order to meet the goals; local revenue bonds will provide local funding. Both L.I.D. and U.L.I .D. will be used to provide for lateral sewers. -1- r PUGET SOUND GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE PROSPECTUS FORMAT (A-95/CERC) - continued - 3. It is expected that planning and engineering will be completed in June 1976. The construction is expected to be completed in 1977. E. EVALUATION 1. To date, Step 1, under P.L. 92-500, is being completed for the main Interceptor at May Creek (Phase I). A loan has been obtained from the Department of Ecology to do both Step 1 and Step 2 for the May Creek Interceptor (Phase I). 2. The Jones Avenue Intercepter is presently under design and is being completed by both the City of Renton and Water District No. 107. This project is not yet constructed and, therefore, cannot be evaluated; however, the cooperative efforts between Renton and Water District No. 107 have worked satisfactorily. 3. This project relates well to the priorities and plans establish,. for the comnnmity. 4. A Cost Effectiveness Analysis will be made to determine the program' s cost effectiveness prior to the construction and design of the project. Other programs including an Environmental Assessment Statement are being prepared to determine the impact of the project on the environment. Upon completion of the project, the Department of Ecology will assess the various programs that it has funded fur effectiveness for treating pollution in urban areas. 5. The Department of Ecology has a program fur measuring the needs of pollutiou control projects with a point system, which measures this project against other projects in the State and iu the Region. 6. Without the construction of this projects which provides sower lines to residential areas, Erevious projects would not meet their designated purposes. F. COOPERATING AND/OR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES OR CROUPS 1. The City of Renton and Water District No. 107 are working together on this project, since this is a project that crosses jorisdietional lines. The City of Renton, Water District No. 107 and METRO are cooperating on all projects in this genernl area. METRO is working with Water District N.:. 107 and the City of Renton on Phase I. The Department of Ecology, Environmental Protection Agency and the local agencies are working together to fund this project. -2- 1 PUCET SOUND GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE PROSPECTUS FORMAT (A-95/CERC) - continued - 2. The City of Renton and Water District No. 107 have both had open meetings on the.r municipal programs. Citizen groups have had the opportunity to comment, although most of the direct public comments have been made through City Council members and the Water District Comnissioners. 3. Special programs for citizen participation are being developed part of the deciston-making process. Citizens will be asked to participate in the public hearings on the Environmental Assessment Statement, the Community Facilities Plan, and other meetings as stipulated by law. In addition, citizens will be asked to partici- pate in various other hearing, as both the primary sewer inter- ceptors are being developed and as the secondary sewer interceptors are being planned. C. BUDGET 1. The anticipated total opet...ing and maintenance costs will be developed as part of the project. 2. The anticipated capital costs are shown in the arplication and on the A-95 form and are $1,675,000. 3. no anticipatoo funding sources are shown on the application and on the A-95 form (EPA - 75%1 DOE - 15%; and Local - 10%). 4. The total anticipated costs are shown on the A-95 form ($1,875,000). 5. The anticipated future funding is limited to lateral sewers which will be determined ab part of the Stop 1 Program. It. ENVIRONMENTAL ASaMSMENT There will be an Environmental Assessment Statement needed and it will be developed as part of the Step 1 Program listed herein. I. CIVIL RIGHTS 1. Forms EEO-4 are not available from the local office. Form ED-503 is submitted instead. 2. Both the City of Renton and Water District No. 107 practice equal opportunity programs and observe non-discriminatory practices. -3- d U O '!• OFFtc'1eorTui.; OITYATTORNEY • RENTON.WANHINGTON r' p POST OFFICE SOX 626, 100 7NO AVENUE RVILOIN0, RENTON. WASHINGTON NOSE AIFNNS $467 SS14 " b SEMIARID M. SNSIMN, CITM ATTORNEY 4 IONN A. MIN. JR.. AS!IS FANT CII, ATTURNLT .O 94Tfn SE P,E�O January 13, 1975 i Mr. Richard C. Houghton Public Works Department City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 ?r, Re: AGreement - Extension to May Creek Interceptor Dear Dick. This is to acknowledge your memo dated January 10. 1975 together with the proposed Agreement with Metro and King County Water District No. 107 . You invited our comments and they are as follows : 1. Section 2 requiras the District to provide the engineering`plat— -specifications, etc. F •ibject to Approval by Metro, prior % advertising for bids. Since our City is involved, it would . eem that we .,hould also approve same, along with Metro, at lease to the extent that these plans and specs pertain to the "City sewers". Section 3 provides that we are responsible to furnish the proper a3 is For the "City sewers" but I am wondering whether we should have any interest or right to approve the interceptor itself. If you trt feel that Metro should handle that exclusively then there would be no problem with Sections 2 and 3. I 2 Section 7: We presume the intent is that Metro and the City wo-u=r-e-1-m6urse the District for a certain percentage amount remaininc for any deficiency after application of any grants received. I am not certain that Section 7 spells out correctly that the method of reimbursement only applies to the dlffarence batt7een the amount of the grant and the total costs. 0n the copy furnished to me the City' s reimbursement is left "blanli". 141hatever the amount is , we assume it has been properly appropriated in the budget. If no outside ,.lnancial assistance or grants can be secured, will the City have sufficient fiznds to participate anyway? �✓ [P y +'e n t r . ... a .. 3. Section 11 tro or its desi shall have L e r g. t tor construct athe einterceptor, aftereJuly 1, 1977 if the District is unable to do co. In such event the City and Metro shall reimburse the District for the costs' of the facilities plarrz . Is there any information at this time as to what that cost would amount to and what assurance do we have of receiving any such -rant? 4. hider the Agreement we have to furnish with certain construction data, i.e. design, lothe District Shouldn' t there be a time limitation as tohcese various etc. steps that have to be taken? Is the District going to keep the City and Metro advised from time to time as to the monies expanded for planning, etc, and how are we going to be kept posted as to any progress in the matter? has until July 17 determine whether�itemayhcommencecconstruction, what. is9theto likelihood that the City's participation and financial exposure may be increased substantially during the next two and one-half years? Except for the questions raised above, the proposed Agreement is 1-)proved as to laral form. We remain Vary truly yours , Gerard M. Shellan City Attorney (1S:b]m MEMORANDUM January 31 , 1975 TO: RICHARD HOUGHTON FROM: WARREN GONNASON Public Works Director RE : INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ANALY� IS May Creek Basin John Wallace called this morning and discussed with me the matter of the requirement for the infiltration and inflow analysis in connection with the facilities plan for the May Creek trunk. The funding of this study is included in the loan which has been negotiated between Water District 107 and the Department of Ecology through Referendum 27. It is therefore funded and will be subject to reimbursement when the grant from EPA for Step 1 and 2 activities is made. The actual performance of the work could be accomplished by the City or Water District 107 th-nugh its consultant. I advised John Wallace and authorized them to proceed with the infiltration and inflow analysis as a part of the loan and pursuant to our agreement with Water District 107 and Metro. I advised him that our Utilities Division would cooperate with them in the conduction of this study. ----------- --- -- ------ WCG:cah � v.. ;w WI/ October 24, 1974 Department of Ecology 15345 N.E. 36th Street Redmond, Washington 98052 Attention: Mr. Gordon Wegwart, Grants Engineer SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE MAY CREEL; SANITARY SEWER INTERC�]PR LINE STEPS 1 AND 2 Geatlemen: � , " a,, 4'� Enclosed Ls-an Application for Federal. Assistance for the May Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Line for Steps I and 2. In addition, enclosed are the following: A. Interceptor Project Cost Estimate. B. Payment Schedule. C. Work Schedule Line Diagram showing: 1. Work already in progress and completed prior to November 1, 1974. 2. Work to be completed, and estimated completion period. If you should have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours truly, KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 By: Henry F. McCullough I APPLICANT: The upper half of this card will I �sed to acknowledee receipt of your M application procosai. The lower half will be I source of do-a for computer entry. Cnmplete all entries (sacep: e, inG.awdJ including your address on reverse. DO NOT SEPARATE. RETURN ENTIRE CARD WITH YOUR APPLICATION;PROPOSAL. TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT MAY CREEK SANITARY SEWER INTERCEPTOR LINE FOR EPA USE ONLY 5a TTED BY ORANT/PROJECTNO.• KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 5806-A 119th Avenue S.E. DATE RECEIWED Bellevue, Wa 98006 t *NOT Et A control number has been assigned which MUST be used for ALL future reference to your application/proposal- EPA Farm 5700-8 tRay. 6-72) GRANT APPLICATIONI'PROPOSAL RECEIPT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR(L.u, ❑I.r, W.I.) FOR CPA USE ONLY . a NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT ,'(neluda city. count),, PA GRANT/PROTECT NO. a:are. ZIP cPQ.and dl xreleJ King County Water District No. 107 PE DATE RECEIVED E 5806-A llnth Avenue S.E. TYPE(Chat*one) Bellevue, Wa 98006 [RNEW LICONTI.UATIONOI, King County Congressional District #7 (CNream ( RE REQUESTE FOR TH[ P I 115 flITGET Pl RD100 F# , $ 142,500 yi TITLE OF PR2PJSED PROJECT mn MAY CREEK SANITARY SEWER INTERCEPTOR LINE I 0a4 1572 O- 0E-327 F orm Approved OMB No. 158-R0110 p t State Clearinghouse Identifier APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2/363/74 (FOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS) 2.Applicant's Application No. PART _ 4 :.Federal Grantor Agency 4.Appl cant Name ENVIRONMENTAL PRO_^CTION AGENCY KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 Organizational Unit Department Dwision OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS -- I Administrative Office Street Ac'dress- x '..{ REGION 10 HEADQUARTERS 5806-A 11yTH AVENUE S.E. " Street Address- P.0.Box --- City County 1200 SIXTH AVENUE BELLEVUE KING — -- ' City State Zip Code State Zip Code � �... ) SEATTLE WA 98101 WA 98006 f 5.Descriptive Name of the Project I MAY CREEK SANITARY SEWER INTERCEPTOR LINE 6. Federal Catalog No. 7. Federal Fund,m Flequ»ted 66.400 T 142,500 L i 6.Grantee Type t _Fiat*, county. Cit y.__x_—._Other(SPK.fy) WATER DISTRICT 9.Typo of Application or Request X Nw Grant, Contfnustlon, Supplement, Other Cflenges(Specify) 10,Typo of Assistance X Grant, _ Loan,--other i5pecify) 11.Population Directly Benefiting from the Protect 13. Length of Project SEE ATTACHED STATEMENT 18 MON'.'MS 112.Congressional rstnct i 14. Beginning Date a. 7TH SEPTEMBER, 1974 b. 15. Due of Appgcerlon OCTOBER 25, 1974 16.The applicant certifies that to the best of his knowledge and belief the date In this application are true and correct,and that R44v he will comply with the attached asturancet if he receives the grant.The applicant agrees that if a grant is awarded on the bash ;p of this application or any revision or amendmant thereof. it will comply with all applicable statutory provisions and with the p applicable tame, conditions, and procedures 01 the Environment Protection Agency grant ruhnons (40 CFR Chep»r 1, Subcheptaf B)and of the grant agreement, I Typed name Title HENRY F. MC CULLOUCH PRESIDENT OF BOARD Telephone Numbs, Aral Code Number Ext. Signature of Authorized Repro»ntative 206 746-0751 For Federal Use Only EPA Form 57g (11.73) PAGE 1 of 11 Feese Append OIFH Ne, 1U RO 110 PART 11 PROJECT APPROVAL INFORMATION SECTION A Item 1. Does this assistance request require State, local, Name of Governing Budy STATE OF WASHINGTON I region r,or other priority rating? Priority Rating __ t --A—Yes No Item 2. Does this assistance request require State,or local Name of Agency or t& advisory,educational or health clearances? Board_ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH i —X Yes—No(Attach Documentation) Item 3. a Does this assistance request require clearinghouse review (Attach Comments) i ,. in accordance with OMB Circular A-95? COMMENT ATTACHED X Yes—No 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_No Item 5• Is the proposed project covered by an approved Check one: State 0 comprehensive plan? Local X Regional p iIATER DISTRICT NO. 107 Vas__ No Location of plan Will the assistance requested serve a Federal Name of Federal Installation_ installat,on? Federal population benefiting from Project _Yes X No Item 7. Will the assistance requested be on Federal Lind Name of Federal Installation or installation? Location of Federal Land Percent of Project _Yes x No Item 8•Will the assistance requested have an impact or effect See instruction for additional information to be on the environment? provided. X __Yes_NO SEE ATTACHED STATEMENT Item 9. Number of: Has the project for which 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 Item 10. Is there other related Federal assistance on this Sea instructions for additional information to be project previous,pending,or anticipated? provided. _Yes_JX._,No EPA F.m$790.31(I I-73) PAGE 3 OF I I e. Form Appro•ad OMB No. 15a-R011t, INSTRUCTION I PART N - SECTION 8 .`E i 11. SITES AND IMPROVEMENTS: Not required,- Attached as exhibits Applicant intends to acquire the site through: EASEMENTS AND FRANCHISE Eminent domain, Negotiated purchase, K Other means(specify) 12. TITLE OR OTHER INTEREST IN THE SITE IS OR WILL BE VESTED IN: KING COUNTY 1 _Applicant,— Age :y or institution operating the facility, R Otfnr (specify 13. INDICATE WHETHER APPLICANT/QPERATOR HAS: EASEMENT AND FRANCHISE } ..—Fee simple title, —Leawhold Interest,_X Other(spsclfyl 14. IF APPLICANT/OPERATOR HAS LEASEHOLO INTEREST,GIVE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: a. Length of lease or other estate Interest ,and number of years to to b- Is lease renewable? Yes No c. Current appraised value of land $ N.A. d. Annual r^mal rate S 15. ATTACH AN OPINION FROM ACCEPTABLE TITLE COUNSEL DESCRIBING THE INTEREST APPLICANT) N.A. OPERATOR HAS IN THE SITE +ND CERTIFYING THAT THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IS LEGAL h VALID 16, WHERE APPLIC441LEy ATTACH SITE SURVEY BOIL INVESTIGATION REPORTS AND COPIES OF LAND APPRAISALS- N.A. 17. WHERE APPLICABLE,ATTACH CERTIFICATION FROM ARCHITECT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF IMP90VING EXISTING SITE TOPOGRAPHY. N.A. 18. ATTACH PLOT PLAN. SEE ATTACHMENT 19. CONSTRUC NON SCHEDULE ESTIMATES:_Not requirsid.—Being prepared,—Afieched asexhibits Percentage of completion of drawings and specifications at application date: Schematics 75 —% Preliminary—.-. % Final C % 20, TARGET DATES FOR: Bid Advertisement ____ 1/76 Contract Award 3/76 Construction Completion 8177 Occupancy 8/77 i 21. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY: Not Required__._X—Attached as exhibits Drawings- Attach any drawings which will assist in describing the projw_t. I Specifications-Attach copies of completed outline specifications. IIf drawinet and tpocificarions hate nor bean fully comp*rod,pi"m arfach copyt w wwkmo drawinet Mer Mra been rompletW.l NOTES ITEMS ON THIS SHEET ARE SELF EXPLANATORY.THEREFORE,NO INSTRUCTIONS ARE PROVIDED. EPA Form 67M32 111-731 PAGE 5 OF 11 I Form A,pmved U.HB No. 138-RO110 PART III — BUDGET INFORMATION —CONSTRUCTION SECTION A—GENERAL 7 — .. �15.400 1. Federal Domaatk i4fa{aLlftbe Catalog No. ... ... ......... .. ... _ 2. FunctIonalor Othu Breakout .. ... . . ..... .. .. ... .... .. ... SECTION B—CALCULATION OF °EDERAL GRANT i Ues only for revisions Total r Lessee Apmoved AelCon Clmaih=tien Amount ues t ti Amount a or t-1 Requlrad 1. Administration expense f —�- f f 2. Preliminary expense 3. Land structures,riptdolway 4. AreNtectwal shpme sting bseic fees 90 000 S. Other archkocturai or4raw ring fees (1) 100,000 I tt 6 holact inspection No 7. Land development B. Relocohen Eapeness 0. Allocation pevmenb to Individuals seed Businesses i 111 10. Oemolition and ramoyai 11. Corlltruction and project lmprowment 12. Equipment i 13. Muolloryoua I 14..Total jUme 1 through I .—_ 190,000 I � i 15. Estimated Inmew(ifapplldNw) Is, Net PmIecl Amount(Lire 74 minus IN 190,000 17. Lap: ineligible Eaclesiont 18. Add. Continpancisr -- 19. Total Proles Amu.(Eacludina Rehabilitation Grants) 20. Federal Shan requested of Lint 12 142,500 21. Add Rohabilltatlon Grants Requested(100 Awce0 0 22. Total Federal pram requested (Lin.29&21/ 142,500 21 Grant"them 19,000 24. Other shares —�_ u 28, 500 25. Totes prolate (Lhtar 22.22 i 24) f f f 190,000 (1) Environmental Impect Statement S 45,000 Inflow/LnfilLration Analysis 9,000 Shoreline Management 1,000 Design Survey 30,000 *PA Form 970042(11.70) PAGE 6 or 11 Soils Inves[igstion 15,000 $100,000 F alas. . w Form App,o Ved OMB:Vo. 158•ROl 7(' SECTION C - EXCLUSIONS In Jiolbla for Excludad from Cimitiuuon Parliclpanon Convnaanry Provision 26 Ill (2) a. S -0- $ b. C. d. a. f. 0 Totah i -0- 9 SECTII V D-- PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING NON FEf?ERAL SHARE 27. Orantasahm a 19,000 . 9actrdtlas b.MortoaaE c.Appropriation 19Y Applicant) 19,000 d.Bonds a.Taa Lwlw f.Non Cash o.Other(Explain) {i h.TOTAL-Grant shut/ 19,000 i 28. Other Shares a.Scala 28,500 b.Other c. Total Other Sharon 28,500 i 29. TOTAL i- S 47,500 'l SECTION E - REMARKS e l EPA Farm 5700 32 (11 13I PART IV PROGRAM NARRATIVE (Attach-See Instructions) PAGE 0 OF 11 • -1 /i0 Grana Central on the Park•first and So.Main•Seattle,Washington 4104 • 206/464-7090 ` ((��.}-J /l� Puget Sound Governmental Conference PSGC File No, 2/363/74 Mr. Sam Macri, Manager King County Water District No, 107 5806-A 119th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 s Subject Step l and 2 - May Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Line Dear Mr. Macri: Please find enclosed the REVIEW AND REFERRAL COMMITTEE MElvlO- 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 Management and Budget Circular A-95 (Revised). Attached to the memorandum which has been adopted by the Puget Sound GovernmerGtl Conference, are comments submitted to this agency by affected local jurisdictions, special districts and agencies. Inclusion of this letter, the memorandum and all attachments with your formal application to the funding tgency, will constitute adequate compliance with the A-95 review procedures required by the U. S. Office of Management and Budget. Weir tr ly ours, Mart KasK Executive Director MK:he Encle. cc: Environmental Protection Agency Hemstad, OCD Matthews, Metro Rottsolk, King County Bergner, Seattle/King County Health Dept. Ede, Renton, �74 Grand Lentral on the Park• First and So.Matr) •Sevtle,Washington 98104 •206/464.7090 P 5 G IC Puget Sound Governmental Conference REVIEW AND 11EFERRAL COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM PROJECT IDENTIFICATION PSGC File No. 2/363 774 Jurisdiction: King County Project Title: Step 1 and 2 - May Creel: Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Line Applicant: King County Water District No. 107 Funding: Federal Sate Local Other Total Cost: 187 Soo 37, 500 25,000 250, 000 l Agency: EPA PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pr. a,usal is to extend May Creek Interceptor from Highway 405 I to serve additional areas of the drainage basin includidg the southerly portion of W.D. N10 i and the northerly portion of the City of Renton. Project is consistent with METRO Comprehensive Plans. 1 I , .. i LOCAL COMMENTS King County commented on ;ossible effe,;t on May Creek Park property acquisition. Since federal funds are involved for the park. HUD approval will be necessary to allow sewer lines through the park. The w;ter 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 dues 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 14,19/4 , the Puget Sound Governmental Conference concurred in this tVIEAV A .ITET AL CCM- MITTEE MEMORANDUM and incorporated it into the Minutes of that meeting. r � . , DATE SEP l '.974 �, i��I. •�`. PSGC Form R-4 art Kas -,'Executive Director (Revised 12/20/72) w- s' t Grand Central on the Park•First and So. Main•Seattle,Washington 98104• 206/464-7090 Puget Sound Governmental Conference PSGC File No, 2/363/74 , f t Mr. Sam Macri, Manager King County Water District No, 107 5806-A 119th Avenue SE Bellevue, Wnshington 98006 Subject: Step t and 2 - May Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Line Dear Mr. Mac-i: Please find enclosed the REVIEW AND REFERRAL COMMITTEE MEMO- RANDUM containing the comments and recommendat',ons of the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, with respect to the subject project, as required by the U.S, Office of Management 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 aftected local Jurisdictions, special districts and agencies. Inclusion of this letter, the memorandum and all attachments with your fcrmal 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, *p tr ly ours, r1 .Ct Mart Kask Executive Director MK:he Encls. cc: Environmental Protection Agency Hemstad, OCD Matthews, Metro Rottsolk, King County Bergner, Seattle/King County Health Dept. Ede, Renton W4 a' • l- - t Grand Ucntral on the P.nk• First and So.Main•Seattle,Washington 98104•206/464-7090 Puget Sound Governmental Conference ` • I REVIEW AND REFERRAL COMMITTEE MFMORANDUM PROJECT IDENTIFICATION IPSGC File No. 2/363/74 jurisdiction: King County Project Title: Step 1 and 2 - May Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Line p i Applicant: King Coo.nty Water District No, 107 ding: Federal State Local Other Total %�.JSt: 187, 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 includidg the southerly portion of W.D. #107 and the northerly portion of the City of Renton. Project is consistent with METRO Comprehensive Plans. LOCAL COMMENTS King County commented on possible effect on May Creek Park property acquisition. Since federal Iut.ds are involved for the park, HUD approval will be necessary to allow sewer li. es through the park. The water district shou,d 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 :o 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 Parl- Department regarding the location of sewer lines through the park. ------------------------------- I HEREBY CERTIFY that at its meeting, held on 1 SE? I W/4 , the Puget Sound Governmental Conference concurred in this RLVII30 AND REFERRAL COM- MITTEE MEMORANDUM and incorporated it into the Minutes of that meeting. DATE St? I L 1,914 t M .* ,-rt�8;Executive Director i PSGC Form R-4 (Revised 12/20/72) .. w -• 2574.021 al311671L.�.:�f3��:lU L+ '.0'.Y aj�' ?�1%I7�L 1• i i��. �. ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS l'T77 August 13, 1974 King County Water District No. 107 5806-A 119th .%venue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Attn: Mr. Sam Macri Manager SUBJECT: MAY CREEK TRUNK SEWER Gentlemen: Enclosed are three (3) copieb of the cost estimate and preliminary Location Map for the May Creek Trail and Trunk Sewer. This covers the construction from MH "B" on 10oth Avenue NE to MH "D" at 136th Avenue SE. The plan and estimate were made only after the route had been inspected by an engineer, a sur,.�yor an3 a contractor. Based on the consolidated report of this inspection group, and our best judgement of nvironmental requirements, we believe that the facility can be constructed in 1976 for a tonal cost of not more than $2 ,086,897, as shown on the enclosed cost estimate. This cost was reached using labor rate- for 1'976 on the basis of the actual labor contract covering the period and a Seattle Material Index of 243. The facility must go through an area that is now becoming a King County park. Much of the property has already been obtaine. .. The methods of construction contemplated in the original Metro Study are not now environmentally accepta- ble. For the presently undeveloped areas, the estimate is based on the use (_ of a lightweigl.t plastic pipe laid with horizontal curves. The pipe would have a constant - but not uniform - grade. Manholes are ertimated based on similar material and are provided only where side lines connect to the trunk. While we have had some preliminary contact with the vatious agencies that would 1 ,� involved in the project, the plan has not yet been submitted to these agencies and some changes may be required. To meet the environmental concern for the impact of a construction project through the park, the estimate is based upon construction procedures that will greatly enhance the park. This is done by an upgrade of the existing road and construction of an all-weather main trail the remaining length of the project. This trail is estimated as 6 feet wide atld finished with crushed rock. At the i 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 91101 •12061 624.2623 i i August 13, 1974 ` King County W. D. No. 107/May Creek Trunk Sewer Page 2 location of side lines, the work site would be finished to provide trail access on the steep slope. Because of the steep grades, crushed rock would not be suitable and the surface must be native material to serve the more rugged terrain. On the steepest positions, a cable handrail to assist climbing would be provided. All areas of construction not used as trail would be reseeded. A foot bridge would provide access to the trails across the stream. From MN "B" to Station 40+50, the trunk would be constructed to standard procedure - that is, the sewer to line and grade with manholes at 600 feet maximum spacing. This construction is shown on the detailed "Road Section" ' of the plan. From Station 4G+50 to 73+00, the route is through the generally flat flood plain of the strea,... In th' area, the sewer would be generail) below the adjacent stream bed. This construction is shown on the detailed "Flood Plain f .Section" of the plan. From Station 73+00 to Mn "D", the stream bed is very narrow .nr.d the banks { rise up steeply to a considerable elevation above the stream. At the time of inspection, the trees and bushes were in full leaf and it was impossible to see more than a few feet. In this area, a side hill trail and trunk will be required. Detailed reconnaissance must be made af.tt_ the leaves are gone to locate a route in this section that would allow the pipeline to be below the stream for gravity crossing of side lines. At the other locations, the elevation "f the pipe to stream is immaterial except that pipe can by gravity flow be below the stream bed at the crossings. The details of the construc- tion is shown on the "Hillside Section" of the plan. The side lines through the park are a part of the project to provide a feasible point of connection The construction is showut on the "Side Line F Section" detailed on the plans. The side lines from Water District No. 107 are from the Comprehensive Plan. The line sizes from Renton are from Metro of an <sumed size. It may also be that these lines should be extended to the existing sewer system. This would require a different financing procedure and is not included in the estimate. 0n the main trail , the main trunk makes six crossings of the stream. To pro- vide access during and after construction, bridges are included in the estimate. During construction, a capacity of 25 tons is required. After construction, a capacity of loss than 5 tuns is'necessary. For the estimate, we have con- sidered a 5-t ,n bridge reinforced with additional temporary bents during construction. 0.. the side lines, access for equipment is . equired during construction. The estimate includes a temporary arch culvert at thosI locations where the side line crosses the stream. After construction, theme culverts would he removed and replaced with a foot bridge. With the exception of the side lino crossing; , August 13, 1974 Ming County W. D. No. 107;Nay Creek Trunk Sewer Page 3 at Station 33+00, the estimate is based a gravity connections. A siphon or bridge crossing is used at Station 33+00 to permit a 9-foot depth of trunk rather than 16-foot through an arec where sewer service on the opposite bank is not required except at that crossing. When the hillside route is actually located, it may be more effective costwise to use a similar procedure at other crossing locations. The location shown on the plan requires six main trunk crossings of the stream, a 400-ft. section of trunk installed in the stream bed, and four side line crossings. These crossings must be to the State of Washington Depart.menL of Fisheries' requirements, and arse extremely expensive. In , the construction plans, every effort would he made to reduce the number of these crossings. An elimination of a main trunk crossing would also elimi- nate a bridge and further reduce the cost. { If there are any questions or further information is desired, please contact me. I Very truly yours, ! MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. By Jack L. Guise JLC:Jad Enclosures `�� char�c.t,v.JLI7rGs4J I MAY CREEK TRAIL AND TRUNK SEWER COST ESTIMATE (Projected to July 1, 1976) A. PARK IMPROVEMENTS Up-Grade Entrance Road - 4050 lin. ft. Subgrade Pit Run 405C lin. ft. 0 3.90 = $15,795 Prepare Roadway 4050 lin. ft. �& 1.56 6,318 Crushed Rock 600 cu. yd. 0 13.00 = 7,800 , Light Bituminous Surfacing 4050 lin. i:. 0 4.35 - 17,617 Sub-Total $47,530 Main Trail - 10,400 lin. ft. Flood Plain Section - 3250 lin. ft. Clearing 1.5 acres Q 2,600 = ; 3,900 Grading 3250 lin. ft. 4 0.65 = 2,112 Erosion Control Rock 800 cu. yd. ® 16.25 - 13,000 Pit Run Gravel 500 cu. yd. 0 4.55 = 2,275 Trail Culverts 300 lin. ft. 0 6.50 1,950 { Crushed Rock 200 cu. yd. 0 15.60 - 3,120 Hydro Seeding 1.0 acres 0 1,560 1,560 4 u Sub-Total $27,917 Hillside Section - 7,150 lin. ft. Clearing 3.5 acres 0 3,900 = $13,650 Grading 7,150 lin. ft. 0 1.30 9,295 Rock Walls 400 cu. yd. 0 26.65 - 10,660 Trail Culverts 700 lin. ft, 0 6.50 s 4,550 Crushed Rock 600 cu. yd. 0 15.60 - 9,360 Hydro Seeding 3.5 acres 0 1,560 = 5,460 { Sub-Total $52,975 1 Vehicular Bridges (Each bridge estimated 50 lin. ft .) Pervr Bridge Excavation and Backfill Lump Sum - $ 2r6OO Concrete - 25 cu. yd. O 910.00 22,750 Timber - 8,000 board fL. PV 1.04 = 80320 Rip Rap - 100 cu. yd. QV 15.60 _ 1,560 Cost Per Bridge 35,230 6 each % 35,270 $21L,300 r i . Yt . ir{ -2- G . Side Line Trails (7100 lin. ft.) Tra i l Clearing 2.0 acres Q 3,900 = $ 7,800 Grading 7100 lin. ft. @ 1.30 =• 9,230 Cable Handrail 2000 lin. ft. ® :1.90 - 7,800 Seeding 2.0 acres A 1,560 3,120 Sub-Total $27,950 f foot Bridges (Each Foot Bridge estimated 50 lin. ft.) i f Per Bridge Excavation and Backfill Lump Sum = $ 650 Concrete - 5 cu. yd. ® 910.00 4,550 y Timber - 5000 board ft. 0 1.04 5,200 Rip Rap - 50 cu. yd. 9 15.60 - 780 Cost Per Foot Bridge $11,180 4 each 9 $11 ,180 $44,720 SUB-TOTAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS = $412,392 6. SEWER CONSTRUCTION Roadway Sewer - 4050 lin. ft. 24" R/C Sewer - 4050 lin. ft. 0 29.90 _ $121,095 Bedding Sand- 4050 lin, ft. '➢ 1.30 - 5,265 lLinholes - 10 ca. Q# 1,560 15,600 Restoration - Lump Sum - 4,290 Sub-Total $146,250 Flood Plain Sewer - 3250 lin, ft. 24" Plastic Sewer Pipe - 3250 lin. ft. ® 46.80 = $152,100 Bedding Sand - 3250 lin. ft. 4 1.50 4,875 Plastic Manholes - 3 ca. c9 1,560 - 4,680 Stream Crossings - 1 onlylD 14,300 14,300 Sub-rotal $175,955 Hillside Sewer - 7150 lin. ft. 24" Plastic Sewer Pipe - 7150 tin. ft. 0 49.40 = $353,210 Bedding Sand - 7150 lin. ft. '.50 = 17,875 Plastic Manholes - 5 ea. CO 1. = 7,800 Stream Cro ings - 5 ea. Cad 14, = 71,500 Extra Thru Stream - 400 tin. 130.00 = 52,000 fitL-Total $502,385 Side Lines - 7100 1:,1. ft. 8" Plastic Sewer - 3550 1 ft. 0 16.90 = $ 59,995 10" Plastic Sewer - 500 l.r.. ft. ® 19.50 — 9,750 12" Plastic Sewer - 2600 lin. ft. 0 23.40 60,840 18" Plastic Sewer - 450 lin. ft. 4 37.70 = 16,965 Bedding Sand - 7100 lin. ft. ® 3.00 210300 Hill Holders - 350 ea. 0 104.00 36,400 Stream Crossings - 4 ca. CA 10,400 = 41,600 Temporary Culverts- 4 ca. 9 6,500 = _26,000 Sub-Total $272,850 SUB-TOTAL ! I SEWER CONSTRUCTION = $1,097,440 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST = 11,509,832 C. INDIRECTC COSTS & CONTINGENCY State Sales Tax (6%) _ $ 90,590 Contingency (15%) = 226,475 Facility Plan = 50,000 Design Survey 40,000 Plans & Specs. (7.3%) i1U,000 Construction Survey & lncpection (4%) = 60,000 ! SUB-TOTAL 1 INDIRECT COSTS &CONTINGENCY == $577,065 TOTAL PROJECT COST = $2,OBu,897 2574.021 • 'iT w .Q ; r;1 r; a ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS /r. V August 13, 1974 King County Water District No. 107 5806-A 119th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Attn: Mr. Sam Macri Manager SUBJECT: KAY CREEK TRUNK SEWER Gentlemen: Enclosed cre three (3) copies of the cost estimate and preliminary Location Map for the May Creek Trail and Trunk Sewer. This covers the construction from MN "B" on 108th Avenue NE to M11 110" at 136th Avenue SE. The plan and estimate were made only after the route had been inspected by an engineer, a surveyor and a contractor. Based on the consolidated report of this inspection group, and our best judgement of environmental requirements, we believe that the facility can be constructed in 1976 for a total cost of not more than $2 ,086,897, as shown on the enclosed cost estimate. This cost was reached using labor rates for 1'976 on the basis of the actuRl labor contract covering the period and a Seattle Material Index of 243. The facility must go through an area that is now becoming a King County park. Much of the property has already been obtained. The methods of construction contemplated in the original Metro Study are not now environmentally accepta- ble. For the presently undeveloped areas, the estimate is based on the use of a lightweight plastic pipe laid with horizontal curves. the pipe would have a constant - but not uniform - grade. Manholes are estimated based on similar material and are provided only where side lines connect to the trun`. While we have had some preliminary contact with the various agencies that would be involved in the project, the plan has not yet been submitted to these agencies and some changes may be required. To meet the environmental concern for the impact of a construction project through the park, the estimate is based upon construction procedures that will greatly enhance the park. This is done by an upgrade of the existing road and construction of an all-weather main trail the remaining length of the project. This trail is estimated as 6 feet wide and finished with crushed rock. At the 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 •1206)624.2623 ;r , t August 13, 1974 King County W. D. No. 107/May Crock Trunk Sewer 1 Page 2 location of side lines, the work site would be finished to provide trail access on the steep slope. Because of the steep grades, crushed rock would not be suitable and the surface must be native material to serve the more rugged terrain. On the steepest positions, a cable handrail to assist climbing would be provided. All areas of construction not used as trail would be reseeded. A foot bridge would provide access to the trails across the stream. From MH "H" to Station 4G? 50, the trunk would be constructed to standard 7 procedure - that is, the sewer to line and grade with manholes at 600 feet 7 maximum spacing. This construction is shown on the detailed "Road Section" of the plan. 1 From Station 40+50 to 73+00, the route is through the generally flat flood plain of the stream. In this area, the sewer would be generally below the adjacent stream bed. This construction is shown on the detailed "Flood Plain 'Section" of the plan. From Statio.i 73+00 to MH "D", the stream bed is very narrow and the banks rise up steeply to a considerable elevation above the stream. At the time of inspection, the trees and bushes were in full leaf and it was impossible to f see more than a few feet. In this area, a aide hill trail and trunk will be + required. Detailed reconnaissance must he made after the leaves are gone to locate a route in this section that would allow the pipeline to be below the stream for gravity crossing of side lines. At the other locations, the elevat.ion of the pipe to stream is immaterial except that pipe can by gravity flow be below the stream bed at the crossings. The details of the construc- tion is shown on the "Hillside Section" of the plan. The side lines through the park are a part of the project to provide a 1 feasible point of connection. The construction is shown on the "Side Line Section" detailed on the plans. The side lines trom Water District No. 107 are from the Comprehensive Plan. Tne line sizes from Renton are from Metro of an assumed size. It may also be that these lines should be extended to the existing sewer system. This would require a different financing procedure ` and is not included in the estimate. On the main trail , the main trunk makes six crossings of the stream. To pro- vide access during and after construction, bridges are included in the estimate. 1 During construction, a capacity of 25 tons is required. After construction, a capacity of less than 5 tons is'necessary. For the estimate, we have con- sidered a 5-ton bridge reinforced with additional temporary bents during iconstruction. on the side lines, access for equipment is required during construction. The estimate includes a temporary arch culvert at those locations where the side line crosses the stream. After construction, these culverts would be removed and replaced With a foot bridge. With the exceptlon of the side lint• crop-sing i 4' August 13, 1974 King County W. D. No. 107/Nay Creek Trunk Sewer Page 3 at Station 33+00, the estimate is based on gravity connections. A siphon or bridge crossing is used at Station 33+00 to permit a 9-foot depth of trunk rather than 16-foot through an area where sewer service on the opposite bank is not required except at that crossing. When the hillside route is actually located, it may be more effective costwise to use a similar procedure at other crossing Locations. The location shown on the plan requires six main trunk crossings of the stream, a 400-ft. section of trunk installed in the stream bed, and tour side lint crossings. These crossings must be to the State of Washington Department of Fisheries' requirements, and a;e extremely expensive. In the construction plans, every effort would be made to reduce the number of , these crossings. An elimination of a main trunk crossing would also elimi- nate a bridge and further reduce the cost. 4 If there are any questions or further information is desired, please contact me. Very truly yours, MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC . By Jack L. Guise JLG:jad Enclosures i MAY CREEK TRAIL AND TRUNK SEWER COST ESTIMATF. (Projected to July 1, 1976) A. PARK IMPROVEMENTS Up-Grade Entrance Road - 4050 lin. ft. Subgrade Pit Run 4050 lin. ft. m 3.90 $15,795 Prepare Roadway 4050 lin. ft. (d 1.56 6,313 Crushed Rock 600 cu. yd. Q 13.00 = 7,800 Light Bituminous Surlacing 4050 lin. ft. * 4.35 = 17,617 Sub-Total $47,530 Main Trail - 10,400 lin. ft. Fl ,(,,' Plain Section - 3230 lin. ft. Clearing 1.5 acres ® 2,600 z $ 3,900 Grading 3250 lin. ft. 0 0.65 = 2,112 Erasion Control Rock 800 cu. yd. W 16.25 - 13,000 Pit Run Gravel 500 cu. yd. 0 4.55 2,275 Trail Culverts 300 lin. ft. 4 n.50 1,950 + Crushed Rock 200 cu. yd, 0 15.60 a 3,120 Hydro Seeding 1 .0 acres 0 1,560 1,560 Sub-Total $27,917 Hillside Section - 7,150 lin. ft. Clearing 3.5 acres 0 3,900 $13,650 Grading 7,150 lin. ft. 3 1.30 9,295 Rock Walls 400 cu. yd. a 2a.65 10,660 Trail Culverts 700 lin. ft. ® 6.50 = 4,550 Crushed Rock 600 cu. yd. 0 15.bU 9,360 Hydro Seeding 3.5 aci: a @ 1,560 5,460 Sub-Total $52,975 Vehiculaa Bridges (Ench bridge estimated 50 lin. ft.) Per Bridge _ Excavation and Backfill Lump Sum 3 $ 20600 Concrete - 2 cu. yd. Q 910.00 = 22,750 Timber - 8,000 board ft. & 1.04 = 8,320 Rip Rap - 100 cu. yd. tW 15.60 1,5A Cost Per Bridge 35,230 6 each 35,230 $211,300 5 N r' -)_ Side Lire Trails (7100 tin. ft.) Trail Clearing 2.0 acres 0 3,900 = $ 7,800 Grading 7100 tin. ft. @ 1.30 9,230 Cable Handrail 2000 tin. ft. 0 3.90 = 7,800 ; Seeding 2.0 acres 0 1,560 = 3.120 Sub-Total $27,950 k 1 j toot Bridges (Each Foot Bridge estimated 50 tin. it.) E a i � Per Bridge 1 Excavation and Backfill Lump Sum = $ 650 Concrete - 5 ca. yd. 0 910.00 = 4,550 Timber - 5000 board ft. 0 1.04 = 5,200 Rip Rap - 50 cu. yd. 9 15.60 = 780 Cost Per Foot Bridge $11,180 4 each 0 $11,180 - $44,720 I SUB-TOTAI, PARK LOROVEMENTS $412,392 !i. SEWER CONSTnUCTION Roadway Sewer - 4050 tin. ft. 24" R/C Sewer - 4050 tin. ft. 0{2T.90 \ _ $121,095 Bedding Sand- 4050 tin. ft. 0 1.30 = 5,265 Manholes - 10 ea. 0 1,560 = 15,600 Restoration - Sump Sum 4,290 Sub-Total $166,250 Flood Plain Sewer - 3250 tin. ft. 24" Plastic Sewer Pipe - 3250 tin. ft. U 46.80 $1.52,100 Bedding Sand - 3250 tin. ft. 0 1.50 =- 4,875 Plastic Manholes - 3 (.a. 0 1,560 4,680 Stream Crossings - 1 only'* 14,300 - 14,300 Sub-Total $175,955 R -3- Hillside Sewer - 7150 tin. ft. 24" Plastic Sewer Pipe - 7150 tin. ft. @ 49.40 = $353,210 Bedding Sand - 7150 tin. ft. @ 2.50 = 17,875 Plastic Manholes - 5 ea. 9 1,560 — 7,800 Stream Crossings - 5 ca. 9 14,300 71,500 Extra Thai Stream - 400 Lin. ft. @ 130.00 — 52,000 Sub-Total $502,335 I Side Lines - 7100 tin. ft. 8" Plastic Sewer - 3550 tin. ft. @ 16.90 = $ 59,995 10" Plastic Sewer - 500 tin. ft. @ 19.50 = 9,750 12" Plastic Sewer - 2600 tin. ft. @ 23.40 = 60,840 18" Plastic Sewer - 450 tin. ft. @ 37.70 = 16,965 Bedding Sand - 7100 tin. ft. @ 3.00 = 21,300 Hill Holders - 350 ea. @ 104.00 = 36,400 Stream Crossings - 4 ea. @ 10,400 = 1�1,600 Temporary Culverts- 4 ea. 9 6,500 = 26,000 Sub-Total $272,850 SUB-TOTAL SEWER CONSTRUCTION = $1,097,440 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST C. INDIRECT COLTS & CONTINGENCY State Sales Tax (6%) _ $ 90,590 Contingency (15%) = 226,475 Facility Plan 50,000 Design Survey = 40,000 Puns & Specs. (7.3%) = 110,000 Construction Survey & Inspection (4%) — 60,000 j SUB-TOTAL 1 INDIRECT COSTS &CONTINGENCY = $577,065 TOTAL PROJECT COST = $2.086,897 I DAT'c : TO: V. Lee V. TeGantvoort J. williams D. Hamlin R, Nelson D. Houghton Shari T. Touma Other FROM: Warren GVon _ ( SUBJECT: -- 1` Review and report back. _ See me. Route and return. 1 Prepare response for my signature. Take appropriate action. Prepare special report. Set up meeting. For your int- rmatior. File REMARKS: I _ N --- - KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 107 5806A 11)TH AVENUE S.E 6ELLEVUE,WASH. 98006 PH. 746.0751 R{4i..f,�V REP" '0 BOARD OF CONANrSSIONFRS Hen.v F.McCullough JUL 1 7 I q/Q 74-4-70-W-5 President Patterson SecrMe v„M��� w rR aN July 16. 1974 Robert O. LIS Lapp* Member t MANAGER ' Sam Matti Warren C. C-nnason, Direct Dr, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055 i Subject: May Creek Interceptor Point "B" to 136th Ave. S.E. Dear Warren: The District is requestir he following information from you, In writing, so a determination can be made of customers guaranteed by the District and the City of Renton as per the ',y CraEk Inter- ceptor Extension Agreement with Metro. The information needed Is: 1) How many customers are now being pumped ? 2) Would these customers be, connected to the May Creek Interceptor, and, If so, how soon after construction Is completed ? 3) Hc,w many additional potential customers now exist between point "B" and 136th Ave. S.E. ? 4) When would these be connected after constructior of the May Creek interceptor ? 5) In total , how many customers would be connected within one year after construction of the May Creek Interceptor iron Point "B" to 136th Avenue S.E. ? Assuming that everything falls Into place, construction could be complete by Fall/Winter of 1977. e Very truly yours, Sam Macri , Manager I SM:sh I ' A I DATE• TO: V. Lee V. TeGantvoort J. Williams D. Hamlin z R. Nelson D. Houghton P Bennett T. Touma Chervl FROM: Warren Gong n SUBJECT: Review and report back. See me. _ Route and return. Prepare response for my signature. Take appropriate action. Prepare special report. Set up meeting. For your information. File 1 �7 REMARKS: L1I ,�cc< '✓ *7 c m L rRO municipality of metropolitan seattla i i September 16, 1974 ♦ •\N C.E""•Y DON Wp••N AUBURN \ SM«lRY°.KMN. t Mr. Warren C. Gonnason, Pub. Works Director eaLEVIrL M.F.(MFFJ City of Renton V/.Nlt 200 Mill Avenue South KENT Renton, Washington 98055 lU."t N.oAw KIRKLAND ATTENTION: Mr. Richard C. Houghton Rwfn 1.NNF Utilities Engineer A4ERCER ISLAND AVfMV DAVI.,A. Gentlemen: RENTOra A~GAU"n SUBJECT: MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR SIATIIT HONEY CREEK SEWERAGE SUBAREA WN U.LM.« — J.Mn K.R.«... c.o...e.«..N In answer to your August 9, 1974 request to review our plans a.V,e K.C.A.M.N to serve the May Creek Sewerage Service Area, we find no reason to change our present plans. D, J...a.Muu. R....Rwaue 1 .LM SMIT« While a Haney Creek Interceptor might serve more customers 11MN14 WIauAMa immediately than the proposed May Creek Alignment, it could { OTHER cMIS not be readily adapted to serve the ultimate May Creek S.,W,. •Ru"••Ya"m Service Area. ar,, COUNTY J..D.S,at,.A« Metro's basic service agreement with Renton obligates the °%."C .. Municipality to provide service to the last 1,000 acres in I.. 17 �e.M.v any drainage basin. The sketch included with your August 9 IN.MAl M.F°tt.i«.E.w."°Na.vfr letter indicates approximately 940 acres tributary to the D...M.e«f, May Creek Interceptor whera it crosses Honey Creek and the 1""`YJO" " eN\ comprehensive plans for Renton and Water District NA 90, R..M. Re"" which are in our files, show approximately 830 acres trib- o-ORATEI, utary to this point. ARE/ M.,.Nn Af«.t. We feel that the presently propose. alignment for the May ao.cN.N.tN l./«eMAt Fcun.x. Creek Interceptor satisfies the requirements of the basic: service agreement, while lending itself to future service to GNe SNaa. A.DUN WatT.w.T.« the May Creek Basin. SEV,E k rd STRICTS Very truly yours , N.meN R.c«eAT. CC. .5.P.C. Theodore W. Mallory Director of Technical Services JH:sh 410 West Harr!ejn Street • Seattle, Washington 98119 284-5100 ' DATE: TO: V. Lee V. TeGantvuort J. hilliams + D. Hamlin R. Nelson D. Houghto . Shari T. Touma Other FROM: Warren Gon SUBJECT: Review and report back. —� See me. Route and Return. Prepare response for my signature. Take appropriate actior. Prepare special report. Set up meeting. For your information. File REMARKS: � r F s METRO municipality of metropolitan seattle September 16► 1974 4 CNMIIMLN C,G..,DO *ovg,N ![ AUBURN S,ANLn►,Knuv v Mr.. warren C. Gonnason, Pub, works Director BEILEVUE Ci-.y of Renton M.F.(MIL)VANI[ 200 Mill Avenue South ; KENT Renton, Washington 98055 lual FIssAN d KIRKI.AND AT"ENT ION; Mr. Richard C. Houghton Nown,R,L.Fh Utilities Engineer MERCER ISLAND Means DAw,,A. Gentlemen: RF.NiON Ayes,Gnats" SUBJECT: MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR SEATTLE HONEY CREEK SEWERAGE SUBAREA Was LiNLMAN J.M.,K.NNs„ G'°A•L~"s. In answer to your August 9 , 1974 request to review our plans - en,.K,C...M... T,MRi.L to serve the May Creek Sewerage Service Area, we find no °""MEAN""•' reason to change our present plans. Z.,D.luuN ' Jo.N R.Mm". R•N°'Ks""' while a Honey Creek Interceptor might serve more customers L"sM,,. I,AN„n W,LLMMs immediately than the proposed May Creek Alignment, .it could OTHER CITIES not be readily adapted to serve the ultimate May Creek aLwvNE. WYw Service Area. KING COUNTY JCNN D.s.eLLM.N Metro's basic service agreement with Renton obligates the PA"lA"'" Municipality to provide service to the last 1,000 acres in Ro....ss C.O., any drainage basin. The sketch included with your August 9 1N(fMA,M.Fo..,rNR letter indicates approximately 940 acres tributary to the E O. A,s MeeN., May Creek Interceptor where it crosses Honey Creek and the T.A"JD... comprehensive plans for Renton and water District Na 90, E,\L K.AML 587",s,.•N which are in our files, show approximately 830 acres trib- UNINCORPORATED utary to this point. AREAS M"R'°R'RARNR`R We feel that the presently proposed alignment for the May Rss CM.Nn\.. I.TMOM.Y E<R\r..NO Creek Interceptor satisfies the requirements of the basic service agreement, while lending itself tr future service to A.D..N wn.,NO.o,o. the May Creek Basin. 1i VFuPl,7 ; very truly yours, IMNroro e.CNrM.. Theodore W. Mallory l" -ector of Technical Services JH:sh 410 West Harrison Street • Seattle. Washington 98119 . 284-5100 r F `;. r v� �' 1 L f 7 t ... ....a .y. r./�:w�xx"'vWr .J!^�%.. ..y,.q"i.. ^�+4u.3L'nnlM'11w"'+'GAF.A..:\..✓' hNe.... v, w^ a�a�.w mo-e.rv'.nc'... w+-. +M M.s.n.Ia��w MWaA.Wit�aMM. r ..--?�R vw� ., v' YwNage-rN'�:.r. ...m r. .rm. ENVIRONMENTAL OONSIDERATIONS Posed Project The proposed project is a major sewer line along May Creek. This line will go through a proposed King County park and along a King County road. Much of the park land has already been obtained. The sewer line is expected to reach a depth of 4 feet to 16 feet. Materials to be used and size of the pipe have not yet been finally determined. Impact on the Environment At the present time, the aria that this interceptor will serve is serviced by septic tanks which allow effluent to seep into receiving bodies. Consequently, it is possible that May' Creek and Lake Boren are both polluted or becoming polluted due to lack of sanitary sewers. The ultimate consequence of the I pollution of May Creek is a resultant pollution of Lake Washington, since May Creek flows into that lake. The greater `.eattle Area and the State of Washington have viewed with pride the gradual. cleaning up of Lake Washington's waters. Hundreds of millions of dul'srs :lave been spent by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metre) end local governments along the lake to prevent further contamination of the take. At one time Lake Washington beaches were unsafe for swimmers - and, in many areas, they still are. Without the development of sewers in the May Creek drainage basin, there would be little doubt that effluent frog: septic tanks would find its way into Lake Washington by way of May Creek. The proposed interceptor along May Creek would serve both the King County area north of the City of Renton and parts of the City of Renton itself. Presently, new building permits are permitted in these areas on an application-by-application basis due to lack of adequate sewage treatment. Septic tanks have failed and a health hazard exists in Renton, according to the District Sanitarian. For example, septic tanks overflow into storm ditches in Western Hills, Aloha Ranch, Hewitt's Addition. Rrier's Terrace, Adams Vista and others. Sanitation is critical in some homes; t.,vse homes have been closed due to lack of adequate sanitary sewage facilities. In all the subdivisions mentioned above, dy, tests were made where dye was flushed in a toilet to see if sewage from a home would end in a drainage ditch. Positive results occurred in each subdivision mentioned. This indicates that a very serious potential health hazard exists. An outbreek of communicable diseases could happen at any time in this area. According to the District Sanitarian, only luck has prevented this from happening to date. Ic has not yet been determined how much land will be affected by this project; however, an estimate of at least 2U square miles of land is in the drainage area of the proposed interceptor. Both King County and the City of Renton prrpose the build-up of land on both sides of May Creek for residential purposes. Cunsequently, this interceptor construction project is in accordance with the Land Use Plan for King County and Renton. -1- r i The immediate environmental impact will be improvement of health conditions, as } sewers connect to this interceptor. Also, new people will move into the area and new developments will occur. The build-up of land in this area will have little effect on wildlife, flora or watersheds. A partial, scattered build-up of land has already taken place. New developments would utilize urban land to its maximum potential. x 4 1 i -2- C. .:....+r.w�✓+...«.�+w..�...w+ewxrrr: r.wi.._.w..++wr+w......,+.wse.w+.n.,._+....,.._4 ..,...-.. di A - INTERCEPTOR PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Step 1. Facilities Plan Environmental Impact Statement $ 45,000 Inflow/Infiltration Analysis 9,000 d'. Shoreline Management Permit 1,000 $ 55,000 Step 2. Plans and Specifications $ 90,000 Design Survey 30,000 Soils Investigation 15,000 $ 135,000 Step 3. Construction Costs $ 1,21 `,000 Administrative and Legal 20,000 Construction Survey 20,000 Construction Inspection 30,300 Contingency 15% 180,000 Sales Tax 5.3% 74,000 $ 1,534,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST �_,_11,724,000 a4i YJ�.�':.nr.sw '- ,..M4WWIW411WW.P bM Y'YIN.',INN..MYMr MavnwYew..r mw - wwr......... 1 P `w S B - PAYMENT SCHEDULE September, 1974 $ 25,000 December, 1974 30,000 March, 1975 40,000 June, 1975 40,000 September, 1975 40,000 December, 1975 15,000 4 L X9.04 . i y i 3 TO: V. Lee DATE: 4 V. Ta;antvoort — ms-D. Hamlin J. Williams ��. Houghton R. Nelson T. iouma D. Rennett Chervl FROM; Warren GOr ,ason SURJFCT: Review and report back. See me. Route and return, Prepare response for my Signature. Take appropriate action. Prepare special report. �1 Set Up meeting. ✓_ For Your information. REMARKS: r k s wy,...,... . .� _... _ ..... . - r Grand Central on the Park•First and So.Main•Seattle,Washington 98104 + 206!464-7090 Puget Sound Governmental Conference PSGC rile N. . 11 -16.3/74 v W-lu7 le Mr. Sam Macri, Manager King County Water District No. 107 5806-A 119th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject: Step I and 2 - May Creek Sanitary S^wer Interceptor Line Dear Mr, Macri: Please find enclosed the _REVIEW AND REFF,RRA� COMMITTEE. MEMO- RANDUM containing the comm( nts and recommendations of the Puget Sound t Governmental. Conference, with respect to the subject project, as required by the U,S. Office of Management 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 i affected local jurisdictions, special districts and agencies. Inclusion of !,its letter, the memorandum and all attachments with your formal appl'cation to the funding agency, v ill constitute adecuate compliance with the A-95 review procedures required by the U. S. C -e of Management and Budget. Very tr ly ,rs, Mart Kask 4 Executive Director MK:he Encls. cc: Environmental Protection Agency Hemstad, OCD Matthews, Metro Ruttsolk, Kinl. County Bergner, Seattle/King County health Dept. Ede, Renton Grand Central on the Park+ First and So.Main•Seattle,Washington 98104 • 2%/464-7090 Puget Sound Governmental Conference REVIEW AND 1tEFERRAL COMM!-ITEE MEMORANDUM PROJECT IDENTIFICATION PSGC File No. 2/363/74 I ! Jurisdiction: Ring County Project Title: Step 1 and 2 - May Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Line Applicant: King County Water District No. 107 Funding: Federal state Local Other Total Cost: 187, 500 37, 500 25, 000 250, 000 Agency: EPA PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposal is to extend May Creek Interceptor from Ili�;hway 405 to serve additional areas of the drainage basin includirig the southerly portion of W.D. #107 and the northerly portion of the City of Renton. Project is consistent with METRO Comprehensive Plans. LOCAL COMMENTS Bing County commented or, possible effect on May Creek Park property acquisition. Since federal funds are involv t: for the park, HUD approval will 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 dens:•v residential development, there does not appear to be potential conflicts with Vie 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 rep :trding the location of sewer lines through the park, ----- ------- 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that at its meeting, held on • SEp ,1 ,. 19/4 the Puget Sound Governmental Conference concurred in this REVIEW A 0 E-FEI—�` HAL COM- MITTEE MEMORANDUM and incorporated it into the: tninute§ Uf that meeting. _ �. .`i DATh Fri 11 PSGC Form R Mart Mask,"Executive irector (Revised 12, 20//2) t { � 5 _ i. ,:„ ... .. '.�.:1 , a��..i • ,.s.. icy,��.: r � e ' Lr2 S . v �N a�� CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON PERMIT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT METRO• KING COUNTY WATER i Appl . No . SM- 37-75 Applicant : DISTRICT #107; MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR , De•-elopnent shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms a„d conditions : 1 . The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal , state , and other permit. requirements . 11 2 . This permit +nay be rescinded pursuant to Section 14 (/ ) of the g 1, Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails y to comply with any condition hereof. 3 . A construction permit shall not be issued until forty-five (45 ) days after approval by the City of Renton Planning Department or until any review proceedings initiated within this 45 day review period nave been completed . 4 . Pursuant to Section 14 , Chapter 286 , Laws of 1971 Extra Session , the City of Renton has taken the following actions : A . ® APPROVED DENIED C . REASONS : 1, Proposed sewer interceptor would allow construction of sewers to serve residential areas, both in the City of Renton and King County. Such facilities would replace existing septic tanks and would provide a means of eliminating •xisting septic tank failures and accompanying health problen,_ 2. The general effect of the proposed facility would be to improve water quality in May Creek and serve to reduce present crater quality hazards. 3. The prof, :d project, as constructed in accordance with attached conditions, would have a tempoiacy negative impact during con- struction and a positive long-term impart on May Creek and surrounding properties. 3 4. Based on information presented to this department, the project 1 has received tentative approval of the Washington Department of Game, Department of Fisheries, and EPA. � . CCNuITIONS : 1. Approval is for Phase I (from Manhole "B" to conflux of Honey Creek and May Creek) as shown only, and does not imply approval of subsequent phases of the May Creek Interceptor. This approval is necessary for aergency purposes to solve the immediate health problem of tailing Sept: tanks Subsequent phases shall not be approved until a detailed st�ly of nossible alternative inceptor systems is completed. 2. No overhead lines shall be permitted. (See attached page--cont'd. ) f "� "'` ` 11�• oaf"—Gordon Y. L•'r cksen January 22 , 1976 a nV i n g Uri ector f ✓ Uity of Renton Planning " - . . a Y , y SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. SM-27-75, METRO-KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT #107; MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR F JANUARY 22 , 1976 PAGE TWO D. CONDITIONS• (continued) 3 . Connections to the interceptor within the ravine, hillside and valley areas of May Creek shall not be permitted as per Water District #107 statement in the letter to the Planning Department dated September 24, 1975 . This shall not include connections for park purposes. 4. Project construction and rehabilitation techniques must meet the approval of the sate Department of Fisheries via a Hydraulics Project permit. ) ' 5 All disturbed slopes and natu-al areas shall be appropriately rehabilitated by landscaping and reseeding to prevent erosion and construction scars and to ass.st in restoring these areas o to their natural conditions. Detailed rehabilitation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Renton Planning Department. 6. Stream crossings steal_ be undertaken in the summer months when impacts to fisheries will be least significant. Speci:ic construction times si.all be coordinated with State. Fisheries Department. 7. There shall be a minimum of three feet of cover from the top of the pipe to the bottom of the creek bed. 8. Trenching activity shall be separated from the flow of the stream by standard acceptable construction techniques approved by the State Fisheries Department. 9. Mitigating measures stated in Environmental Assessment. 10. During specific design phases creek crossings shall be avoided as much as possible. MLS:ms CC., DOE. Northwest Regional Office DOE, Program Development Div. Attorney General ' s Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dept. of Public Works Public Works Director Engineering Division ✓ Building Division Applicant �1 mate 0 To: C. Lre P. wnhett N ii,ughton Willi." � t Miller c4A R. Nelson Other R. FROM. NARRlN GON SU,.IECT: Review and report beak. _ Se• rt Route and "turn. prepare response for as sipnaturo. Take appropriate action. Propane speoiat report. /$at up mesti.e. For your information. File. RIMARIS: a M A, au . per' 4 •T 'ry Cd• ••••r•• O4YYY I Mtanicipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave.,SeattleMashington 98104 SeptcmLer 19, 1979 King County Water District No. 107 5806A - 119th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attention: Mr. Henry McCullough, President Board of Commissioners Gentlemen: May Creek Interceptor Facility Plan _and Design Services Reimbursement !i<ference: Agreement dated 24 July 1979; same subject F,)rwarded herewith is warrant #GO28623 for $68,691 .50. Per t.je referenced agreement, this is payment in full for the subject services. Therefore in accordance with section 2 of the agreement, please provide, within 30 days, two complete copies of the May Creek Drainage Basin Facilities Plan and .trtc. phase 1 technical design package. Very truly yours, Joseph S. Fritz 1:pervisor of Local Agency Affairs JSF:pr Enclosure i/cc : Mr. W. Gonnason, Director of Public Works - City of Renton f4t(�t'.11/E.0 JC RENT 19519-1970 • 0ar TweatiethY(w I i c 2 � 2 8nr • 0� � c s�,uzl . x 1 �i • in � n c 1 27'1 • x n . r, 1 I 1 n . �N§ Y k f cy I1 i I1�N111AIM1=" i- �e.y,„ wvms .z;trya ' .:rjift•3:..- f . -t. loom m ON— �r Y 4/0 370 ¢' E a I A a . n ` ' o •. a i, •1' X ,VA, / ' 1 � i 1 1 i I 4 f CAV /ar lt A < 1 f i 0 � .,. _ a . > ��� •,, y . ,, I F 1 =,i W Y' ��. i 1 i er i � • 4 i � LOCAL ")MPROVEMENT DISTRICT WORKSHEE,- 4 r • LID NAME AND NUMBERt LID #284 Jones Ave. NE Between NE 40th & N5 44th CREATED BY CITY COUNCIL ON June 10. 1974 (DATE ) BY JRDIM4NCE #2858 P (RPOS t Inctallation & constructions of sanitary sewers & trunk lines & -pp•.trtenances LOCATION, JONES AVE. NE BETWEEN NE 40th & NE 44th thereto TOTAL CC J, $108,887.43 CITY PARTICIPATIONt $ -0- TOTAL 15SESSMFNT ROLL, $108,8E"' 43 AMOUNT OF PREPAYMENTS, $360.49 ( AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUEt $108,526.94 NUMBER OF ANNUAL PAYMENTS ON ASSESSMENT51 10 1NTEREST RATE ON ASSESSMENTS, 7.75% RATE PER ASSESSABLE UNIT OF FRONTAGE AND/OR SQUARE FOOTAGE ; , ASSESSED VALUE OF LID, LAND $248,800.00 IMPROVEMENTS 312,000.00 TOTAL $560,800.00V. DATE 3o DAY PREPAYMEN ' PERIOD EXPIREDt September 10,1979 NUMBER OF PROPERTY PARCELS IN LIDt 17 TYPE OF AREA AND ZONING IN Lips Business and Residential PERCENTAGE DEVELOPED WITHIN J_Me 30% ASSESSMENTS OUTSTANDING IN LID FOR OTHER LID' St -0- E AMOUNT OF DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS IN LID FOR OTHER ID ' S; -0- 1 SIZE OF LID IN ACRESt 24.12 acre3 MAP OF LID IF AVAILI)BLE . See Attached MAP OF LID IF AVAILAE; - CITY FINANCIAL IW;.dk-. ASSESSED VALUn , 10N OF CITY, R OUTSTANDING BONDa, I GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDSI (: REVENUE BONDSt LID BONDS AND NOTESt aALANCE OF LID GUARANTY FUND; 5 i F i S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE -41 TO EPA/DOE GRANT 4X 1 LOCAL IMrROVEMENT DISTRICT W.ORKSHEET LID Name and Number: �p # 284 Jones Ave. NE ..etween NE 40th & N5 44th Created by City Council on ,Tgio, 1LnzL (date) by Ordinance N 2858 Purpose Installation & constructions of sanitary sewer. 1 trunk lines li appurtenances thereto Location: Juil:S AVE. NE BETWEEN NE 40th & NE 44th Total Ccst:108,887.43 City Participation: 4-0- Total Assessment Roll : $1080887.43 Amount of Prepayments: $360.49 1 Arnunt of Bond Issue: 4108,526.94 Number of Annual Payments on Assessments: 10 Interest Rate on Assessments: 7.75". Rate per Assessable Unit of frontage and/or square footage: Assessed Value of LID: Land I,,,?�zg Improvements �L a fLGG • '—� Total >$ 5G0, 800 . !° Date 30 Day Prepayment Period Expired: September 10i 1979 ' Number of Property Parcels in LID: 4C Type i,f Area and oning in LID: / EinlS$-t° T6TiAC Percentage Developed within LID: 3 6'6 Assessments Outstanding in LID for other LID's: Amount of Delinquent Assessments in LID for other LID's. -0- 1Q Size of LID in acres: ,$# 4t�o�cres Map of LID if Available: Yt.t, (eX'w,e t_ City Financial Information: Assessed Valuation of City: Outstanding Bonds: General Obligation Bonds: Revenue Bonds: LID Bonds and Notes: Balance of LID Guaranty Fund: . v seattle-northwest securities corporation 500 Union Street Seattle, Washington 98101 (206)o: 2853 " THE 6TAtEMEMT6 COHIA11 10 HEREIN. ALTMOVOM OIT.INEO FROM RELI.BL`. SOVMCEY. ,. of OV AN..Tito MT us f(( k e• LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WORKSH_E.ET LID Name and Number: Lm N 294 Jones Ave. NE .:tweun WE 40th a NE 44th Created b City Council on m . (date) by Ordinance 4 2 r Purpose: Install&ticu & conutructious of saniuiry svuorc: trunk linen uppurt�"ue+ac.' the ru to Location: Juii_L AVr;. NE aTWi:11,1j :.4 4Uth & NE 44th Total Costau89887.43 City Participation: 4ro- i Total Assessment Roll : $108$887.43 Amount of Pr_epaayments: V360.49 Amount of Bond Issue: 4108,52G. s4 Number of Annual Payments on Assessments: IU interest Rate on Assessments: 7.7�N Rate der Assessable Unit of lnvnta e and or sduare footaq,_. M Assessed %alue of LID: Land ; < rip Improvements - Total J. ., .,�,.•.,7 OD Date 30 Day PrepALment Period Expired:saptembar 10p 1979 Number of Property Parr.2ls in LID: Type ,,f Area and Zoning in LID: Percentage Developed within LID: 3 aA Assessments Outstanding in LID for other LIO's: Amount of f�elin uent Assessments in L1D for other LIU'% . ..0.. Size of LID in acres: - 'J,ite• �cre� Map of 110 if Available: City financial Information: Assessed Valuation of City: Outstanding Bonds: General Obligatiun Bonds: Revenue Bonds: Lll" Bonds and Notes: x. 4� r �t/'wA1f1MtNT OF PUBLIC WOIUib �1 Os GWEN MARSIML, FINANCE DIRE ,OR DATE 2 '5/15 FRJMs W.C. GONNASON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUR.TRCT: L.I.D. 704 On , the City Council created L.I.D. by Ordinance }/ Follnving is information for interim financings 1. Purposes 2. Location: A 3. Tess of Issuec ;F4 �jQp, ¢*S? Se'luP 4. Total Costs -177, .$,,oet i; t/crra So,,,•c- 1 Total Assessmentas 77 1 City Particirntinn: S. Rate per Assessnhle Unit of Frontage: -4,71•y 33:p/. / rl b. Assessed Value of this L. 1 .O. : Land .749, koA Improvements Total .��iG'� 7. Number of property parcels in this District r Ld' l Number Improved 8. Assessments outstanding in this District for other L.I.D.st *29 : 9. Amount of delinquent assessments in this District for other L.I.D.st 10. Date of Preliminary llenringt "Ay •20) 1CAI 11. Interest Rates NOT ,0 8% 12. Estimated end of prrpnyment period: .66W 7 13. For information contact Richard ❑oughton of this Departments Phone P-2631. W. C. Gonuason. Public Works Director Attached: ► i i PRcLl4^:A:'r RATES ASSESSMENT ROLL p Total zFP.___. _ 3.-—' 1 i� OFFICE OF ,OFncc CO." [ Total Estimated Cost 71,062 99 ' �! THE CITY ENGINEER f Ave. S.E. #.=- 40th to ..__.. .._ f. I I� r a Installation of � 77,062.99•H_513.50 = 2i.9333969 . 30ce - X.Z. 44th _ BY Sanitary Severs ...__.... .. _ .._ F-;4 THE IMPROVEMENT OF --.-------.------- _ -.-. -. YEAR 50NDS AT 4'0. ESTIMATE REPORTED TO BOARD -. .. . - RESCLUTION Na. HEARING ON RESOLUTION `lay 20, 1974 ROIL FILED march 4, 13-4 ORDIMAI:XE No.- HEARING ON ROIL DELINQUENT ASST. MAP Nz __ - L.1.D.Ne. ...234 NAME CF G xNER CESCRtPTION CF 4 FEET IN ESTATE _— - SCt;ARE F IN SU301VISION -- � - - Chonges _ EsKawred Actual s � L.f.o- z.�s.> s•.s.t• +f:.>, rasa• ZPF Assessmem Asseument .Ordered by REMARKS to ilk. ♦:- -:b OR pW C.�.,... r..� a i. r.,Fw C. .1 p/IW 45 23 20 10 3 33.': 15.25 19, ;62 4334 �41 1. t•:alter :4. Certer TR 133 _C. 3• Hil leans 1_1.25 4,3.12 ._ _ - P. O. nca 132 Ly. S. cf La's asn. Car. i I U•s:all, ::A 33013 crate ct d :iv. A3 I - —'- Ramp2. � x Clarissa Faw. :ett S. 450' Section 32-24-5 202.50112.50 90.00 45.00 450 '00 9870 ' 404E Meador F,,,e. of Tax lot L_- 1 Renton, WA :3' 103. — x P.obert Fawcett _. _ Tax Lot Section 32-24-5 248.30 32.39 65.91 32.95 329 �55 7228 15 I ! _4C08 Meadow Ave. H. _ 43_ _ -- __.Renton.,_WA 96055 , ttt } q,- Hal Brandt M. 150' of 1 2 C. D. Hillman's 117.00 65.CO 52.09 26.00 260 :00 5702 s 12727 5•E- 63rd East 260' Lk. Wa. Gar. of i Bellevue, WA Eden Div. E. 9. '?sr.son Less :.. 1 2 ' _ .__ _. c.+ -a 79 na » AT 21 17 �.- _ 4 r 260 00 570259 - --- - - - _ i 150' of I 2 C. 0 rtill-a .'s 111.00.55.0C 52.00 29.,0 -- -- - _ '- - - .Hal Brandt- _ - -- - East 255' Lk. w3. ;ar. a-` 11727 S.E. Ora _ _ . - ----'"" - - =den -., - 22 47 21.23 I12 j33 2453i B 28.-3 S. E. U---so4 Less 1 2 51-34 a Renton, WA 99055 East 2 2 1I8.15- 55.58 52.47 26.23 _ , 262 133 37,53 '9 4232 Jones Ave. N.E. �---- _ _Renton, .:A 93055 t - 233,50 .4.17 53J3 2_ •sl', 296 57 6=G5,9B( ( --.-- 7. Prod-4cti0: --0. - 3 2 4232 Jones ! Renton, 1 ..n 93055 2 . - 114.75 53.75 51.00 25.5'1 2S5 00 _ 5593�02- Pee to-, 98055 5 2 114.:5 %:3.?5 >2.0� 25.50 2" 00_ 5593 02 t-- Renton, .+. _ 94055 j - i — t •i—_- - 00.75 33.75 27.70 13.50 135-100 2951 01 10. ::alter -• ::iechvann E3. 135 6 7 I :.. - 1451" _ .E. 173rd � s, - - By FCR THE 3APROVV4EW OF __ -.^._ - --_. - . .-...YEAR BONDS AT - ?c. ESr RD ynaTE REPORTED TO 90A . .._._- - -...._.. HEARING ON RESOLUTION - - __ - .. - _.. ROLL FttE•D __ .. - - CPOtNANC nGUETR _ _. ASST MAP N*. r!"cARtNG ON ROLL . .. - fL -' - E SCR Pi O�+ OF eEAI fiT.:TE SGLb1AS FEET V SUa0•V.a€GN - Ess+mate - REMARKS dal CF Zny•s ------- — -- Crdwed by' NAME OF OV,.NEK - -- - - - lrs,.s b�esss rasa. Ms+► St•tw- '. AssMmens AswtsTent Council i rvw.�) Sv�dr�r to e;4. ♦"Inom a �JLT 4S Sic (W hen C.tat s -� will-ass S4.00 30.00 24_00_ 11.0C - - --- - - - --- - -- -.-_.. 124 AO 2632 rp t i - ._ raep alai. -- -- - - -- 255 !t00 5593 Al 2 314.'S 53.'S i1.2_25+5D _ r - ----- ----} 4i'3 _-er doe. -- 57.38 31.87 25.�O 12.75 127 0 279b "1 _ t.4 of w4 9 2 —_- - T-- -- . :. _--icgson _ - - - - - -- - - -_ - _. . -- --- -- - 45 z.4 az a^.a='ri iia_L�w •lYs_-. -._ - _- _- - --- - / 57.38 31 .87 __25.50, 12.?5 127 0 2796 1 :. Gwen Less it+s 9 2 ._-. -. -- "_. 4016 Sores Ave. 't•E. of Rg1 r WA - 3?O55_. - - _ - - - i - 330 4 '238.R42 -- + „ t Gerber Tr 194 C.�. Fii1!ar.'s 1=d-39 ti''.50 5b.r•t; li.W - - -- t r. ! Sox 13243 D:%all. ..A -- -- -T- I N T E R O F F I C E C O R R E S P O N D E N C E Date August 2. 1978 Ta: City Clerk gpC*4, Design Engineering SDBJE.CTs Jones .Ave. LID 284 'Ow enclosed doemonts have been signed by the contractor and reviewed by the City Attorney. Please arrange for the Mayor's and your signatures and return 4 copies+ to this office. nr:pmp 4c h�''� r PAO61"TELE R MEn 15241Teleprompter Seattle JUG 2 1 Im i 521t Paclllc Highway South 11 � Y/ Seal tie.Washington98188 NAFFI �J t206t 433 3433 0 fNCINC[FINC DIVISION LQE� , July � 19,1978 w 11 ' 9*x44n Renton Public Works Dept. 200 Mill Ave. South Renton Washington 98055 n,.ar Mr. Morgan: Upon review of your plans for a sanitary sewer installation on Jones Avenue N.E. from N.E. 40th street north to S.E. 76th street, there is no existing Teleprompter system, either aerial or underground, in this area. I do appreciatq your notificatio., of the start of the project. Regards, N. M. McKay Teleprompter Engineering 4 tee oft O t' U aenectt -� +_ If a. IloaIht{�n "—" � i'uA1<A l< atl .In, U "Wet 1�►feS: tithe. t a,xt: aAaat� .�tw,ti •uaJtlt• ._� Metev told Meet loN. a+ to O,f ..�„� etdo alpeef•<op oett... ._.� t'tY/,n <periot "goet. s t r•t(,�. e be Qj*vft,,,, _• �ti• Da'j la/ +lr,aas 4 Pill- 01 RF ti ^� THE CITY OF R.ENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON,WASH 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR • DELORES A. MEAD �Q, b CITY CLERK NOSE►`Eo,6 June 9, 1978 The Daily Journal of Commerce 89 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 Attention: Mrs. Campbell/Dennis Stuhany Re: Cell for Bids - Jones Ave. NE, LID 284 - S-180 Sanitary Sewer Main Gentlemen: Enclosed 1s a Call for Bids as above-captioned to be published June 21 , 1978. Please furnish affidavits of puolication in triplicate. Thank you for your courtesies. Very truly yours, CITY X KLNTON AlOU41 Q DM:bh Delores A. Mead Enc. City Clerk " 4KIWMri.,..w✓ rw.artar.w.w mrrwn,n. .w.o: _.... who Renton City Council July 13, 1978 U'Plt.l'I'[I:S CkiM1TFUU RF.PURT ti SUBJUM: AWARD OF CONTRAC"' ON L.I.O. '84 Jong, Ave. N.U. t The bid opening for the referenced I.roject was Leld July 5, 1979. The !ow bid was submitted by Lundberg Construction Co, in the amount of $lff.9110.59. It Is the recommendation of the Utilities toimnittee that the City Council concur in the attached report of the Public Ivorkx Depart• sent and accept the low bid of Lundberg Construction and award the contract accordingly. V i;il'rman tiK cc: Public Works Director Attachment • 5 l! F of Ftp� o Pl-i LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7. ENGINEERING DIVISION 135 ?631 m MANIC IPAL HUILDING 101111111 L AVE SO. RENTON,WASH 9aa55 b 440 SEP., CHARLES J DFLAURENTI July 13, 1978 MAYOR Sir. Charlex t,:utc, Chai ru1,w Members of tlic Utilities Committee Subject: Award of Contract on LID 284, Jones Ave. N.L. Dear Committee hl,nnbers; The hid opening for the referenced project was held July 5, 1978. The following is a tabulation of the, bids received: Bidder A1mn�nt Lundberg ConstLuction $150,580.03 i Dyad Construction Co. $-173,206.80 It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that the tow bid submitted by iundberg COtlstTLXtien (broken out as follows) be accepted and the contract for subject project be awarded to said contractor: B;Ise [lid Scliedulo A $59,302.01) Plus Alternate A-1 $83,563.30 Plas Schedule 8 $43,947.40 Plus Sales 'Tax $10,08?.89 TOTAL $19G,900.59 Of the above total price, King County Water District 107, by their letter of JUII 13, 1978, bus agreed to I,ay for Schedule 8 and the difference between Schedule A-1 and A- ' for oversizing, this totals $76,892.70 plus $4,152.31 state sales t;1\ fur a total rcimburscukent by King County Water District 107 of $ril,od4.91. Vcry truly yours, • Warren C. Gonnason, P.ii. Public Works Director Renton City Council July 13, 1979 UTILITIES CONMITTEE REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT ON L.I.U. 284, .]ones Ave. N.E. The bid opening for the referenced projekt was held July 5, 1978. The low bid was submitted by Lundberg Construction Co. in the amount of $196,900.59. It is the recommendation of the Utilities Committee that the Clty Council concur in the attached report of the Public Works Dep..rt- ment and accept the 1o_a bid of Lundberg Construction and award the contract accordingly . Charles Shane. LKiTrman 'I'homns frime� --....— George Perry IMP cc: Public Works Director Attachment March 3, 1978 i RECEIVED MAR 2 1978 QUESTIONNAIRE ON LID 284 COV W N-WJN Off1GN fNGwEfwK The City should continue in its efforts to obtain federal funding for the project. ZTheCity should proceed with the project immediately without eral funding. The project should be abandoned. i gnature lot Lz?ym 43013 J-)nee Avenue R.E. Renton a8055 Address -1 OF RFti 4 z PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT g ENGINEERING DIVISION 235 -2631 p .�. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON.WASH 98055 W p$% l, FO SEPlt,*iN March 3, 1978 I . .. CHARLES J DELAURENTI MAYOR UEAR PROPERTY OWNER: As you may be aware a meeting was held on February 28, 1978 concerning LID 284. The purpose of thi,. 'neeting was to inform you the pru; ,rty owner of the progress the City has made in its attempt to obtain federal funding. Also, it was our desire to obtain input from you regarding I. ,w you wish to proceed in light of the fact that federal funding may not be available. The concensus reached among those attending was that another meeting should be held in which a representative of the Department of Ecology, the Enviror.mental Protection Agency and the King County health Department was present. This meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 14th in the Council Chambers of Renton City Hall. It is requested that you attend this meeting to express your views or complete the questionnaire attached and return it to this office. The second requirement of those attending the meeting was that the City up- date its cost estimates for the project and provide the property owners with a revised estimate of what their assessment will be for this project. There- fore, according to our records your property and its estimated assessment are shown below. Property Description Estimated Assessment C.D. Hillman's Lk.Wa.Gdn. of Eden Div. M7 Lot 2, Blk 2, together with N. 85' of Tr. 3 $10,392.31 If you have any questions concerning this matter or would like additional information please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Donald G. Monaghan, P.E. Office Engineer DGM:pmp k 1 March 3, 1978 QUESTIONNAIRE ON LID 294 The City should continue in its efforts to obtain federal funding for the project. t/ The City should proceed with the project immediately without federal funding. , The project should be abandoned. ro S LL, Signature y 44 Address Y 3yft ti \ ... ... w.... ..swnw+s.m.........�...»..wxw w�.wsr.r�w.... ...�....-.,.,...w,w..+rw+«—........ ,y'w�..��.rswn'.n.�w l IN11 'il Itr,�,.�16'1- UN Llh :R.I "lie City shoal,! c. ,ll inuo in it, �•f list:. h, „bf .11n !'c,lcr.11 t'un ing .1 f,+r thi` 1,n, i •it . 'I'h� flta •.ImuIJ I,rnc,'cil with thr 11 ro1,•ct iiuuuxll.Itcly rtthuut w frdr rll tnnJlnl,. »Y .w.. w� � ` I Iho 11r„luct shoulki h,• .Ib.unlom'J, i l ....`. ♦d i1��.. ! B /.fit 1111•It Uttt. , 1,1.1.�•:. l I r March 3, 1978 RECEIVED MAR 8 1978 QUESTIONNAIRE ON LID 284 LITr OF qEN Iq:, eETMN lNGINEJgINIJ The City should continue in its efforts to obtain federal fundi, a for the project. --- -- -- --VC: The City should proce-3 with the project immediately without federal funding. The project should be abandoned. TRI-DELT, INC. 6840-IIM AVE. SE. RENTON, WA 98055 c � pass. Signature A dress -- r March 3, 1978 i QUESTIONNAIRE ON LID 284 1 a I The City should continue in its efforts to obtain federal funding for the project. NO. The City should proceed with the project immediately without federal funding. ME v 'L FT t;Tmun,m Tlt Fatarl:TTta. WCAUSE TILE FA'i=TJ+S IlAn AC= TO 1W SBWAOs TRUNK Lima PR'IIDED RROPM ARRAIDIaLdNTS ARE 1,AM TO CONIR7CT THROUDH ITS AGENT t 7 CITY1� The project should be abandoned. YE<r pmIDD r�VMy0WI QIt `: a .CN A IWORITY OF PROH: RTY CWFidS SO WT—Ii.r*2n ur ROi ' T A. FAWCETT Avress -- =`""L`W SSA 11. FAITC:VT (SPOISE) ��' ' OF R'eAVA va `� o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3 tr ENGINEERING DIVISION 235 -2631 o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO RENTON.WASH 90056 'Q• P IrfD SEP001 CHARLES J DELAURENTI Martch 9, 1978 MAYOR Ma. MaE" New' Depan.tmetLt o6 EeoCogy 4350 150th Ave. NE Redmond, WA 98052 Dean Makk: Rega3ding our pxevioue conveaaationna concerning the appnovat o6 Water Diatnict 101'a comptehemive sewer and uateA plan by the King County Commaai.onex'a pteaee be adviaed that 1 have not been We to obtain an o66ici.al copy 06 the exhib.it4 to .the oadinance. However, I have been aeau)ted that the Jonee Ave. NE thu: 1• Une wa6 included in the app)toved plan. i Thene6ate to aeaotvv thiA ma,"eA it is augge.ated thLtt you aAmnge to peuonatty examine .the exi.i.bita on bite with King County. 16 you wvuLd Like I could arrange to meet you ao that we can examine these docwwAta together. Please advice ;6 1 can be o6 any 6uAthen aaaiet blce in Iteaatving this matter. Very truly youaa, DoAitd G. w,aaghan, P.E. 066ice Engcneen DIN.p mp P"> a u'v1.a�..r.u�.r..r s.s. r,a.... ...Fw"'" •.• rnr4:1rMi4.rv .i -t pF RFC Al 3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION ♦ 235-2620 .� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO RENTON, WA. 98055 41f0 SEP,* CHARLES J DFLAURENTI MAYOR June 13, 1978 Mr. Phil Copps, Manager South Central Division Puget Sound Power b Light Company P.O. Box 329 Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr, Copps: Enclosed are city plans for a sanitary sewer installation on Jones Ave. NE from NE 40th Street northerly to SE 76th Street. Please review the plans for possible conflicts with your existing utilities. Appropriate comments should be returned to this office, If you require additional Information, you may contact Dave Tibbot at 235-2631 . Very truly yours, Clinton E. Morgan Coordinator of Utilities CEM:ad Enclosure cc: Dave 'Tibbotyr/ i i i I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION a 235-2620 q P b MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WA, 9805S �P Q09"to SEP-it CHARLES J DFLAURENTI MAYOR June 1 , i`?/s Mr. Bill uri,w Lead, Manager Teleprompto� cable 15241 Pacific High South Seattle, WA 9818b Dear Mr. Grinstead: Enclosed are city plans for a sanitary sewer installation on Jones Ave. NE fray HE 40th Street northerly to SE 76th Street . rlease review the plans for possitle conflicts with your existing utilities. Appropriate comments should be returned to this office. If you require additional information, you may contact Dave Tibbot at 235-2631 . Very truly yours, Clinton E, Morgan Coc-dinator of Utilities CEM:ad Enclosure i cc: Dave Tibbr .� pF RF,, �s PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION a 235-2620 I Op MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO RENTON WA 98055 f0 SE Pit* CMARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR June 13, 1978 1 1 Mr. Denny Burk Engineerlag Manager Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Cora any Room 212 300 SW 7th Street Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Burk: Enclosed are city plans for a sanitary sewer installatinn on Jones Ave. NL from NE 40th Strut t northerly to SE 76th Street. Please review the plans for possible conflicts with you existing utilitles. Appropriate comments should be returned to this office. If you require aooitional information, you may contact Dave Tibbot at 235-2631 . Very truly yours, Clinton E. Morgan Coordinator of Utilities CEM:ad Enclosure cc: Dave Tibbot✓ %i Y -> 0 RE4.1 J �� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3�+ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVI,31UN 235-2620 Jp '� � MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. 50 RENTON.WA. 98055 ,TfD SE PTILO CHARLES J. DFLAURENTI MAYOR June 13, 1978 Mr. Doug Damm Supervisor of Operat'ons Washington Natural Gas Company P.D. Box 1869 Seattle, WA 98111 Dear Mr. Danm: Enclosed are city plans for a sanitary sewer installation on Jones Ave. HE from NE 40th Street northerly to SE 76th Street . Please review the plans fo- possible conflicts with your existing utilities. Appropriate comments should be returned to this office. If you require additional information, you may contact Dave Tibbot 3t 235-2631 . Very truly yours, Clinton F. Morgan Coordinator of Utilities CEM:ad Enclosure cc: Dave Tibbotv/ I N T E R 0 F F I C E C 0 R R E S F 0 N D E N C E . i Date June 8, 1919 i TO: Vince Lee ( FROM: Dave Tibbot # Soa,7ECT: S-180, LID 284, Jonee Ave. NE EncCoeed ane the bon .the above pnaject. Wouid you pt.eaee nevieue them ae to bonm. We need to go to pneae Fnidau. 7',ank you. DT 0 pmp µ 0l 4 P a: Of a4t O PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ti + Z QUO MILL AVE S ..� RENTON. WA OA055 �JOMYiS ' G.R.V. INC. 6248 121st S.E. BELLEEVUE, WA. 98004 f Y 1 i:._. . : rruL-.3L..rvJ♦ . ..":. . r .__. t ...':v. m "SNki.aJiu... _...... .., ..:...... .. ..e. .:s...wu:ur... .... ti .� OF Reti z PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINJ'ERING DIVI ION 235 -2631 Op MUNICIPAL BUILDING NO MILL AVE SO. RENTON. WASH 98055 ,o `O 04)'6 SEPItoe March 3, 1978 CHARLES J DELAURENTI MAYOR DEAR PROPERTY OWNER: As you may be aware a meeting was held on February 28, 1978 concerning LID 284. The purpose of chic meeting was to inform you the property owner of the progress the City has made in its attempt to obtain federal funding. Also, it was our desire to obtain input from you regarding how you wish to procee4 in light of the fact th-it federal funding may not be available. The concensus reached among those attending was that another meeting should be held in which a representative of the Dep .rtment of Ecology, the Environmental Protection Agency and the King County Health Department was present. This meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 14th in the Council Chambers of Renton City Hall . It is requesLed that you attend this meeting to express your views or complete the questionnaire attached and return it to this office. The second requirement of those attending the meeting was that the City up- date its cost estimates for the project a. .! provide the property owners with a revised estimate of what their assessment will be for this project. There- fore, according to our records your property and its estimated assessment are shown below. Property Description Estimated Assessment C.D. Hillman's Lk.Wa.Gdn.of Eden Div, N7 Lot 9, Blk 2. Less W 1/2 of N 1/2 thereof $4,007.12 If you have any questions co.rning this matter or would like additional information please do not hositate to call. Very truly yours, Donald G. Monaghan, P.E. Office Engineer DGN:pmp I March 3, 1978 �1 QUESTIONNAIRE ON LID 284 The City should continue in its efforts to obtain federal fuming for the project . The City �h.:uld proceed with the project imediately without federal funding. , The project should be abandoned. i i i r Signature Aadress r ote * Date �/-��•� io: . Lee P. Lumbers R 3 , NuuEhton � J. Williams 11. Miller Jean R. Nelson Other R. Mich T FOWN: WARREN /< �N 906JECT Rosi,a and report hook. Sea o. Posts and retomt. Prepare roopoase for ay oipnatnre. Poke apptwprioto action. Pr pare special ropy»t. Ir,rt •p onoti*j.eaar inforwation. ASNkRRS: rM[ mooRE,WALI.ACE&KENNEDY,INC. ENGINEERS a PLANNERS a SURVEYORS April 9, 1979 METRO APR 1 1979 821 - 2nd Avenue cam of 1 Seattle, Washington 9, x 04 i Attn: Mr. Joe Fritz r` r SUBJECT: MAY CR"EK Y Gentlemen: ( In kccordance with our conversation in regard to May Creek, we are submitting the following: 1. Additional billings after December 25, 1976 which updates amounts as contained in Water District No. 107's letter of January 19, 1977. A. Billings for preparation for and attendance at the Februaty 9, 1977 hearing and subsequent efforts. Invoice No. 's 5745, 5746, 5808, 5810, SB89, 6067 and 6372 $ 5,605.07 B. Change of May Creak devign from 24-inch diameter to 18-inch diameter. I Invoice No. 's 5809, 5890 and 5997 $ 4,456.24 j C. Copy of letter dated September 8, 1976 which prevents the method of allocation of costs between METRO, Renton and King County Water District No. 107. D. Plana and specifications are virtually complete for both the 18-inch and 24-inch diameter lines. Plan review by METRO was completed and attached is letter from METRO to thst effect. We have plans for both sizes in our files. Very truly yours, MOORE, WAI.LACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. John R. Wallace, JRW:jad cc: KCWD No. 107 Renton-Warren Connason ✓ 1932 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 0706. SEATTLE WASHINGTON Va101 (206)624-2623 Fr hE�.. F ktWvLu MAR ��9 19979� O Date 11�JC WOIIIL{ ID: i'. Lae Lumhalt. un N111 i+INs *kl,eanNelnun J ther R. puh II�h// _ .--- FAIN: WARREN (WNNIAspRy' Review and report book. Sae ad. _ No.te and "SurR. Prepare "oppose for ON afswatara. -_ take appropriate Notion. Prepare spatial Apart. Wr waling. p+/�lor toot fnJarwali •w. � (kl/•'//'/,�, � rf le. NRNSRNB: ��� �METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle • on Sftxm d Avg.,Sentk,�:+gel�d(t• Mhehi:gha:96So4 March 28, 1979 Public Works Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue Renton, WA. 98055 Attention: Mr. Warren Gonnason, Director Gentlemen: Construction of the May Creek Interceptor j On behalf of Metro's Executive Director, I acknowledge receipt of your 8 March 1979 request for extension of the May Creek interceptor. The request has been routed to the appropriate staff for evaluation, and a more informative reply is forthcoming. Please direct any questions on this matter to me a*, 447-6571 or to Mr. Gordon Gabrielson at 447-6574. Very truly yours, i Charles�4 . Ha Director of Ni Pollution Control CJH: jfr cc: N. Peterson H. McCullough, KCWD #107 C. Delaurenti, Mayor of Renton l RLWVLU MAR 1979 1 'Stream-of-the-month' Q Troubled waters at May Creek At Clary Crites,ad'MM I is the R1Mrn ttaasa a MOW water WAMY tam 1'%m might say May Clack Is light lkaining an area of about 13 square clean gravel, the fldt eggs simply can't ill the middle. Water quality there t. miles, May Creek is located north of survive. Surface runoff during heavy I "not as good as in some streams but Renton in the southeast Comer of the storms can also greatly increase the not as bad as in others;'as one observe lake Washington drainage basin. The flow of water in a stream. That causes or puts it, stream basin is under the jurisdiction the eggs to be washed aw!rv. But May Creek's problems. stem of the city of Renton and KingCbunty, But the situation is nor all had at ming from urban runoff and erosion, The state Ikpartment of Fisheries May Creek. Currently, several local sedimentation, are heconong nvore reports that in 1477 and 1478, 171 agencies are working together to find serlau.. Coho, 50 sockeye and 10 Chinook sal, the solace of the problems affecting _ mon returned to the waters of May the stream and ways to solve them. ' - Creek, in the past several years the King County, the city of Renton, fish runs have been dindiaMing, King County Water District 107. the May Creek's %roubles are the same state Department of FCdogyand Moto .0 those affecting many water bodies are developing a planning strategy to i in the region without adequate con. Control surface water rurvotl and re• trols for surface runoff, duvo sedimentation. Stormwater do- As more hones ate built and more volition ponds,improved land clearing j nods are paved,surface w.tet cannot practices and other techniques can soak into the ground, It has nowhere help protect May Creek. May to go but directly into streams, Surges As pan of the effort, King County 4 of extra water cause stream banks to is inducting a land-use and drainage erode. And the erosion deposits set , study, and Metro is tm+niloring water mint into the streambed, Erosion also quality. occurs at Cnstructiun sites where rain• With the necessary planning and water carries sediment into nearby control strategies by the agencies, waters. as well as the cooperation of area 1 Sediment then covers the natural residents, businesses said contractors, gravel streambed which is the ideal May Creek can still be returned to _ habitat for spawning fish. Without health. 3 i i e ly North interceptor work begins Clear water calendar Saturday W ater Quality Planning Hyak Jr. High Work will umn begin on Metro's' November 18 Norkshop Sierra Club wlevue +` final rehabilitation phase of Seattle's 9 a.m. 60,year old North interceptor sewer. Repair work wid reduce the possi- Tuesday ('WQAC 4th Flora hility of structural failure in the brick November 28 Conference Room and concrete sewer that runs trout 12 noon Exchange Bldg. it^' Madison Park across north Seattle to Metro's West Riint treatment plant. Thu"11N Water Quality Committee, 4th Floor The Metro Council awarded a contract November.40 Metro Council Conference Room for the work to Constructor's Pa nco 1:30 P.m. Exchange Building of Seattle, who entered a low bid of 5719,O95 for the project. Thursday Metro Council Roan 854 Construction crews will work inside 1)"ember 7 King('aunty ' the sewer line and not have to dip large 3 p.m. Administration Bldg, access pits that were called for to earlier rehabilitation plans. The access pits Tuesday (-WQA(' 41a Floor would have been located an s'rvets, December 12 Confewnce Roorn in the Arboretum and on the Broad- 12 noon Exchange Huddv,g moor Golf Coutse. These plans had concemad some area residents. Thursday Water Quality Committee, 4th Floor View% inside the sewer line will December 14 Metro Council Conference Room nuke repairs by cleaning, sealing and 1:30 p.nt. Exchange Building luting NAuds With gtout. Wastewaiel will be diverted through a temporary All meetings are open to the public. Pipe. Fot more meeting information call 44'•6357. Metro acqutied the North intercep� tar system from the city of Seattle in the earlv 1960s, The rehabilitation Is needed to rut down on the potential for structural failure that could mutt in sewage backups,overflows,pollution and possible threats to public health, rr I r CLEAR WATER WATCH BULK RATE U S P(1ST ApE Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle PAID 821 Second Avenue sfl AiTtE.WASH Seattle,Washington 98104 PERMIT NO 94Va GONNAWARC 4R, WARREN C. GONNAS:IN *UHIIC WORK£ DEPT 200 MILLS AWE . Se AENTONe WA 983", i d CLEAR WATER WATCH A report on the progress of water quality planning by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seanle November 1974 :F Early results in from milfoil tests Ftheiglass screens have cut plant growth up to 80 percent after a two " month period according to preliminap results from Metro's Furasiati milfoil s, control tests to Lake Washmµlon. As part of the milfoil research effort eight fiberglass panels, measur- ing 30 by 80 1i et, were anchored hr the lake bottom in July. The test ;,i site is near the south shore of Union ,,.'- Hay, north of Madison Park. The screens control growth by Mocking sunlight from the plants. Two panels were removed front the site alter each of the first three mondms of the test. Dr. Mike Perkins, Univers. ity of Washington scientist and research coordinator, said after the first month the panels reduced growth by about 20 percent. After two months plant mass was cur by about 80percent,And Perkins said early dais from screens Ctwta fern 00 L%OVG W or Washington teiod he..als aesaartt Iwo law reerwf flaw removed late last month show about the mmuil teat site to Lab Wulangton. the same results an 80 percent re• the movvmg opemation showed a 15 mentaleffacts. ducthm in plant growth. percem reduction in plant growth and Last month the technical review Two remaining panels will be 1,11 a 25 perc tit regrowth rate, cmnnduee for the milfoil proleci,made on the site through the winter and Another part of the project is an up of representatives of the partielpat. their remurmd. Hart the test plots will Intensive Waistline seardt of control ing agencies and environnwrital groups, again be covered with panels in the methods at,d research conducted in recommended that the Iabotatory an. spring. other parts of the U.S. and in foreign alysis be limited it) the affects of one The demonstration project also test. nations. Also included will be a lab- formulation of 2.4•D on one species ed harvesting by means oP a mechanical oratory analysis of the herbicide 2.4•D of Pacific salmon. The committee aid mowing machine. First results from in an attempt to det•rmtne its envirom the S23,000 budgeted for the labora- tory work was not enough for the scope Committee members needed of tests ouragly planned. The group also encouraged other agencies to con- Metro's Citizens' Water Quality and long-range wastewater facility tinue further research necessary to de. Advisory Committee (CWQAC) has proposals. temune if herbicides can be uses safe- extended its deadline for new main- Volunteers interested in serving on ly in curtail plant growth. The limited berslup applications to November 30, the committee should expect it)spend laboratory analysis will not provide tn- CWQAC is a 27•member advisory four to ten hours a month on commit- finmation on the long-term effects of committee made up of citizens mpre- tee work. CWQAC meets twice month. 2,4-D, senting each of the county's nine ly at Metro's headquarters in downtown Metro,the University of Washington, council districts. Seattle. Members are appointed to the state Department of Ecology. The committee plays an important two-year terms. King County and the city of Seattle role in Metro's decision making pio. For application information, con ate cooperating in the $136,000 mil- cesses. Last yearCWQACmaderecom- tact Metros %usie Tull Saporta, 821 foil demonstration study. Eurasian mendations and reviewed policy tin Second Avemwc, Seattle 4)8104. Her milfoil growth has reached nuisance Metro's areawide water quality plan- phone number is 447.6761, proportions in several King County ning. Eurasian milfoil control protect water bodies in recent vears. 410 mrETRO s. f Letters Recycling oil: a slick idea Which soaps �— 5718 Empire Way South, and Rain. arebest? bow bow Recycling, at 2533 Westlake Avr- jll nue North. Deal Metro: In some other states, including Reading the Clear Water Watch has California, there are public service pro- suggested a question to me. I would _ grams for disposing of used oil. The like to know, in order to help protect -RECYCLING California program is called SOAR our waters, which laundry and dish (cenrEa Co- soaps are best to use when water is sponsored Oil America Recycles). Co- J Associ Association by the state Auttaboo sile o. drained directly into a stream. If�'J+ Association and Service Station Asso- Sincerely, ciation, SOAR provides space at gas 01 stations where people can bring in B.W.M. their used oil. The old oil is then col- ' Seaattlettlele, d, reprocessed and used again. Editor's Note: The main water Tow often waste oil is dumped on streets or lots, quality concern with soaps and deter- finds its way into storm . drains or streams and fouls the waters. gents is their phosphate content The U.S. Department of Energy re. Phosphates are nutrients, ante they are often used in nutrients, a In the You've just ftniched changing the ports that each year nationwide about Puget Sound area phosphates in water ° your car. Now,what do you du 1.25 billion gallons of used oil are lost I can promote the growth of aquatic with the old oil. For those concerned through dumping,direct discharge into es with clean water, it's a problem. waterways or sewers, road oiling. land plants, especially algae. Too much Some service stations will accept sp-eading or incineration. plant growth can be detrimental to used oil, especially if ' regular `' waterquality. Theirt are no regulations y you're a Help the problem in the Seattle ter requirements regarding phosphate Customer. But other stations will not, area can b be e found at Seattle Recycling, use in this region,but there ere some and their policies are cv with tlyyour clang- l tii-owoos. Recycling and certain gas areas of the nudwest and south where tug' Be sure to check with your local stations. Clear front readers is interest• problems have become serious. station before bringing in nil. o f t ;caring from readers who know The best way to learn about the At least two places in the Seattle of other places a deposit used oil safe phosphate content of detergents is U�eitThe will accept esed oil for recycling w innovative, environmentally sak simply to read labels. By carefully they are Seattle Recyrting, located at ways to dispose(if it. reading labels when shopping for de. tergents and snaps, you can discover Facility plan EIS set which products contain th c .........e amount of phosphates and which con. tain none at all. Generally,liquid soaps Staffs of Metro, the Environmental ment levels from whey parts of the contain fewer phosphates than powders Protection Agrncy and the state De- preferred alternative will allow the do. partment of Ecology have agreed to agencies to address priority water begin work on the final environmental quality concems, such as combined CLEAR 1NATER WATCH impact statement for a 25-year Puget sewer overflow control, as soon as NoysmW 1t to Vol a No.s Sound wastewater facility plan. possible. In addition to programs for The environmental impact state- combined sewer overflow control, the Publisher by Meo.'%public m.,tt,a on nrent, it) he completed in late Decent- preferred facility plan includes pro- e.eeon v,,form eitoen.. ber, will discuss the preferred facility posals for toxicant research, sludge Editor: Mark 8urnett I447 6846) plan recommended by Metro E.xecu. reuse and construction of a new treat- tive Director Neil Peterson in August, ment facility in the Duwamish indus. Municipality of Mevopouten Seattle Wastewater treatment levels will not trial area. 821 Second Avenue he addressed in the impact statement. The enviromnental impact state- S.anl..wA 98104 Treatment levels will he evaluated ment will discuss Metros four Puget Ch..,man, Metro Council: C. Co., through the federal waiver process. In Sound treatment plants and the pro- DonWarth September the Metro Council filed posed Duwamish facility. A public preliminary applications for waiver of hearing on the final environmental water Duality Committee the secondary treatment requirement. impact statement will be held in -at Krwbd After the waiter judgment, informa. January or February. Executive Daector-. Ned Peterson firm on treatment levels is expected Wastewater facility planning, also Mwto, of Ovate, Pollution Connor to be included in the environmental called 201 planning, rewinds to the Charles Nervy impact statement. federal Wate. Pollution Control Act t.. Separating the question of treat. of 1972. 2 I yr�,w L i U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY J0'IEos74r REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE c SEATTLE, WASH INGTON ?a101 w1O1 110V 2 9 1977 ATTN o° M/S 443 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Tc All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups: In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environ- mental impact st,tements, an environmental assessment has been performed on the below proposed Agency action: Public Law 92-500 grant to: King County Water Di trict Number 107 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 For construction of: The May Creek Interceptor System EPA Project No. C-530749 i The assessment process did not indicate a significant environmental 1 mpact from the proposed action. Consequently, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. A copy of the environmental impact appraisal , summarizing the assessment and explaining why a statement is not required, is attached. Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted to EPA for consideration. After evaluating the comments received, the Agency will make a final decision; 1^vc ,e no adminis- trative action will be taken on the project for ac ' :a- t iifteen (15) working days afte. release of this negative declaration. Sincerely, Robert S. Burd Director, Water Division Attachment F.N6TR(�TAL DVACT APPRAISAL PROTECT IDENTIFICATION Piblic Law 92-500 grant to: King County Water District Number 107 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 For Construction of: The May Creek Interceptor System Project Number C-530749 ' )tal Estimated Costs: $1,928,000 (EPA share 75L: Stare 15%; local 10:` ASSESSi 1E71Tf SIMM Description of Existing Environment: The study area is the May Creek drains, aasin which is located in Metropolitan Seattle between the City of Reu,ar. and Newport Hills, just east of Lake Washington. The western portion of May Creek drainage basin is urbanized, while the eastern portion is rural and contains r ged terrain where elevations rise from 300 to 1200 feet. The sewer interceptors will provide sewer service in the western por- tion of the May Creek basin. This area begins just east of Interstate Highway 405 and a half a mile east of 138th Avenue S.E. The cofr=ities within or bordering the 'lay Creek service area are the City of Renton, Newport Hills, blmicipality of Metropolitan Seattle, and King County Water District Number 107. The May Creek drainage basin is predominately a woodland site in its native state. The areas east of 136th Avenue S.E. and south of 96th Street adjacent to the creek have been cleared of the dominant species of vegetation. he area has been planted to grasses such as Orchard, Alta, Fescue, and dye and Timothy. The grass areas are mainly used as pasture for livestock. The major SreCies of trees are Douglas Fir, Western Hemlock, t'iestern Red Cedar, ind Red .•11der. The potential productivity is 445 to S50 board feet per acre per year. A listing of major plants is found in Taole 8 of the Appendix in the Facility Plan. -1- r Y The May Creek drainage basin is the last such basin draining into Lake Washington that does not have an interceptor to serve the basin. The limited public sewer service systems in the basin are being pumped into another basin by the Honey Creek Lift Station and the Sunset Lift Station. The Honey Creek Lift Station was designed as a temporary unit with an overflow to May Creek. It was to be eliminated in three to five years from the time it was constructed. The station is a duplex vertical pump lift station constructed in 1968. Each pump is 7.5 horsepower and is rated for 100 gallons per minute at S8 feet total dynamic head. Maximum capacity per pump is 144,000 gallons per day. The quantity of sewage currently being pumped is approximately 8,750 gallons per day. (25 homes x 3.5 persons x 100 gallons per person per day.) The Sunset Lift Station was originally constructed to serve a plat of 86 homes. The station orginally had two (2) 5 horsepover, 225 gallons per minute pumps. In December 1974 and .January 1975, the pimp motors were changed to 15 horsepower and the pump impellers changed for a new capacity of 500 gallons per minute (720,000 gallons per day) each at 70 feet total dynamic head. This increased capacity was required not only due to the increased number of servi,es, out also to a substantial amount of extra- neous water entering the collection system. The amount of sewage pumped is 287,850 gallons per day. This increases to a peak of about 738,000 gallons per day during wet weather. The Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) concludes that there is ex- cessive Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) and that it is more cost effective to rehabilitate the system than to transport and treat. The quantity of sewage currently being pumped at the Sunset Lift Station is: 37&-homes x 3.5 persons per home 1,313 people i i 466 apartment units x 2.S persons per unit 1,165 people Total 2,478 persons 2,47b people x 100 gallons per day = 247,800 gallons per day 2,670 students and staff x 15 gallons per day 40,050 gallons per day Total 287,8S0 gallons per day Infiltration/Inflow peak flow is 450,000 gallons per day during wet weather. This 1/I flow increases the total flow to 738,000 gallons per day. The flows are not within the capacity of the pump station (720,000 gallons per day). In the calculations of these flows, 100 gallons/capita/day were used r ,. as the total sewage and associated I/I after rehabilitation has taken place. From these calculations, using o peaking factor of three (3) , the flows are 288,000 gallons/day x 3 = 864,000 gallons/day. It appears that the pump station is 20 percent overloaded at the present time. The Sunset Lift Station has been expanded to ultimate capacity. It pumps into an adjoining basin, making an increase in the capacity of the lift station impractical since the capacity of the adjoining basin's down- stream sys'.m has been reached. The downstream system was constructed in the 1940's :o serve wartime housing for Boeing workers. 't consists of 7,738.8 lined feet of 8 and 10 inch diameter pipe. With the Sunset and Honey Creek Lift Stations pumping into the downstream system at the same time, the flow developed is 1.34 cubic feet per second. This flow exceeds the downstream capacity of five (S) sections of 3 inch pipe without any additional flows. These five (5) sections amount to 1,436 lineal feet of pipe and are identified in Exhibit III. Exhibit III is a breakdown of the downstream system, manhole to manhole, with the length, slope and size of pipe indicated. From this information, the capacity and velocities of the flow in each section were determined. These maximum allowable flows were then compared to the flows actually generated by the development that flow into the downstream system. The actual flows were calculated by using accepted criteria which are outlined in Exhibit IV. The flows generated were broken into fourteen segments as outlined in Exhibit V for the purpose of determining at what point and at what volume flows enter the main stream. The residential units and commercial acreage in each segment were obtained by actual surveys. Comparing the design flow against the calculated flow reveals that in the downstream system there are a number of sections of pipe that are under- sized. There are four sections of pipe where existing flows exceed the design flows by 1.0 cubic feet per second (CFS). There are six sections of pipe in which design and existing flows are within 0.1 CFS of each other. These are nine other sections of pipe which fall in between these two ranges. Po upgrade the existing system, 5,122 lineal feet of 8 and 10 inch diameter pipe, would have to be replaced. This amount of pipe repre- sents 66 percent of the entire downstream system. Due to the excess flow generated by Sunset Lift Station, it is common for the flow to backup into the manholes. This has been verified on many occasions, but has not been documented. This indicates that the system is overloaded. To increase the capacity of the downstream s stem would re- quire the reconstruction of approximately two miles of trunk sewers through an area that is completely developed. Not caly would the cost be extremely high, but disruption co the neighborhood and businesses would he extreme. Construction of the May Creek - Honey Dew Interceptors would eliminate the Sunset and Honey Creek Pump Stations and enable the downstream system's capacity to be utilized by the basin it serves -3- Y f J There are 2,000 dwelling units in Areas I and III of the Cin' of Renton and approximately two-thirds use septic tanks for wastewater dis- posal. City of Renton records indicate 102 instances of septic tank failures in this area. Area II is the Kennydale area and the records of the City of Renton Building Department show 28 septic tank failures scattered throughout the area. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service Table on Soils, the majority of the Kennydale area is made up of INDI.4NOLA LOAMY fine sands on four to fifteen percent slope. This type of soil is known to have rapid permeability and presents possible pollu- tion hazards. Refer to Exhibit I. Area III is part of the Honey Dew area. Records of the Seattle-King County Department of Health shows that there have been 174 septic tank failures in this area with sewage discharging onto the surface of the i, ground. Refer to Exhibit II. "' Area III-A, Sierra Heights, is a sub-area within Area III and Area I. 4 It is not served by sanitary sewers although physically service can be provided except for the lack of downstream capacity of Sunset Lift Station Number 2. A letter from the Health Department indicates that in one an- nexation area alone, cat of 155 systems that were surveyed, there were 31 failures and 22 probable failures. The Seattle-King County Health Department indicates that "these failures represent a serious potential health hazard. Sanitary sewers are very badly needed around S.E. 103rd and 104th Avenues and would be a great benefit to the whole area." J g The Avenues, 124th and 125th S.E. , just west of Area III-A, are completed with streets and water, but building permits are b_ing refused because of poor soil condition. Area III-B is a sub-area within Area III. 'nis nineteen lot subdivision was constructed with dry sewers. Only two of the nineteen existing homes c appear to be free of septic tank problems. problems of septic tank failures were resolved by the construction of a $40,000 li-t station to serve the homes. Area IV is an eighty-one lot subdivision which has been constructed with dry sewers, but homes are being built using septic tanks as an interim measure. Seepage from failing septic tanks flow into May Creek. Several years ago Water District Number 107 and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), in a joint effort, constructed Section Number 1 of the May Creek Interceptor. 11 .s section lies dormant, but will become active with the completion of the May Creek Interceptor. -4- x v,. In the :Nay Creek area, approximately two-thirds of the homes use septic tanks. King County Health Department and the City of Renton and Water District Number 107 have documented 289 septic tank failures or 22 percent. In overall summary with respect to the use of septic tanks in the May Creek drainage basin, the local supervising sanitarian for the Health De- partm,nt states that his department supports construction of the intercep- tor system, not only to allow for new development, but also to abate health hazards inherent in such a large number of malfunctioning systems. Aquatic life in May Creek is mainly Coho Salmon, Steelhead Trout, Cut- tnroat Trout, ScApins ant Brooklamprey. A list of wildlife fou-ud in the area is listed in 'table 7 of the Facilities Plan. There are no threatened or endangered species identified by the environmental assessment. There are ne :mown environmentally sensitive resources such as Jet- lands, coastal zones or wild and scenic rivers. There are only a few small industries in the May Creek drainage basin. These industries include a creosote plant and several graiTl pits. Indus- tries or industrial expansions would not be affected by the sewers proposed for the May Creek drainage basin since they are already served by existing sewer lines. Brief Description of Proposed Project: The proposed Phase 1 project consists of construction of five inter- ceptors. These are as follows: a. May Creek Interceptor to Honey Creek, consisting of 6,750 lineal feet of 18-inch diameter of pipe. b. Kennydale Interceptor System: 1. Kennydale - May Creek Interceptor consisting of 600 lineal feet of 10-inch diameter pipe and 150 lineal feet of 15-inch diameter pipe. Total length is 750 lineal feet. 2. East Kennydale Interceptor consisting of 3,080 lineal feet of 10-inch diameter pipe and 3,180 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipe. Total length is 6,260 lineal feet. 3. West Kennydale Interceptor consisting of 450 lineal feet of 12-inch diameter pipe and 4,100 lineal feet of 10-inch diameter pipe and 2,060 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipe. Total length is 6,610 lineal feet. C. Honey Dew Interceptor consisting of 6,830 lineal feet of 12-inch diameter pipe .nd 340 lineal feet of 15-inch diameter pipe. Total length, 7,170 lineal feet. -5- F i' Future projects will consist of the following: 1. Phase II of the May Creek Interceptor length, 7,770 lineal feet. Estimated year of construction, 1978. 2 Jones Avenue is a separate project, C-53059i, length is 3,310 lineal feet. Project is awaiting EPA approval and funding. Esti- mated construction, 1978. 3. 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor. This is a separate project, C-530747. Length is 6,630 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipe. Facility Plan has not yet been submitted by grantee. Estimated construction, 1979. 4. Lake Kathleen Interceptor, length 20,000 lineal feet. Esti- mated construction, 1980. S. S.E. Interceptor, length 7,800 lineal feet of 8-inch and 10-inch diameter pipe. Estimated construction, 1978. 6. Lake Boren Interceptor, length, S,080 lineal feet of 10-inch diameter pipe. Estimated construction, 1978. 7. Lower Northwest Int rceptor, length, 3,100 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipe. Estimated construction, 1978. 8. N.E. Interceptor, length, 7,111 lineal feet of 8-inch dia- meter p'.pe. Estimated construction, 1978. To-:al length of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects is 89,460 lineal feet or 16.9 miles of interceptors. Total estimated cost is $3,074,000. The purpose of the project is to imprm.,e water quality in May Creek and Lake Washington, mitigate the existing health hazards and provide for orderly land development. The design year for the interceptors is year 2000. Present popula- tion iE 7,300 and the population projection for the year 2000 is 21,000. D-.scharge from the interceptor will be to the Metro-Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. The proposed project is consistent with the Water District Number 107 Comprehensive Sewage Plan and with the Metro Comprehensive P'an except for the decreased pipe size. The facility plan has identified two alterratives which are similar in cost-effecti, .ness and environmental im- pacts. Alternative A, the selected plan, is .,lightly mere cost-effective. However, the environmental impacts are less with Alternative B. The grantee states that "the long-term financial benefits of a gravity system outweigh a small increase in environmental impacts. Experience with Section Number 1 of the May Creek Tnterceptor indicates that after a few years nature and proper construction methods eradicate the damage created -6- by the construction." This fact is also shown from the construction and sub- sequent renovation of the Madison Creek Project Number C-530550-03. The four (4) lift stations in Alternative B would require a considerable amount of energy and maintenance labor. It would appear in this period of energy shortage that the all-gravity system would be preferred. Probable Impacts of the Project on the Environment and Impazt Mitigative asures: a. Primary Impacts 1. Beneficial primary impacts center around elimination of raw sewage from failing septic tanks getting into May Creek and Lake Washington. 2. Imorove the health conditions where sewers cannot now be built and where septic tank drainfield failures occur. 3. Reduce sedimentation in the delta. 4. Use of heavy construction equipment and transportation of necessary supplies will cause temporary problems of noise, dust, diesel and gasoline engine fumes and traffic disruptions. These nieces of equipment will be equipped with muffler-type systems that meet those standards set by law. Traffic control provisions will be utilized to keep disruption Cf the community to a minimum. S. Reduce long-term erosion of May Creek banks and improve long-tern fish production in the creek. Construction of the May Creek and Honey Creek Interceptors could have some effect on wildlife in the area. Such construction will be regulated by the State Department of Fisheries through permits that will be issued. b. Se dary Impacts The area now has a population of -,300 people. The projections indicate a 20-year design population of 21,000. It is also estimated that + the 20-year population without the sewer project would be 11,000 people. The impact of this growth on land use will be additional residential de- velopment, increased apartment house construction and new shopping centers and other facilities to serve a growing residential population. This growth will take place within the existing land use ordinances. Existing flora and fauna will be reduced. The additional popula- tion growth will create additional storm drainage problems. Mitigative measures will be as follows: 1. An interagency agreement has been enacted which would require: (a) Preparation of a surface water plan for the area affected. w , (b) Computer modeling of May Creek. ' (c) Periodic stream monitoring. (d) Establishment of base line data on water qaality. (e) Conditioning approval of hookups to the interceptor and building permits on formation of one or more utility local improvements districts to fund and maintain a surface water plan. (f) .A moratorium on issue of building permits in the area affected until surface water plan has been adopted; and (g) Allocation of cost and responsibilities among the parties to the agreement. (King County, City of Renton, Water District Number 107, Municipality of 'Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) and the Department of Ecology.) The enactment and implementation of this agreement will resolve the concerns expressed by the Washington Environmental Council and Quendall Terminals relative to the quality of the surface waters of %y Creek and tributary drainages. 2. Enforcement of local ordinances for controlling storm runoff. S. Reduction in line size from 24 inch to A inch. There has been an archaeological survev made and the conclu- sion was that the proposed ruate of May Creek Interceptor presents no adverse impacts on any prehistoric cultural resources presently known. Roth the primary and secondary impacts of this project are, therefore, considered minimal and not significant. Probable Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: a. Primary Impacts There will be some disruption of the surrounding t 'ial eco- systems during the construction period, but these impacts w• minimal and are considered not •o be significant. Construction impacts mentioned previously should be the only ad- verse impacts. These will be minimized as much as possible through miti- gative measures. b. Secondary Impacts The impacts resulting from the induced population due to the construction of the 18-inch interceptor would he typical residential use impacts and would not be substantial -8- r Alternatives: a. No action. This alternative represents a cision not to build the inter- ceptor. The results of this decision wn ld include the following: 1. Increase in pollutants to lfay Creek and Lake h'ashington as the population increases. 2. Continued use of septic tanks not presently served by sewers. 3. Possible adverse impacts on public health due to septic tank failures. A beneficial effect would be the lack of adverse construction impacts. This alternative was not considered a viable alternative because it would not solve the current pollution problems of .`lay Creek. Other alternatives evaluated were: 1. A - Construct an interceptor at the bottom of May Creek. This line would go from 'Manhole B to Manhole D (proposed plan) . 2. A-A - Construct an interceptor in May Creek with part of the interceptor being an above ground sewer line. .3. B - Construct an interceptor on each side of May Creek. 4. C - A combination of the above. S. D - Construct an interceptor along existing streets and easements. No interceptor would be constructed adjacent to May Creek. Each of these alternatives was compared on an economic and en- vironmental basis. This analysis shows that based on an annual equivalent cost, Alternative A is the most cost-effective solution for bhy Creek. Its cost was 5296,130 per year compared to Alternative B with an annual cost of $298,756. There are 8,700 acres in the service area and 45 percent or 3,915 acres is developed. Within the undeveloped area is a proposed King County Park. Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity Relationships: The short--ern adverse impacts of construction will be offset by long- term improvements in water quality, relieving water pollution and health hazards caused by failing septic tanks-drainfields. -9- f F" Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments Due to the _dos ction: The following commitment of resources will be made: a. Urbanization of the western portion of May Creek. b. Commitment of labor, energy and material to construct and maintain the interceptor. Public Response to the Project: The following is a summary of Public Meetings nd/or Hearings held concerning the May Creek Facility Plan: Description of Meeting Date Location Attendance Public Hearin4* 6/30/75 Renton City Hall 19 Public Hearing 2/09/77 Water District 8 Number 107 At the first public hearing, three people objected to the environmental assessment and felt that an Environmental Impact Statement should be written. The persons objecting are Mr. bark Iozzio, Mr. John Barnes and `tr. Michael Smith. In addition to the comments made at the public hearing, written comments were received from the following: Quendall Terminals Company Office of Community Development King County [and Use NUnagement Mr. Mark Iozzio King County Air Pollution Control Agency Washington State Highway Commission Mr. John Barnes Dhr. Michael Smith Washington State Department of Game Washington State Department of Fisheries Washington Environmew al Council City of Renton -10- y Seattle-King County Department of Public Health King County Parks Division King County Department of Public Works Several people expressed concern over the surface water runoff. To mitigate the surface water runoff controversy, an interlocal agreement was entered into by the Department of Ecology, Dietro, King County, City of Renton and Water District Number 107. Following this interlocal agreement, a second public hearing was held so people who had previously opposed the project on the surface water runoff issue could have input to the new proposed plan. , At the second public hearing, the onlv objection was from Metro which objected to the reduction in thu size of the interceptor from twenty four to eighteen inches. As May Creek will became a part of the Metro sewage system and Metro is obligated to accept all sewage, they felt that the twenty-four inch size l . ie should be built. Also, Metro stated that to build a second inter- ceptor up May Creek within the next fifty years would be environmentally unsound. To mitigate this objection, Water District Number 107, and the City of Renton have signed an agreement with Metro to restrict hookups to the system if the line becomes overloaded. The size of the interceptor was reduced from twenty-four inch to comply with the population prjections over the maximum service life of the inter- ceptor as required by the cost-effective guideline (40 CFR Part 35 Appendix AF(2)). Considerations of population projections, infiltration/inflaa, and land use patterns within this planning period led to this reduction in pipe size. The 18-inch pipe size world serve a population which conforms with the recently revised Puget Saud Council of Governments Population Projec- tions for the area of 21,000 by the year 2000. The signed agreement between King County, City of Renton, Water District Numher 107, Metro and the Department of Ecology will mitigate the previous objections of people concerning surface water runoff and erosion. The Washington Environmental Council and Quendall Terminals have in- dicated that they will withdraw their request for an FIS. The grant offer letter will contain a special paragraph reflecting the existence of the interlocal agreement and the cmnitment on the part of the grantee thereto. A&!errcies Consulted! See attached li3t. -11- 4e 57tdiD 6+1F'�':.'J , Rea: ns for Concluding That There Will Be No Significant Impacts: The project will enhance the water quality of May Creek and Lake Washington. It will serve to eliminate a health hazard caused by failing septic tanks in the area. The area will develop under existing local land use ordinances. Although there has '.)een some controversy over this project, it now appears, with the signing of the storm drainage agreement and the reduction in the size of the interceptor, that the controversy- has been abated. At the last public hearing there were no adverse comments from the public. Tht 'efore, this reviewer recommends issuance of a negative declara- tion tatement for this project. IfIZ CE Date project Offices Washington Operations Office I t , �I I� A. List of Agencies U.S. Army Corns of Fngineers Seattle nistrict r)ffice 4715 E. `'arcinal Wav South Seattle, Washington P.S. DenartmPnt of Housing and Urban nevelonment Arcade Plaza Building 1321 Second Seattle, Washington 981n1 U.S. 9epartmcnt of Commerce Field Office 17nn Westlake N. Seattle, Washin+ton Washington State Office of Community. Development 4on Capitol Center ()Ivmnia, Washington QASn4 Washington State nenartment of Fcology Olvmnia, Washington 98504 Washington State Ecological Commission Olympia, Washington 98504 Washington State Denartment of Social 3 Health Services 1309 Smith Tower Building Seattle, Washington 98104 i Washington State ^enartment of Came 509 Fairview Avenue ',brth Seattle, Washington 98109 Washington State Hiebwav 11rnartmenr Ohim,pa, Washington 98504 Washington State *�epartment of Fisheries S307 Capitol Blvd. ntmwater, Washington 98501 Ngpt Sound Mr ,bllutio.. Control Aoencv dln West Harrison Str+et Seattle, A'ashin¢ton 9Rlly Puget Sound Governmental Conference 216 First ~venue Sout' Seattle, Washington 9910e -13- King County Departmenc of Budget and Progr m Planning Rm400 King Countv Courc House 516 1'�ird .Avenue Seatt., "gshington MV4 King Cotmty [t, artment of Community and Environmental 7evelopment Rn W313 King County Court House 516 Third .Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 King County Park Department Rm W226 King County Court House 516 Third Avenue Seattl, , Washington 98104 City of Renton Ifmlcipal Building 200 `fill Avenue South Penton. Washington o8n55 Kink County Department of ftvdraulics "in 976 King Cc -itv Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 981n4 King Countv Division of Land TIse „anagement Pm W117 King County Court House 516 Third .Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Seattle-King County- Department of Public Health 3001 N.F. Fourth Penton, Washington 98055 \kmicipality of "etronolitan Seattle ("etro) Pioneer Building 600 First .Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 B. State Representative "ark !'remo ,)epartmert of Ecology 435D - 150th .Avenue 4.F. Pechond, Washington 91052 14- i-, C. Local Renresentative Henry "cCullough, Chairman. King County 'YsCer listrict 0107 5306 A 119th S.E. Bellevue, washington 9gM6 D. Local CroTs and PPonle Quendall lerminals N.E. 44th , Renton, Washington 99055 Washington Environmental Council 107 South 'lain Seattle, Washington 98104 Sierra Club 4534y hfiiversity Way N.F. Seattle, tashington "'r "ark 1. Iozzic 255 Eirst ^venue N.If. Issaquah, Washington 99027 "r. John C. Barnes 5704 37th N.E. Seattle, Washington 981�5 "r. Michael L. Smith 3402 V.E. 7th Street ^enton, Washington 99^55 'Ir. James E. skirt 17n!t Peoples >Iational Bank Building Seattle, Washington 98171 -15- s , CT;• uu ,- EXHIBIT NO. I - I .ice. ` • :\ �. _ � -� � I > - L D, �\ i ; � . r 'BOUNDARY ,, , I r ilk --•- - 1 �- ._.TI.. I I 1 it 11 t • ' I l�a:y � 4 1 _ f ``1 _ . TT ' j. �l I-- _, �T� 1 •� i I I •� GRAPHIC EGIE • LEGEND RO 0 0 PR :MANHOLES CITY OF RENTON PROPOSED SANITARY SEWERS O PROPOSED KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR I,ANHOLES --- PROP :ED KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR SANITARY PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SEWERS — A EXISTING MANHOLES I — EXISTING SANITARY SEWERS SEPTIC TANK FAILURE } e EXHIBIT NO, 11 Seattle-King County DEPARTNICWT 0- PUBLIC 4. EALTH Pubuc Safety Building Sttl., Whii Ba04 ng el aO ngcn 7 1206) 625-2161 �.. R._ n 1'LL11f�y I ,. WRENCA SaRONER, M.D., M.P.M. o .afw of Public Health JAl.IV 2g tr 191, June 28, 1977 John 0. Wallace, Jr. Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, inc. 1915 1st Ave. Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: May Creek TTrainage Basin On-Site Sew tge Problems. 1 Dear Sir: The area of the May Creek F.asin west of 139th Ave. S.E. contains a variety of soils ranging from Shalcar Muck to the Everett Series orarel• Predominant however, are the Alder ood and Kitsap soils, neither of which are entirely adeouate for on-site sewage disposal systems. Although the area is not completely or intensely developed our records indicate 174 malfurtioning drainfields with sewage dischargi.ng onto the surface of the ground. Our records, as far is researched, also indicate several disa-pprovals of site applications submitted .for the purpose of developing individual lots. The number of disapprovals, however, is no real indication of suitability for construction of houses with septic tank systems, since persona performing the soil test generally advise their clients of the lack of required soil depth or i.radenuate percolation rates and the applications do not reach this office. It is doubt2ltl tiiat any extensive development could occur or septic tanks in the subject area, although some individual lots might be found suitable. DISTRICT HEALTH CENTER !' CENTRAL NORT1/ EAST SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST LOW sm"awld.r0 �600 N E "'I.,, 15(4) N C Lei'.we- 0001 N E ath St. 10121 61h Are S.W. �ti Rh This department supports construction of the irtirceptor s"fem no'. / only to allow new development, but a' .o abate the health haaarris inherent in such a large number of malfunctioning systems. Very truly yours, William F .L ening, R.S. Supervising Sanitariah Environmental Health Services Southeast District Health Center WPL/kg . EXHIBIT III EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS PIPE LENGTH SLOPE VELOCITY DESIGN ACTUA L DESIGN p E LOCATION SIZE (ft) ($) ftisec FLOW (CFS) FLOW (CFS) FLOW (rFS) SIZE IIE 7th St. - between Sunset 8" 154.2 11 .673 11 .83 4. 13 Blvd. NE L Aberdeen Ave. NE 8" 163.6 7.336 9.317 3.27 3.25 5.95 loll Aberdeen Ava. NE - between 8" 2!2.5 1 .72 4.54 1 .58 3.25 4.68 121' NE 7th St, and NE 8th St. loll 346.4 2.02 5.71 3. 11 loll 179.2 8,345 11 .61 6.33 3• IB 5,07 12", loll 108.4 5.535 9.476 5, 166 VE 9th P1 . 10" 220.6 2.267 6.05 3.30 3. 18 10" 107.8 4.678 8.65 4.72 5.38 1= 11 loll 279.5 4.68 8.69 4.73 10" 285. 1 0.982 3.98 2. 17 3. 12 3.54 12"10" 125.8 O.jS 3.92 2. 14 3. 12 3.54 12" :asement - between NE 9th rl • 10" 190.5 1.05 4, 12 2. 14 and Ferndale Circle 10'. 3i1 .5 1.05 3. 12 3.66 12" j.21 1 .75 3. 12 5. 18 15n errdale Clrcle 10" 356. 1 0,562 3.01 1 .64 jest end to NE 9th St. 3. 12 4. 85 15" IE 9th St. between Ferndal 8" 207 1 .86 4,72 1 .65:ircle and Harrington Ave, NE 8" 12 10.90 9 3.81 262.3 9. 3' l` 4.87 12" 8" 233.5 5.996 8.48 2.96 3.03 5.38 •oI� arrington Ave. NE between 8" 273.3 2.277 5.22 1 .82 2 74 E 9th St. and Sunset Blvd. NE 8" 252.7 0.792 3.08 1 .08 3. 1 loll 2. 74 11 8" 133.5 0.824 3. 14 1 . 10 2.74 3.24 12" unset Blvd. NE between 8" 205.2 3. 119 6. 11 2, 13 arrington Ave NE 6 NE loth St. 8" 270.0 4.444 7,30 2.55 unset Blvd. NE between 8" 390.0 1 .795. 4.64 1 ,62 1 .6A 2.94 lye loth St. 6 NE 12th St. 8" 350.0 2.00 4, 90 1 .71 1 ,66 3, 11 ly, 8" 360.0 1. 11, 3.65 1 .27 1 .63 2.31 ly, +► 8" 175,0 1. 16 3. 73 1 .30 1 .63 2.36 10" +onset Blvd, between NE 12to 8" 450,0 2.66 5.65 1 .97 t. L Newport Ave. NE 8" 300.0 3.00 6.0o 8" 300.0 .2.50. 5.47 1 09 F r EXHIBIT IV RESIDENTIAL Single Family 3.5 people/unit Duplex & apartments •1.5 people/unit FLOWS Residential - 60 gpd/capita Schools 15 gpd!capita Churches 2000 gpd/acre Commercial 2000 gpd/acre Convalescent Center 90 gpd/capita PEAK FACTORS Residential 3.33 Schools 3.0 Churches . 3•o Commercial 3.0 Convalescent Center 3.33 INFILTRATION S INFLOW. Infiltration 600 gpd/acre Inflow 500 gpd/acre SCHOOLS AI Sierra Heights 382 students Elem. School 33 staff 405 A Hazen Sr. High Schoo' 1555 Students 80 Staff 1�35 Apollo 586 students Elementary Schoo! 31 staff �17 A4 Hillcrest El,.m. School 348 Students 20 staff McKnight Jr. High School 426 Students 21 Staff i w r t _ EXHIBIT V SUMMARY DRAINAGE SINGLE DUPLEX SCHOOLS CHURCHES APTS AREA FAMILY AI 298 1 148 R A2 100 2 284 A3 58 • "p4 56 84 2 2 60 * A 13 218 240 A6 44 8 A 41 6 A :4 1 63 t A c- 9 . A10 \3 1 30 A1i 3Z i 16 Al2 70 44 A13 19 A14 27 TOTAL, 775 316 5 5 940 Cc_nme rc i a 1 A5 - 12 Ac A9 - 22 AZ: 31 Convelescant Center A - 95 bed r — IFr LU Zi t W . . 1� Cl- ti+LX r s TT S • „ w uj VqAW dFdWAM - M .__. >N MAY CREEK DRAMAGE BASIN •a. cM Nt, n •�� 4a. eM, Wfgt �10�1i — • � 1Mt 11l,gnS� �1 1 - 1 [al)flN,tM1tfYl� IN It INT, JAKIE llam INTERGEAT01� y�1 r' � .,,ICE ♦ a.... I . �IJ - I I i111 S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE #1 TO EPA/DOE GRANT 5X ,o,,r . ... , N w 1 KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 KING COUNTY, WAS14INCTON RESOLUTION NO. 250 �5 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING REGULATIONS AND ITANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTING EXTENSION TO ITS WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS WHEREAS, King County Water District No. 107 has hereto- fore been merged with Newport Hills Sewer District, leaving said Water District as the surviving municipal (,, rpurati )n; and WHEREAS, prior to said merger, Kind County Water District No. 107 and Newport Hills Sewer District had each adopted conditions, ' regulations and standards for private ;tevelorer extensions to their respective water and sewer systems, «hich conditions, regulations i and standards were, in certain lnstances, inconsistent; and WHEREAS, said conditions, i . lulaticns and standards have been merged, clarified and republished as "Rogula+ Ions and Standards for Constructing Extensions io the Water and Sewer Systems, 1974;" I i now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Baard of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 107, King County, Washington, that that certain publication entitled "Regulations and Standd-ds tar, Constructinq Extensions to the Water and Sower Sy,-Ae.es, I614," which Is herewith Incorporated by this referenca as it set forth in full at this point be, and the same is hereby adopted as, th• t.rtement of policy, regu- lations, standards and other requirement', as therein contained for this District In connection with privately constructed extensions to Its water and sewer systems. , ADOPTED at a regular meeting : ! the Board of Commissioners held on April 10, 1974. . BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: KING COUNT`f WATER D15TR 7 N0. 107 �i missies onnee By— eft. ✓, s.....e•+.,. C:,mmissioner C(,mm I ss i oner t <p f{ G KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 107 I REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS b FOR CONSTRUCTING EXTcNSIONS j TO THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS EXTENSION DEVELOPER i DATE AIL �$1 19i4 ML,. jj I i i 1 S 4 _ yyy hl mw 1 a t i I KING COUNTY ! WATER DISTRICT N0. 107 ` 4 5806A 11901 Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 Telephone: 746-0751 COMMISSIONERS: Henry F. McCullough, President. Paul C. Patterson, Secretary John R. Janso Comaissioner r MANAGER: Sam Macri + ENGINEERS: Moore, Wallace 6 Kennedy, Inc. 19I5 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: 624-2623 E ATTORNEYS: Breskin, Rosenblume & Robbins 803 Hoge Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: 624-3443 _' 1 y. :q TABLE OF CONTENTS Page GENERAL PROVISIONS, WATER AND SEWER WS-1 WATER EXTENSIONS Extension Check List W-2 Application and Agreement W-4 Legal Description W-7 Description of Water Extensions W-8 Performance and Payment Bond W-9 Bill of Sale W-11 Technical Specifications W-12 Part One - Design Standards W-12 Part Two - Materials W-13 Part Three - Construction W-18 Standard DeLBils W-27 SEWER EXTENSIONS Extension Check List. S-2 Application and Agreement S-4 Legal Description of Property S-9 Description of Sewer EXtensions S-10 Performance and Payment Bond S-11 Bill of Sale S-13 Technical Specifications S-14 Part One - Design Standards S-14 Part Two - Materials S-15 Part Three - Construction S-20 Standard Details S-32 r. GENERAL PROVISIONS WATER AND SEWER j f WS-1 DEFINITIONS (a) "District" means the Manager of the District and his authorized reprerentatives. r i (b) "Engineer" means the Engineer retained by the District and the Engineer' s representatives. (c) "Developer" means the owner or owners of property to be benefited by the proposed extension, including the Developer's agents. r (d) "Contractor" means the person or firms employed by the Developer to do any part of the work, all of whom shall be considered agents of the Developer. (c) "Work" means the labor, materials, superintendence, eq,ripment, transportation, supplies and other facilities necessary or convenient to the completion of the proposed extension described in the application attached hereto. (f) "Plans" means drawings, including reproductions thereof, of the work to be done as an extension to the District' s watt. distribution system, ptopared or approved by the District's Engineers. (g) "Specifications" means the directions, provisions and requirements designated by the District' s Engineers for the performance of the work and for the quantity and quality of materials. (h) "Otherwise Specified, or As Specified" means the directions contained in the Plans, Special Specifications, if any, and otherwise as given by the District incident to the performance of Lthe work other than in these General Specifications. WS-1 3/12/74 r WS- 2 PURPOSE King County Water District No. 107, as a municipal corporation, has a responsi- bility to the public to insure that water and sewer maims laid on public streets or easements are constructed in accordance with currently accepted standards for public work. The requirements imposed upon developers by these regulations are not arbitrary, but are intended by the District as a contract with the Developer, incorporating minimum standards which are prerequisite to acceptance of the work by the District as a part of its water and sewer systems. Privately constructed extensions will not be accepted by the District and no service connection. will be permitted thereto unless the work is performed and paid for in accordance with these regulations. WS- 3 INEVV 11P. d IT '# M'3R'J.. ae Developer is expected to be fully informed regarding the nature, quality and extent of tee work to be done, and if fit doubt, to se:ure specific in- structions from the District. i a WS-4 DELAY IN COMPLETION The Devoloper and his Contractor are expected to Garry on the work and to complete it without unnecessary delay once the work has began. If the work is not completed and ready for final inspection and acceptance within the time allowed in the Plans and Specifications, or, it no time be specified, within a reasonable time from the date the work 1s begun, the District may revoke its approval of the Developer's application, or it may impose reasonable condit',,ns as a prerequisite to continuation of the work, including a charge to be paid by the Developer for such cost or damage as the District has suffered because of the delay. ws-2 3/12/74 • t WS-5 AUTHORITY OF DISTRICT The District shall have general supervision and direction of the work and { shall have authority to stop work whenever in the opinion of the District manager the same shall be necessary to insure compliance with the Plans and Specifications. The District shall have authority to reject work and materials which do not so conform and to decide questions which may arise in the execution of the work. , WS-6 INSPECTION AND TESTS f r All work shall be subject to full-time inspection by the District. The t District shall at all times have access to the work wherever it is in preparation or progress, and the Developer shall provide proper facilities for such access and inspection. The Developer shall make reasonable tests �- of the work at the Developer's expense upon the District's request. When- ever work must be specially tested or inspected for compliance, with public regulations, or with tho Plans and Specifications, the Developer shall give the District reasonable notice of the readiness of the work for stch test or inspection. The District shall make inspections within 24 hours of notification by the Developer. Work must not be covered up without con- sent of the District, and if it should be covered without such consent, it must be uncovered for inspection at the Developer's expense. WS-7 FINAL INSPECT v AND ACCEPTANCE All material and completed work are subject to final inspectinn by the District, whe shall have the right to subject any portion thereof to such tests as in the opinion of the District shall be necessary to deter- mine whether or not the work complies with the Plans and Specifications. WS-B PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ACCESSIBLE The Developer shall have one copy of the Plans and Specifications con- stantly accessible on the job. WS-3 3/12/74 WS-4 OMISSIONS AND DISCREPANCIES '" Minor items of work or material omitted from the Plans and Specifications but �. clearly inferable from the same and which are called for by accepted good prac- tice, shall be providea and/or performed by the Developer as part of the con- struction. In case of doubt, the District shall be consulted and its decision shall be determinative. WS-10 QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP Unless otherwise specified, all materials shall be new, and workmanship and materials shall be of the highest quality commonly used. rite Ueveloper shall, it required, furnish satisfactory evidence as to the kind and quality of materials. i WS-11 COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC AUTHORITY rite work shall be done in accordance with the regulations of each public authority, including the county, public health departments, and municipalities, which may have jurisdiction over the manner and quality of performance of the work. The public shall not be inconvenienced unnecessarily in its use of the public streets. The Developer shall enforce discipline and good order among his employees and shall not employ on the work any unfit person or anyone not skilled in the work assigned to him. Employees or agents of the Developer who may impair the quality of the construction shall be removed from the work upon the written request of the District or the superintendent. All construction in public roads or rights-of-way shall be done in accordance with the standards and requirements of the governmental agency having juris- diction, and in accordance with the requirements of the franchise or permit therefor. The Developer and Contractor shall be responsible to ascertain these requirements. WS-12 MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT LIST Upon request, the Developer shall file a material and equipment list with the District prior to the beginning of construction, including the quantity, manu- facturer and model number, if applicable, of material and equipment to be installed as part of the work. WS-4 3/12/74 WS-13 DETERMINATION OF "AS EQUAL" The District and its Engineer shall be sole judge whether supplies or material qualify "as equal" substitutions under the Plans and Specifications. WS-14 PERMITS i The Developer shall not begin work until all necessary permits have been issued by public authority. The Developer shall reimburse the District for all costs incurred by the District for permits, inspection fees and other charges imposed by public authority because of the work. WS-15 POINTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The Developer shall provide all property corners and street centerline stakes, and shall provide reasonable and necessary opportunities and facilities for setting points and making measurements. The. Developer shall not proceed until he has made timely request of the District for, and . received, such points and instructions as may be necessary as the work progresses. The wo&K shall be done in strict conformity with such points and instructions. rho Developer shall carefully preserve bench marks, reference points and stakes , and in case of destruction, he shall be charged with the resulting expense and shall be responsible for any errors that may be caused by their absence or disturbance. WS-16 RESTORATION OF IMPROVEMENTS Culverts, driveways, roadways, pipe lines, or other existing improvements which are removed of disturbed in the course of the work shall be restored to their original condition at the expense of the Developer. In cutting through estab- lished lawns, the sod shall be removed before trenching and replaced after backfilling to the satisfaction of the property owner. A signed release from the affected property owner will be required. In areas where restoration of existing improvements will be necessary, if requested by the District, the Developer shall provide photographs consisting of one 8" x 10" black and white photo for the least each fifty-foot station within the area prior to construction. WS-5 3/12/74 R WS-17 ACCESS Bridging shall bo provided across private driveways and roadways during the period when trenches are open, so as to intortore as little as passible with the normal flow of traffic. WS- 18 DEVELOPER'S SUPERVISION The Developer shall koep on the work during its progress a competent super- visor who shall represent the Developer during his absence, and to whom instructions may be given as though to the Developer. The supervisor shall make himself familiar with the Plans and Specifications and shall promptly report to the District any error, inconsiatenry or omission which he may discover. WS-19 DEFECTIVE WORK AND OOMCTIVE ACTION Work which is found by the District not to comply with the Plans and Specifications shall be remedied so as to comply therewith. The Developer shall correct or replace any defec ive work •r material discovered by the District within one year after the work has been accepted by resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the District. Such correction or re. replacement shall commence within s,von days from the Lime of recetpt of notice from the District and shall be completed promptly. If not so commenced, or, in emergency, when damage may result from delay, such cor- rection or replacement may be made by the District at the expense of the Developer. The Developer shall reimburse the District, upon demand, for :. any expense resulting from defects which appear within one year after acceptance of the Developer's work, including actual damages, cost of materials and labor expended by the District in making emergency repairs, cost of engineering, inspection and supervision by the District or the Engineers, legal expense, attorney's fees and costs reasonably incurred by the District as a result thereof. WS-b 3/12/74 � i � i r P WS-20 USE OF COMPLETED PORTIONS The District shall have the right to take possession of and use any com- to Lt� pleted or partially completed portions of the work although the time may not have expired for completing the entire work, and this shall not be deemed aecentance of any work not done in accordance with the Plans and Specifications. W5.21 LIABILITY INSURANCE The Developer shall procure insurance against liability of the Developer, the District, ind the District employees for negligent injury to person or Fproperty resulting from performance, supervision or inspection of the work. The minimum limits of coverage shall be as follows: Bodily injury, any one person $500,000 Bodily injury, ,iy one occurrence $500,000 Property damage $500,000 WS-22 INDEMNITY The Developer shall indemnii) and savv harmless the nistrict and all of its representatives from and against all losses and claims, demands, payments, � suits, actiot.s, recoveries and judgments of every n, are and description brought or recovered against the District by reason of the act or omission of the Developer, his agents or employees, in the performance of the work. WS-23 PERFORMANCE ANU PAYMENT 3OND The Developer shall, prior to commencement of the work, furnish a surety bond in an amount not less than the cost of the work as estimated by the II ; District's Engineers, in the form set forth on pp. W-g & 10 and pp. 5-11 and 12 of these regulations. L L ii i 1,i WS-7 ' 3/12/74 I�iI R J WS-24 EXISTING 'JTILITIES OR OBSTRUCTIONS Existing utilities and obstructions are shown on the Drawings so far as known to the Engineers and the District, but may have been obtained from old drawings or verbally from persons connected with the particular utility. Such information is not gua.anteed but is made available to the Developer for such value -s it may have. Incompleteness or errors in this information shall , e not be the cause of claim against the Engineers or the District nor shall i it relieve the Developer of responsibility for repairing any damage his activities may cause to such utilities. The Developer shall reimburse the District for damage to property of the District or damage to property of others for which the District is liable, caused by the Developer and for other expense, including attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by the District because of such damage. WS-25 CLEAN-UP The construction site shall be kept clear during the progress of the work. Before the work shall be considered complete, the Developer shall clean out ditches that may have been filled durin, the work, replace da,aaged :,urtacing, remove surplus materials and trash and dispose of brush, repair all damages, and otherwise leave the job in a neat, orderly and workmanlike cond- tion. WS- 26 BILL OF SALE Upon completion of the work and approval of the District, the Developer shall, as a condition of acceptance by the District, convey the work to _ the District by bill of sale, in accordance with the form set forth on pp W-11 and pp S-13 of these regulations. WS-J a 3/12/74 6 e WS-27 PUBLIC HAZARD OR INCONVENIENCE If the performance of the ;work sl.ould result in hazard or substantial in- convenience to the public, the District may correct the same, if in the opinion of the District manager, the same should be necessary, and the Developer shall, on request, reimburse the District for the expense in- curred. The Developer shall also reimburse the District for the expense incurred on complying with any order of public authority lawfully made with respect to the work during the performance of the work or within one year after accel,an:e of the same. i WS-28 PROTECTION OF WORK AND PROPERTY I No damage to the property of the District or the work shall be permitted as the result of anything done hereunder. The risk of loss or damage to the work shall be borne by the Developer until work is completed and accepted by the District. WS-29 OWNERSHIP OF PLANS All Drawings, Specifications and copies thereof prepared or furnished are the property of the District. They may not he used for other work and, with the exception of two (2) sets, shall be returned to the District on request at the completion of the work. LLL... WS-30 ROYALTIES AND PATENTS Developer shall pay all royalties and license fees and defend all suits !L• or claims for infringement of any patent rights and shall save the , L District harmless on a..count thereof, except the District shall be - responsible for all such loss if a particular process or the product of a particular manufacturer is specified, uniess the Developer or his Contractor Lhas information that the process or article is an infringement of a patent ; L• and fails to promptly notify tha District thereof in writing. L WS-9 3/12/74 WS-31 PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES A11 workmen, laborers and mechanics employed in the performance of the work shall b(, paid prevailing wages as provided in Chapter 63, Laws of 1945, State oi. Washington. WS-32 OTHER WORK The District has the right to let other contracts for other work which may affect the work hereunder. Other persons performing su,' other work , shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for introduction ar storage of tneir materials and execution of their work. The work hereunder and such other work shall be properly coordinated and connected. If any of the work hereunder depends on the proper execution of the work of any other persons, the Developer shall inspect and promptly notify the District in writing of any defects in such other work which render it , unsuitable for the execution of the work hereunder. The Developer's failure to inspect and notify the District bhall constitute acceptance of the other work as suitable. Wherever work is being done by others than the Developer, contiguous to the work hereunder, the respective rights of the various interests involved shall be established by the District to secure the completion of the various ` portions of the work in general harmony. WS- 33 CONTRACTORS At least five (5) days prior to the start of work by any person or firm, the Developer shall notify the District in writing of the name of the person or firm proposed to do the work and shall not employ any person or firm for any part of the work that the District may object to is incompetent or unfit. Nothing herein shall create any contractual rights between the District and any person or firm employed to do the work. WS- 10 3/12/74 5. C I { 1 I WS-34 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION The work shall be performed so that interferences with automotive and pedestrian traffic will be minimized. Adequate flagmen shall be �. provided for traffic control during unloading of materials and during actual. construction. Soft shoulders shall be plainly marked to warn motorists. Access shall be provided to cross c,it roads and driveways , on the same calendar day as excavation was started. The District may require the construction of two-way vehicular bridges of approved construction on important streets. Where detours are built, they shall be graded and maintained to the satisfaction of the District. i.. Where construction has been completed or is in progress in existing streets, the streets shall be graded and maintained to the satisfaction � of the District and proper dust control shall be provided. No detours for foot traffic shall be more than one block in length and where rcrossing trenches, detours shall be provided with adequate toot bridges L. with handrails. LAll work shall be performed with due regard for the safety and con- - f venience of the public. Open trenches shall be provided with barricades [L that can be seen at a reasonable distance and are adequately lighted at night. Adequate lighting shall be provided for vehicle and pedestrian {r bridges and signs. L- At least one half of existing streets shall be left open for traffic and LLL emergency vehicles at all times. 1 WS-11 3/12/74 WS-35 NO DISCRIMINATION IN EMRLOYMENT In connection with the performance of work, there Fhall be no discrimination against any employee or applicant fo- employment because of race, religion, color or national origin, including employment, upgrading, demorioa, or transfer; recruitme, t or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for t-:aining and apprenticeship of any person, without limitation. WS-36 ATTORNEYS' FEES , In the event any action is commenced to enforce th s Agreement, by the District, and the issues therein are thereafter settled or the District Pre- vails, Developer shall reimburse the oistrict its costs of litigation, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees, and without re- ference to whether such costs would be taxable in the action. WS-37 SANITATION Necessary sanitation convenience for the use of workmen on the job, properly secluded from public observation, shall be provided and maintained during the performance of the work. WS-38 LIENS Prior to acceptance of the work, the Developer shall deliver to the District a complete release of all liens that might arise out of the performance of the work or such other evidence as may be acceptable to the District that there are no liens against the work. If any lien arises or remains unsatisfied after acceptance of the work, the Developer shall reimburse the District for any costs incurred on account thereof. WS-12 3/12174 r WS- 39 SAFETY „ The Developer and his Contra-tor shall comply with all Federal, State, County and District salety rules and regulations. M WS-40 EASMNTS All easements required shall be obtained by the Developer without 1.08t to p the District and shall provide for a permanent easement and construction 14• easement as shown on the Plans. The Developer shall provide the District's C Engineers with supporting data to verify the location of all easements. In the event. that legal services are required incident to easements beyond review of the form thereof, the costs of such services shall be paid by the Developer in amount as billed to the District before acceptance of the r.ro- A posed extension. i ! t i WS- 41 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION PROVISIONS g Special construction prov.sions whi_h may be required due to unusual soil problema, toyc-raphy or site obstructions will ae shown on the Plans. j (� Should a contlict exist between the Plans and these Specifications, the Plans shall prevail. t Any requirement for special equipment such as pump stations or pressure reducing stations shall be constructed in accordance with th9 Plans. L I WS-13 3/12174 WS-42 CONFINEMENT OF CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS The Contractor shall confine construction activities within the property of the Developer and the limits of casements and construction permits outside of the Developer's property. All work on easements and permit areas outside the Developer's property shall be performed in strict com- pliance with the provisions of the easement or permit, with which pro- visions the Contractor shall familiarize himself. Any damage to property or persons from any encroachment beyond these limits shall be the respon- sibility of the Developer. Equipment and materials storage shall be coafined to the Developer's property. Pipe strung on public rights-of- way shall be placed a safe distance from any travelled road in such manner as •o avoid accidental rolling o"to the road. No driveways shall be blocked. Lighted barricades in an adequate number and location shall be provided. WS-43 PAVEMENT REMOVAL Removal of existing paving in public roads shall be Qone in accordance to the governing agency's requirements and in private property shall be precut to one foot wider than the trench shoulder line and to a neat vertical edge. WS-14 3/12/74 r r. 1 WATER EXTENSIQI . F, } W-1 r KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 DEVELOPER EXTENSION CHECK LIST WATER Name of Development DEVELOPER CONTRACTOR i Name: Name: Address: Addre.;ss 4 1 Telephone: Telephone: i DATE, ITEM A. Preliminary 1. Application Form completed Developer 2. First installment of fee paid S Developer 3. Application approved and plans ordered B. Required before plans are started _ 1. Final plat filed with County Auditor Developer 2. Road plan and profile filed with engineer Developer C. Required before extension is staked in field 1. Plans and specifications Engineer 2. Health Department approval of plans Engineer 3. Application for State and/or County permits Engineer 4. Approval of contractor District S. Performance bond Developer 6. Certificate of insurance Developer 7. Easements Developer j 8. County and State permits District S 9. Property boundary stakes in place Developer 10. Estimated inspection fees paid s T ` D. Required before construction begins 1. Final installment fee paid $_ Developer L 2. Notice to engineer to stake District 3. Construction stakes in place Engineer " 1 4. 48-hour notice of construction start Developer 1? W-2 3/12/74 E i_. E. Required before any service connected 1.. Approval of constructior District _ 2. High-level charge paid Developer 3. Bill of sale Developer 4. Acceptance of work District i F. To be done one year after acceptance 1. Final inspection Just prior to end of year District _ 2. Release of performance bond District C. Miscellaneous 1. Bill of sale recorded Attorney 2. Easements recorded Attorney 3. As-built drawings furnished Engineer .` 4. letter of availability of water for plat District Letter of acceptance to FHA District —o. •+ iditio- al inspection fees paid $ Developer 7. Lxcess pection fees refunded $ District J 8 W-3 3/12/74 KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 'Eli APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT EXTENSION TO i.. � WATER SYSTEM The undersigned, as the Developer herein, hereby makes application to I tho Commissioners of King County Water District No. 1.07, as the District herein, for permission to construct , .d connect an extension to the Dis- trict's existing water system as herein provided and if this application is accepted, agrees with the District as follows: (a) A fee of $150.00 plus 4U cents per lineal foot of main proposed to be constructed, as measured by the District] t provided, that if the extension will contain less than 1200 lineal feet of main, the charge will be equal to the expense incurred by the District for time and materials, but not more than the fee for 1200 lineal feet as com- puted in accordance with the foregoing formula. If the proposed extension is for a new subdivision, the final Plans will not normally be prepared by the District's Kngineers Until the Plat has been filed with the King County Auditor. (b) A high level charge at tha rate of $550.00 per acre for the 3 District's 580 gradient for property which is located between elevation 350 and elevation 460. (c) A high level harge at the rate of $1,754.00 per acre for the P ' Dist.ict's 700 gradient for property which is located between 1 ' t / elevation 460 and elevation 600. ' (d) A high level charge at the rate of $3,501.00 per acre for the l-. District's 820 gradient or 940 gradient for property which is located between elevation 600 to elevation 725 and between elevation 725 to elevation 850. All high level charges are payable in advance, k. t W -4 3112/74 (e) 'rhe expense of preparing Plans and Spec.fications requiring i special detail work, such as for pump stations and pressure reducing stations, shall be reimbursed by the Developer to The District, on demand, on the basis of the cost of time and materials plus 14 percent for District administration and overhead. 4. Construction of extension. Before proceeding with construction, the applicant shall pay ti the District an additional fee of 40 cents per lineal foot of main proposed to be constructed for staking the extension by the District's Engineer. The cost per foot for staking, as stated herein, is based on the entire extension survey being completed continuously once work is started by the Engineer. Additiot.al trips to the jobsite as may be re- quired due to lack of site control or the phasing of field work as requested by the Contractor, will be subject to an additional fee of $50.00 per trip. A minimum of a 48 - hour notice shall be given the District prior to staking. rhe sum of $85.00 for each inspector day, as estimated by the Engineer ^' sha... also be paid by the applicant. An inspector day shall be each day or part thereof during which an inspector shall be reasonably required to li i be present at the site t, provide proper `nspection and testing of the f work. If the actual number of inspection days so required exceeds the Engineer's estimate, the Developer shall pay the District, on demand, $85.00 for each additional inspector day. The District may stop the work until such rnyment is made. If the actual number of inspector days so required is less than the Engineer's estimate, the District will re- fund to the Developer $35.00 for each s ch excess inspector day upon com- pletion of the work. The I ,regoing tees are not intended to include allowance for any unusual costs incurred by the District on account of property surveys. changes in design, errors or omissions by the Developer, his Contractor or agents; unusual negotiations; legal expenses incurred beyond the expense of normal review of documents; and any other such unusual costs. The District will bill the Developer for any such unusual costs and the same shall be paid promptly by the Developer. w-5 3/12/74 i , a ACCEPTANCE OF THIS APPLICATION BY THE DISTRICT CONSTITUTES A CONTrACT WITH TN" APPLICANT, THE TERMS OF WHICH ARE EACH PARAGRAPH OF THIS MANUAL. i' jDATED AT Bellevue, Washington, this i day of 19_ i The foregoing application accepted this eay of 19 KING COUNTY WATE2 DISTRICT NO. 107 i i By: � President 0. .4 By: Secretary r i i + � v 1 � j I" i-6 w 3/12/74•— r LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE SERVED BY L•XTENSION i .E 1' 1 +I 1+ 1 I i 1 3/12/74 i i i Y r DESCRIPTION OF WATER UTENS?ONS - APPROX. ON FROM TO I.ENCTR1 (Street/Avenue) (Street/Avenue) (Street/Avenue) (Feet) . A r W-8 3112/74 c i 4 Jr 4 KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 140. 107 PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BOND - WATER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: Whereas the District has approved an I application by the Developer for the construction of an extension of the District' s water distrioution system to serve the development, in accordance �.- with the regulations of the District joverning Developer extensiins, which t.. regulations are incorporated into this agreement by reference, and which require the Developer to f,,rnish a bond for the faithful performance of the , work and payment for all labor and materials supplied thereto; i NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Developer, as Principal, and Surety, are held and firmly bound to the State of Washington and to the District in the amount of ($ ) for the pay,nent of which we do jointly and severally bind ourselves, our heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns by these presents. The conditions of this obligation are such that it the Developer, or the Developer's heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns shall well and truly keep and observe all of the provisions of the regulations of the District applicable to tine work described in the Developer's application, and pay all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors, and materialmen and all persons who shall supply such person or subcontractors with provisions and supplies for carrying on such work and shall indemnify and save harmless the -- trict, its officers and agents, from any pecuniary loss resulting from the breach of any of said regulations, including the obligation of the Developer to correct or replace any defective wort_ or materials discovered by the District within one year from the date of acceptance of the work then this obligation shall become void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect. No change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the work to be performed by the Developer shall aft;ct the obligation of the Surety on this bond, and the Surety waives notice of any such change, extension, alteration or addition thereunder. W-9 3/12/74 f F This Bond is furnished pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 39.08 of the Revised Code of Washington, and the regulations of the District, and in addition to the foregoing, is made for the benefit of the District together with all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors, materi.almen and all persons I, who supply such person or subcontractors with supplies and equipment for the carrying on of the work covered by this agreement, whether or not such work is deemed to be "public work" under the laws of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety have caused this Sond to I be signed and sealed by their duly authorized officers or representati,,es this day of 197 I I Principal By: d Surety By: p i W-10 i 3/12/74 . j 1 i BILL OF SA'F. OF WATER MAIN k: The undersignei tiller, > in consideration of the agreement hereir .er provided, warrants against defects in labor or materials appearing : i. .hin one year from the date here- of, and sells and conv.,,s to KING COUNTY +ATER DISTRICT NO. 107, the water mains constructed over the following ro: es: In From Tu i 1 � By accepting and recording this instrument, the District accepts and 3 agrees to maintain the foregoing mains as part of the District's water -.1 distribution system in the same manner as though they had been constructed by the District. Dated [Acknowledgment] W-11 3/12/74 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS t 1 PART ONE - DESIGN STANDARDS 1-1 DESIGN STANDARDS I, The work shall be done in accordance with the Plans and Specifications pre- pared by the District's Engineers. As a preliminary guide to applicants, the following general standards of construction and materials are set forth% (a) Pipe shall be either cast iron or asbestos cement. i i i (b) Fittings must be east iron or brass. (c) Standard 5-inch MVO fire hydrants are required approximately every 500 feet in residential areas. Standard 5-inch MVO hydrants jor larger are required every 300 feet in commercial areas. i { (d) Pipe runs from .nain line to hydrants must be a minimum of 6 inches. (e) Normal minimum pipe size will be g inches. k` 4 (f) 2-inch air and vacuum release valves shall tie installed at prin- cipal high points in the system. i (g) Dead-end fires are not permitted except i.. certain cul-de-sac � streets, in which case blowofEa must be provided. (h) In estimating cost, applicants should generally assume, in resi- dential areas, 8-inch mains, hydrants every 500 feet, and valving every 500 feet. (i) Work ::hall be done only by contractors experienced in laying public water mains. w -12 3/11/74 " 1 I q i 4 `rY Hains shall be laid only in dedicated streets or in easements F" � which have been granted to the District. A street is normally not considered dedicated until the plat which created it has been filed with the King County Auditor. (k) The Developer shall obtain all necessary easements without cost to the District. Whenever a main is to be laid other than in a public street, a permanent easement of not less than five feet in each side of the centerline, and a construction easement of not less than seven and one-half feet on each side of the center- 4 line, shall be provided. The Developer shall supply the Dis- trict's Engineer with the supporting data necessary to verify the location of the casement. If legal services are required by the District in connection with the easement, other than formal review, the cost of such services shall be reimbursed by the. 1 Developer to the District on demand and before acceptance of the extension. 1j (1) The Developer sh4 ' 1 Fay for permits as may be required for the work, whether applied for by the District, the District's Engineer or the Developer, and shall pay for all surveys, ease- ments, rights-of-wav and franchises required for the work. The Developer shall give all notices and comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations bearing on the conduct of the work. \ PART TWO - MATERIALS 2-1 GENERAL All materials and equipment shall be new and undamaged. Where possible, the same manufacturer of each item shall be used throughout the yob. w-13 3/12/74 t r r t L 2-2 CAST IRON PIPE AND FITTINGS (a) Cast iron pipe shall conform to AWWA Standard C106-70 or C108-70, Thickness Class 22, unless otherwise indicated on the Plans. Joints shall conform to AWWA Standard C111-72, push-on joint, such as Tyton or Bel-Tice. Pipe shall have a cement-,nortar lining conforming to AWWA Standard C104-71. i (b) Cast iron fittings shall conform to AWWA Standard C110-71. . . 1 Mechanical or push-on joints shall conform to AWWA Standard ' + C111-72. Flanged joints shall conform to A.S.A. Standard B16.1, Class 125. Flange gaskets shall be ring type, cloth insert rubber, 1J16-inch thick, equal to Rainbow or Durable Garlock. r0 � 2-3 DUCTILE CAST IRON PIPE Ductile cast iron pipe shall conform to AWWA Standard 0151-71, Thickness Class as indicated on the Drawings. Linings shall be the same as specified for cast iron pipe above. 4 2.4 ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE, COUPLINGS AND FITTINGS (a) Pipes As per AWWA Specification C-400-72, Class 1`;0, unless otherwise indicated on the Drawings. Pipe shall be manufactured by Johns-Manville or Certain-Teed. (b) Couplings: Asbestos cement couplings supplied with the pipe shall be designed to be used With two (2) rubber rings. The coupling shall be grooved circumferentially on the inner diameter to receive the rubber rings. This coupling shall be W-14 3/12/74 r r x k M' equal to that manufactured by Johns-Manville under the registered L trade name "Ring Tire". (c) Fittings: Shall be the same as under cast iron pipe and fittings except that other Fittings may be designed to be used with one (1) rubber ring for each fitting end. The fitting shall be grooved to receive the rubber ring, as manutactured by Olympic Foundry Company or equal. 2-5 GALVANIZED STEEL PIPE AND FITTINGS FOR RLOWOFFS AND AIR VACUUM RELIEF VALVES LASTM A120-65, Schedule 40. Fittings malleable galvanized. { 1 •6 SATE VALVES y e, Gate vales shall be double-disc, parallel seat, non-riving stem, conform- Ling to AWWA Standard C500-71, except that stem seal shall be by two rubber "0" rings. Valves shall open by turning counterclockwise. Joints shall be as indicated on the Plans. t 2 -7 FIRE HYDRANTS Mueller, main valve opening (MVO) as followsi Residential, 5 inches! Is commercial and industrial, 5 inches. Hydrant for 42-inch trench, unless otherwise designated, flanged at ground line, 6-inch M-J connections; twn L21,-inch Pose connection ASA (National) standard thread, 4-inch pumper connection .;ith City of Seattle standard threads. Hydrant shall be so r constructed that direction of pumper connection may be rotated to face the roadway. Hydrant shackles and straps shall be as shown on Standard Details. LHvdrants shall be manufactured by Mueller, Iowa, or M. h H. LSee Standard Details. L L W-15 3/12/74 k, i i 2-8 VALVE BOXES Cart iron, 2 piece, for 42-ii.ch trench with extension, equal to Atlas Foundry Company or Olympic Foundry Company. 2-9 CORPORATION STOP See Standard Details, Service Connections. i 2-10 SERVICE CLAMP See Standard Details, Service Connections. 2-11 CURS STOP i See Standard Details, Service Connections. i 2-12 COPPER SERVICE PIPE ASTM B88, Type K. 2-13 AIR ANU VACUUM RELEASE VALVES Valve and Primer Corporation. V-APCO, 144C for 2 inches, and 142C for 1 inch. 2-14 HYDRANT GUARD POSTS Reinforced concrete posts equal to State Highway Department Specifications, 9" diameter x 6' length. (Standard ➢etails) w-16 3/12/74 t i 2-1.5 VALVE MAFK-_R POSTS r Valve marker post shall be equal to Fog-Tice Meter Seal Company product 41, x 41, x 6++ - 42++ long. i' See Standard Details. 2-16 CONCRETE BLOCKING 1:3:6 mix with six-inch (6+1) maximum slump. i 2-17 BOLTS IN PIPING Cast iron, zinc or chromium plated, or brass it stainless steel. l 2-18 FLANGE GASKETS Ring-type cloth insert rubber ;askets 1 /16 inch thick equal to Rainbow or Durable Garlock. 2-19 GRAVEL Foundation gravoL shall be coarse graded gravel or crushed rock passing a 3-inch mesh. Bank run passed through a 3-inch screen may be used provided that it is, in the opinion of the Engineer, properly graded and otherwise suitable. Bedding gravel within 3 inches of the pipe shall + pass a 3/4-inch mesh and shall contain only negligible amounts of material finer than No. 30 sieve. 2 -20 BEDDING CONCRETE Bedding concrete shall be mixed from materials acceptable to the Engineer and shall have a 30-day compressive strength of not less than 1500 psi. The mix shall contain 4 sacks of cement per cubic yard and shall be of such consistency that the slump is between 1 inch and 5 inches. S_ W-17 3/12/74 a v k ti 1 2-21 BEDDIN" MATERIAL Bedding, material shall be well graded, clean, granular gravel material commonly known as pea ;ravel. Material slightly smaller than pea gravel may be used. Bedding material shall meet the following requirements: U.S. Standard Passing j Sieve Size B, Weight i 3/8" 100 #8 0-5 PART THREE - CONSTRUCTION f 3-1 GENERAL Except as otherwise noted herein, all work .,hall be accomplished as recommended in applicable American Water Works Association (AWWA) Specifications and according to the r.commendations of the manufacturer of the material or equipment concerned. t- 1 e 3 •2 ALIGNMENT Pipe shall be laid to specified grade and alignment as staked in the field. i� Align—ent deviation shall not exceed 0.5 feet. Replacement of stakes lost or destroyed shall ce made at the Developer's expense and in accordance with contract { Plans, including modifications called for by the District. ' 3- 3 TRENCH EXCAVATION i Trenches shall be excavated to the line and grade designated by the Dis- trict. Except for unusual circumstances where approved by the District, the trench sides shall be excavated vertical and the trench width shall be excavated to only such widths as are necessary for adequate working I space. The maximum trench width at t.ie top of the pipe shall norma:.ly be the outside diameter of the pipe barrel plus 16 in,�, ,, trench width less than 30 inches will be required. The trench sit... be kept - � free from water until jointing material has set. Surface water shall be diverted so as not to encar the trench. The Developer shall maintain jsufficient pumping equipment on the job to insure that these provisions are carried out. Boulders, rocks, rots and other obstructions shall be entirely removed or cut out to the width of the tr, nch and to a depth i 6 inches below water main grade. Where material , s removed from below W-18 3/ 2/74 F At � Z }� water main grade, the trench shall be backfilled to grade with material 't satisfactory to the District ind thoroughly compacted. Trenching opera- tions shall not proceed until pipe laying is ready to commence and not more Char 300 feet of trench shall be opened in advance of pipe laying operati-ins without written approval of the District. `- When trenching operations cut through concrete pavement, the pavement shall �. be removed to a width of 18 inches greater than the top width of the trench. The concrete shall be cut on a straight line and shall be beveled so t:.at the cut will be approximately 1 inch wider at the top than at the bottom. r Asphalt paving shall be cut ahead of the backhoe to prevent excessive tearing up of the surfacing and to eliminate ragged edges. 3.4 TIMBERING AND SHEETING j, The Developer shall provide and install timbering and skoeting as necessary to protect workmen, the work, and existing b, idings, utilities .,A other properties. All timbering and sheeting abo. . the pipe shall be removed prior to backfilling. All sheeting below the top of the pipe s' 311 be cut off and left in place. Removal of timbering shall be accomplished in such a manner that there wi be no damage to the work or to other proper- ties. All timbering and sheeting shall be to the Developer's design. 3-5 PIPE iAYING (a) Cast Iron Pipe: Pip,, laying shall in general conform to AWWA Standard C600-64 and the manufacturer's recommendations unless specifically contradicted by these Specifications. Special care shall be taken in handling pipe to avoid damaging ends, coatings and linin3s. Pipe shall be carried in slings and shall not be rolled or dragged. The pipe shall be examined for defects and damage while suspended before lowering into trench. W-19 3/12/74 L I 1 a The pipe shall be cleaned of all ioreign mat-rial before lowering into the trench. Whenever pipe laying is not in process, the last section of pips shall be tightly capped or plugged. 1 ' (b) Asbestos Cement Pipe: Pipe laying shall generally conform to AWWA Standard C603-65 and the manufacturer's recommendations, I except as specifically contradicted by these Specifications. Special care shall be taken in handling the pipe to avoid damage to ends and couplings. Pipe shall be carried and shall not be rolled or dragged. The Contractor shall provide and maintain on the job a pipe-cutter designed for the cutting of j asbestos cement pipe. All asbestos cement pipe which is joined directly into any cast iron fitting or valve shall be a standard factory piece 31311 or I 616" in length. i 1 F .e- No pipe cutting will be allowed except by means of a cutter or other device approved by the District. The pipe shall be f t examined for damage or defects while suspended before lowering into the trench. The pipe shall be cleaned of all foreign material before lowering into the trench. Whenever pipe laying is not in process the last section of the pipe shall be tightly capped or plugged. The trench shall be overexcavated 4 inches and a pea gravel (3/8 inch minus) bedding shall be placed and compacted under j and around the pipe. The bedding shall extend to the top of the 1! pipe in all cases. After approval by the District., the backfilling 1 shall then be completed in conformance with the section on back- - 1 filling of this Specification. (c) Galvanized Iron Pipe: The galvanized iron pipe, valves, and fittings will be threaded. Joints shall be made up in accordance W-20 3/12/74 R. 1 �... with good plumbing practice. Threads shall be wrapped with Teflon �• tape before connecting. The connection of the pipe to the main shall be made as shown in the Standard Details. 3-6 BACKFILLINC (a) Cast Iron Pipe: Selected backfill material shall be placed and compacted around and under the water mains by hand tools to a height is of six inches (611) above the top of the water main. The remaining rackfill shall be placed and compacted in layers not more than twelve p inches (1211) thick, except that under roadways all backfill material i -( s..311 be placed in layers not more than six inches (61') thick and mechanically compacted to the density of the existing subgrade. If su: ' able backfill material, as determined by the District, is not .. ,1 available from trenching operations, the District may order the placing of pea gravel bedding around the water main, and gravel or pit run for backfilling the trench. (b) Asbe�;tos Cement Pipe: No backfilling shall be performed until after the District has inspected the installation of the pipe and bedding. The initial backfill shall be hand placed select material spread evenly over the bedding material and compacted by hand up to an elevation of six inches (6") above the top of the pipe. This shall be done in such a manner that subsequent backfilling will not disturb the pipe in any way. Subsequent backfilling shall be performed by pushing material from the end of the trench along and directly over the pipe so that the material will be applied in the form of, a rolling slope rather than by side - filling. Backfilling from the sides of the trench will not be done until the District has determined that material has been carefully iplaced over the pipe to a sufficient depth. All t.:ckfill shall be compacted to 95 percent of aaximum theoretical density in all areas where pavement is to be placed and 90 percent in all other areas. Measurement of density shall be by the modified AASHO h t r W-21 3/12/74 1 method. The District will require that an independent laboratory or King County Laboratory be employed to perform in-place density tests as proof ofcompaction which meets these Specifications. All costs shall be borne by the Developer. 3 7 TUNNELING Tunneling may be ordered by the District under pavements or otherwise. Tunnels shall be not less than 4 feet high and 2 feet wide and not less than i foot wider than the outside diameter of the pipe. Tunnels shall be backfilled with materials acceptable to the District and backfill shall be mechanically compacted. 3-8 PIPE IN FILLS jSpecial treatment may be required at the discretion of the District. This treatment may consist of compacting the backfill in 6-inch layers, careful IT choice of backfill materials, use of mechanical joint cast iron pipe in short lengths, or such other reasonable methods or combinations as may be necessary in the opinion of the District. i I 3-9 HIGHWAY CROSSINGS y This item applies only to rigid surface pavements. The Developer may use any method which provides satisfactory results and is acceptable to the governmental agency having control of the road and t) the District, pro- vided that the Developer restores the roadway to its original condition. ., Normally, highway crossings require the placing of i.. steel, cast iron or concrete pipe casing by jacking or tunneling and la, ing the water mains within this casing. In case of tunneling, subsequent low pressure grouting # � through the pavement may be required. 3-10 FIRE HYDRANT INSTALLATION S Hydrant installation shall generally conform to AWWA Standard C600 unless specifically contradicted by the Standard Detail Fire Hydrant Assembly. w-2[ 3/12/74 ... Y The concrete guard posts as shown on the Standard Detail Drawing shall be ' installed where requires by the District. Shackle rods shall receive two coats of red lead paint prior to installation. Pumper nozzle shall face the road after installation is completed. 3-1f GATE VALVE INSTALLATION i Before installation gate valves shall be cleaned of all foreign material e '.. as hereinbefore specified for installation of pipe. Such blocking as the District may deem necessi�ry shall be provided. The valve and -:aloe box , shall be set plumb with the valve box centered on the valve. The top of the valve box shall be set to the grade indicated by the District. Valve markers shall be set where required by the District for all valves except auxiliary valves for hydrants. The marker shall be set on a line through the valve at right angles to the centerline of the road. The marker shall generally be set on the property line unless the District decides another location is safer or more conspicuous. i 1 3.12 VALVE BOX INSTALLATION 1 Valve boxes shall be set flush in pavement and 2 inches low in gravel roads. 1 3-13 CONCRETE BLOCKING i Concrete blocking shall be cast from 1:3:6 mix with a slump of not more than six inches (611). Concrete blocking shall be cast in place and have a minimum of k square foot bearing against, the fitting and bearing area iagainst undisturbed soil as shown in Standard Details. Additional bearing i area may be required b) the District. Blocking shall bear against fittings 1 only and shall be clear of joints so as L permit taking up or dismantling joints. All hydrants, bends, tees and valves shall be blocked. The J� Developer shall install blocking which is adequate to withstand full test L1 pressure as well as to continuously stand operating pressures wider all 111 conditi.,tts ervice. CJ W-23 1/ . '174 ,I , ti 3.14 AIR AND VACUUM RELEASE VALVE INSTALLATION YYY � See Plans Location of the air release valves as shown on the Plans is approximate. ,, The installation shall be art at the high point of the Line. 3-15 HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE TEST Hydrostatic pressure test may be for the entire installation or any valved section at tho option of the District. The test shall be made at the low point of the installation. The Developer shall provide all necessary equip- ment and shall perform all work connected with the tests. The Installation shall be tested at 300 psi. For approval the pressure shall not drop more tthan 5 psi in 15 minutes. Any defective joints, pipe, or fittings shall be replaced at the Developer's expense and the test repeated until sans- 3 i factory. fr-., 3-16 STERILIZATION AND FLUSHING OF WATER MAIN I I Ster'lization of water lines shall in general conform to AWWA Standard C601. Chlorination shall be by chlorine-bearing compound placed in each pipe length or capsules secured to the top of the barrel of each pipe length. Chlorine residual shall not be less than 50 parts per million. Steriliza- tion shall include all pipe mains, all pipe .-.uns to hydrants and all service lines to the curb stop. Contact period shall be for a minimum of 24 hours durinF which time all valves shall be opened and closed. After the contact period all mains, services and pipe runs to hydrants shall be thoroughly flushed and a water sample taken for testing and approval by the Washington State Department of Social. and Heal ' ., Services. Water used for flushing, testing or main breaks caused by the Developer shall be paid for by the Developer at the existing Water District rates. W-24 3/12/74 1 - t i i 1 I 3-17 REPLACING ROAD SURFACING i The DeTeloper shall restore all roadway and driveway surfaces excavated or jdisturbed to a condition acceptable to the government agency having control of the road and to the District. Before replacing asphalt surfacing, the edges of the existing asphalt shall be trimmed, as necessary, to make a smooth joint. Where concrete must be broken out prior to trench excava ion, the cut in the concrete shall be made by sawing square and straight with a i concrete saw to a depLh of not less than l inch. 3-18 SERVICE CONNECTION (a) Cast Iron Pipe: Connections into cast iron pipe shall be by direct tap for 1 inch or smaller and shall be made with double strap saddles for 1}-inch and larger. Connections larger than 1�-inch shall he made as required by the District. (b) Asbestos Cement Pipet All service connections to asbestos cement i pipe shall be made, with double strap pipe saddles regardless of the tap size. i (c) Service saddles, corporation stops, tees, curb stops and reducers 1 shal' a as manufactured by Mueller. All threaded items shall 1 have Mueller threads. 3-19 CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING PIPE LINES 1 G + Where cut-ins are to be made in existing pipes, the work shall be conducted at such a time and in such a manner as to minimize the interruption of service. Necessary pipe, fittings and gate valves shall be assembled at the site ready for installation prior to the shutting off of water in the existing main. Once the water has been cut off, the work shall be prose- cuted vigorously and shall not be halted until the line is restored to service. W-25 `" 3/12/74 Y f Unless specifically provided for elsewhere in these Specifications, the Developer shall have the responsibility of giving at least 24-hours 1 notice to the District of intention to disrupt service snd shall give at least 24-hours notice to the affected water users. _. :i Developer shall not operate any valves, including fire hydrant valves, in any part of the water system, except in the presence of the District. Developer ' shall notify the District 24 hours in advance of need to operate valves. Tapping of existing pipe lines shall be made with tapping tee and valve assembly. Joints shall be tested using normal pipeline pressure prior -�' to start of tapping existing main. The District shall at their option make all connections to existing mains ,i and make all crossings of existing roadways at the expense of the Developer. 3.20 HACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES i Where the possibility of contamination of the water supply exists, the District will require that certain services be equipped with a backflow, prevention device. The only acceptable device is that which operates on the reduced pressure principle. The determination as to the need, size and locat' )n of a backflow device shall be solely determined by the District. R+, f t , W-26 3/12/74 i. TO l_ FACE 5 1RE6 T p:. J ' C 1 i o VARIABLE i Mark Quantity Item Description A 1 Fire Hydrants 1-h" Pumper - Seattle Standard T1,reada 2-27j" Hose Nozzles - National Standard Threads M.J. shoe I B 1 Auzilliary Gate Valves 6" - AM& C500, double disc, parallel seatp 00" ring stem seal; MJxn C 1 Valve Box; Cast iron slide extension D 1 Tees b" flanged outlet T 1 Concrete Bricks 8■xl6"x4" F 1 Concrete Block, Pour in place; maintain clearance for drain r port G j^T Mashed Cravels 1}" minus STANDARD DETAIL 6 ' H Var. 6" r.ast Iron Pipes cement FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY 4 lined 1 2 Shackle Hodes 3/4" diam. Paint as. pet Section 4-10. --- - W- 27 3/12(74 � t i M .,WYd9RAVT { oIJSTS cV f I I __:—_— CQIKRETE BACkT/LL TO o FRLN✓ c;W ..YD a WWW .SPCCI /EL7. EARTH PLAN f I � DAC.YF/L l COMGACT60 /N I � I � 6" L.IYERS EL SEN'NFRE. r' ;� &,. ELEVATION VALVE FIRE HYDRANT GUARD POST MARKER POST DO NOT USE WITH CURB SECTION ab, Notese # 1. Guard Poste shall be 9" diam. x 61 lone p_4cast concrete posts per Department of Highways •STANDARD SPECIFICATICNS", 1963# m Section 72.02 B. Paint with two (2) coats of Derusto paint, color Pompom Yellow. 2. Valve marker post shall b_ equal to Greystons PC 3.05. Paint 5 as specified for hydrant guard post. Paint distance from the I valve marker to the valve on the post with black snanel paint. '.: GUARD POSTS AND VALVE MARKERS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LOCATIONS SELECTED BY THE DISTRICT. STANDARD DETAIL FIRE HYDRANT GUARD POST AND VALVE MARKER POST 5u W-28 3/12/74 : p i�lp tltl II I I {lid I+d' d I � � idlp tltllll I n �lp itl d' cc jl PLAN M T�� 1 ,Ire" pa+rest - rtEL£0A7-10111 1 MATERIAL LIST t MARK QUANTITY ITEM DESCRIPTION j A 1 C.1. Cap, Tap 2", IPS 3 B 1 2" Nipple,Golv., I'D" Long i C 1 2" Nipple, Goly , 6 Lora D 1 2" Nipple, Goly , 3' Long E 2 2" 900 Elbow, Gal,., Swing Joint i F 2 2" Guly. SMeI Pipe,Threaded, Lenpth to Svit G 1 Valve Box-Owner Standard H 1 2" 900 Elbow, GuN., Drill 1 4" Hole 2" Gore Volve - Gvner Standard K 1 2" Cap, Brass L 1/8 CY Washed Grovel - Passing 1 1 '2" and Retained on I/A" Mesh hh M 1 Concrete Thrust Bieck, Cast In Place haring t` ± against Cap only 1 N 1 Meter Box - C wm, Standard I STANDARD DETAIL 2° BLOW-OFF W"29 3/12/74 r' 1 k M rt� C . 1 1 ! ,e , 1 i \ t •S• � O .. a M Ni: i•� 4. '. .. 1 3 \ rFITTING BEARIW, ABBA OF BLOCb I1I F- SIZES TEES & LNDS 9D BM45 BIND 22f ds+D 6 3 4 2 A 10 12 l0 15i 9 3 i s i `NOTE All blocking shall be poured against firs undis- turbed soi:. 2. Bearing area at fittings not hiven in bearing table shall be as directed by the Eng?.near. 3♦ When pouring against plugs and blind flanges set steel meter box lid against fitting to keep concrete off bolts. 4. Layout to be apFroved by Engineer STANDARD DETAIL iprior to concrete pour. CONCRETE BLOCKING i Lam_ W_30 — - ----- _. ..--- — _ /12/74 IT ITT y. ,.q �I k, �2 k SECTION PLAN O- © � ►� r5 � Mark !tee Description A Service Clamp, Mueller double strap for AC pipe. i � H Corporation Stop, Mueller No. H 15000 A'. C Copper Tubing, ASTM B 58, Type R. D fee, Mueller No. H-15384, ].}". E Curb Stops, Mueller No. H-15316, 1}" or 10. lI F 1"alJ" Hem+, per, Mueller No. 4-15L25• t G Post, 6' Long, Paint yellow, set on top of service tee. i NOTE Service lines are 1" or 1}" as imUcated on the drawing. Delete Tso for single --------- - -- -- service. STANDARD DETAIL "AQtiAL" materials must be approved by the Water District. SERVICE CONNECTIONS QU W-31 :;,12/74 ✓w V.V Y µ V � � �+ =k�t•�:9" Jf'^�y2+.� ��1'��,dv�v�n Y7Y�' f` '. • .. ' of:�'• ,.. . 1r ; 1 • • KING COU14TY _. �.. WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 .,. . ,. EVEIOPER EXTENSION CHECK LIST SEWER. �. Name of Development 1 DEVELOPER CONTRkCT08 i Name: _ Name: j Address: Address: i Telephone: Telephone: DATE ITEM A. Preliminary 1. Application form completed Developer"". 2. First installment of engineering and administration fee paid $ Devel ,ner 3. Application approved and plans ordered Dist 4. Fees for special facilities paid, if any $ Developer d. Required before plans are started 1. Final Recorde-' p1.at (Scale I" = 1001) Developer 2. Contour map w. 5' or les,, contour interval and scale of 1" = 100' Developer —3. Road and easement centerline profiles Developer C. R_eo:ired before extension is staked in field 1 . Pl...is and specificat.iens Engineer`- 2. Pians and specifications sent to State Health Department and Pollution Control Commission for approval. Engineer t 3. Application made for State and/or County permits Engineer 4. Approval of Contractor District _5. Performance Bond Developer F' d 6. Cash Bond Developer ��IIFF 7. Certificate of Insurance Devel •er 8. Easements Develup>r S-2 ;4 Ion r 9. County Road and/or State Highway permits picked up District 10. Mate Health Department and Pollution Control Commission approval received District 11. Property ooundary and centerline ` stakes in place Developer Ii 12. Second installment of Engineering and Administrative Fee Paid $ Developer jig 13. Facilities Fee Paid $ Developer 14. Estimated Inspection Fees Yaic' $ Developer aD. Required before construction begins 1. Notice to engineers to stake District _ 2. 48-hours notice of construction =cart Developer 3. Construction stakes in place Engineer ; E. Required before a,.y service is connected I 1. Approval of construction District 2. Testing and As-Built Engineer 3. Bill of sale Developer 4. Acceptance of Line District 5. Additional inspection feea pa- a �_ Developer 6. Excess inspection fee refunded S District f F. To be done year after acceptance Final inspection just prior to i end of year District 2 Release of performance bond District a A l 2 j .. S-3 3/12/74 I v a KING COUNTY f WATER DISCRICT W. 107 i APPLICATION AND AGREE SYSTEMSEWER MENNTTO CONSf . ;FiXgENSION. n0, the Commissioners of king County Water District No. 107, as the District herein, for permission to construct and connect an extension to the District's . existing sewer system as her, provide '. and if this application is .accepted, y ; agrees with the District as follows: , 1. The Extension. The proposed extension and the real property to b0 i served thereby shall be as set forth in the description ittached hereto an shall be constructed in public roads or in rights-of-way granted to the District, according to the General Specifications attached hereto (whi constitute a part of this application) and according to the Plans and Special Specifications, if any, as prepared b;. c.ne District's Engineers. The esti- mated langth of the proposed extension is lineal `eet. 2. Fees. For administration, for providing engin,ering consisting o �. preparation or Plans and Special Specifications, if any, staking of the rork and preparation of "As-Built" Plans, for inspecting and testing con- ? structfon and for prorata cost of existing facilities incident to the pro- ; I posed extension, the District shall be paid the following fees by the Developer: (a) Paid herewith the sum of $` , computed at the rate of $0.60 for each estimated lineal foot of the proposed extension for preparation of Plans and vial Specifica- tions for sewer lines, pus $150.00 fox administration. 1 (b) in the event that the proposed extension shall requir • the F construction of special facilities other than sewer lines, such as pwnping stati ns and the like, the sum of $ , r 1 S-4 "iVi1R3 3/12/74 `' in addition, is paid herewith for preparation of Plans and Specifications therefor. (c) To be paid prior to staking of the proposed extension as designed: i. The following amounts for prorated costs of facilitiel previously constructed by and for the District Lo be utilized by the proposed extension: General Facilities charges 3 ' Late-comer charges Spe• Lai charges s Vo LAi ri , A sum equal to $0.50 for each lineal foot of sewer lines in the proposed extension as designed for staking the work, preparation of "as-builts" and administration. However, the sum paid under this subparagraph c(ii) shall be .idjusted so that the total paid under this , subparagraph and under subparagraph (a) shall equal $1.10 for each lineal foot of sewer line as designed. If the proposed extension as designed shall contain ess than 1,200 lineal feet of sewer line, then the ' tal pavable under subparagraph (al and this subpara- #aph shall be equal to the engineering fees paid by the District for plans, staking a-� "as-builts", exclusive of inspection and testing, for sewer lines - p t;. of the proposed extension, plus $250.00 for administra- tion, but in no event, more than $1,3.30.00 for less than 1,200 lineal feet. S-5 3112/74 3Mjo'! fi?F2a1M, . At 4 5 a TX III. The sum of $85.00 for each inspector day as estimated r- the Ei,gineer. An inspector day shall be ea(' lay or I part thereof that an inspector is required to provide +! full time resident inspection and testing of .he con..' ' struction. If more Clean one inspector is rciuired o j provided on any day, inspector days shall bc. .etermined j by the number of inspectors provided fo- that day. If i the actual number of inspector drys required for com- pletion of the work exceeds the Engineer's estimate, ithe Developer shall pay the District on demand the 1 additional sum of $85.00 for each additional inspector 1 day and the District may stolr the construction work until I I such payment is made. If the actual number of inspector days required for completion <,f the work is less than the Engineer's estimate, the District shall refund to the Developer $85.00 for each estimated inspector day i in excess of the actual inspector days required, which 1 refund shall be made after completion of the construction. r The foregoing fees shall not include any extra costs incurred by the District incident to the proposed extension on account of property surveys; changes In design, errors or omissions by the Developer, his Contractor or agents; unusual negotia- tions; Legal expenses beyond review of documents and other l 1 such costs. The Developer shall reimburse the District on I demand for any such costs incurred b-, the District. 3. Construction Costs. The D?veloper shall pay all of the costs of constructing and connecting the extension to the existing sewer system. 1 ri 4. Developer Obligations. Prior to preparation of the Plans for the proposed extension, the Developer shall cause the following to be furnished to the District: 5-6 ,t 3/12/74 I i r (a) A true copy of the final recorded plat of the property to he served by the extension. y Y (b) An accurate :,ontour mar of the property showing cortours at . a ll five foot elevations on a scale of one inch equalling one hundred feet or less. i r , `} (c) An accurate profile drawing of the centerlines of all roads and easements in which the proposed extension sewer lines are to be located. i Prior to staking the proposed extension, the Developer shall cause the fol- lowing to be furnished to the District: (a) A cash bond in the sum of $500.00 as security for the pa,- ment of any damage caused ri the existing system from work done pursuant hereto, which bond shall b:: released upon acceptance of the extension by the District without such damage occurring. (b) An accurate survey of the property described and to be served by the extension with all property corners, in- aEFjML let corners, and street and easement centerlines t accurately staked on the ground. a The cost per foot foi staking, as stated herein, is based on the entire extension survey being completed continuously once work is started by the ;4 Engineer. Additional trips to the jobsite, as may be required due to lack of site control or the phasing of field work as requested by the Contrac- tor, will be subject to an additional fee of $50.00 per trip. A minimum of a 48-hour notice shall be given the District prior to staking. S-7 1 3/1?/74 woo i 1 - 5. Connection. In no event shall the proposed extension b!^ netted to the cxistirE sewer system without the prior consent and presence of the District. Written applicati;n for mneCLicn shall be made to the 1 - District by the Developer or his covcactor and connection shall be made a, E a time agreed upon between them in the maruvsr required by Section 3-18 of Technical Specifications. t,: service connections shall be constructed ex- cept by contractors holding r valid unexpired license for such work from District and a permit therefDre has been issued by the District for each':.. service. All service connections shall be constructed in accordance with - t the regulations of the District. 1 ACCEPTANCE OF THIS APPLICATION BY THE DISTRICT CONSTITUTES A CONT_tACT + I G WITH THE APPLICANT, THE TERMS OF WHICH ARE. EACH PAFAGRAPH OF THIS MANUAL. DA 1Bh AT Bell - t �t1g _C , . .sit.. " -• _ i day of 19 , i i a I The torego'^.g application accepted this day of 19_ t KING COUNTY WATER Di STRICT NO. 1)7 By: President By: secretary ,_8 i 3/12/74" { I' Y.l?fw tr r 1 } 1 W ) W y � � �. � �• t is' pr. •r; `f w DESCRIP:CION OF SEWER EXTENSIONS - - APPROX. ' ON E FROM TO LENGTH (Street Avenue) (Street Avenue) >''AL Street Avenge Feet) [ i l i y. I - 3/12/74 .. w.% TO EPA/DOE GRANT GX a P KINC COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 10 i. PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BOND - SEWER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS- Whereas the District has approved an application by the Developer for the construction of an extension of the District's sewer system to serve the development, in accordance with the regulations of the District governing Developer extensirns, which regulations are incorporated into this agreement by reference, and which require the Developer to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of the work and pay- ment for all labor and materials supplied thereto; ' z Now, therefore, we the Developer, as Principal, and Surety, are held and firmly uound to the State of Washington and to the District, in the amount of ($ i for the pay- rient of wl.ich we do jointly and severally bind ourselves, our heirs,.,R}ragiyl_ _ representatives, successors and assigns by these presents. The conditions of this obligation are such that if the Developer, or the Developer's heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns shall well and truly Veep and observe all of the provisions of the regulations of the District al,plicable to the work described in the Developer's application, and pay all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors, and materfalmen and all persons who shall supply such pc,son or subcontractors with provisions and supplies for cartying on such work and she' 1 indemnify and save harmless the District, its officers and agents, from vny pecuniary toss resulting from the breach of any of said regulations, including the obligation of the Developer to correct or replace any defective work or materials discovered by the District within one year from the date of a_„eptance of the work then this obligation shall become void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect. No change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the work to be _ performed by the Developer shall affect the obligation of the Surety on S-11 3/12/74 jP i 1 this bond, and the Surety waives notice of any such change, extension., ' alteration or addition [h,•reunder. 9 � This bond is turnishtd pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 39.08 of the Revised Code of Washington, and the regulations of the District, and i in addition Co the fore3oing, is made for the benefit of the District cogethd with ell laborers, mechanics, subcontri,rtors, m terialmen and all persons 1 who supply such person or subcontractors with supplies and equipment for t ' carrying on of the work covered by this agreement, whoth,:r or not such work, is dermed to be "public work" under the laws of Washington. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety have caused this bond to `• be signed and sealed by their duly authorized officers or representatives this day of , 197 Principal 1 i By, I Surety By <V i S i S-12 3/12/74 I i 1 i 11 BILL OF SALE OF SEWER MAIN The undersigned seller, , in consideration of the agreement hereinafter provided, warrants against defects in labor or materials appearing within one year from the date hereof, and sells and conveys to KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107, the sewer mains constructed over this following routes: ,a In From To AL qt 1 {q By accepting, and recording this instrument, the District accepts and 1 agrees to maintain the foregoing mains as part of the District's sewer collection system in the sacra manner as though they had been constructed ;. by the District. Dated [Acknowledgment] a: i 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS a FART ONE - DESIGN STANDARDS i f 1-1 DESIGN STANDARDS 1J The proposed extension shall be designed by the Engineer and shall conform 8 j to good engineering practices, as the Lngineers determine. to provide a desirable system of sanitary sewers complying with governmental regulations and requiring a minimum of maintenance. The system may incorporate the following specific features, but regardless of the tollowing, the decision of the Enginee win respect to design shall controls ' 1 I i (a) The extension shall incorporate adequa%e capacity to provide for future expansion of the system in conformity with the District's comprehensive planning and future needs. (b) Pipe sizes and grades shall be selected in accordance with Zood ' engineering practice. No grade shall be permitted resulting in a velocity of less than two feet per second at designed flow. Lines shall be on straight alignment and uniform grade. between 1 manholes. (c) All lines shall be a sufficient depth to drain basements and protected against. damage by trust and traffic. Lines in deep or excessively wide trenO s shall be suitably reinforced to prevent. damage. (d) No street or roof drainage shall be discharged into sewers. (e) If slope and volume are such that velocities above twely-- feet per second are realized at average flow, Special Provisions shall be made for anchoring the pipe and providing against er,)sion and shock. 1 i - S-14 •' 1..��a:.'iie'wsnsw.:wre.'s.s..n:.r•srni:ws'.%..:.r�:..+'.��+.i�.+s}�• .x'iR-*v.:. .wi•" '' s 1 Samoa I (f) A manhole shall be provided at each grade, alignment or size change. No distances in excess of 400 feet shall be permitted between manholes in lines of fifteen inches or less. I i (g) No 61, sidesewer connection shall exceed one hundred feet in length from the main to property lines. s (h) Insofar as practically possible, lines shall bo located in public roads in preferences to easements, and lift stations shall, be avoided. PART TWO - MATERIALS 2-1 GENERAL All materials shall be new and both workmanship and materials shall be of good quality. All materials incorporated into the work shall conform to the provisions of this part. All references to Specifications shall be of the latest edition. 2.2 MATERIAL LISTS AND SPECIFICATIONS The Developer or his Contractor shall delive, to the Engineer a material list not less than ten (10) days prior to commencement of the construction. The list shall contain the manufacturer skid model number, if applicable, ( of the material and equipment to be installed s a part of the work so 9 l that the Engineer may determine whether such materials conform to the Plans and Specifications. No materials shall be installed as a part of the work which are not included in the material list. 1 The manufacturer's teLhnical specifications for pipe, appurtenances and equipment to be incorporated into the work shall be submitted to the { 6 t � Engineer at least ten (10) days prior to commencement of construction 04 S-15 _ . I2/74 ro �l '.f r.: ! with the material listed. i i 2-3 GUARANTEE BY MANUFACTURER If requested by ,he District or the Engineer, a written guarantee made b i the manufacturer of any materials to be incorporated into the work shal J be furnished, guaranteeing to the District that euch materials shall con- form to these Specifications and the Specifications otherwise applying to the work. 2.4 SEWER PIPE AND APPURTENANCES, NON-PRESSURE 1 Non-Pressure sewer pipe shall be constructed of either asbestos cement (AC) conforming to ASTM Specification C428 minimum, Class 2400, u, ,rss otherwise specified, or vitrified clay pipe conforming to ASTM Specifics- 3 .ion C200. 1 jAll pipe Joints shell be rubber gasketted and no mortar Joints shall be used except for sealing pipes into manholes. rubber gaskets for AC pipe shall conform to ASTM Specification D1869 and for clay pipe shall conform to ASTM Specification C4. '. All rubber gaskets shall meet and be subject I to the physical requirert cs and yard tests listed in Sec- on 60-3.02A of I the Standard Specificationn for Municipal Public Works Construction as r j prepatad by the Washington State Chapter of the American Public Works jf Association. f All fittings shall be of the same material and strength class as the pipe. All plugs used for capping shall be of the same material as the pipe and use the same gasket as the pipe joints. Pipe strength classes shall be as shown on the Plans and all 0" sewer pipe from the main to property line shall be of the same class as the main trunk or lateral to which it connects. 5-16 3/12/74 d I 2-5 SEWER PIPE AND APPURTENANCES, PRESSURE - i Unless otherwise specified, pressure pipe shall be constructed of: (a) Cast iron pipe conforming to ASA Specifieari.-,n A21.6 with a manufacturer's thin cement lining conforming co ASA Specifica- tion 21.4, except as to thickness and with the type of joint, class, thickness, designation and markings as specified, or (b) Asbestos cement pressure pipe conforming to AWWA Spac.itica- tions C400 of the class as specified. - i Cast iron fittings shall be of class equal to or greater than zi 6' that of the pipe. valves shall cunt cm to AWWA Specifications r C500. Y i a a Manholes shall he precist with 54-inch inside diameter, unless specified p otherwise on the Plans. Manhole sections shall .)e rubber gaaketad )ointe. :i Manhole drop connections shall be as shown on the Standard Uetails heroin and made with cost iroe, pipe Unless shown otherwise on the Plans, all manholes located within paved publi: rights-of-way 7 shall be equipped with i cast iron frame and cover conforming to Olympic Foundry Company No. 5823. lid style "g". Manholes located outside of public rights-of-way shall be equipped with a "locking" cast iron frame and cover. The "locking" frame and cover shall be the Metro Standard Frame and Cover with 3 cam type locking devices as made by the Olympic Foundry Company. ,.il manhole covers shall be cast with the word "SF,WER" on the lid in at least 2-inch raised letters. Shallow manholes, regard- less of depth, shall be equipped with steps as shown on the Standard Details herein. All manholes shall have eccentric cones unless specified otherwise on the Plans. S- 17 i 3/12l74 y. ' i 2-.7 IMPORTED BACKFILL MATERIAL Imported backfill material shall be free from wood, bark, roots or other extraneous material and shall meet the following, requirements: Passing 2j" square opening 10()% Passing k" sieve 25% Min. Passing No. 200 sieve 1.0% Max. 2-8 TRENCH FOUNDATION MATERIAL Over-excavated material shall be replaced with trcrich foundation. I conforming to one of the following gradations as specified; 1 ! HATER PASSING Ct.\sS "A" CLASS "B" Min. Max. Min. Max. 2►," square opening 981k I00% 95% 100 2" square opening 92 too 75 100 fig" square opening 72 87 30 60 Ik" square opening 58 75 0 15 3/4" square opening 27 47 0 1 3/8" square opening 3 14 0 0 No. 4 si-ve (3 1 0 0 t 2-9 BEDDING MATERIAL I Bedding material shall be well graded, clean, granular gravel material commonly known as pea gravel. Material slightly smaller than pea gravel may be used. Bedding material shall meet the following requirements: l U. S. Standard Passing Sieve Size By Weight 3/8" 100 q8 0-5 s_ le 1/12/74 :t .�a �•., -A"" �r I: 2.10 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE. All sphaltic concrete shell be Class "B" as defined by King County r struction Requirements, General Specifications. 2-11 TOP COURSE AND KEYSTONE MATERIAL f For use in the restoration of excavated areas, Tap Course and Keystone r material shall be manufactured from ledge or talus rock, be free from I yi wood, roots, bark and other extraneous material and shall conform to the . i following requirements: 9i MATERIAL PASSING X BY WEIGHT i A 5/8" square opening 100% 114" square opening 50 to 65% U.S. No. 40 Sieve 5 to 23% U.S. No. 200 Sieve 10% V.X. 2-12 BASE COURSE MATERIAL Base course material shall conform to the following requiremental . I y ! MATERIAL PASSING X BY WEIGHT !k" square opening 100% 5/8" square opening 50 to 80% 1< ;/4" square opening 30 to 50X U.S. No. 40 Sieve 3 to 18% U.S. No. 200 8 7.5% Max. 11 2.B TIMBER r Timber for sheeting'a tit :rtij{''sflall be Standard Grade Douglas Fir. S_ 19 3/12/74 2-14 CONCRETE BEDDING AND BLOCKING Bedding and blocking ccacrete shall be Portland cement concrete containing tour sa0 s of cement per cubic yard and a maximum iggregats rise of ik inches. Maximum slump .that ! be 3� inches. 1 � PART THREE - Ct1NSTRUCTI01 3-1 GENERAL 1� The Developer and the Contractor shall comply with all of the requirements of this part in the performance of the work. All work shall be performed by adequately skilled persons and in a good and workmanlike manner. 1 i 3-2 TRENCH EXCAVATION Trenches shall be excavated to the line and grade designated by the District. Unless otherwise specified, trench sides shall be excavated ivertically. Trench widths shall be adequate for proper working space and placement of bedding material under and around the pipe. The trench width trom the bottom of the trench to the crown of the pipe shall not exceed 40 inches for IS-inch diameter and smaller pipe, or 1.5 tlmes the inside diameter of iN-inch or lsrg�r pipe, plus 18 inches. If these 1 widths art exceedea, a stronger grade of pipe and/or ■ higher classification and amount of bedding material shall be furnished, as directed by the District. Excavation for manhules or other structures shall be sufficient to i provide a minimum of 12 inches between their outer surfaces and the sides of the excavation. i All material excavated from trenches, and piled adjacent to the trench, shall be placed and maintained so chat the top of the material is at least S-20 3/12/74 ' two (2) feet from the edge of the ti neL. Excavated material shall be 3 located so that free access is provided to all '. ire hydrants, water valves and meters and other utilities and clearanc.,_ shall be left to enable free flow of storm water in all gutters, conduits .And natural water courses. 3 3-3 TIMBERING AND SHEETING Timbering and sheeting as necessary to protect workmen, the work and exist- ing utilities and properties shall be provided ind installed. All timber- ing and sheeting above the pipe shall be removed prior to backfilling. Shooting below the top rf the pipe itay be cut off and left in place. Removal of timbering and sheeting shall be aLcomplished in such a manner that there will be no damage to the work and safety of the workmen to assured. Timbering and sheeting design shall be optional but adequate. 3-4 TUNNELING Tunneling in lieu of trenching for deep cuts shall be optional. Except where otherwise authorised by the Districts such tunr ling shall not be longer than 20 feet batweer ahaf.s. Tunne' i shall not be less than four 64 (4) feet high and two (2) test wise and not It,,s than one (1) toot wider then the outside diameter of the pipe. Tunnels shall be backiilled with materials acceptable to the District and backtill shall be compacted according to Section 3.13. Subsequent low pressure grouting may he re- quired by the District. 3-5 ROADWAY AND RAILWAY CROSSINGS Any method may be used for roadway or railway crossings which provides for satisfactory results and is acceptable :o both the District and the govern- mental or private agency having control of the _oad or track, provided that the road or track shall be restored to its original condition after the crossing is completed. If tunneling or jacking is elected or required for crossings, steel, cast iron or concre' R pipe casing shall be placed S-21 rq I 1 i t r , and the sewer pipe laid within the casing. e 3-6 TRENCH FOUNDATION d If, in the judgraert of the District, the native trench bottoms will provide j a firm base for the subsequent placement of bedding, pipe and backfill, such native trench bottom may be use-d !f the bottom is leveled and smoothed so tha , the entire length of pipe will rest on a well compacted base. Trench bottwns shall be over-excavated as necessary to remove all unstable soil and eliminate "boiling" or "quick" conditions to such a depth as to ! provide a firm base. Over-excavated materials shall be replaced with trench foundation material as specified in Section 2-8. Foundation material shall be placed when ordered by District. 3-7 BEUDlNG MATFRIAL PLACEMENT All pipe shall be placed it bedding material cf the type specified in Section 2-9. The bedding shall be placed from a minimum of four (4 i i inches below the pipe barrel to the top of the pipe as shown on thi, Standard Detail herein. Bedding material shall be worked by hand under, aroind and over the pipe t the depths required for the tuli width of the trench. In solid rock excavation, all ledge rock, boulders or stones shall be re- 1 moved to provide n minimum clearance of eight (8) inches under the. pipe. All material thus removed shall be replaced with bedding material. } 3-8 GRADE LINES j The Contractor shall maintain the correct grades between manholes and shall ch^.ck all intermediate grade stakes by means of a taut grade wire ! between at least three intermediate grade stakes. In the event that the i grade stakes do not line up, the work shall be stopped until the situation S-12 74 r „ is corrected. All bench marks, reference points and stakei shall be pre- served and, in case of destruction of any of them, the resulting expense i of restoration shall be borne by the Developer. Construction staking shall consist of grade stakes at ten (10) foot offsets. Stakes at each man- bile and intermediate grade stakes shall be offset ten (10) feet and located r at 50-foot stations between manholes. Laser beam equipment for grade and -- - alignment control is acceptable. "{ 3-9 PIPE LAYING Each pipe shall be laid with bells upgrade and the invert of the pipe to , the alignment and grade shown on the Plans. Concentric joints shall be closed and a smooth invert provided. Open ends of pipe or fittings shall be temporarily blocked or covered when laying is not in progress. No water shall be allowed in the trench during pipe laying, joint making ` and as long thereafter as is necessary in the judgment of the Dl,trict f for the type of joint being used. ' I Adjustment to the line and grade shall be done by scraping away or filling in and tamping bedding material under the body of the pip-. No wedging or blocking of the pipe for adjustment to line and grade -ay be done. The pipe shall be lowered into the trench by means of ropes, tripod, crane or any other suitable means, shall not be dropped or Y .ndle9 roughly, and shall be checked for cracks and detects prior to installation. Any cracked '.- or defective pipe shall not be installed. Tees, wyes and standing services shall be installed as shown in the Standard Details herein and at such locations as are shown on the Plans or as other- wise directeo by the District, and shall not be covered until the District has completed inspection and recorded their exact location. Variance from established line and grade shall not be greater than 1/32nd of an inch per inch of pipe diameter, but shall not exceed 1/2 inch or 5-23 3/12/74 1 f result in a level or reverse sloping invert. Variation in the invert elevation between adjoining ends of pipe due to non-concentricity of _ v joining surface and pipe interior surfaces shall not exceed 1/64th of an inch per inch of pipe diameter or 1/2 inch in any even I 3-10 PIPE JOINTS i No joints shall be covered until examined and approved by the District ' Only pipe layers experienced with the type of gasket being used in the work ,gall be allowed to lay pipe. On request of the District proof of such experience shall be lurnished before laying may begin. Joint material shall he installed according to the manufacturer's recom- i mendattons. After the gasket has been affixed, pipe shall be handled to f avoid humping the gasket, knocking out of position or loading it with dirt or other foreign material. Any gasket so disturbed shall be removed, re- , piaced, cleaned and relubricated before the joint is made. _ O The pipe shall be properly aligned before the joint is fotC - insertion of the tongue or spigot, the pipe shall be partially supported by l. � hand, sling or crana as required to minimize lateral pressure on the gasket and to maintain concentricity until the gasket is properly positioned. Pipe deflection and straightening shall be avoided once the joint is home,. to prevent creep of the joint. 1 Sufficient pressure shall be applied in making the joint to assure that the joint is home, as defined in the pipe manufacturer's standard instrue- tions for installation. Sufficient restraint shall be applied to the line to assure the joints, once home, are held so by tamping fill .inder and alongside the pipe or other appropriate means. At the end of the day's work, the last pipe laid shall be blocked in such a manner as may be re- qutred to prevent creep during down time. S-24 3/12/74 I 3-11 MANHOLES Pr, Ist manhole base sections shall be placed on a well-compacted bedding course of beddi.vg material. The depth of the bedding shall not be less ., than four (4) inches thick, extending a minimum of 12 inches beyond the n is perimeter of the base section. ;he balance of any remaining ex- t cavated area shall be filled with imported backfill material and well- tamped to the level of the top of the bedding before the manhole is set in place. The tedding shall be well-tamped and mad, smooth and level to assure uniform contact and support of the precast e ments. " All lift holes and the inside and outside face of rubber gasketed joints between precast sections shall be thoroughly wetted and then filled with mortar, smoothed and all joints pointed both inside and out. Precast sections shall be placed and aligned to ,rovide vertical sides and vertical alignment of ladder rungs. The completed manhole shall be rigid, true to dimension and watertight. Manholes set in paved streets or other paved areas shall be set to fin- ished grade of the paving and ihen required, the manhole frame shall be tilted to conform to the grade of the paved surface. Manholes not set in paved areas shall be set at a finish grade slightly .J-1 higher than the surrounding terrain to prevent surface water infiltration s into the system. x Manhole channels shall be made to conform to the sewer grade and shall be brought together with well-rounded junctions. Channel sides shall be carried up vertically to the crown elevation of the various pipes. The concrete shelf shall be smoothly finished with slopes to drain. r The openings through which pipes come into the manhole shall be completely and firmly rammed full of mortar to insure watertightness. S-25 3/12/74 3-12 ^4CKFILLING No backfilling shall be. performed until after the District has inspect the installation of the pipe and bedding and approved backfilli"g. The initial backfill shall be hand placed select material spread evenly r over the bedding material and compacted by hand up to an elevation of six (6) inches above the top of the pipe. This shall be done in such a manner that subsequent backfilling will not disturb the pipe in r Subsequent backfilling shall be performed by pushing material frtka 'C�it4 e :f of the trench along and directly over the pipe so that the material wilt be applied in the form of a rolling slope, rather than by side filling. Backfilling from the sides of the trench will not be done until the Di tract has determined that material has been carefully placed over the pi¢ - to a suf a cient depth. i i In areas such as existing paving, or in areas to be paved, where the Dis- trict determines that minor sottlament would be detrimental and the native excavated material 1s not suitable for compaction as backfill, the trench shall be backfilled with imported backfill material as specified in Section 2-7. The District may require that a blanket of imported back- fill material be used on top of native material to such a depth as the iDistrict may direct. In such cases, the top of tl.e native material shall be leveled after placement to provide for uniform depth of the imported Ji backfill material. 1 3-13 COHPACTION OF BACKFILL The hand placed select material to six (6) inches above tho top of the + pipe shall be compacted in the manner specified in Section 3-12. ` ,n all. events, compaction of backfill and backfill procedures in public rights-of-way shall at the minimum ccuform to the requirements of the " S-26 3/12/74 I i M 1 . k 11 VFW 5 1 l} governmental agency g having jurisdiction thet of. e Backfill.ing shall be compacted to 95 percent of maximum theoretical density in all areas where paving will be placed over the back) it and to 90 percent of maxiimim theoretical densiry in all other areas. Measure- ment of compaction density shall be by the modified AASHO method. jCompaction of backfill may he done in such manner as will accomplish the k degree of compaction required herein. Prior to compaction, the method of j compaction shall be submitted to the District for approval and the method of compaction finally approved by the District shall be employed by the 1 i Contractor using good practice. If excavated material has a California Bearing Ratio for compacted and soaked sample of less than seven (1), or for any other reason in the Jude- of the District cannot be compacted as specified, such excavated material shall be replaced with imported backfill material. The District will require that the services of an independent testing laboratory or County testing laboratory be employed to periorm in-place density tests to ascertain whether the specified density can be or has been obtained, and the costs thereof shall be borne by the Developer. , r Regardless of the approval of the District as to manner of compaction, testing, acceptance by the District or otherwise, the Developer shall repair any settlement of trenches and excavations that may occur within one year after completion and acceptance of the work by the District. 3-14 CLEANING AND FLUSHING t' prior to pipe testing, all pipes shall be cleaned as provided in th s Section. An inflatable ball furnished by the Contractor of a size that P j will inflate to fit snugly into the pipe shall be placed in the last k4 manhole on the pipe to be cleaned. The ball may be used with a tag line i �+ S-27pq{pa 3/12/74 u V�Oq,�`'4S �sn�..��� '�'`;�fiN". .'` `�"f �� �+.j��'T" -M`-"`��{'��n'.-.'r" .�.#+/'a"5, ,• 6^.`, ,�.'•;. e 1 i i A SOMEONE t or a rope may be fastened to the ball to locate and control its position at all times. Water shall be introduced behind the ball and the ball steal pass through the pipe with only the force of the water impelling it. All debris flushed ahead of the ball shall be removed at the first manhole {f where presence of the debris is noted. In event that cemented or wedged debris or damaged pipe shall stop the ball, the obstruction shall be ++ removed. 1 No flushing water or debris shall be permitted to enter the existing sewer , system and flushing water shall be pumped from the lines being cleaned and disposed of at a suitable location for draining flushing water, 3-15 TF.STINC OF W)N-PRESSURE SEWER PIPE All non-pressure sewer pipe shall he air tested. The procedures set forth in this sc *ion shall be employed in coralucttng the testing. Al facilities and personnel for conducting the testing under the observatt of the District shall be furnished by the Developer. All equipment and personnel to conduct the test shall be subject to the approval of the District. Although air testing may be pertorv*d for the convenience of the Contractor pcior to backtilling, no pipe shall be accepted until ' air taste have been performed after backfilling and compacting. All wyes, tees .and end of sidesewer stubs shall be plugged with flexible joint caps or an alternate acceptable to the District and securely fastene to withstand the internal test pressure. Stich plugs or caps shall be rva fly removable and their removal shall prov.oe a socket suitable for making a flexible-jointed lateral connection or extension. No double plugs shall be used. t , Immediately following pipe cleaning, the pipe installed shall be tested with low pressure air. Air shall be slowly supplied to the plugged pipe installation until the internal air pressure reaches 4.0 pounds per square inch greater than the average back pressure of any ground water that May ; s-28 3�12/7a r r s � submerge the pipe. At least two minutes shall be allowed for temperature - stabilization before further procedure. The pipe shall be acceptable it the time required in seconds for the pry -- surd to decrease from 3.5 to 2.5 pounds per square inch greater than the average back pressure of any ground water that may submerge the pipe is equal to or greater than the listed values for corresponding sizes of pipe shown on the air test graph located elsewhere in this mamwl . Hazards created by use of air , ,essure for testing pipe shall to guarded ' against, and all plugs shall be securely blocked to prevent blowouts, a supply air regulator shall be installed on the air supply line to the sewer that shall permit only a maxLmum of ten (10) psig in the line to be tested and all pressure shall be relieved from the sewer line prior to removal of test plugs. } x ' 3-16 TESTING OF PRESSURE SEWER PIPE All pressure sewer pipe shall bo subjected to a hydrostatic pressure test equal to the class of the pressure pipe at the highpoint in the line. Test pressure shall be maintained while the entire installation is in- ,J spected and shall be measured by means approved by the District. All ircilities and personnel for conducting the tes• ing under the observation .�l �l i S-29 3/12/74 i � of the District shall be: furnished by the Developer and shall be subject to the approval of the District. Insofar as practical, testing shall be i made with pipe joints, fittings and valves exposed for inspection. Leakage _ in gallons per hour per 1000 feet Of pipe shall not exceed the following: 4" 3.2 Gal/Hr. 10" - 7. Gal/Hr. 6" - 4.7 Gal/Hr. 12" - 9.5 6aI/Ht . I tl" - 6.3 Gal/Hr. I 3-17 6-INCH SIDE SEWER FRO' MAIN TO PROPERTY LINE jThe strength class of side sewer pipe shall be the same as the sewer pipe to which it connects and these Specifications shall be applicable to side sewer work. The slope of side sewers shall not exceed two (2) foot ver- tical to one (1) foot horizontal and grads sh 1. not be liss than 3 per { cent. When .hange in slope exceeds two (2) , .,hem per foot, standard 1J ' bends shall be used. All side sewers shall t,e pingged and plugs blucked"f The ends of all side sewers at the property lines shall be marked with a vertical 2" x 4" board, the bottom of whit: -' I be located at the invert of the elevation of the side sewer and the eop ci which shall be painted white and extend one (I ) foot + abvve the grou,id with the length of the board painted thereon. 1 3-18 CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM No connections shall be made to the existing sewer system without the presence of the District. Written applicat' for con ection shall be made to the District for connection, and the .o .zction shall be Made at a time agreed upon with the District. s Connections to existing manholes shall be made as follows: If the mard)oLe if, "live", the manhole channel shall be tightly covered to prevent debris from entering the sewer line prior to breaking fato the manhole wall. go g 5-30 9J 12J lO , " 1 «. Immediately after the connection is made, the new pipe shall be plugged and blocked in such a manner that no water Shall enter into the existing manhole. The plug shall not be removed without permission of the District. If the existing manhole is not "live", a plug shall be installed in the downstream or discharge pipe of the existing manhole in addition to the above. where new connections to existing manholes require an outside Arop, two plugs for each drop shall be installed and blocked. Connections to existing sewer pipe xhall be made as follows: A new manhole shall be placed over the existing l.ne. The manhole shall be precast, 54- inch diameter except that the base stab shall be cast in place. The new connection shall be plugged and blocked and the existing sewer pipe shall not be op,:ned without the permission of the District. Connections of side sewers to an existing sewer line shall be made as follows: The connection shall be made with a cast iron, double strap sewer saddle tee as manufactured by the Olympic Foundry Company. The f existing sewer pipe shall be cut or drilled to give a smooth symmetrical opening of the proper size. Each connection shalt be bedded with a four (4) inch thick concrete pad poured in place to the lower quadrant of the pipe barrel. Unsuitable foundation material shall be over- excavated and replaced with bedding material. i s 1 i K\ Au.o�l 9/t r.�11tMKt A 1.414 INK"AS WAwTN(ON APONNA(D ENIK. IN /sMw[o W Mnrr titre,ar.+wcw u'ON M0�f ONE FULL LENGTH K\.ELEf ea w s k K ROPNID We .. iNt D. c.tet.: =?NN OF C. 1, PIPE --] C�M 11^.rM�r ALTERNATE COK-.NrNOLf 1 �My�ps�t sTANORID MAMA.[ jTANDAAD WwKm.( PLAN-TTNCR,OAK KCT*N OW AMMN0.E NIQA r MEW MRNt ti A.wNN � NM.......i .A� STAND"sm"m cowmin E .. t...." v eft 7f ow NEn .t'EAR. ssNSLC KAVK! i =� RAN—COINEC TEN AT K• T eaNN 4rTOWNS t cNw .ow O'a i STAMM KWXlCf jpyt� fro" 9oU1.[ KMlfs g ., PLAN-rCAN AT MINE"PAN SIDE SEWER DETAILS STANDARD SEWER DETAILS NO SCALE 5-32 3/12/74 A. F MTJ LOW PRESSURE AM TESTING OF GRAVITY SEWERS kTIME -PRESSURE DROPMCISON .ea 1. GRAPH GIVES MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE TIME FOR A ONE RSAG PRESSURE .- FROM ANCE FOR WATENTADLE WHERE 350 PSA, TO 250 P.S.I. PLUS ALLOW- FOR ALL PIPE LENGTHS TO THE RIGHT Of THE f;RITICAL ACCEPTABLE IS CONSTANT AS SHOWNLINE THE MINIMUM y ! D yr OF THE CRITICAL LIAt THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE TIME IS READ DIRECTLY FROM THE GRAPH OR COMPUTED FROM THE EQUATION GIVEN FOR EACH PIPE MR AI.L PIPF. LENGTHS TO THE LEFT IF MEASURED TIME IS LESS THAN REQUIRED MINIMUM THE TEST S Nor j { e REFER TO PAGES ST AND 16 OF THE �i APWA STANDARD SPtCS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. i _ _ d a _ n ee rY. r>f , aM• as reraNYY R �rlraedd • uee aYe A �! Ar u•r:au Y P Y wS,Y�,a• •r wrefa h :a +awa so":*■ wrwr•'wood• lw+a�Y • aere leaeA••*•e Y•a« . = Fr wrrA aw:•:sd•M:rar•h•arr>rwwww r • rrw wrwr w ♦ r+ P fwwwraw+. " �r rt� rY RMr w wM • dYw ! SM A Ya NwalF Yr \ a U\ rtl rtaMYY S:SIY$:*rw�•IwYS• trwYwr YaYYY rS • o rr /1w••wwYNDrl aAr ease !r•+ar•wY a•Fae+A• y■■ w •a fY•w••YYYd w+ • lwwa"Y1�Y Y iw rwR wow.wow w.Y R ■aY. • ywYrS rwlLhra...... Csaw:YSw w1■.�wwwrrY lrAR ••'`.•Ya1 me I :W : •••S�\• SY"w:wlw paewlu r••'r M{M♦1•q ha wkM M w's•araSM{U""{rrrP wow« 'a •!•es ♦ w>sa •ur•aa• r +w aeo awra+w ■• •• roc�swr kl wv e. �Y\\{ UUw' - • Millwd wwW wYYrwie�.YkJrwr♦•a sa: we • d Yau i r•{ lrro•+ .{ r wArr a.«« rk1"wY uer•rwawwa • :*-.a{Yr:•r•YF Y• r•w=*draw• re eea : s a ssr: ...+..M\.r..dY Yr.rar..Yi1..Y.w :asaa. .{r Y� •q• f r • r{'1 �J wY wYlw !i!Y■YYwdrw wf rw uwpwww w • • No Y, rY••r .• • f a• rra rk Y'?awllru rrr !Y3 YraYwaYwYwwYYrrw•r Y • •r■•■ Pew0 it `•I�1::::: a,y\ eY«', •a;:::S = : :rR.eY asas \ MY ♦YI! • +�\ S'aJ ;S\At"e� . ll• ax aIf :N�•=r:3araeyr•Mde{Yw wir"YSri■YY.rrr'�s�\aaa\SYSa•aariS Y y�•••tY . 4I .,,�a.INt: a {aa;• rr••feraMYRM'rasar\{w+Ya{YrrrrYwwYSde_i11Ma:eaarMrr!*:a• i ,�i�ji16tV ;aa �='ii*a "IMMMM:U Quilt*Is *�*:"w*ia=YiiaZ ia•a••:a=a is*:*:C:�r_ ,: =::ae0:_:_::a s:r n:;:;e�:'s:B cs ei 's:= :.1rsi::=r*:::::::::D■i� Aa?. L` _ i . .. . ..Y rr\d•rwrerf : ari\'\ \S•: �.Oa wi a1�•ia0a:: wom": :N r:::::� =:3�:" :=::a • 1.5Y•:•:on " •1"1 arY-:•/i rrMaa��Y iwr•ad roe ••Yu+Awwd Fwwwww•••waw rll wMw rY ww{wrf a\raYuw"wY�a llrlafaMa• • • \ a e\ eZr u• ■gruu>wr orrooueurwAwwwwwwwwvwewro•so+•A0000rM oreou a :' aE�a.araaa.,l, ..a+ar•:�:•;;a::_:'.:f\:MI arrow ♦ r OOswego swego. ■"a;•w: a:::s:�s;:::•:: • s• aa•:�::.1-.: AI•:� � � ■=gala •1\aa�r rwf Yww•w wA ww YRVY••s wlw ww wY:rrsommisa•es •r!{r\N YSwe r=af r •r ar •9•wa:�J.r 1 ♦:Y, Orr Y•♦ x .,Jr•ww s•N\rU•YUOY\:MYur•au: • sY ••Nf a• • • \' YD➢Ja JUUI \'UHtM a- ♦Yw a.. to w!!w•w••rrr• p ••O ■ r{eseeoeea d\4a :usYf:\•**•�a• • •a a •r•*Z\Y==e•Ya•• ==\�ia\r!••rw Al.ww=•wow+wrr+=\=f•a:age{:\a wa•\•\\_ Ya BYY as • ■s \ • \\• •\•a•\\ sY\ O • ■Ofaq•rAdw ear Fearu qUb •sU{aRY • ■ ::daaY�za::aaaarsaseaaa a aaa:" sea:::sa:::aMasaa.::a::*:*::*::a*::**::*:.e::aaa$:::sa::aaa:; :.: 7 • R ■ r rxi�r r te * Date D. Bennett R. Puhich B. Houghton J. 'eilliet�s V. Lee Cfie: vl D ML7`let --_ Other t. soft pBUN: MARRNN SUBJECT; Review and Peport baak. See me. Robe@ end reg"', PNpu.e .eepo"" for mS eipnatnre. Peke approprio a ,lotion. Prepare tpeoiei report. Y,Set up betinp. { V/7/por Nov, information. , 'ile. Rtl/ARRS: \� � � w w z Of a fh O U � OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEI • RENTON,WASHINGTON 0 Q "ST MII�E BOX 6] IM 3"n MENU MIB ,,. B M:NTOw.wXSN TCN 'InnOB] fBs-B81B 09� �. p �Q LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGCL� SUUXT 6tr ATTORNEY A4yEo5EPZE.4 March 27, 1978 r[[ L����U �p��� �V IREtVTV k004 Mr. Robert Gunter Preston, _•grimson, Ellis, Holm:.:. 6 Fletcher Attorneys at Law 2000 IBM Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: Supphmental Agreement for Extension to May Creek Interceptor Dear Mr. Gunter: � 1 i This letter is in response t, your letter enclosing a discussion draft of the above referenced agreement. I generally find the same to be in proper legal. form. However, from our discussions of February 22nd, I have notes that would indicate that somewhere in paragraph 3 we were to include the language that phase 2 of this Project would be re.juired to go through the County Council for certification. This inclusion was for clarification to insure that the agreement would reflect the true conditions existing presently, and leading to this Supplement Agreement. Otherwise, this Agreement is approved as to legal form. a Very truly yours, Lawrence J. Warren LJW:nd M r,. k„ ti o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �• gg ENGINEERING DIVISION 235 2631 O ? MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO RENTON W:.SH 98055 P b P r, 1,P,rI'D SFPTE0� CHARLES J DELAURENTI August 15, 1977 MAYOR Mr, Mark Premo Cepartment of Ecology 4350 150th Ave. NE Redmond, Wr, 98052 Subject: May Creek Interceptor, Job #2574.057 Dear Mark: Re'u ence Is made to your request of July 20, 1 !77 for additional Infunna- Lion on the Sunset and Honey Creek Lift Stations and their impact on the downstream system. Enclosed please find a complete and current evaluation of the Down Stream System which substantiates our claim that the Sunset Lift S'ation is over- loading the system into which it is discharged. Actual flow measurements would have been the more desirable method of substantiating the overloading of the down stream system; however, this would have required waiting until the rainy season so that the flows could reflect normal peaks due to inflow and infiltration. Since this was impractical , flows were calculated using criteria which is consistent with our application and accepted standards. 1 hope this information satisfactorily answers your questions in sufficient detail to alleviate any doubts regarding the lift stations Impact on the down stream system. For your Information, please find attached a letter from the King County Department of Public Health concerning septic tank problem In the May Creek drainage basin. If I can be of further assistance or you require any additional Information plei .e advise. Very truly yours, Donald G. Monaghan, P.E. Office Engineer DGM:pmp Enclosure t: y. 1 it Seattle-King County/ DEPARTMINT Or PUBLIC HMALTM C y v Public safety sulldlna Seattle WUR100t0n sa10a 2061 625 2161 LAWRENCR e11RONEf1. M.O., M.P.N. Dlr eter Of Public HeaNR June 29, 1977 1 John R. Walldze. Jr. Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. 1915 1st Ave. Seattlo, Washington 981DI Re: May Creek nrainage Rasin On-Site Sewage Problems. Dear Sir: The area or the May Creek Pasir west of 139th Ave. S.F. Contains a variety of soils ranging from Shalcar Muck to the Fverett Series gavel. Predominant hwever, are the Alderwood and Kitsap soils, neither of which are entirely adecuate for or-site sewage disposal systems. Although the area is not completely intensely developed our records indicate 174 malfuntioning drainfields with sewage discharging onto the surface of the ground. j; Our records, as far as researched, also iodicste several disapprovals of site applications submitted for the purpose of developing individual lots. The number of disapprovals, however, is no real indication of suitability for constructier. of houses with septic tank systems, since persons performing the soil teat generally advise their clients of the lack of reou:red soil depth or iradenuste oercolation rates and the applications do not reach this office. It is doubtful that any Pxtensive eevelopment could occur or septic tanks in the subject area, although some individual lots might be found suitable. DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS CENTRAL NORTH EAST SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST 1000 Pubic Saletq 8.00m0 1600 N E 150" 15607 N E 9ebevue 0001 N E alh SI 10621 mA Ave S W Seattle 96104 $aa111e 961% 14e0m0nO RO'd Renton 96055 Seam"146 ... .... Mlle..*96006 NA-7620 2444400 IV e. This department supports construction of the interceptor etstem rot only to allow new development, but also to at•ate the health hazards inherent in such a large number of malfunctioning systems. Very truly yours, .� William R. Lieninq, R.S. Supervising Sanitarian Environmental Health Services Southeast District Health Center wFLAg k SUNSET LIFT STATION IMPACT ON DOWN STREAM SYSTEM The basic information on the Sunset and Honey Creek Lift Stations is attached as Exhibits I and II . The Sunset Station pumps at the rate of 500 gpm and the Honey Creek Station has a pumping capacity of 100 gpm. The Honey Creek Station is Insignificant with regard to the total volume pumoed but due to the rate at which it pumps its impact is significant . With both stations pumping into the down stream system at the same time the flow developed is 1 .34 cfs. This flow exceeds the down stream capacity of five sections of 8" pipe without any additional flows. These five sections amount to 1436 l .f, of pipe and are Identified on Exhibit III . Exhibit 111 Is a breakdown of the down stream system from manhole to manhole with the length , slope, and size of pipe Indicated. From this Information and Man- nings coefficient of roughness for concrete pipe of 0.013 the capacity and velo- city of the flow in each section was determined. These maximum allowable flows were then compared to the flows that are actually generated by the development that empties into the down stream systen . The actual flows were calculated by using accepted criteria which are outlined in Exhibit IV. The flow generated was broken into fourteen segments as outlined in Exhibit V for the purpose of determining at what point and at what volume flow enters the main system. The residential units and commercial acreage in each segment was obtained by actual field surveys. Comparing the design flow against the calculated flow reveals that in the down stream system there are a number of section of pipe that are undersized. There are four sections where existing flow exceeds design flow by 1 .0 cfs. There are six sections of pipe in which design and ex' %ting flows are within O, l cfs of each other. There are nine other sections which fall in between these two ranges. The total amount of existing 8 and 10 inch pipe that would have to be replaced in order to upgrade the existing system so that the design flow exceeds the present flow is 5,122 I . f . This amount of pipe represents 66% of the entire down stream system that is either at or above design capacity. Due to the excess flow generated by the Sunset Lift Station it is common for the flow to back up into the manholes. This condition converts the flow In the down stream pipe from gravity to pressure. This has been verified on many occasions but is not documented. This type flow is an undesirable condition in any sewer and indicates that the flow exceeds the capacity of the pipe. Since It was not possible to obtain actual flow readings for peak condition in the down stream system some discussion of the design criteria and their accuracy would be appropriate. In an ajtempt to develop a logical and justifiable approach to proving that the down stream system is being overtaxed by flows from the May Creek Basin two appro- aches were taken. The first involved determining the number and types of facilities and area involved draining into the down stream system including the areas that Pre served by the Sunset and Honeydew Lift Station. The second approach involved determining flows contributed to the down stream system by the Sunset Lift Station through the use of daily record kept on pump operating time. The records for the i a 1 i Page 2 lift station were compiled for ; ,rmths during both the dry and rainy seasons and averaged on a monthly basis for 1975 and 1976. This information is compiled and tabulated in Exhibit VI whit. also shows peak flows for a single day in each month. The flows in Exhibit VI corres d fairly close to the flow developed by calcula- tions based on actual house cr t for Areas A(1) , AM and AM in Exhibit V. Since these three areas empty i�rto the wet wells for the lift station and the flow generated by pumping is constant , no peaking factor was used. During dry weather the pumps operate on the average for about 465 minutes per day with a total flow of about 200,000 gpd. According to our calculations the developed area that drains to the lift station generates a flow of about 200,000 gpd. This symetry can also be found during the rainy season. However, the calculations are based on average flows for Inflow and infiltration while the actual pumping time reflects the duration and intensity of each individual storm. When averaged the volume that is actually pumped Is very close to the figure developed by calculation. As was shown earlier the down stream system is being overtaxed by the sewage being pumped from tire May Creek basin, This problem has required that City forces per- form daily maintenance checks on the line to locate any area in which the flow Is being restricted. This extraordinary maintenance routine is required Lo prevent damage and massive claim: against the City by down stream property owner's due to sewage backup. This program has oeen successful in that property damage has been held down to a minimum. There have been only three incidents in 1972 of damage in which the City had to reimburse property owners. After this incident one of the property owners installed a gate valve In his sewer line so that it can be closed during periods of peak flow in order to prevent any future damage to his property. Based upon accepted criteria or actual measurement it is felt that satisfactory documentation has been presented to justify the statements that the flow from the Sunset Lift Station 1s overtaxing the down stream system into which is drains. If funding were approved for the May Creek Interceptor the need for the Sunset and Honeydew Lift Station would be eliminated since the sewerage that these stations handle could flow Ly gravity to the May Creek Interceptor. As a matter of fact the May Creek Interceptor will pass right next to the Honey Creek Lift Station. Without funding both stations will require major overhauls within the next two years and the present down stream system will have to be improved in order to elim- inate the constant threat of damage to property owners and the costly and constant maintenance of the existing down stream system. EXHIBIT I SANItARY SEWER LIFT STATION NAME: Sunset LOCATION: Sunset Blvd. N.E. and Union Avenue TYPE: Vertical pumps dry well Two wet wells MODEL: Smith and Loveless 48-3, Serial N2432 2-15 HP 1760 RPM, 6" Pumps CAPACITY : 500 gpm at 70.64 TOM EMERGENCY SERVICE: 8" Overflow to Honey Creek YELI'MFTRY : Alarm ELLCPRICAL: 3 phase, 230/460 watts Puget Power Service A ' EXHIBIT II SANITARY SERER LIFT STATION NAME : Honey Creek LOCATION: N.E. 17th P1 . and Pierce PI . N.E. TYPE : Vertical pumps, wet well , dual pump MODEL : Pacific Pump, "AM' NAD 2 ea. 7 1/2 HP , 1150 rpm, 4" pumps CAPACITY : 100 qpm at 58' TDH EMERGENCY SERVICE : b" overflow to Honey Creek TELEMETRY : None ELFCVRICAL: Single Phase, 240 volts, Puget Power Service EXHIBIT III EXISTING iMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS PIPE LENGTH SLOPE VELOCITY DESIGN ACTUAL DESIGN PIPE LOCATION SIZE (ft) (%) ft/sec FLOW (CFS) FLOW (CFS) FLOW (CFS) SIZE E 7th St. - between Sunset 8" 154.2 11 .673 11 .83 4. 13 Blvd. NE 6 Aberdeen Ave. NE 8" 163.6 7.336 9.377 3.27 3.25 5.95 loss Aberdeen Ave. NE - between 3" 232.5 1 . 72 4.54 1 .58 3.25 4.68 12" HE 7th St. and NE 8th St. 10" 346.4 2.02 5.71 3. 11 3. 18 5.07 12" M. 179.2 8. 34$ 11 .61 6.33 `s+ loss 108.4 5.535 9.476 5. 166 E 9th PI . loss 220.6 2.267 6.05 3.30 3. 18 5.3A 12" to.. 107.8 4.638 8.65 4.72 loss 279.5 4.68 8.69 4.73 10" 285. 1 0.982 3.98 2. 17 3. 12 3.54 12" loss 125.8 0.95 3.92 2. 14 3. 12 3.46 12" Easement - between NE 9th Pl . 10" 190.5 1 .05 4. 12 2.25 3. 12 3.66 12" hand Ferndale Circle 10" 311 .6 o.64 3.21 1 .75 3. 12 5. 18 15" Ferndale Circle to.. 356. 1 0.562 }.01 1 .64 3. 12 4.85 15" st end to NE 9th St, E 9tn St. between Ferndale 8" 207 1 .86 4.72 1 .65 3. 12 4.87 12" Circle and Harrington Ave. NL 8" 262. 3 9.912 10.90 3.81 8" 233.5 5.996 8.48 2.96 3.03 5.38 to,. arrington Ave, NE between 8" 773. 3 2.277 5.22 1 .82 2. 74 3.31 10" NE 9th St. and Sunset Blvd. NE 8" 252.7 0. 792 3.o8 1 ,08 2. 74 3. 18 12" 8" 133. 5 0.824 3. 14 1 . 10 2.74 3, 24 12" • Sunset Blvd. HE between 8" 205.2 3. 119 6. 11 2. 13 Harrington Ave HE s NE 10th St. 8" 270.0 4.444 7.30 2.55 Sunset Blvd. HE between 8" 390.0 1 .795 4.64 1 .62 1 .68 2.94 10" NE IOth St, s NE 12th St. 8" 350.0 2.00 4,90 1 .71 1.68 3. 11 10" 8" 36o.o 1 . 11 3.65 1 .27 1 ,63 2. 31 10" 8" 175.0 1 . 16 3. 73 1 .30 1 .63 2.36 loss Sunset Blvd. between NE 12th 8" 450.0 2.66 5.65 1 .97 St. b Newport Ave. NE 8" 300.0 3.00 6.00 2.09 8" 300.0 2. 50 5.47 1 .91 B" 515.0 1 .00 3.46 1 .21 1.28 2.20 10.. + a Lines undersized to handle capacity (1 .34 efs) of Sunset Lift Station ih MwYowWYIYM1wWyy'.m m...a�. v:. �.w..ww...n .:y'awNwWv'v uar.ru�.�x I EXHIBIT IV RESIDENTIAL Single Family 3. 5 people/unit Duplex b apartments 2.5 people/unit FLOWS Residential 60 gpd/capita Schools 15 gpd/capita Churches 2000 gpd/acre Commercial 2000 gpdiacre Convalescent Center 90 gpd/capita PEAK FACTORS Residential 3. 33 Schools 1.0 Churches 3.0 Commercial 3,0 Convalescent Center 3. 33 INFILTRATION s INFLOW Infiltration 600 gpd/acre Inflow 500 gpd/acre SCHOOLS AI Sierra Heights 382 students Elem, School staff 0 A2 Hazen Sr. High School 1555 Students 80 Staff Ir33, Apollo 586 students Elementary School 31 staff M A4 Hillcrest Elem. School 348 Students 20 staff 39 McKnight Jr. High School 426 Students 21 Staff IM j tl EXHIBIT V SUMMARY DRAINAGE SINGLE DUPLEX SCHOOLS CHURCHES APTS _ AREA FAMILY AI 298 I 148 A 100 2 284 A; 58 A 56 84 2 2 60 * A 13 218 240 A 44 8 A 41 i A 14 1 63 n A 55 A10 3 1 30 A11 32 1 16 All 10 44 A13 19 A14 27 TOTAL 775 316 5 5 94o * Commercial A - 12 Ac A9 - 22 Ac 37 h Convelescant Center A - 95 bed Y, 'c 4 AI Glencoe Area 161 Acres A Hazen High School Area 105 Acres A Brentwood 3 16 Acres A McKnight Jr. High School Area 88 Acres A North Highlands Park Area 107 Acres A Vicinity Dayton Avenue and NE 9th Street 10 Acres X A Vicinity NE 8th Place/Camas Avenue N. 9 Acres i A Vicinity Glenwood Avenue_ 6 Acres A Renton Highlands Shopping Center 24 Acres A10 Vicinity Kirkland NE l .th Place 7 Acres A11 lynwaod Ave. NE 10 Acres Al2 Vicinity of Pierce Avenue N.E. and N.E. 14th Street 32 Acres Ai3 Monroe Ave. N.E./Sunset 8 Acres A14 Honey Creek Park 10 Acres 10 Acres Total Area of Contribution: 634 Acres FLOW CALCULATIONS Units People/Unit GPD Peak Factor AREA 1 298 3.5 60 - 62,580 148 2.5 60 - 22,200 405 15 r 6,075 161 1100 - 1771100 2e7,955 gpd 0.4148 cfs AREA 100 3.5 60 - 21 ,000 284 2.5 6o - 42,6o0 1635 15 24,525 617 15 - 9,255 105 1100 - 1�15120000 212,880 gpd 0.3295 cfs AREA 58 3.5 60 - 12,180 16 1100 - 1 '' 600 25.-80 gpd 0.0461 cfs AREA 56 3.5 6o 3.33 - 39,160.8 84 2.5 60 3.33 - 41 ,958 60 2.5 60 3. 33 29,970 2 20JO 3.00 = 12,000 95 90 3.33 28,471 ,5 368 15 3.00 v 16,r6o 959 15 3.00 = 43,155 88 i190 = 96 800 30�075.3 gpd 0.4769 - "s AREA 13 3. 5 60 3.33 9.090.9 218 2.5 60 3. 33 - W,891 2ti0 2.5 60 3.37 = 119,880 12 2000 = 24,000 107 1100 = 117 700 379!561 .9 gpd 0.5876 cfs AREA 44 3.5 60 3.33 30,769.2 8 2.5 60 3. 33 = 3,996 10 1100 11 000 5�,2 gpd 0.0708 cfs Y r.......uar�rrr rv...rw+iwY...r..� u.w....w...u..... Units People/Unit GPD Peak Factor AREA-, 41 3. 5 60 3. 33 = 28,671 . 3 6 2.5 60 3. 33 2,997 9 1100 ,9` g 1 ,5 3 gpd 0.0643 cfs AREA 14 3.5 60 3. 33 - 9,790.2 63 2.5 60 3. 33 31 ,468.5 1 2000 3.00 6,000 6 1100 = 6,60o ;3 ,T5g.7 gpd 0.0834 cfs AREAS 55 2.5 60 3. 33 27,472.5 22 2000 3.00 132,000 24 1100 26 4o0 185 8772.5 gpd 0.2877 cfs AREA10 3 3.5 60 3.33 2.037.9 30 2.5 60 3. 33 - t4,985 1 2000 7, 00 6,000 7 1 lrr0 7 700 30, •9 gpd 0.0477 cfa AREA11 32 3.5 6o 3,33 a 72,377.6 16 2.5 60 3. 33 7,992 1 2000 3.00 6,000 10 1100 = 11 000 7�369.6 gpd 0.0733 cfs AREA12 70 3.5 60 3.33 = 48,951 44 2.5 60 3.33 21 ,978 32 1100 - 35 200 10 ,129 gid 0.1643 cfs AREA 13 19 3.5 60 3.33 - 13.286. 7 8 1100 - 8 Boo 22:0056.7 gpd 0.0342 cfs AREA 1414 3.5 60 3. 33 9,790.2 5 1100 = 5 500 Pump 100 gpm 144 000 1 9!290.2 gpd 0.2466 cfs y' a T EXHIBIT VI SUNSET LIFT STATION Average Daily Flows (GPM) (One Day Peak Flows) (GPM) JAN FEB MAR JUNE JULY AUG SEPT 1375 336,500 302,625 265,700 165,984 130,470 146,145 186,015 (576,000) (466,500) (377,000) 0 55,OW (171 ,000) (497,500) 1976 354,400 311 ,950 296,695 200,383 191 ,245 203, 145 215,450 (454,000) (386,000) (346,500) (208,500) (232,000) (238,000) r w TELECON r 120177 3:4SRM DATE _ _ JOB NAME : M.ay JOB *NO a 5'74-.0.57 FROM DDE TO: ✓ONA/ W RE : e4P9,4AVAL mF YrAP A Ano1r1oN44- p47-4 — 1 A VA#aAsr&D Pe�Of Of TNf AyF�t�AA/Nc� Of_SVN3lcT C/fT sTAT Nn 77tf`.�1/y,¢e0/}D/NG DFJ7�f_PPWNSrQF 1 _s-tL 710 WMCN sf V1.5 fr}2CiE5 _ _ 2A, .4AI OA _1VOW r dE I546NEY PEW XN73WC f7v-e wicc E��cr _ �ONsY__ arc L/Fr 57-•4r-/aN _ 3. RAdr/asT.90 "oPacArioN ofAA 's O/- sync r7?NK PfHj-u,eAL — �, 1•W4N7 ED ro KNort/ Y�NE'.� 5bG• l IF MAY Ci2lEFX tNTEA�»Q�` ACTION i O TAKE r;'sV /s efiyrON INFO . cAtaED a��k �+a0r►rs�l. 14 OXI, [r W/7W P.PJ G O _ AJ• 7 26 AND kk. FOND f.El• 7�z1 .�. 1Vouca Qr�;4IREgt�aru6��°uNr• y��Me p,�Lrn_E{��NNa�cessARN C,C, 6a/�e, lAJ.At/07, MSCucaouaA+, ./�INS'nu, �OSTEA, HiypARi7/ hbyG/FTOA� s fT KING�IINTY � WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 107 5805A- 118 fH AVENUE S,E,BEl1.EVSl,I,WASH,9111606 • PH.746.0751 BOA Henry F, MCCUlloUgh 77-4-44-5 Pres:dent John R. Janson April 14, 1977 Secretary - Flmer F. Foster y Member r... MANAGER Sam Macn Richard C. Houghton Engineering Division Public Works Departmint Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South 1 Renton, Washington 98055 i i SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewers, Jones Avenue N.E. Trunk Interceptor Dear Dick: �A Enclosed find your letter of April 11, 1977 related to the above subject which was exocuted by the Board of Commissioners at the regular meeting held April 13, 1977. Very truly yours, ' Sam Magri, Manager- . . SM:sh } enclosure I I 'y i P r 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D '_. 20460 ±rT 2 9 1916 OFFICE OF WATER AND .� HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRIM #77-3 SUBJECT: Plan of Operation for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrato 0/-V-A for Water Program Operations (WH-546) TO: Regional Administrators I - X Attn: Water Division Directors PURPOSE This memorandum provides guidance on preparing a Plan of Operation for municipal wastewater treatment facilities being constructed, modified, or expanded under the Construction Grants program. DISCUSSION Section 204(a)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (PL 92-500) requires all municipal wastewater treatment facilities constructed with Federal funds to have a Plan of Operation. This memorandum contains guidance for the development of such a Plan. Additional details F on this requirement can be found in 40 CFR 35.935-12 of the Federal Register. A Plan of Operation is intended to identify specific actions and related completion dates to assure that the facility and all associated personnel are properly prepared for start-up and continued operatinn. Actions identified will be responsive to all technical and administrative requir t^nts for efficient and reliable performance, including all such elements outlined in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual. A Plan of Operation is not intended to supplant the O&M Manual, which provides long-term guidance for efficient facility operation and maintenance, but rather summarizes the actions necessary to assure that all steps required . » .';'`;`•7 ra 4 f 2 fY for start-up and operation are taken at the appropriate times. The Plan of Operation provides detail on such matters as who will perform the necessary tasks, when and how they will be undertaken, and, where necess6 y, the nature of each task. For example, the 0&M Manual will indicate the staffing and personnel training needs for the facility; the Plan of Operation will contain the actual schedule to be followed foLRECEIVED hiring and/or training those personnel .POLICY Plans of Operation must be submitted and approved to meet requiremen of Section 2O4(a)(4) of PL 92-500 and 40 CfR 35.935-12. Coptent of Plans of Operation and timing for completion and submittal should follow the guidance of this Memorandum and the attachments thereto. The Plan of Operation shall provide a concise, sequential description of, and ircplementation schedule for, those-activities necessary to assure cost- effective, efficient and reliable start-up and continued operation of thefacirity. The cost of preparing a Plan of Operation is grant eligible and should be identified as a separate line item it the project costs. t IMPLEMENTATION I Municipal ,rastewater treatment facility construction projects vary onsiderably in size and cor^nlexity, and the degree of detail in a Plan of Operation should reflect tnis variation. The Plan of Operation must be tailored to the specific needs of each individual project. The basic guidance document for the development of a Plan of Operation is Federal Guidelines Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilit es, pu fished by 19 in�lugust 1974. Applic.tion --of this guidance to the development of a Plan of Operation is di ;cussed in Attachment "A" to this PRM entitled "Basic Considerations in the Development of a Plan of Operation for Wastewater Treatment Plants." A "sample" Plan of Operation is presented in Attachment B. This sample illustrates one format for a Plan. The action items shown are not all- inclusive, nor does each of these items necessarily apply to every project. An alternative format would be a time based chart that displays graphically the time span over which items would be completed. In this case appropriate narrative should be included to pro ide a full understanding Of each area of activity. Reference to the O&M manual should be utilized whenever possible to avoid duplication. Hereafter, grantees should submit a preliminary Plan of Operation along with the construction plans and specifir—,Dons. This preliminary Plan of Operation should be reviewed by the State Water Pollution Control Agency concurrent.y with the review of project plans and specifications. If the plan is incomplete or in need of corrections, resolution should be accomplished in the same way that problems encountered ir, the processing of plans and specifications are now resolved. Certain information needed to complete a Plan of Operation, particularly the timing for implementing certain items, will not be known until the construction phase of the i a ` , 3 project is underway. In a preliminary Plan, therefore, it may be necessary to define implementation schedules either in terms of an estimated percent of completion of construction, or in terms of ., certain number !! 01 days before an operational start date. In fact, it may not be possible k to identify all necessary actions related to operations in the preliminary j Plan, although it should be as complete as possible. li It is not required to amend existing Step 2 ,rnd Step 3 grants to provide for preparing a preliminary Plan of Operation. t After construction of the project has begun, the preliminary Plan must be undated. A final Plan of Operation should be completed, submitted, and approved not titer tnan the date by which the 50% grant payment of a Step 3 grant is nade. It then will be available to the chief operator, who should be on board by that time. In that way, the Plan can serve as a guide to adequately prepare for ,proper start-up and operation of the treatment facility. REFERENCES PL 92-500, Section 204(a)(4) 40 CFR 35.935-12 4 i r I { r • f 4 ATTACHMENT A to PRM #77-3 Basic Considerations in the Development of a Plan of Operation for Wastewater Treatment Facilities A Plan of Operation for a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility should provide an action plan and implementation schedule to assure that all necessary actions to properly prepare for facility start-up and continued operation are accomplished in a timely fashion. The basic guidance document for the development of a Plan of Operation is Federal Guidelines - Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities, published by the EPA in August 1974. Some of the guidance neede t� o --- implement the Plan of Operation may be contained in the Operation and Maintenance (0&M) Manual prepared for the facility. Appropriate reference in the Plan of Operation to elements of the O&M Manual may suffice for describing many specific actions. However, at a minimum the Plan of Operation must ident;fy actions necessary to commence operations and contain an implementation schedule for their accomplishment. It 'is suggested that a summary of the implementation schedule be compiled on a chronological basis. This will allow easy reference on a routine basis to assure that necessary actions are initiated and completed on 'schedule. i The following very briefly identifies the scope of each of the areas that might be included in a Plan of Operation. The referenced Section numbers in parentheses rel to to appropriate sections in the Federal Guidelines identified above which contain more detailed information on eac o t. a areas. i 1 . Staffing and Trainin Section 2.0) fh'is is a particularly important element in any plan of operation to assure that supervisory, operations, maintenance, laboratory support, and administration personnel are hired and rained in a timely manner. Sources of training should be identified whenever possible. Of particular importance is the need to have the Chief Operator on site by 50% completion of construction. 2. Records, Reports, and Laboratory Control (Section 3.0j TTFe e— soab�ishment of an adequate laboratory, recoring, and reporting system should be identified, including the development of any special forms needed for reporting or process control requirements. Any special training needs d to a laboratory control program should be specified. 3. Process Control and Start-up Procedures Adequoti co sn ideratio�ant start-up is essential to assure subsequent plant operation with a minimum of problems and to set the proper framework for long-term, trouble-free, Y M p�yy. 5 t" efficient plant operation under all operating conditions. The plan should identify necessary actions related to start-up, such as wet and dry testing of equipment, instrument calibration, and a review of process control procedures during the start-up period. (For additional uidance on plant start-up, see PRM #77-2). 4. Safety (Section 5.0) Effective employee safety programs should be developed and appropriate training conducted in advance of start-up. Existing and projected state and local safety requirements should be complied with. All hazardous conditions should be appraised and appropriately considered in the inplant safety and health plan and the training program should be responsive to identified I needs ane guidance. " 5. Emer ency Operating Plan (Section 6.0) A comprehensive conting nce ynce y plan for emergency operations should be included in the plant O&M manual . This plan should be substantially implemented in advance of start-up. Appropriate instructions and specific response guidance should be issued in oroer to minimize the possibility of plant failures under all conditions that may occur. An effective emergency response ° plan requires advance training in order to be effective. 6- Maintenance Manauement (Section 1.0) A schedule for_eveloping anc( imp femenfirib a nwintenance, A management system should be included. This should consider a the need for training to operate the system and/or to der ' with complex equipment maintenance problems. Additional considerations include pe-. sonnel training, supplies of chemicals used in the treatment process or process control , laboratory supplies, :he provision of necessary maintenance tools and spare parts inventory. 1. 0 ep ratic_i and Maintenance Manual The Plan of�eraT s _ou1_d nclude sufficient lead-time for the submission and review of the plant O&M manual so as to ensure that the manual is approved by the State Water Pollution Control Agency at least 30 days prior to plant start-up. The Plan of Operation should also identify future date(s) for updating the manual in order to ensure that the most effective operational guidance is provided based ur)n actual operating experience. A. Operations Budget Section 9.0) Any planning process must consider budgetary constraints on implementation and provide for a process for adequate budget controls. Consideration must be given to the development and �► 6 use of a user charge system; also to the availability of 10'% of industrial cost recovery receipts for supporting 0&M costs. 9. Other Elements Other elements should be addressed as necessary to assure timely implementation of actions related to continued efficient and reliahle operation of the facility. Actions and timing related to the deve,opment and implementation of sewer use ordinances, pretreatment ordinances, or other local rules or , regulations should also be identified. Establishment of procedures for preparing an annual O&M report should be considered for staffing, training, budget planning, maintenance, and future construction planning purposes. The following guidance is suggested for determining the adequacy of ' preliminary Plans of Operation: 1 . Descriptions and scheduling for elements 2-5 and 7 (above) should be essentially complete in ti.e preliminary Plan of Operation. The staffing plan of element 1 (above) should also be complete, but the training plan .nay be tentative. 2. Descriptions and scheduling for elements 6, 8 and 9 (above) may be tertative in the preliminary Plan of Operation. ATTACHMENT B to PRM #77-3 Sample Final Plan of Operation t I I , i f j, Q O Preface Not that this "pre- ^.e" is purely for de:: -riptive purposes in setting the stage for this eramp7.e of a Plan of Operation. it would not normally be included in an actual Plan. The frlluwing material presents one example of a final Plan of Operation prepared in conjunction with the construction of a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility. This example is based upon a hypothetical situation of a new wastewater treatment facility being constructed for tr,: City of Smithville, Pa. Smithville is a medium sized bedroom community near a large metropolitan area and has an existing secondary treatment f facility. The rew "Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility" is being constructed to provide treatment of wastes from a previously unsewered area recently annexed by the City, an industrial park constructed for ' right manufacturing industry, and housing in the same general area, and , to procioe treatment of some wastes from the prese-tly overloaded t t. facilities. The existing facility will continue to provide treatment to the older part of Smithville. The new facility is in a size range of 5-10 mctd. The project has followed a normal procedure under the construction grant program of PL 92-500. A "preliminary" Plan of Operation would be submitted . ,J th the plans and specifications at the completion of the Step 2 facility design stage. It would differ from this example of a "final" Plan of Operation in that specific dates would not be shown because a construction ¢ timeframe has not been established. Instead; implementati3n could be shown either as an estimate of the percent completion of construction, or as a certain number of days before an operational start date. Also, it may not be possible to identify all necessary actions related to operations in the preliminary Plan, although it should be as -nmplete as possible. This example Plan of Operation is not intended as a rigid guide. Obviou=ly, the size, compiuxity, and type of facility, as well as other factors, such as whether the facility is new or an expansion or dification of an existing facility, will influence the extent of information required in the Plan of Operation. It is important, however, that each of the areas illustrated in the example be considered in the Plan of Operation for any project to assure that all potential needs have been addressed. - As can be seen, the intent of the Plan of Operation is clearly to provide a simple, straightforwaru means of identification of an implementation plan for those action items essential to successful start-up and cont,..,.ed operction of the treatment facility. MPF , 1 4 I III'Jill 9 Introduction This plan of operation provides an identification of needed actions and. an implerrentation schedule for their comple,:ion to assure timely start- up and efficient operation of the new Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility now under construction in the City of Smithville, Pa. Construction of this facility began in May 1975 and is scheduled to be complete in June 1978. Adherence to the schedule contained in this Plan of Operation will help assure that start-up of the facility can be accomplished in it timely and efficient manner. Many of the details related to necessary actions identified in this plan of operation are fully discusseO in the Operation and Maintenance Manual being prepared for this facility. Reference to sections of that manual are included where appropriate to avoid repetition. A copy of the draft 0&M manual is provided with this plan to provide necessary back-up information. ? i, c 5 10 t •' 1 . Summary of Implementation Dai -s The implementation dates of the follmaing sections are arrayed below in chronological order to allow rapid ioentification of action items related completion dates. Frequent reference to this listing will held, -id the possibility of omission or slippage of key actions necessary fog iccessful plant start-up and continued operation. Plan of Operation to Date Action Section Reference M.)y 1975 Start construction of treatment facility July 1"%5 Promulgate new sewer use ordinance to 10(a) accomodate industrial discharges Promulgate industrial pretreatment 10(b) ordinance June 1976 FY 77 pre-start-up budget considerations 9 January 1977 Superintendent (Chief Operator) on Board 2(a) Complete draft of 0&M Manual Review of user charge and industrial 9 cost recovery syste! June 1977 Senior Operator on Board _ 2(c) Chief Chemist on Board FY 78 budget consideration for initial 9 operation August 1977 Begin irfluent sampling program 4(a) Begin development of d=tailed emergency 6(a) procedures plan (; i Sept. 1977 Begin development of detailed guidance 5(a) k on employee safety and related training program October 1977 Staff training schedule finalized and 2 _ approved by State January 1978 Begin development of action plan for 4(b) process control and "fine tuning" 6(t) Begin finalization of cooWrative agreements with other agencies Begin specialized training on incinerator 7(b) O&M February 1978 Shift Operators on Board 2(d) Complete details of emergency prn Ts 6(a) plan 'wu # Plan of Operation Date Action Section Reference _ t February 1978 Begin provision of laboratory supply 3(b) (continued) inventory Begin finalization of system and 4(d) procedures for notil.cation cf unusual indus''al waste discharges Begin employee training in emergency 6(c) procedures Begin training of plant personnel on 7(f) maintenance procedures Finalize 0&M Manual 8(b) i March 1978 Complete detailed guidance on employee 5(a) { safety and related training program Finalize cooperative assistance agree- 6(b) ment3 with other agencies Start review of laboratory analytical and 3(a) reporting requirements with operators j and laboratory staff Bi for 4(b) Complete development of action plan process control and "fins tuning" Start safety training program 5(b) Begin debugging of maintenance manage- 7(c) ment system computer software April 1978 Complete review of laboratory analytical 3(a) and reporting requirements with plant staff Complete inventory of laboratory supplies 3(b) Complete employee training in emergency 6(c) procedures Co ' ate spare parts inventory 7(a) Co, ete specialized training on incinerator 7(b) 1 0&M Start review of process control and 4(c) derailed start-up procedure with plant staff Begin trainim; on maintenance management 7(d) r[f system usage 8(c) . 0&M Manual approved May 1978 Complete debugging of maintenance manage- 7(c) ment system computer software Complete training on maintenance management 7(d) system usage Begin pre-start up mai• _nance schedule 7(e Maintenance crew on Board ., ,. loom a 12 Pt' of Operation Cate Action Section Reference -- r May 1978 Complete training in heavy metals analysis 3(c) (continued) Treatment facility design, construction, 3(d) operations records, and as built plans completed and on file Complete review of process control and . 4(c) detailed start-up procedures with plant staff Complete influent sampling program 4(a) Finalize system and procedures for 4(d) notificatio;) of unusual industrial waste discharges Complete safety training pr ram 5(b) s June 1978 Complete wet and dry testing of all 4(e) equipment Complete construction of treatment facility f (Facility ready for operation) Start periodic safety reviews with staff 5(c) Complete training of plant personnel 7(f) on maintenance procedures June 1979 Conduct first annual plant safety review 5(d) and modify safety program, if necessary Initiate annual emergency procedures 6(d) update and employee training program 8(d) Update 0&M Manual Complete first annual treatment system O&ti 10(c) report r 1 2. Staffing and Training t The recommended staffing complement and a suggested organizational € chart is included in Section of the O&M manual . In accordance with EPA guidelines, the chief operator of the facility should be on board at the 50% completion point of the construction phase of the project. The City has been notified of this requirement, and recruitment actions will begin soon. In order to assure adequate time for familiarization with the new facility and to adequately prepare for start-up, the staff of the facility should be hired in accordance with the following schedule: a. Superintendent (Chief Operator) on Board- January 1977 b. Senior Operator on Board- June 1977 c. Chief Chemist on Board- June 1977 d. Shift Ope-ators on Board- February 197R e. Maintenance Crew on Board- Flay 1978 ( T t i r x w. .. 3 As each of the personnel are located and hired, training needs must be identified in cooperation with the State Water Pollution Control Agency. A training schedule should be finalised no later than October 1977. It is anticrp tead that additional training in activated sludge process control will be needed for this new facility and consideration should be given to the training courses available through the Smith County Community College. Certain specialized training needs have been identified for this new facility and are discussed as appropriate in other sections of this plan. 3. Records, Reports and Laboratory Control Examples of daily log sheets. State reporting forms , and self- monitoring report forms to comply with NPDES permit requirements are included in Section of the C&M manual . No special reporting require- ments have been idenC- fied; however, certain heavy metals analysis must be included due to anticipated discharges from the Westside Industrial Park to be served by this facility. Start date Completion date a. Conduct review of laboratory March 1978 April 1978 analytical and reporting require- ments with operators and laboratory staff b. Provide inventory of laboratory Feb. 1978 April 1978 supplies C. Complete training in heavy metals May 1978 analysis (identify source of training) d. Treatment facility design, May 1978 construction, operation records, and as built plans completed and on file in superintendent's office 4. Process Control and Start-up Procedures Process control and start-up procedures are detailed in Sections and , respectively, of the 0&M manual . Implementation of the actions identified in those sections should occr in accordance with the following. schedule: Start date Completion date a. Begin sampling program to define Augist 1977 stay 1978 plant influent characteristics 14 Start Date Completion Date b. Develop action plan fir process Jan. 197E March 1978 control and "-fine tuning" C. Review process control and detailed April 1978 May 1978 start-up procedures with plant operations and laboratory staff d. Finalize system and procedures Feb. 1978 May 1978 for notification of unusual industrial waste discharges e. Complete wet and dry testing of June 1978 all equipment 5. Safety The need and specifics of a safety program for this facility are detailed in Sec ion of the O&M manual . Activities related to safety should be ,Tylementedin accordance with the following schedule: Start Date Completion Date a. Develop detailed guidance on employee Sept. 1977 March 1978 safety and related training program b. Conduct training program for all plant March 1978 May 1978 staff prior to start-up C. Start periodic safety reviews with June 1978 staff d. Conduct first annual plant safety June 1979 review and modify safety program if necessary B 2r3ef"Y-Sicerating Plan Detailed emergency operating procedures are outlined in Section _J of the 0&M manual . To assure success of these procedures during an emergency, the following actions should be taken: Start Date Completion Date a. Develop details of emergency August 1977 February 1978 procedures plan including personnel assignments b. Finalize cooperative assistance Jan. 1978 March 1978 K agre-nents with other agencies s � R t` 15 Start Date Cc.. pletion Date C. Pre-start-up employee training Feb. 1978 April 1978 d. Initiate annuel procedures update June and employee training program 7, Maintenance Management 'pie maintenance management system for this facility is outlined in Section of the 0&M manual . The maintenance management system will utilize the City' s computer capability to provide rou+ ne schedulirg o preventive maintenance activities, spare parts inventory control , and records of running time and reliability of performance. To successfully implement this maintenance management system, the following actions must be taken: Start Date Completion Date a. Complete spare parts inventory April 1978 including necessary tools b. Conduct specialized training on Jan. 1978 April• 1978 incinerator operation and maintenance by equipment supplier c. Debugging of computer software March 1978 May 1978 by subcontractor d. Conduct training on system usage April 1978 May 1978 by subcontractor e. Begin pre-start-up maintenance schedule May 1978 f. Provide training of plant personnel on Feb. 1978 June 1978 maintenance procedures 8. gyration ani1 Maintenance Manual The operation and maintenance manual should be 'rafter, finalized, approved, and updated in accordance with the following schedule: a. Drafted January 1977 b. Finalized February 1978 C. Approved April 1978 d. Updated based on first year of operating June 1979 experience 9. OEerations Budget This facility is scheduled to begin operation in June 1978. Since " the hiring and training of persornel should begin in January 1977, route * Daie . L ---p TO: W. Gonnason J . Williams _ D. Bennet; V R. Nelson D. Miller % Cheryl ' R. Houghton Alice M. "I'ouma ~— OthVV FROM: V4nee- "e W . RE : — Review and report back . See me . Route and return. Prepare response for my signature . Take appropriate action . P�gpare special report . •—j, a/t up meet ing. or your information. File . REMARKS : awrzr..: . .meye+r.a..�o.�. wr�..+a-ate., ,.:.::.. . .•� a U. S. ENVIRONMENrAL PROTECTION AGENCY J,1ZEo Stq,Fs REGION X ?` A �i> 1209 SIXTH AVENUE 5 � 51ATTLF, WASHINGTON 98101 RLICLIVEU CITY CF RENTC N IILPLY TO PUBLIC WOAwi ATIN OF- May 5, 1977 4 Mr. Joseph W. Henry Soil Conservationist Soil Conservation Service Professional Building 35 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Re: C-530591 City of Renton Jones Avenue Interceptor Dear Mr. Henry: ThE, City of Renton and King County Water District No. 10' :ave submitted to our office an environmental assessment for constructing an interceptor along .Tones Avenue. The Jones Avenue Interceptor Sewer will begin at Metro's sewer manhole at Jones Avenue N.E. and N.E. 40th Street and proceed in a northerly directiun to S.E. 76th Street. Would you olease review the enclosed maps of the project and let iTle know if there are any prime or unique farm lands that would be impacted by this p eject. If you have any questions concerning this project please call me at 885-1.900. Sincerely, CECIL D. GUtROLL Projects Officer Washington Operations Office cc: Marl Premo, Departnent of Ecology, Rc-Imond Warren C. Gonnason, Director of Public Works, City of Renton r2*5 OF RE'N ci ZS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ►�— i. ra DESIGN ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2631 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE $O. MENTON.WA. 99M P �'to SEP, I CHARLES J DELAURENTI April 27, 1977 f MAYOR I F 1 i Department of Ecology 4350 150th Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 p Subject: Jones Ave. N.E. Interceptor l Project #C-53059-01 ` Att-ntlon: Nark Primo i Gentlemen: Please find enclosed herewith the May 1977 >ubmittal for steps I , Ii rnd III for grant funding for the above project. Also find enclosed Draft EIS; Plan of Study and FaclIity Plan; User Ordinances; Charges and Cost Recovery; Certificate as to Title to Project Site; Contract j Plans and Specifications, and, EPA Form #5700-32 and EPA 57U0-8. We wish to remind you that the EPA forms #4700-4 and #4700-1 you already have (copies are Included) . Your prompt attention Is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yobrs, i Yarran C. Gonnason, P.E. Public Works Director RCH:pmp Enclosures i 6 I I t� OV RF'4 4 6 ,� j PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT C DESIGN ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2631 its p MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON, WA. 98055 4001f o , e t tto SEPIt CHARLES 1 DELAURENTI April 27, 1977 MAYOR s Department of Ecology 4350 150th Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Subject: Jones Ave. N.E. Interceptor Project #C-53059-01 j Attention: Hark orimo i n �j Gentlemen: Please find enclosed herewith the May 1977 submittal for steps I , II and III for grant funding for the above project. Also find enclosed Draft EIS; Plan of Study and Feel Iity Plan; User Ordinances; Charges and Cost Recovery; Certificate as to Title to Project Site; Contract Plans and 'peclfications, and, EPA Form #5700-32 and EPA 5700-8. We wish to remind you that the EPA `arms #4700-4 and #4700-1 you already have (cop'ms are Included) . Your prompt atter oreciated. if ynu have any questions, please contact ou Very truly yours, Warren C. Gonrr -on, P.E. Public Works Dire-tor RCH:pmp Enclosures i # S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPON EN E #1 TO EPA/DUE GRANT 7X 1 M 0 OV Rp1 �& PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DESIGN ENGINEERING DIVISION • 235-2631 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO RENTON. WA. 98055 q, E'p SEPSE�� CHARLES J DELAURENTI April 27, 1977 MAYOR Department of Ecology 4350 150th Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Subject: Jones Ave. N.E. Interceptor Project NC-53059-01 Attention: Mark Primo E Gentlemen: Please find enclosed herewith the May 1977 submittal for steps I , II and III for grant funding for the above project. Also find enclosed Draft EIS ; Plan of Study and Facility Plan; User Ordinances; Charges and Cost Recovery; Certificate as to Title to Project Site; Contract Plans and Specifications, and, EPA Form #5700-32 and EPA 5700-8. We wish to remind you that the EPA forms #4700-4 and #4700-1 you already have (copies are included) . Your prc-Ipt attention is appreciated. If you have any questions, . . please ctintact our office. Very truly yours, i E Warren C. Gonnason, P.E. Public Works Director RCH:pmp Enclosures CERTIFICATE AS TO TITLE TO PROJECT SITE Project No. C-53059_01 Lawrence J. Warren Attorney at Law, representing the City of Renton as title counsel , do hereby certify: 1 . That 1 have Invf4stlgated and ascertained the location of, and am familiar with the legal description of the site or sites being provided by the Applicant for all elements (including interceptors, outfalls, treatment plants, and appurte- nances) of the Water Pollution Control facilities In Its Federal aid project under Section 6 of the Public law 95-200, as amended, Identified as Project No. C-53059-01 , to be constructed, operated, and mal.italned In and upon such site or sites. 2. That I have exam'ned the deed records of the county or ccuntles in which such project Is to be located and, In my opinion, the Applicant has a legal and valid fee simple title or such other estate or Interest in the site of the project, Including necessary easements and right-of-way sufficient to assure undisturbed use and poss©,slon for the purposes of construction and operation for the estimated lite or the project; and In the case of projects serving more than one municipality, that the participating communities have such interests or rights sufficient to as- sure their undisturbed utilization of the project for the estimated life of the project. 3. That any deeds or documents required to be recorded in orde- to protect the title of the owner and the Interest of the Applicant has been duly recorded and filed for record wherever necessary. 4. Remarks: Dated this 29th day of April // 197j_ p�rney at Lawat Law 100 2nd Ave. Address Renton, WA 98055 City and State CG-39 CERTIFICATE AS TO TITLE TO PROJECT SITE Project No. C-53059-01 Lawrence J. Warren Attorney at Law, representing the City of Renton as title counsel , do hereby certify: } I . That I have Investigated and ascertained the location of, and am familiar with the legal description of the site or sites being provided by the Applicant for all elements ( including Interceptors, outfalls, treatment plants, and appurte- nances) of the Water Pollution Control facilities in Its Federal aid project under '•ection 6 of the Public Law 95-200, as amended, identlfloo as Project No. C-53059-01 to be constructed, operated, and maintained in and upon such site or sites. 2. That I have examined the deed records of the county or counties in which suih project is to be located and, In my opinion, the Applicant has a legal and valid fee simple title or such other estate or Interest In the site of the project, Including necessary easements and right-of-way sufficient ro assure undisturbed use and possession for the purposes of construction and operation for the estimated life of the project; and in the case of projects serving m+-e than one municipality, that the participating communities have such Interests or rights sufficient to as- sure their und!sturbed utilization of the project for the estimated life of the project. 3. That any deeds or documents required to be recorded in order to protect the title of the owner and the Interest of the Applicant has been duly recorded and filed for record wherever necessary. 4. Pemarks: Dated this 29th day of April K' At ortev at Lew 100 2nd Ave. Addrose. _ - Renton, WA 98055 City and State CG-39 1 Y i AGENDA ITEM OF R�,, C, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VWIRREN C GONNASON, P.F • DIRECTOR �. MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. $O. RENTON,WASH.BBNBa • taa 236•7500 v ,"ED SEPIE# CHARLES J DEIAURENTI MAVOR March 23 , 1977 t Honorable Charles Delaurenti , Mayor Members of the City Council Re : Sanitary Sewers , Jones Avenue NE Trunk Dear Mayor Delaurenti and Council Members : The Public Works Department is preparing the final grant E documents for grant funding award for the Jones Avenue NE trunk sewer. The regulations of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department of Ecology , as grant funding agencies , require City Council concurrence with the findings of the final grant documents . The complete series of grant documents includes : the Plan of Study , Facility Plan , User Charges and Cost Recovery, together .pith several other documents . In essence these reports recommend the installa- tion of the Jones Avenue NE trunk sanitary sewer from NE 40th Street to SE 7bth Street with a capacity of 1 . 21 million gallons per day , and imposition upon special classes of industrial users an industrial waste surcharge, as directed by City ordinance and Federal law. City council concurrence is hereby requested in order to make final grant submittal to the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency for grant funding of the Jones Avenue NE sanitary sewer project. Sincerely , , Warren C. Gonnason , P.E. Public Works Director Ll cah cc : R. Houghton ;�� I i 1 1 t e * Date 7-1-77 _ ^ O her D. Bennett R. Puhlch R. Houghton Tr J.Cheryl _ t Y. Lee Cheryl D. Miller 0 N."Nelson f RUN: rtRRAX 4tXNAiOM 1 � c7 tUWlCf: _ Review and report be,A —_ $oe m.. Rout@ and return. prepare poop*,*• for my eieneamee. rage appropriate oetion, Irepar. Spatial "Port. '.Set ap m.a imy. t✓ For poor information. Fite. RRMAR CS: * 9 ` 1 1 'I i d T + a. *, �MyW"b- YiMWi.Ya• ,r..r+Pr:a.xY+rtrveo-_.w.`M:+.w�w�wvWYF1.. • .i.. .ie... .. ..m=eii . .- a..Ff F �_I\Yht.r.x A.. n. .a .c-.v.. ♦e # �.x..t. n -n.».n - �IJ _1 KtnSu'CQUNTY 2574.027 WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 107 �.:..t., 1 It„ nvt-cts '.t:. FiELI E:RrE, WASH 98006 a PH 746-07SI .,.1, 'Apt` 10 June 30, 1977 v^ •t'• "•'Ct�GA t deportment of Ecology +50 - 15uth Avenue N.E. x " Redmond, vlA 98052 Attn: Mr. Mark Premo St-B.1F,t;';: MAY CREEK, KENNYDALE, HONEY DEW, 110TH AVENUE z.L,_ AND JONES AVUE IN ENTERCEPTORS Gentlemen: This letter, map and exhibits are in response to your request for additional information regarding the above interceptors. *�! The May Creek Drainage Basin is the last such basin dratning into Lake Washington that does not have an interceptor system to serve the bruin. The limited public sewer service systems in the basin are b..•ing ' umpod into another basin x1 by two badly overloaded lift stations. The majority ut the sewer service is the basin is by septic tank; and Play Creek is being contaminated by septic tank effluent. Several years ago the District and Metro, in a joint effort, constructed Section i• No. 1 ,1 the May Creek interceptor. This aertiun lies dormant, but will becow active with the completion of the above series of interceptors. Those inter- captors will meet many of the immediate needs df t11e basin, with the exception of lake Boren. The District is the lead agency in a joint effort with Metro and Renton for the May Creek, Kennydale, Honey Dew and 110th .Avenue S.E. interceptors. Renton is the lead agency in a joint effort with the DI%Lrict for the Jon Avenue Inter- ceptor. Renton has a number of ULTD'a being processed in the Honey Dew and Kennydale areas, and both Renton and the District have UID's formed and ready to go to the Jones Avenue area. Enclosed is a map with exhibits showing the status of known septic tank failures. t " City of Renton records indicate 28 septic tank failures. There are 102 recorded ' m/ '�XM1+9'�. ._;�, �,, . . .. A'N^'^MFMlBir'aarr+sa�rw►r�4✓te4M'wMMYBA F v � June +0, 1977 Dept. of Ecology Page 2 instances of septic tank failures in the Honey Dew area. There are 72 recorded septic tank failures in the area served by the May Creek interceptor, of. which . LID No. 284 Is a portion. There are nine recorded septic tank failures and threw refusals of building permits in the Hemmingsen's Terrace area which has t.,sulted in the formation of ULID No. 5-S. No doubt, there are many more un- recorded failure+ since public agency knowledge results in "red carding" for nonoccupancy. This circumstance.creates an atmosphere of unrecorded individual repairs to prevent the inconvenience and financial loss of nonoccupancy. No building permits are being issued in the Sierra Heights No. 5 subdivision of approximately 100 lots, although streets and water systems are constructed. This division would be served by the HoneII Dew Interceptor. Further, no building permits are being granted in the LID No. 28.. and ULID No. 5-S areas because of poor soils conditions. , Benton's Honey Creek Lift Station (L.S. No. 1) and Sunset and Union Lift Station O .S. No. 2) are badly overloaded and discharge into an adjacent basin. Both stations are in need of equipment replacement and enlarging. The install- atior of the Honey Dew Interceptor would eliminate the need for these stations. The close proximity of two ends of the proposed Kenoydale Interceptor to other pc tione ct the orunosed interceptor svvtem is the result of local topography panbl—s tht ts ,lo., : 1p ,.a .n r, , It i 'tro vatem to the . iterceptcr SN-Atam . a ahow.t it. Rxh tit No. I. A comparison of the equivalent annual cost in the Year 2000 of Alternative "1-A" and "3-B" results in their cost effectiveness to be nearly identical considering the accuracy of the cost estimates of cot,struction .utd maintenance and operation costs. However, if consideration to given to the 50-year useful life of the facility, it becomes apparent that a substantial difference will occur. Alternate "I-A" L+ a tot l gravity system whereas Alternative "3-B" contains four pump stations. Matntena ze, labor, equipment replacement and energy costs will increase Ns flows increase. Table S, Volume LV, indicates that the annual costs for Alternative "B" (3-11) to 60 perce.tt greater than for Alternative "A" (1-A) at the 50-year period. Me realize that the cost comparison as contained In Table 5 are not on the same basis aN contained in the Supplemental Report, but we believe the relationship is valid. Thv environmental Impact relationship its contained in the facilities plan some- what favors Alternative "3-B." The District 4sifeves that the long-term financial benefits or a srAvity system outweigh the small increase in environmen,�al impact. Experience with Step 1 of the May Creek Interceptor indicates that after a few years nature and proper constructlun methods eradicates the damage creased by the construction. The , eewMaas K "8C`" a ' U x June 30, 1977 �jyyy y Dept. of Ecology sh+ a rF' , Page 3 four lift stations in Alternative "3-B" would require a considerable amount of electrical energy and maintenance labor. It would appear in this period j of energy shortage that the all-gravity systar would be preferred. Ten percent matching funds for the project has been budgeted from local funds by the City of Renton and Metro. Water District No. 107 would provide such funds through the issuing of revenue bonds. ' M Very truly yours, + �' RING COUNf4 WATER DISTRICT MO. 101 n . Henry F. McCullough, Pretid Board of Cosissioners JRW:HFMc:jad ; Enclosures cc:w/ancl: Warren Gcnnason-Renton <Jj Metro-Dick Hibbard EPA-Cecil Carroll 4 i DOB-John Spencer �y y U• Y «3j t fF Wy 1" qp Area I This area is partially served by sanitary sewers, the effluent of which is pumped by two lift stations into an adjoining drainage basin. f one of the features of the Honey Dew Interceptor is the elimination of the two sewage lift stations. These stations were designed as temporary units .and were to be eliminated in 3 to 5 years from the time they were. constructed. The Honey Creek Station (L.S. #1) serves about 25 homes and has an overflow directly to Honey Creek. This station broke down on September 1, 1976. Fortunately no overflow was experienced. This station has boon in operation 8 years and is approaching the time when major replacement will be necessary. The second station at Sunset and Union (132nd Avenue. S.E.) war, orig %ally con- structed to serve a plat of 86 homes. The nixed for service in this basin was so great that the station now serves about 375 homes, 3 apartment complexes with a tutal of 466 units, a shopping center, a high school and two grade schools. This station hss been expanded to ultimate capacity. Without major replacement, the capacity of this station cannot be increased. This station pumps into an adjoining basin and increasing the capacity of the station is impractical since the capacity of the other basin's downstream system has already been reached. That downstream system was constructed in the 1940's to serve war housing for Hoeing workers and the system is ovorloadod. To increase the capacity of the downstream system would require the reconstruction of approximately two miles of trunk sewer through in area that is completely developed. Not only would the cost be ext:emoly high, but disruption to the neighborhood and businesses would be extreme. This station has been in operation 14 years, which is far longer than was anticipated when it was con- structed. The motors and impellers have boon replaced once and no doubt with its age and the use that is received, breakdowns will occur and major repairs will be necessary. By construction of the May Creek-Honey Dew interceptors, these stations can be eliminated and the downstream system's capacity can be utilized by the basin it serves. X Area II This area will be served by the proposed Kennydale Interceptor. This area S is sparsely served by existing sanitary sewers. Records of the City of Renton Building Department show 28 septic tank failures in the area. The attached Exhibit No. 1 shows the location of those failures. Area III This area consists of all of Section 4 and the west half of Section 3. This s aria would be served by the proposed Honey Dew Interceptor. Records of the Seattle-King County Department of Healt.h shows that thare have been 102 septic • tank failures in Area III. (See Exhibit No. 2.) A portion of this area is currently being served by the sanitary sewers of Area I. Area ITI-A Area III-A is a sub-area within Aroa Ill and Area I nit nerved by sanitary sewers, although physically service can be provided except for lack of pump station capacity and downstream capacity of Lift Station No. 2. A letter t -om the Health Department (Exhibit No. 3) reflects the Septic tank failures in Area III-A. We are advised that 125th Avente S.E. and 124th Avenue S.E., just west of Area III-A, is completed with streets and water but building permits are being refused because of poor soils conditions. Area III-B Area III-B is a sub-area within Aran III. This IQ-lot subdivision was con- structed with dry sewers. The problem of septic tank failures was resolved by the construction of a $40,000 lift station to serve the homes. This is typical of the problems in the Honey Creek Drainage Basin. Attached are copies of letters from the Health Department and the Owners (Exhibit No. 4). AW k Area IV Area IV is an 81-lot subdivision which has been constructed with dry sewers, r but homes are being built using septic tanks .is an interim measure. I City of denten LID #284 and Water District No. 107 ULID '/5-S are to provide sanitary sewers in an area with a record of septic tank failures. Bota the LID and IR.ID are formed and awaiting only the approval of the Jones Avenue Interceptor to provide service. LID #284 is in the vicinity of May Creek with a record of 72 septic tank failures. ULID #5-S is in an area with a record of nine septic tank failures and three refusals of building permits. k r !! I L \ I ( i IRFNTON Clta uMIT C EXHIBIT NO. I d - 1 BOUNDARY IL 1 A i I , I s Y GRAPHIC SCALE LEGEND CITY OF RENTON • PROPOSED MANHOLES PROPOSED SANITARY SEWERS O PROPOSED KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR MANHOLES -- PROPOSED KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR SANITARY PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SEWERS A EXISTING MANHOLES -- - EXISTING SANITARY SEWERS MAP 3 SEPTIC TANK FAILURE ;P ,9 b ( 1 {t EXHIBIT N0. 2 Seattle-King County /DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC :'HEALTH Y Public Safety Building Seattle, Waehin yton 99104 12061 625 2161 LAWRENCE BERGNER, M.D., M.P.M. JLN 2,9 19)J Director of Public Health June 28, 1977 I John R. Wallace, Jr. Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. 1915 1st Ave. Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: May Creek Drainage Basin On-Site Sewage Problems. Dear Sir: The area of the May Creek Pasin west of 139th Ave. S.F. contains a variety of soils ranging from Shalear Muck to the Fverett Series gravel, Predominant however, are the Alderwood and Kitsap soils, neither of which are entirely adequate for on-site sewage disposal systems. Although the area is not completely or intensely developed our records indicate 174 malfuntioning drainfields with sewage discharging onto the srrface of the ground. Our records, as far as researched, also indicate several disapprovals of site applications submitted for the purpose of developing individual lots. The number of disapprovals, however, is Ito real indication of suitability for construction of houses with septic tank systems, since persons performing the soil test generally advise their clients of the lack of required soil depth or inadequate percolation rater and the applications do not reach this office. It is doubtful that any extensive development could occur on septic tanks in the subject area, although some individual lots might be found suitable. DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS: CENTRAL NORTH EAST SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST 1000 Public Safety Building 1600 N.E. 150th 15607 N L Bellevue- 3001 N E 41h St 10821 Bth Ave S.W. Seattle 98104 Seattle 98155 Redmond Road R.n10n 98055 Seattle 98146 625.2571 363.4?65 Bellevue 98008 228-2620 244-6400 885-127tl _2_ wi This department supports construction of the intertor system not only to allow naw development, but also to abate the health hazards inherent in such a large lumber of malfunctioning systems. Very truly yours, 6 William F. Liming, R.S. { Supervising Sanitarian I Environmental Health Services j Southeast District Health Center WFL/kg i +"�""••4 Seattle-Klnp County/DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ' Public Safety Building Seattle, Washington 08104 (aoa) ee3-�sso I LAWR[NCE BERGNER• M.D., M.P.N. February 21,, 1976 EXHIBIT N0. 3 Director of Public Neagh RECEIVED FEB 24 1976 i Gary Kruger) Senior PYinner CITY or ReNTON Renton Planning Department PUBLIC woRa9 1 Renton City Hall 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Prorosed Sierra Heights Annexation i Dear Mr. Kruger: Tn regard to your letter rsnuestinF information on sewage dispnsal systems in the subject area, this department made a rirvey on Feb- ruary 23, 1976. A man showing the results o° this survey is enclosed. Out of one hundred and fifty-five (155N systems surveyed there were thirty-one ( 31) failures ac-' twenty-two (22) probable failures. Fifty-three (531 confirmed and probable fAllure, out of one hundred and fifty-five systems rep-esents a serious potential health hazard. Sanitary sewers are very b�ad4 needed Around SF 103rd and R5 IOLt� , and would be r great Tenefit to the w'tf`le area. BCry tr=1y yours, i Liam P. Lienine Sur,ervislnF, Sanitarian Division of Environmental Health Southeast District •'ealth Center PH;ct Enc. cc: Warren Gonnason, Director, Renton Public Vorlks Department DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS: NORTH . EAST SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST tORll Oth Av.now 30uthvw.t 1a00 N.C.150M 1Redmond R0.0 aellevW- Renton AR063Jt Swnttlw HaleO ..n HPw La167 ._. . �.^,• • xl -- -�� -♦. ,. - . ST. " .1 1 TWP 23 RNG. 5 E.,WM. 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I EXHIBIT NO, 3 1 / NORTH se 4 / S epee- 1•• A.. jig L. 4.� a. il k 4 is 111. ST lei a,t. az, � I � _I� I�� I �t M7t ' 111. a>i • ma!! t ?' a N - �l 1J� rc • .q � i aaz . . r:v tal Qt,t esl t > /, ,, t 1�,�•; , �:.. I a VIA I�' I�t! aaa a>r Ca t+e as �;�, ltt ! f :"lt :. ," �$ � ^A ,• 1�l f 1 .; 1 a..`y-yi I o � .,1 •, !ae xao N 4 ra, a♦y �� ./D't' ? ♦ I I• N ys : ..11►9 yr -T i �. �d,';° ' T :wa :av aaa ♦z oi?it or a rr / 1N a• •4�If��, at a/,.�.� � 'i a �a '. � too Ito, V aOae: aas n ��qq I�ir f 1 I sox Q av`' :.w zrl Y tal ia♦ 1 t% �, !o sat xi< U.E O ST /. 1>. � w .elMa'Y."iy (/ 57 w`f SURVEY OF FEBRUARY 23, 1977 ° • 41 - ❑ SEPTIC TANK- DRAINFIELD FAIL 't t 1 . PROBABLE FAILURES """b• 1 ? NA NO APPARENT PROBLEM . .. .� " 1 Y♦ • 1, I r TVs ac 'o ,. ° tt``' 1 =��': I P4 9t �`s/sp sI ca • p. is i:a T. / • •1'. __.1 is 1 Z 9! Q. S T 10 1 Ix I. 14 Ic ppo POSED ' ANNEXATIO I TI T *1G L0Il S9F U L. EIVC�Ir •yJ , J -$ F. DISTRICT HEALtl CENT p t $r Iz 3001 N. E. 4th T. I y 1 Q ITUN, WASHINGTC 9801 !4 29 .: , . , I !Z BA. 8.2620 .r / � a Seattle-King County DEPARTMENT OF Pu9Lt0 F'II.:ALTH Y v Public Saf,ty Building Deattle, Washington n8104 (al,a) E93-9 tfno lAWRENCE BERONER, M.D., M.P.H, � Director of Public Health April 251, 1.973 , I EXHIBIT N0. 4 Mr, Warren Gonnason Director of Public Works 1 City of Renton 200 Poll Street South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Eastwood Park Addition Dear Sire A recent survey of the subject plat .scloeed an alarming number of septic tank failures. Only two of the ningteen existing homes appeared to be free of septic tank problems. This does constitute a threat to the health and well being of the public in this area. Wi1L your office be able to render assistance by providing sewer service? If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact fir. Bill Heaton, District Sanitarian, weekdays from 8:00 - 9:30 aaae at 228,620. Very truuly�yours, Stephan Vaeth, M.D.i Dr. P.R. District Health Officer Southeast District Health Center EC/md DISTRICT HEALTH ceN'TER3: NORTH - EAST SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST 1000 N.E.ISOth IFE07 NoHM1.n.t B.Ib"u.- 3001 N.E.Atb St. tOMW EIM1 AVenY.EeulM1wHl S..itl.1a153 OR.tlmon^R,o^tl R.nlon Na0E9 E..nl.00146 ., •`. ...". ` . / ' k.. ....... . :.:. p ./gyiuw., x r -e:ryy .;.w.�..zM+N N�m,mx .:+iW..y..�? •Ft {y"•.." q. , 1 r 5 I i LINGOLIV : FIRST FEDERAL C+ iSl W.MEERE*STIEE7 MAIEINGADDRESS:P.0.001410 F r*AV1NOe d LOAN (M1 AeeCIATION • NEW,WASNINGTON MWI•UE91CH 1.76 � (� ) aaow•wa •N.nu•[..qr� .MWarYwrrx• •Nl,avV[ •CWraf•waw7�w[uo 1 M�7.aA•Cw/Mt• March 21, 1973 � ` ;Y :. GARW D. GARRISON v - EXHIBIT NO. 4 AM. VICE rRES101NT AND MANAGER . •E Thli Honorable Avery Garrett a �~ i s . Fhvor,.of Ramon and Y Ruaton'City Council „ 200.Mill Avenue South Ran ton. Washington 98055 Re: Eastwood Park i �fyt1 1 ' Located: S. E.,•101st Place ' lying southeast`of, 138th Ave, S. F. Gentlemen: Eastwood Park was developed with dry sewers Installed with the flow to the east 0,; a • toward 138tb Avenue S. E. Our request is to activate 'thase dry severs Witt► ;4• connection to the existing homes and install a pumping aystem vith,n new 11A a �,_•1,' h r �.• 'to_pump the flow vast to City of Rentonlo ndsting newer rain.. 41A aro'ooclosing + a vacinity plan for your study, This necessity has been brought about by the failure of the esistiug septio'I systems. This condition is creating a health hazard in the 'area.•: 91aE department h, posted at least five homes and will not allow occupangT,until t sewers are in. (Homes are being posted as vacancies arise. Yw l9 Since we have ownership of four properties and are obtaining ownernhip'of three others and have mortgagee on 11 of the remaining 12 boxes, we, arty:.wil.11b4 to, +, install the system rather than having an LID. Wn understand there will be .a": late comers charge which we are willing to pay. Thin. will be,'an advanta a to t" >, the homeowners :aince we can prorate the cost over the entire,life of the�mort-. . ; AVtq* gage rather than having eny large outlay from them immediately. , As the aituation''i """ k is nowt , thers'is a burden on the homeowners beceuae 'the homes ar6 not' aalahlo in their present condition. ' W are,villing to 'abide .by all rules and regulations concerning charges and arc y father willing to rake provision for properties north and ocuth of Eastwood Park. Upon completion and inspection of this project we,arc willing to flood it over to the City of Renton. 7Ve truly yyCfs, 1 Gs D. ARRISON• � ' r Assistant Vice President GDG:cb Encl. 1 �'� .OY14YWwl. route * ate : To : D. Bennett _ J . Williams V. Lee R. Nelson D. Miller Cheryl M. 1'ouma Other _ R. Houghton From: Warren , %on Re : _ Review and report back . See me . -`_ .Route and return. ]Prepare response for my signature. lake appropriate action. Prepare special report . Set up meeting. '! For your information. File. Remarks: . . ... rat.»wf,r�'�MXtiPaMnMr.r�wHJlM1�AMtla9rlV» -.:rik1NMWN�W!iotlMY1«rwe..«er.n..w.:.w...eF..r....b..a-s._wr.....,.,w KiNd COUNTY WATER DISTRICT r R NUMBER 101 Cn �a z s ,977 5806A 119TH AVENUE S.E. BELLEVUE,WASH. 99006 • PH. 7A6-0751 �'lK�e�etf BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REPLY TO Hurry F. McCullough 77-1-35,-S Pree'dent John R. Janson Sacretary Match 23, 1917 Elmer F. Poster Mamt)er MANAGER t Sam Moen Department of Ecology 4350 150th Avenue N.E. Redmond, W: 98052 Attention: Mr. Mark Premo SUBJECT: MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN SEWER INTERCBP_TOR SYSTEM FACILITIES PLO REVIEW OF FUPPLEMENT TO VOLUME IV AND VOLUME V - GRANT NO. C-530749-01, 02 and 03 Gentlemen: This is a follow-up on our letter ,,,, February 16, 1977 in regard to the subject. Attached are various exhibits which, together with the February 16, 1977 letter, consists of a complete response to your December 21, 1976 letter on the above subject. PUBLIC HEARING a. A public hearing of the Facilities Plan was -,1 at 7:0 p.m. , February 9, - 1977. Attached is the minutes of that hearing signed by the Commissioners of Water District No. 107. b. Metro presented verbal comments at the hearing in regard to the sizing of the May Creek Interceptor. Attached are Metro's written comments dated February 23, 1977. e. Reference is made to Paragraph B of Metro's February 23, 1977 letter. Attached are responses agreeing to an allocation of capacity in the May Creek Interceptur from: aI V I 'ef i March 23, 1977 DOE Page 2 1. Water District No. 107 2. Water District No. 90 3. City of Renton The City of Renton letter also agrees to not making local connections to the May Creek Interceptor in the lower May Creek area. d. Attached is a copy of a letter dated March 9, 1977 from Metro, acknowledg- ing receipt of the above letters. SEPA The Proposed Declaration of :ion-Significance dated February 16, 1977 and accompanying Environmental Check list was distributed to interested agencies. a. Attached is a copy of the only comments received. We make the following responses! 1. It is possible that sewage may be forced out of a manhole due to a stoppage in the line. Proper maintenance should virtually eliminate this happenstance. 2. Storm water siltation controls are contained in the Plans and Specifications for the project which have bean approved by the interested agencies. A hydraulics permit for construction has been received. 3. (5a) Population growths will occur re3ardless of whether the interceptors are constructed or not. We agree that animals more tolerant of human activities will replace the existing animal. population. 4. (9b) As stated in 3 above, population will increase and consume nonrenewable resources. 5. (10) The pipe could break. Such occurrences are rare and gen- erally are in older lines constructed prior to the development of new technologies, which are presently applied to the manufac- —� _. kFc+Fpw�rs m 'r.n.t.m rr.Iwww.�+YRwwwMweae,adMwam+',nCarQ .vw.+i+w+... aw..n.r.ww..w.er..r»a:.w., March 21, 1977 4' +� DOE Page 3 tune and construction of current projects. 6. . (18) We concur. b. Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 37S adopting its Determina- tion of Non-Environmental Significance of the Community Facilities Plan for the May Creek Drainage Basin. i Storm Drainage MLna �okmeaLASregiLment Attached are copies of a Storm Drainage Management Agreement signed by: 1. King County City of Renton 3. Metro 4. King County Water District No. 1.07 The Agreement provides for the signature of the DOE. The contents of the Agreement has been reviewed and agreed upon by the DOE. Please return all but one copy after signature by the DOE. We believe that all requirements for approval of tho Facilities Plan have been submitted. We, therefore, request approval. Very truly yours, KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. )07 Henry F. McCullough, President Board of Commissioners HFMc:sh Attachments cc: Renton - .Warren Gonnason Metro - Dick Hibbard King Count.v Bill Fredericks EPA - Cecil Carroll DOE - John Spencer . - n•a.-na.WMrexerulwSSJ+e+e�raNni+ssn«m�Mi.eie4bW+.• _. _ �PW,ew#hkMeWpH ) +d ,l KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 i MINUTES OF 'n0,. PUBLIC HEARING ON CCIAANITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTE WATER TREAT'EYr imxs FOR nIE : MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN FEBRUARY 9, 1977 The public hearing of King County County Water District No. 107 was held at the District office at 5806A 119th Avenue S. E. , Bellevue, Washington February 9, 1977 at 7:00 P.M. The Public Hearing was called to order by President McCullough at 7:00 P.M. Present were Mr. .l.inson, Mr. Foster, Mr. Macri, Mr. Robbins, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Guise. Persons present at this Hearing were Mr. Warren Gonnason, repre- sentin� the City of Renton, Mrs, Dorothy Wehh, representing Overlake Realty, Arthur R. Kenyon a property owner, Steve Hanson of Moore, Wallace 5 Kennedy, Inc. , Larry Osborne of Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc . , Mark Primo of the Department of Ecology, Redmond Office, Ted Mallory, representing M1 R0, Nancy Copstiad of Wallace 6 Wheeler, Inc. , Duane and Marjorie Cederberg, property owners. Mr. Macri read the News Release Publications that were mailed to the Journal American Newspaper and the Renton Record Chronicle to he published January 8, 1977 and January 9, 1977 respectively. "A Public Hearing will be held by King County Water District No. 107 on Wednes- day, February 9, 1977 at 7:00 P.M. at the District otfice., 5806A 119th Avenue S. E. , Bellevue, Washington, on the Community Facilities Plan for Waste Water Treatment Works for the May Creek Drainage Basin. Copies of the proposed plan will be available to the public after January 24, 1977 in the office, of King County Water District No. 107 $806A 119th Ave- nue S. E. , Bellevue, Washington; in the City of Renton Public Library, 100 Cedar River Street, Renton, Washington; and at MFTRO offices at 600 1st Avenue, Seattle, Washington. The affidavits of publication, received by the District from the Daily Journal American and the Renton Record Chronicle were presented to the Board. President McCullough requested Mr. Wallace to explain to all � 1� A ll 4 177 ,i persons present the reason for this public Hearing. Mr. Wallace explained in detail, using a map with overlays to describe the alternate routing; 1-A in which the May Creek Interceptor is adjacent to Nlay Creek and Alternate 2-D that would remove the interceptor completely out of May Creek; however this alternative provides for a series of pump stations on the north side of May Creek and a series of pimp stations on the south side of May Creek and does not have any interceptor sewer in the May Creek area. The Alternate 1-A Schedule has an annual equivalent cost of $296,130.00 Alternate 2-D has an annual equivalent cost cf $46b,898.00, so there is an ohvioto substantial dollar advantage in relationship. As a result two other alternative studies were made. Alternate 3-11 eliminated the gravity sewer from 136th Avenue to the conflux of Honey Creek and May Creek and provided a gravity sewer system from Honey Creek to hInhole "B". This created the need for two lift stations to lift the sewage that would flow on the southern ridge of M.ay Creek. This alternative has an annual cost of $ 08,756.00. Alternative 3-G to Manhole "B" which would r(quire additional lift stations to handle the sew•ige and it has an annual equivalent cost of $368,337.00. Alternative 1-A will show the size of the line on the May Creek Interceptor, which is ,8" in size for the gravity line to a point up strewn from Honey Creek and 16" in size to 136th S.G. The size of this interceptor is based on the projected population to the year 2000 which is a minimum of 14,500 and a maximum of 21,000 population. This is in accordance with federal guidelines for grant funding of this project. The recommendation from Volune 5 of the Saumnary Report reads, 'A need for sanitary sewers exist in the urbanised westernmost por- tion of May Creek Drainage Basin and the Lake Kathleen area. The most serious interceptor need is in the alrea:3y urbanized northern Renton and the southern area of Water District No. 107. This area has a potential serious health hazard due to recorded failures of (2) • _ c r septic tank sewer disposal systems and as a consequence it is re- commended the interceptor sewer ling serving the Honeydew and Kenny- dale areas and the 110th Avenue S.E. north of May Creek he constructed as soon as possible and in the construction year 1977' . Mr. Wallace continued to read to the persons present the complete reconmvndatioii C as contained in Volume V ofnthe Summary Report and the tiapplement to Volume IV Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Volume V Summary Report for the May Creek Interceptor Project. Mr. Wallace concluded his pre- sentation and at this time requested that Mr. Robbins talk on the matter of the proposed Storm Drainage Management Agreement between the vatious entities. Mr. Robbins ed he could speak to the facts of the agreement, however at this .ime, he could not speak to the substance of the agreement. In a quick sun iry; the first proposal for this inter- ceptor had some objections from Quendall Terminals and the Washington Environmental Council with whom his office and the other entities involved have been negotiating for some time. Mr. Robbins stated he was pleased to report at this time a drift of an agreement has act- ually been signed by METRO and has been approved by King Counn, Water .j District No. 107, approved by the City of Renton, there are letters form Washington Environmental Council, and from counsel for Quendall `i Terminals indicating that when a formal agreement, in substantially the form that is now in existence, is executed by the various parties involved their objections will be with�'rawn. The final draft of this agreement is being re-prepared in final form for signatures of the four agencies involved. President McCullough then requested comments on this Public i Hearing from those persons present. Mr. Ted Mallory, Director of Services for MF:TRO, stated this interceptor line would be built by the District and then turned over i to 6'EM upon completion. Mr. Mallory stated METRO was dealing with three customers on tuis interceptor line; the District, the City of Renton and Water District No. 90. The design that the District is (3 4 JU proposing, Alternate 1-A, is a 20 year design and this is what he wished to speak of. Mr. Mallory stated this design is according to EPA Guidelines, however, he further understands that under EPA Guide- lines would have permitted more than a 20 year design in situations where future construction would have severe environmental impacts. Fie also stated that METRO is committed, under contract, to accept all the flows that the agencies would generate and, is pointed out in the Supplement to Volume IV and Volume V, that the ultimate population would require a 24" pipe and ME.ITO ;,ould very likely, in the future, have :o parallel the proposed 18" pipe, at least from 136th S.E. to Manhole "B". The problem he sees is an extremely severe environmental disruption in attempting to parallel an existing q Al t lire in the year 2000. Mr. Mallory stated if it were poss'ble, as a result of this Public Hearing, to recognize this and allow for an increase in pipe size without carrying the process further he would i request that very serious consideration be given If this is not ipossible, then on MKW's behalf, the amount of sewage delivered to C j the interceptor by King County Water District No. 107 and Renton may have to he allocated, and that there be no connections of any kind in the valley floor between 136th S.E. and Manhole "B". , ?fir. Warren Gonnason stated that the City of Rento» needed this interceptor line very badly. They already have'l..I.D. init- ations in the Kennydale area and they are very strongly suppor- tive of this program. The City of Renton is willing to enter into the Storm Water Management Agreement which would mitigate the Environmental Impacts of development within the area to con- trol she storm water flows as a result of future developments. Mr. Gormason was not so much concer I with the size of the pips as their concerns were that they immediatel, proceed with the project that will handle the present problems within the City of Renton and they are not concerned with the year 2000. They would be willing to enter into a restrictive agreement with METRO that I i� (4) '_• w �f Y Renton would not hold them to the requirement to increase the size of the line if it would not be possible to install a 24" line. Mr. Cederberg stated he owns property where the 110th Avenue Interceptor will be constructed and was wondering how much money it would cost and where it would cam= from. Mr. Wallace explained the funding for the interceptors by stating 75% of the funds would cane from the Federal Government, IS% would be State Matching Funds, and 108 from various agencie,. A U.L.I.D, petition would have to be initiated by the people in this area that could receive service to this interceptor when they wanted sewer service this would be on a 100% asse<sment basis and these costs would be borne by the people within the U.L.I.D. boundaries. METRD would provide the -i 10% matching find for the May Creek Interceptor. - 1 At this time President wCullough asked the persons present Y. if there were any further questions. As there were not, President A DL-Cullough adjourned the Public: Bearing at 8:05 P.M. by si end j '�rtry ..0 oug by* njc_ reetary by 11Aer F. Foster, C mnlssioner I 1 �5� F A\ �1& E 1}41 mE"rRo � municipality of metropolitan Seattle Z i �dlrJpTl Covnc.no i Febz _ary 23, 1977 C.."... C.C.K.Dm»r %," AUBURN Bard of Commissioners s......P.KK\.• King County Water District No. 107 BEILEVUE 5606A - 119cn Avenue S.E. , N.«..11M . Bellevue, Washington 98006 M.F.(...c)V. .. KENT Gentlemen: 1\.u.Nx•» KIRKLAND May Creek Interceptor Rout/1. N.n MERCER ISLAND At the February 9 hearing for the May Creek Inter- •.....D..,..A. ceptor project, I prevented the continuing concerns RfVMOND by Metro on the proposed eighteen inch pipe size for a.....»L.Ism.) .°«»° the May Creek Interceptor. I was asked to furnish RENTON our comments in writing regarding this project. C»•KK D...VKrn SEAT.IE An eighteen inch facility in our opinion does not w..v»....» reflect current planning requirements and offers the c.°.•.R.»,°» likelihood of future and unnecessary environmental and LM Wu ".,K•...•. construction costs. Metro's original comprehensive plan, w..»•D.I...,» the "Metropol,* tan Seattle Sewerage and Drainage Survey" ""'" M""' completed in 1958, indicated that the May Creek Inter- ceptor should be a twenty-four inch pipe from its '• »""'"""•"' connection with the East Side Interceptor to as far OTHER CITIES east as SE 96th St. and 148th Ave. SE. A pipe size t°"••°"'•"°" greater than eighteen inches for development beyond KINGS :TY the year 2000 is further substantiated by the recently ,..«D -»•» completed RIBCO study which utilized the currently R.,.."= R»..c»a» available demographic data. The reduction in pipe size from twenty-four to eighteen F s year inches, based on a 20 Y design n life i apparently n.c.,.o...« PParentl R,.. R..+. the result of federal regulations limiting the design ''•""'sr"" period. These regulations are often contradictory UNINCORPORATED and are currently being revised. For instance, the Federal Register dated February 4, 1977 published R....F,.., proposed regulations that extend the design period °»«F........I., for interceptors tc 40 years. Since the population F.w N...N6,.- ,,..s».».» pro'iection for the current alternative indicate A D' " °p•'"'"° °" eighteen inches would be adequate for approximately 20 - 25 years, we must assume that Metro would be SEWER DISTRICTS subsequently required to provide a parallel sewer if M•»•a.o K,C»o.n increased service requirements developed. fuwrrv.Dmvw R-c....5,F•K Pioneer Building 600 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 96104 447-6666 f . F . e•>, yam, M d ._ re 9 Board of Commissioners February 23, 1977 Page Two That result appears to be unwise for two reasons: First, the environmental impact of constructing a parallel interceptor at some future time in an extremely confined canyon, in a county park and along an important fisheries stream is unacceptable to many citizens and agencies because of unnecessary future construction impacts; and the additional costs now for a larger pipe size is insignificant compared to future environmental impacts. Comments have been received from King County Parks, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Game, all indicating that the construction of the twenty-four rather than an eighteen inch pipe would be to the best interest of the public rather than the risk of constructing a future parallel interceptor. Secondly, assuming that some relief facility would be required after 20 - 25 years, the public will have to pay more and it is uncertain at this point whether there will be available funding. Based on current experience, serious water quality problems could develop before a relief facility were funded and constructed. Finally, certain design and servLce limits will be required if the line is eighteen inches to insure it is used at its maximum capacity and retains its integrity. th A. he pipe must be lightweight, high strength pipe and smooth so to prevent blockages such as pvc. The reason for this is that with approximately twelve crossings of May Creek, it is mandatory to have a strong, pressure type joint pipe to insure against infiltration or exfiltration. The pipe must be lightweight to minimize construction impact initially and to facilitate repair or replacement of segments in the future if required. The interior joints must be as smooth as is obtainable to minimize the potential for stoppages in a line this small. Our experience on a similar steep gradient above I the Cedar River Crossing at the Maplewood Golf Course with stoppages by those kinds of objects that can be introduced through manholes would lead us in this case to specify as smooth an interior configuration as is obtainable with a pipe size consistent with the size of manhole openings. i }p 4 1 Board of Commissioners February 23 , 1977 ; Page Three B. Local connections would be prohibited downstream from the Honey Dew Conne• Yion in order to temporarily extend the life of the i terceptor \intil a relief facility could be constructed. In addition to the abo\• concerns, there could be future , confusion concerning i . .xpretation of Metro's sewage disposa ' agreements with the three local agencies in the May Creek Basin, ie. Water District 107 , Water District 90 and the City of Renton. These agreements require that Metro accepts all of the sewage and industrial waste collected by these agencies when Metro facilities are available. At this point, Metro could not guarantee the availability of any relief facility once the lines capacity has been reached. The regulation to limit pipe size in this unique situation appears unwise at this time given the changing EPA regula- tion on design life and anticipated, additional environ- mental and construction costs. Because of these concerns, Metro has only relunctantly acquisced to the smaller size when it appeared this was required to ensure federal funding for the project. If the District feels the urgency to proceed tinder the circumstances, Metro will continue to support the project to ensure federal funding, and if the service restrictions are acceptable to the local sewerage agencies. However, all parties concerned are urged to reevaluate the long term implication of a smaller pipe size as outlined above. Very truly yours, Theodore W. Mallory Director of Technical Services TWM:rhl cc: Department of Ecology Environmental Protection Agency City of Renton Water District 90 VI WA M 1 ... METRO municipality of metropolitan seattle February 25, 1977 Ma'lo�Jol,(in Council C.dnr p"wwenx AUBURN Water District 107 Sa«.n E.K•n.+ 5806A - 119th Avenue S.E. BELLEVUE Bellevue, Washington 98006 N.xcr Klux• M.7.CM•c)V.xu KENT Gentlemen: r,.•a.Noe•x KIRKLAND "'•"" ""' Recently Metro has expressed some concern MERCER ISLAND regarding the possibility of not being able A•••••GAv11,J•, to accept all of the sewage and industrial waste REDh1OND tributary to May Creek Interceptor. As a condition S..vr,w L I6V9I Yar«. of` endorsement of the project, Metro has stated RENTON that flow restrictions will. be required fur the c«.....G...«..w•1 interceptor. As an alternative to Metro unilaterally SEATTLE imposing flow restrictions, we met with your engineers W"U•AAAA„ on February 24, and developed the following alternative. G.e•a K.w1ow tl•A/xu ►•V1K•"'"` Metro will prepare an acceptable `low allocation '""""` x x'•' formula based upon the best avai .u.J1e population W+x.D.lwal« Je•w" M•A•• prediction for the May Creek Basin. This formula •v. K.xer K ... {1M SMI,M will be prepared as soon as possible and presented J••w�•••WA•1•"' to you in the form of a supplemental or letter OTHER CITIES agreement. lwA.e W.^ew KING COUNTY It will probably take three or four months to prepare Je•wo.T....... this proposal. Therefore, in order to meet the K..'K.a.. K..vs'c - critical deadline established by the Department o K.K.CKe. a.D... Ecology for this project, we are asking for your Mu,levx• acceptance of this procedure by signing the attached D.r•M]e"•• copy of this letter. J•a,J.ov+.. Kn.K.. • K„„„,3+„„ Very truly yours, UNINCORPORATED AREAS we..l•h..ecx „,,, J Richard L. Flibbar �.u. N•x..a+.1.'•. f/ Jx.SxA«.w •.pAx We.rxlwe•o« RLH:pl Attachment APPROVED B . SEWER DISTRICTS cc: Mr. John Wallace. DATE: lnauov,Paco• K„w••e3 Kw Pioneer Building 600 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 08104 4477-6666 a a -. �Milww.we.,.a,+;a+, ,.o .._.wur...m. ,. a+�.u.•r.,ww�x-x¢zemea+cww w-•:.mrm^tewwtesa�. �,...al.._.a.. .,A,.. _ — , -mw<ea+v...".m nb.� nETR0 muunicipality of metropolitan aenttle Mebopnldnn February 25, 1977 council C..,.r.. C.C....W---,w AUBURN Water District 107 P.R.u.. 5806A - 119th Avenue S.E. BELLEVUE Bellevue, Washington 98006 M.K.RIMY _ r ' KENT Gentlemen: KIRKLAND L' M'r Recently Metro has expressed some concern z MERCER ISLAND regarding the possibility of not being able to accept all of the sewage and industrial waste REDMOND tributary to May Creek Interceptor. As a condition �••^•T.(w•)"•""• of endorseziant of the project, Metro has stated RENTON that flow restrictions will be required for the Cw�iiOi'°•'" interceptor. As an alternative to Metro unilaterally SEATTLE imposing flow restrictions, we met wit` your engineers w••O on February 24r and developed the following alternative. e••.••MwN. Ur Wa\ '•°`""""" Metro will prepare an acceptable flow allocation ►...\r�.r.w... w.-..o.�.... formula based upon the best available population A•"' M" prediction for the May Creek Basin. This formula R.r Srl.w will be prepared as BOOn as possible and presented J.."•.nw^"""' to you in the form of a supplemental or letter - OTHER CITIES agreement. a `W.N W.aw KINGCOUNTY It will probably take three or four months to prepare J•"B "• this proposal. Therefore, in order to meet the ►.W R.Nw .•..w•" critical deadline established by the Department of' e•'•' ' b "" Ecology for this project, we Fee asking for your acceptance of this procedure by signing the attached e""J"""'• copy of this letter. T..,•J.o... 4 M\R•.r. 1 R••we.R".- Very truly yours, UNINCORPORATEDAREAS •. i1W+••Rw\x+ Rwu ba.. le•.1►•W.ur,,.. Richard L. Hibbard pw N•w•.n,h J1r ." ter. 1 A.0••M WN..~w RLN:pl GS SEWER DISTRICTS Attachment APPROVED BY: GCs�f� Mw.N•`C..• cc: Mr. John W:alace DATE: Z i�q.LG�� �/.077 E•KV".W OrMM )C,C2 RMYN S.►Y. • Pioneer Building • eW First Avenue Seattle Washington 28104 •_447-eee8 :': St-aM'bNwlusn.wgww. of RFl �~ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT J % 1. xa. UTILITY ENGINEERING DIVISION e 235-2631 0 J13 a O9ti ? MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE SO RENTON.WA. 98055 Og4rI'D SEP1100 CHARLES J DELAURENTI February 25, 1977 MAYOR REC�VED Honorable Charles Delaurenti, Mayor FFg Members of the City Council S 19TII . CI 0i RF�Yi��ry . Subject: Sanitary ,Sewers, hay Creek Trunk bArOfS OFFICE Gentlemen: Rentn etiche imposed by E.P.A. and D.O.E. have limited the size of the May Croak tnv.k to 18 inch diameter. Design figurse indicate the diameter should be 29 inch. All agencies, Water Districts 107 and 90, Metro and the City of Renton, will continue to work for this ultimate pipe size; however, there is a possibility of losing the grant monies entirely because of the time deadline@. Therefore, all agencies are being asked to agree to the 18 inch size at this time and also agree to no local (direct) connections to the trunk in lower May Crook area because of the limited capacity. We are further being asked to not require Metro to accept all of the sewage when the lino reaches capacity. According to dsaign fiyurss, the capacity of the trunk will not be reached until the year 2000. Because Zand uses may change and other conditions may considerably be altered such as sewage disposal methods or a now route may be used by the year 2000, we recommend that the requests be granted and Council concur- renee is recommended. very truly yours, Z Ben tt De rector of Public Works RCH:pmp 1�193131 ) -1 1' Admil �: E����a�°' � �incti�-�....-f .� ,. •G� ,ems+- . ``��ll9l �` Uhhll G IJF Iht LlIY gLLnIt RENTON MUNICIPAL SLOG. 200 MILL AVE. SOUTH fJCnr�nu .. •..uNNw..wNWw:•,we•,r.,..wcf.•WWMY �.weaar..erwN...e+w... .,- ....w.w.....+•i.r +.: 10 rm RECr!V�D METAO ; .;, municipality of metropolitan seattle M•w.rc. Counci:ci. March 9, 1977 CN...N.N C.C..\r Do— We.'-AUBURN S..w..P.K..Lr ' BELLEVUE Board of Commissioners ' N.N<r R,\.w King County Water District 107 M r l""w.»" 5806A - 119th Avenue S.E. KENT Bellevue, Washington 98006 1....Naa.. KIRKLAND Gentlemen: R..... L. No. MERCER ISLAND May Creek interceptor . Auw..Dwu,l+ REDMOND This is to acknowledge receipt from Water District 107 , e.aWYM 1. Ia.el YeY.e Water District 90 and the City of Renton of their RENTON concurrence to cooperate with Metro in developing D"'Y""n service restrictions for the proposed May Creek SEATTLE Interceptor. We.U.'.... Very truly yours, ►wua Kuwn ►Fruu l.N•N.n WrN.D.L.uN IeNN R.MNae. R..e.RewaN Theodore W. Mallory 1..N..n w,aa..W\ Director of Technical OTHiR CITIES Services 1"...W.,mo - KING COI,,`ITV lo.N 0.3wa.m.N .1. p1 P.Ya RYW CFOW cc- Mr. John Wallace Moore Wallace 6 Kennedy T..C'1.OW.N sm,No.., ►..Nr<\3.... UNINCORPORATED AREAS N.o•.,. eu.ae<N bu+Faw ►.u. N.Nn.r,L. J..3..Y.N h.Du.W o.......o. SEVIER DISTRICTS R m.••e S.P.e\ ci._. oz—+N" 447-8666 Te A t .�. �s.'e'MYMYMM!!4•q+sM:auw.Y:r...wau....er. ..x+u.. •.. ... ...sr...kr.r n•bYelp'IRNMYIIkIIiN'a... .... .... .. . Gift, t.r.MbPQm, �N1NOl� Clw a.Jmt. %.Wl, Ghna (r,A"ti Y'.Bp,.0 FnmF i« CJ'W' 1.. 1 ......,.r.. DE PARTMFNT Axbn.\ r1•,,:1, ,'.Nwa i O � F.'6a�krtA Y 1,....:.r.,v 7..,rm,t C F GAML FOFMR( An/•x t Nti. Ai...:.txf ntr ,p.n A# S. e'4164 600 Sa,tl. C.apant WC y. Olympia, nibisgtos 98504 MM• !}a.¢4r March 2, 1977 , Mr. Henry F. McCullough President King County Water District No. 107 5806-A 119th Ave. S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear Mr. McCullough: Ths proposed declaration of non-significance -- Community Facilities Plan for Wastewater Trlatment Works, May Creek Drainage Bastn -- was reviewed by our staff as requested. Comments fo11nw. May CreeK contains runs of anadromous fish; care must be taken to protect both the fish and their habitat. Is it possible, at any time, sewage could be forced out of the manholes and enter the stream? We recotmneid stormwater siltation ponds be constructed initially and contain both grease and silt traps. Ponds would have to be maintained and cleaned frequently. Crease traps would reduce the amount of petrochemical pollutants that might wash into the streams from future developments and the proposal itself. We wondered about some of the answers on the environmental checklist. It is unlikely much rebuilding of existing animal populations would occur. Animals mcre tolerant of human activity (squirrels, chipmunks, mice, sparrows and crows) would replace the original wildlife populations (5a) . Secondary development will use up fuel, asphalt, cement and fish and wildlife habitat, all of which are non-renewable resources (9b) . A risk of upset is always possible with a proposal of this magnitude. At some time in the future, the pipe could break and the sewage could impact ',oth fish, wildlife and human health (10). It is possible some people may find the natural setting more pleasing than develop- ment (18). Thank you for sending the proposed declaration. We hope you find the comments helpful. Sincerely, THE CAME DEPAR;MENI' Bob epp ed Ecologist Environmental Management Division BZ:gh cc: Agencies Regional Manager .. an+w«w..........w,..,....,.. ,«.... ..�......•...w.:.«.r..x+..aww....:�,i.rwt+«..m,,. ....._.... ...... ..... . _...,.....««, w.....:.NJ:I. KING CJUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107, KING COUNTY, VASHINGTON, ADOPTING ITS TENTATIVE DETERMINATION OF NON-ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICA:K:E OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN AS A FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE. WHEREAS, this District has, by Resolutions No. 323 and 368, adopted and published its Detailed Statement of Community Facilities Plan for Waste Water Treatment Works in the "Say Creek Drainage Basin as required by RCW 43. 21.C. 030 (c) ; and WHEREAS, as lead agency under WAC 1.97-1n-345 with regard to the proposed project, the District has undertaken the threshold determination procedures required by WAC 197-10-310, -320, -330, -360 and -365; and WHEREAS, the District has previously adopter' Resolution No. i 369 dated February 16, 1977 by which the Community Facilities Plan for Waste Water Treatment Works in the May Creek Drainage Basin was tentatively determined to have no environmental significance, and the proposed Declaration of Non-Significance was listed in the "Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance Register" at the District' s SEPA Public Information Center; a-9 WHEREAS, during the fifteen-day period subs,:quent to listing said proposed Declaration of Non-Significance, written comments t r on the proposed Declaration were received; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of this District has reconsidered its proposed Declaration of non-environmental signi- ficance in the light of said written comments; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 107 , King County, .aashington, as follows: 1. The proposed Community Facilities Plan for waste Water Treatment Works in the May Creek Drainage Basin is finally determined to not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment; 2. The form of Declaration of Proposed Non-Environmental Significance prepared and listed pursuant to Resolution No. 369 of the Board of the Commissioners of this District is hereby adopted as a final Declaration of Non-Environmental Significance of the proposed Community Facilities Plan for Waste Water Treatment Worts in the May Creek Drainage Basin; 1. 4 3. An Environmental Impact Statement is not z uired for said project under RCW 43. 21.C. 030 (2) (c) . ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners of Kinq County Water District No. 107, King County, Washington at a special meeting, of which notice of tLe inL=,.t to take this action was published as required by law, on the 23rd day of March, 1977. i Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner i A...':'E:S.P: John R. on, Secr tary V I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Board of Commissioners of . .ng County Water District No. 107, King County, Washington, do hereby certify that the within and foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 3 7S adopted at a special meeting of the Commissioners on March 23, 1977. �- John R. J nson, Se retary. i i 2. ( L,, MSAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK S-190 Comprehensive Plan EIS r a . d f , s: a COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS UNDER FL 92 - 500 MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN COMPREHENSIVE VOLUME I SEWERAGE PLAN KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 t METROPOLITAN COUNCIL KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 C. Carey Donworth, Chairman Henry F. McCullough, Commissioner Stanley P. Kersey, Auburn Paul C. Patterson, Commis-'uue: M.F< (Bzl ) Vanik, Bellevue John R. Janson, Cur asioner Isabel Hogan, Kent Sam Xn^ ri, Managr ' Robert L. Neir, Kirkland L Aubrey Davis, Jr., Mercer island Avery Garrett, Renten Wes Uhlman, Seattle James K. Bender, Seattle George Benson, Seattle Tim Hill, Seattle Paul Kraabel, Seattle Phyliis Lamphere, Seattle Wayne D. Larkin, Seattle John R. Miller, Seattle Randy Revelle, Seattle Sam Smith, Seattle Jeanette Williams, Seattle CITY OF RENTON Selwyn L. "Bud" Young, Other Cities John D. Spellman, King County Avery Garrett, Mayor Paul Barden, Ki County Earl Clymer, Councilman Ruby Chow, King County Charles DeLaurenti, Councilman Robert B. Dunn, King County George Perry, Councilman - Thomas M. Forsythe, King bounty Kenneth Bruce, Councilman Edward Heavey, King County Henry Schellert, Councilman Dave Hooney, King County William Grant, Councilman Tracy J. Owen, King County Richard Stredicke, Councilman - Bill Reams, King County Warren Gonnason, ;irector of Public W Bernice Stern, King County Marjorie Arnold, Unincorporated Areas L. Thomas Eckstrand, Unincorporated Areas John Fournier, .Jr., Unincorporated Areas Jim Shahan, Unincorporated Areas - A. Dean Worthington, Unincorporated .Areas Hantord B. Choate, Sewer Districts Richard S. Page, Executive Director f COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN r MAY 1975 f VOLUME I COMPREHENSIVE JEWERAGE PLAN f KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 CITY OF ftENTON MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE f MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS•PLANNERS 1915 FTQST AVENUE SEATT E, WASHINGTON 98101 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pie Page INTRODUCTION 1 PHYSICAL FEATURES 5 Location and Description 1 Topography 5 Communities Within or Bordering Soils of the Area 5 the May Creek Service Area 1 Soils Along the Suggested City of Renton 1 Interceptor Route 5 Newport Hills 1 Vegetation of the Basin 6 Coalfield 1 Climate and Hydrology 6 Municipality of Metropolitan Drainage Problems 6 Seattle (METRO) 1. Citizen Participation in King County Water District Drainage Planning 11 No. 107 1 Alternative Plans for Drainage Purpose and Scope 2 Control 11 tes for Planning 2 Water Quality in May Creek 21 Report in Five (5) .'olumes 4 Failure of Septic Tank-Drainfield Authorization 4 in the May Creek Drainage Basin 25 f t z s ` TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page Page SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 27 Apollo Lift Station 42 f Economy 27 Honey Creek Lift Station 42 p Population 28 Assessment of Needs 42 Population Projection 28 COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE PLAN 45 * p Land Use 34 Introduction 45 {i Projected Land Use 34 May Creek Interceptor, phase I 45 - Shoreline ManagemInt - May Creek Interceptor, Phase II 45 t City of Renton 37 May Creek Interceptor, Phase ill 45 Zoning 38 Interceptor Line Serving Lake EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ASSESSMEN- Kathleen 45 OF NEEDS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE Honey Dew Interceptor 46 . BASIN 40 Kennydale Interceptor Systems 46 Introduction 40 Jones Avenue interceptor 46 ! Local Service in the May Creek 110th Avenue S. E. Interceptor 46 Drainage Basin 40 Lower Northwest (S.E. 91st Street) Existing Lift Stations 42 Interceptor 46 Sunset Lift Station 42 Northeast (S.E. 93rd Street; Interceptor 48 it TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont 'd) Page Page Lake Boren Interceptor 48 Map 12 - Zoning 39 Summary of Interceptor Data 48 Map 13 - Existing Metro Interceptors 6 Treatment Plant 41 MAPS Map 14 - Existing Sanitary Severs 44 Map 1 - Vicinity Map 3 Map 15 - Comprehensive Interceptor Sewer Map 2 - Topography, Flooding, Erosion or Plan - May Creek Basin 47 Sedimentation 7 Map 3 - Soils :;'-assification 9 TABLES Map 4 - Drainage Control Alternative 1 12 Map 5 - Drainage Control Alternative 2 13 Table 1 Climatology D. ta 3btained Map 6 - Drainfield Failures 26 at Seattle-Tacoma Airport 10 Map 7 - P.S.G.C. A.A.M. Zones 29 Table 2 RIBCO Urban Runoff and Basin Map 8 - Population Projection (yr. 2000) 32 Drainage Scudy 14 Map 9 - Population Projection (yr. 2030) 33 Table 3 Runoff Quality Summary - Map 10 - Existing Land Use 35 May Creek Demonstration Map 11 - Proposed Land Use Plan 36 Area 22 ifi 4 f TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) e page_ Page Table 4 Seasonal Nutrient Concentration Table 9 Existing Sewer Service In Place 44 at May Creek 24 Table 10 Physical Features of Existing Table 5 Seasonal Nutrient Concentration Wastewater Collection System 43 at Lake Kathleen 24 Table 11 aummary of Interceptor Sewers f i Table 6 Puget Sound Governmental Along May Creek 48 } Conference Analysis Zones - Table 12 Summary of Interceptor Sewers e Population Projections 29 South of May Creek 49 Table 7 Population Projections - May Table 13 Summary of Interceptor Sewers Creek Drainage Basin 34 North of May Creek 49 Table 8 Percent of Sub-Basin Area in Table 14 Capital Improvement Plan for Specified Land Uses 37 Interceptor Sewers, May Creek Drainage Basin 50 IV AT 4 r INTRODUCTION Location and Description The May Creek Drainage Basin includes portions of Newport Hills Newport Hills and the City of Re..ton in King County, Washington. It extends eastward from Lake Washington approximately six miles and contains Newport Hills is a suburban residential unincorporated community an area of about twelve square miles of land. Lake Kathleen is with some commercial developments that primarily serve local one of the three eastern sources of May Creek from which the shopping needs. Most homes in this area have been built since waters of the creek flow in a northwesterly direction - emptying 19fO; the community contains a very high percentage of young into Lake Washington. The drainage basin contains steep uplands families with school-age children. in the easterly portion which reach elevations of 1200 feet an.: a broad valley floor in the centra' portion. Tht lower reaches of Newport Hills is located at the northwestern portion of the May Creek pass through a canyon and then desc,�d into a delta at drainage basin. Water District No. 107 collects wastewater from Lake Washington. See Map 1. most developed areas and transports the wastewater through local sewers into the METRO interceptor line. This sewage is treated The eastern portion of the drainage basin begins in undeveloped at the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. wooded areas, with limited rural residential developments. Urban land uses occur in the westernmost quarter of the drainage basin. Coalfield Communities Within or Bordering the May Creek Drainage Basin Coalfield is a smali, unincc:prrated rural community in the eastern portion of the drainage basin. This community once had i Ct, of Renton an active coal mining industry; today coal mining is gone and the community is much smaller than it once was. The City of Renton, located in the southwestern portion of the drainage basin, is the largest industrial employment center in Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) the Puget Sound Region. The City's daytime population of over 70,000 dwarfs the residential nnpulation of 26,250. Renton is METRO is a special purpose district which was organized to the headquarters for the commercial aircraft division of the provide interceptor sewer lines and wastewater treatment plant Boeing Company, the region's largest employer, and also has the facilities for governmental agencies in the Seattle Metropolitan region's second largest employer, Pacific Car and Foundry area. The May Creek drainage basin Lies within METRO's Company. jurisdiction. :he City of Renton collects wastewater from most of its King County Water District No. 107 developed areas and transports it through local sanitary sewers into the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) intern-ptor Water District No. 107 is a special purpose district which lines. METRO then treats thi; wastewater at its Renton Sewage supplies water and provides sewage collection within t,ie Treatment Plant. boundary of the district. Water District No. 107 has been _1_ N { F dcsignated as the "lead" agency in a joint effort by the Once these items have been presented, the need for new wastewater district, Metro and the City of Renton to obtain State and treatment works becomes evident and a plan for these facilities Federal grants tc plan, des`gn and construct this portion of the will be presented. a x May Creek Interceptor System in the drainage basin. Guides For Planning Purpose and Scope The first reference to the May Creek sewer line was wade in a s The purpose of this report is to prepare a comprehensive sewerage Metropoliten Seattle Sewerage and Drainage Survey report that was plan for the May Creek Drainage Basin. This drainage basin has published in March 1958 by Brown and Caldwell for the City of Witnessed continued urban growth during the past decade; growth Seattle and King County. This report was written before METRO was has made sewers necessary as existing septic tanks have failed.] fe re?. The report was later formally adopted as the plan for To cope with the lack of an interceptor at May Creek, the City cf M?T`RO and is presently used as bott, ME,30's Comprehensive Sewerage Renton has taken some sewage to alternate areas by pumping or Plan ani King County's sewerage plan. otherwise diverting wastewater flow. Since this diaersion is only a temporary solution, the construction of the May Creek The 1958 METRO Study shows a sewage interceptor that follows May Interceptor offers a long-term solution to a difficult wastewater Creek almost as it is presently being designed.Z This 1958 study treatment works problem. All wastewater from the urbanized areas is used as i guide for planning. METRO's recent RIBCO study, of the May Creek Drainage Basin will flow into the interceptor and which was published in 1975, again shows -he plan for the May thus provide a needed service to Renton and Water District No. Creek Drainage Basin as it was proposed ir. 1958.3 107. An cbjective of this plan is to coordinate it with the Comprehensive Sewerage Plans of METRE, Water District No, 107, The City of Renton has developed several maps which show the and the City of Renton. The May Creek interceptor will be City's comprehensive sewerage plan. These maps have been used as maintained and operated by the Municipality of Metropclitan guides for the comprehensive sewerage plan for May Creek. Seattle (METRO). E ` Water District No. 107 has a comprehensive sewerage plan map Prior to designing the sewer interceptors for the May Creek which was developer and approved by tiie District's Board of Drainage Basin, it is necessary that a comprenensive sewerage plan Commissioners. This plan was used a- a guide in the May Creek be completed which would review the following: Drainage Basin Comprehe-.sive Sewerage ?lan. (a) General conditions within the drainage basin such as topography, hydrology, soils, water quality, I According to the King County Sanitarian, there have been flooding and slile hazards. numerous septic tank failures in the May Creek Drainage Basin. Further discussion of this will take place in anot�er section of (b) The economy, population, .and use - existing and this chapter. projected - within the basin. 2 Brown and Caldwe:l 's Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage and � c) Existing wastewater treatment works in the drainage Drainage Survey. March, 195E basin. 3 Draft report, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Environmentat Management for the Metropolitan Area. January, 1975. -2- I f• I . ' t 1 I _ I r' I Is REDMOND rr IfLLEVUl WIT WL r loss • I � � f C A do Young wrr I 00000 WIN- w i Report in Five (5) Volumes - - The Community Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatmer Works in the May Creek Drainage Basin, as required by PL 92-500, will be in five (5) volumes as indicated: Volume I - Comprehensive Sewerage Plan Volume II - Inflow/Infiltration A.alysis Volume III - Draft Environmental Assessment for Sewer Interceptors - Volume ILIA- Final Environmental Assessment for - Sewer Interceptors Volume IV - Cost Effectiveness Analysis for - Sewer I-,'�erceptors - Volume V - Summary and Conclusion An Inflow/Infiltration survey will be doae separately by the City }- - of kenton. - Authorization Water Distric' No. 107 authorized the firm of Moore, Wallac :nd Kennedy, Inc. to do the work necessary to comply with then: Community Facilities Plan requirements of Public Law 92-500 for _ K the Hay Creek Drainage Basin. t PHYSICAL FEATURES Topography The May Creek Drainage Basin contains lakes, streams and extremely Everett Association: Somewhat excessivel; drained, gravelly, rug��d terrain. The elevation r'ses I n Lake Washington, wi;ich gently undulating soils underlain by is slightly above sea level to elevations above 1,200 feet. sand and gravel on terraces. Contours vary, as indicated b-, Map 2, from relatively level soils ' to steep slopes. Alderwood Association: Moderately well-drained, u.:dulat`_rG to hilly soils that have dense, very May Creek begins at Lake Katuleen, which is at the southeastern slowly permeable glacial till at'. a corner of the May Creek Drainage Basin. The creek then flows in a depth of 20 to 10 inches on uplands and northwesterly direction through occasional steep canyons which terraces. rise as muco as 200 feet. Towards the western portion of the drainage basin, the creek enters a plein which is subject to Beausite-Alderwood b occasional flooding, then passes through a canyon and descends Association_: Well-drained and moderately ., Il- into a delta prior to discharging into Lake Washington. drained, gently rolling to very steep t soils that have sandstone or shale or x May Creek is the collector of water from its drainage basin. Map dense, very slowly permeably glacial f 2 shows erosion or sedimentation, flooding and topography. till at a depth . f 20 to 40 inches on uplands. Soils of the Area Kitsap Association: Poorly drained, rapid runoff. q The soil of the May Creek Drainage Basin is an important Developed on eroded remnant of fine t determiner of the vegetation, associatec animal life and other textured lacustrine sediments, largely ) interrelated characteristics. Four of the seven : .rig County soil silt and clay. associations are found in the drainage basin. A soil association is a landscape that has distinctive proportional patterns of Soils Along the Suggested interceptors Route soils and is named for the ma+or soils of the association. Th., drainage basin soil associations ere Everett, Alderwood, The Soil Survey of King County 5 describes the soil series of the Beausite-Alderwood and Vitsap.4 --he Everett association extends area. A soil series is the soil profile; that is, the sequence inland two miles from Lake Washington and ; both north and south of layers from the surface downward to rock or other underlying r of May Creek. The Alderwood association is generally south of material. The soils most prevalent along the suggested route and May Creek. The Beausite-Alderwood association is north of May having the greatest limitations are the Alde_wood and Kitsap Creek. The Kitsap association is found at elevations below soils. Slopes are 25 to 70 percent. Distribution cf the soil 500 feet. Characteristics of these associations are: varies greatly within short distances. Prainage and p^rneability _5_ vary. Runoff is rapid to very rapid, and the erosion hazard is The climatic conditions aftect the design of sewers and their severe to very severe.6 Estimated properties of the soils are appurtenances, since i-sign considerations [e required to prevent given for the Alderwood and Kitsap soil series and others.? The inflow or infiltration of storm runoff wa f. Table 1 shows the Pmerican Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) rating of average monthly maAimum and minimum temp atures and the conthly the soil is A-1 or A-2, which is a soil having the highest bearing total precipitation for the years 1972 d 1973. strength. All the Soils of the route are acid in reaction. The Alderwood soil series has a pH of 5.1-6.0. As urbai.isation takes place, the water runoff will increase due to : the construction of impermeable surfaces such an roofs, driveways, Nap 3 shows the existing soil conditions within the May Creek streets and the like. Drainage Basin. 9 Drainage Problems Vegetation of the Basin "Two major drainage problems exist within the May Creek sub-bash,. The May Creek Drainage Basin is predominantly a woodland site in There is pondin4 and overbark flooding in the upper and middle its native state. The area east of 138th Avenue S. E. and south rt-aches of the creek and erosion and sedimentation in the lower of S. E. Coalfield Road and adjacent to the creek have been reaches of the creek and in the middle sections of t e upper cleared of the dominant species. The area ha : been planted to reaches. Stream flooding begins at 148th Avenue S.E. and extends grasses such as Orchard, Alta Fescue, Rye and limothy. The ea :-ward to the Renton-Issaquan Road. The valley is extremely grassed areas are mainly used as pasturage for livestock. flat and its soil drains poorly. The flood pla:n is presently used primarily for livestock pasture; therefore, no major damage The climax species of the drainage asin are coniferous trees such occurs here in the flood season. as Douglas Fir, Western Hemlock and Western Red Cedar. The dominant deciduou. tree is Red Alder. Red Alder commonly invades logged-off areas. The soils of King County have been grouped into 15 groups accordin, 1:eir suitability for wood crops. The potential productii _or the major woodland group in the basin is 445-550 board feet per acre per year. 4 Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Soil Cc ervatio;i Service, USDA, issued November. 1973 A wide variety of algaes, Liverworts and mosses are to be found in the May Creek area. 5 Ibid., page 8. 6 Ibid., page 10. Climate and Hydrology 7 Ibid., page 36. The climatic conditions in the Puget Sound region are influenced U Ibid., page 68. by the Japanese Curren, , which maintains a moderate temperature throughout the year. Extreme high or low temperatures are seldom 9 Draft Report. United States Army Corps of Engineers. witnessed in the area, and it seldom reaches above 900 F or below Appendix A to the Final Report. urban Runoff and Basin Drainage freezing temperatures. Rainfall usually comes in a drizzle or in Study. Greer. and Ce,...r River Hasins of Washington. July 1974. a very steady, slow rain end seldom occurs in a heavy downpour. Pp. C-16-3 to C-16-9. (quoted direct.) -6- LEGEND TOPOGRAPHY - FLOODING DPP ti0 O DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY ....E EROSION OR SEDIMENTATIG y 2 EROSION SfON OR SEDIMENTATION � LIMITS OF SERVICE AREA- _-_ r SEE TAB: E 2 23 PHASE 1 & 11 CA,[ 27 } j a \ e 3723 1 u JE- ILM F t - SOIL LEGEND The first capital letter is the initial e of the soil name, A second capital letter, A. B, C, D, E. or F indicates the class of slope. Symbols without a slope letter are those of nearly level soils. SYMBOL NAME SYMBOL NAME AgB Ald?rwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes Ma Mixed alluvial lard . AgC Alderwood gray.11y sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes AgD Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes No Norma sandy loam ` AkF Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep AnC Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes* OvC Ovall gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes OvD Ovall gravelly loam, 15 - o 25 percent slopes y BeC Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Bell Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Py Puyallup fine sand} lo,m Bh Bellingham silt loam RdC Ragnar-Indianola asso. lion, sloping* - EvB Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes RdE Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep* EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 tc 15 percent slopes >f Sk Seattle muck InC Indianola loamy sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes Sm Shalcar muck KpB Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Tu Tukwila muck KpC Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes KpD Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes f ✓T The composition of these units is more variable than tLat of the others in the area, but it has been controlled well enough to _ interpret for the expected use of the soils. i - _ _._e Now PP sEE SNL '_FGENpEGEND AqC SOILS CLASSIFICATION SEE ° DRAINAGE BAS,N BOUNDARY Nam. L.1AITS OF SERVICE AREA- sc¢"e N FEET PHASE 1 9 11 010 III ge T \ £ ! r s AfP ¢qrAIC A !qp F# rL / [j •0 RDe F ofth ♦� ` 'ti ` ; ��� •..•\ ¢ ` •,fir' ; •�.`� y. ,. � �' air - I AN..•.r�•\�" \\ TABLE 1 CLIMATOLOGY DATA OBTAINED AT SEATTLE-TACOMA A,RPURT "Erosion and sedimentation occur downstream Coal Creek Parkwov on May Creek and downstream of the R .-Issaquah Road on o Honey Creek. A natural erosion process will o c. r on May Creek, TEMPERATURES IN F PRECIPITATION, INCHES even without urbanization, but the problem has been intensified +q72 1973 1972 1973 somewhat by uncontrolled discharge of storm drains at the top of the natural system and by generally increased runoff flows from .Ave ra$e Average impervious urban de••slopment. These higher runoff rates have fir.. Min. Max. Min. accelerated the erosion process. January 41.7 32.2 43.5 33.9 1.51 4.29 "" -ded material, estimated at 3,000 cu. yds. annually, is d d in the lower reach of May Creek, just before it enters February 47.2 35.6 50.6 37.2 8.11 1 .89 L ;hington. It forms a delta that is detrimental to the March 52.9 40.8 50.3 37.9 6.74 1.62 pia.,neo use of the area. "Both the 200010Comprehensive and Corridor land Use Plans (Puget Sound Governmental Conference) indicate a general urbanization of May Creek. The results of hydrology analysis indicate no April 54.3 39. 7 '7.3 39.9 1.72 1.35 significant difference between the Comprehensive and Corridor Land U c Plans; therefore, the drainage alternatives presented herein May 67.6 49.0 65.7 47.3 0.69 1.60 are applicable to both plans. The existing drainage problems will become more severe because of increases in impervious areas and June 68.0 52.1 66.9 51.6 1.81 2.50 faster runoff. The total impervious area in t.,.. sub-basin, under either land use projection, will increase from the existing 5 t percent level to approximately 15 percent, as shown in the table of projected lane uses (see Table 8). July 75.9 56.1 75.4 50.4 1.34 0.08 "Computer simulation of future runoff conditions, based upon the August 77.5 55.8 70.7 52.4 1.13 0.27 Comprehensive land Use model, indicates that there will be increased overbank flooding and ponding in the pastoral zone of September 63.1 47.6 70.3 53.4 4.10 1.81 May Creek and increased velocity .nd volume of water reaching the steeper lower portion of May Creek prior to entering Lake Washington. This tatter problem will accelerate bank erosion and sedimentation transport and deposition at Lake Washington. October 56.8 43.3 57.9 46.5 0.72 3.31 November 51-8 41.6 48.4 39.0 1.97 7.99 December 41.6 34.5 48.5 40.2 2.69 8.33 10 Refers to the year 2000. Source: National Weather Service, Monthly Reports -so- "Damages that would occur, considering the existing drainage The first alternative would increase the capacity of May Creek by control system and future accelerated runoff conditions of the (1) channelizing the upper reaches to relieve flooded areas there year 2000, are estimated to total approximately $17,OCO per year and bank protection in the upper-middle s-ction to -educe (1974 dollars). These damage costs are reflective of additional erosion, and (2) constructing drop structures in the lower reaches sedimentation deposits at the mouth of May Creek, as well as to decrease erosion and sedimentation. See Map 4. This residential and crop inundation. alternative would relieve all flow restraints, thereby increasing peak runoff. "As a result of erosion, a danger of mud slides and landslides occurs." The second alternative plan would consist of watershed management techniques supplemented by some structural installations. This Citizen Participation in Drainage Planning ll alternative envisions detaining runoff on site and along the system wherever practicable. Stream-side activity would be The May Creek Drainage Basin is one of five demonstration areas of controlled through zoning, shoreline management, and other local the RIBCO (Green and Cedar River Basin) Study. Consequently, the controls. Drop structures would be required in the lower reaches drainage problems have been presented to and discussed with the of the stream to provide erosion protection. See Map 5. residents of the basin. At a public meeting, the local residents present expressed the opinion that channelization of May Creek and Early decisions on an alternative solution in controlling drainage control of runoff from future development should be of primary would be beneficial in implementing the plans for the sewer consideration. Storm water diversion and flood plain management interceptor for May Creek. It would also enable the local were discussed, but given little support by those residents who government, which in this case is the City of Renton and King were present. At the same time, continuation of existing trends County, to provide zoning and flood control legislation before in the control of drainage vas deemed unacceptable. Map 4 shows major developments take place 4n the flood zone. the existing topography, flooding, erosion or sedimentation-. lable 2 shows improvements, exisrine and proposed, on May Creek by In a second public hearing, held in December 1974, those present the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. ihe Towns! im improvements at the public meeting were generally opposed to further land are similar for both alternates, but the upstream improvements development. illustrate the two different approaches. Alternative Plans for Drainage Control12 The draft copy of Appendix "A" to the final report, "Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Study, Green and Cedar River Basins of Washington," proposes two alternative solutions for drainage control in the May Creek Drainage Basin. Either proposal, if _ implemented, will have an effect on the sanitary sewer interceptor 11 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, op, cit., p. C-16-5. and trunk sewers proposed for May Creek. 12 Ibid., p. C-16-6. 4 i+! h4 A 1 LEceMo DRAINAGE CONTROL rP �o DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY DROP STRUCTURES ...; ALTERNATIVE N O.i E ENLARGE CONDUIT CAPACITY SEE TABLE 2 23 - C ENLARGE CHANNEL sam �. S STREAM BANK P'•OTECT-Ctj LIMITS OF SERVICE — SCALE 2wo._ AREA-PHASE 1 B 11 1M re" , x 5 13 } Ati All, �4 M1 tz Ilk •5 '^1 a \ � / `t 's .,"d, 4f�.. . � � \ 13v t � ` yy \ 1 LEGEND DRAINAGE CONTROL a�P ``'o SEE TABLE 2 23 RFLOWUNOFF PLAIN T04 ALTERNATIVE NO 2 5 DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY �� RUNOFF DETENTION BASIN RIOY E ENLARGE CONDUIT CAPACITY] DROP STRUCTURES MWift S STREAM BANK PROTECTICN S UNITS OF SERVICE AREA-PRASE d .r �J Xz (0`11/ 41, 2. z 15 a4 46 t• 55 F. YY I f ,r 1 rg sa , r< • i I k r 1 T4 BLE 2 RIBCO URBAN RUNOFF AND BASIN DRAINA.;F. Z,'LUDY 7 ALTERNATIVE I FOR SUB-BASIN - MAY CREEK EXTSTING FACILITIES PROPOSED FACILITIES Pipe Dia. Channel Max. Depth Element or Channel Side Slopes of Charr..?l Estimated Number T-ii:, Bottom Width Length (6oriz:Vert.) (Ft.) Type Capital Cost r 15 Char.: 8' 7900' 2:1 2.0' Channel 15' Base $ 31,000 2:1 Side Slopes 2' Deptb 5F Chanr•e.] IlI' 241i0' _: 1 Z �' La 2:1 25' Base $ 20,000 . 2:1 Side Slopes , 2' Depth 28 c};a .-,,.I 9r11 4: 1 4.01 Channel 30' Base $ 51 ,000 2:1 Side Slopes 4' Depth Stream Bank Protection x 30 Culvert 4.2' 60' 3.0' Cuivert 4' x 18' $ 46,000 f 14 Channel 15' i500, 1 : 1 4.0' Channel 25' Base $ 90,000 2:1 Side Slope 4 ' Depth Stream Bank Protection .5: 1 3.0 Channel 40' Base $ 44,000E 2:1 Side Slope 3' Depth Stream Bank Protection Insaw TABLE 2 (Cont.) RIBCO URBAN RUNOFF AND BASIN DRAINAGE STUDY ; ALTERNATIVE I FOR SUB-BASIN - MAY CREEK (continued) EXISTING FPrILITIES PROPOSED FACILITIES Pipe Dia Channel Max. Depth Element or Chant Side Slopes -f Channel Estimated Number Type Bottom W: t.,__ Length (Hot z:Vert.) (Ft.) Type _ Capital Cost 52 Channel 171 24061 3:1 3.5' Channel 60' Base $167,000 2:1 Side Slope 3.5' Depth Stream Bank Protection i;ri 9' 2: 1 5.0f Bridge 701 Base $ 46,000 2:1 Side Slopes 5' Depth channel 17' 244L' 4.5' Channel 40' Base $190,000 2:1 Side Slope 4.5' Depth Stream Bank Protection 49 eridge 20 10, 2:1 Bridge 45' Base $ lU,C00 2:1 Side Slopes 5' Depth 1l Channel 17' 40fi0' 1: 1 4.5' Channel 40' Base $17' '000 2:1 Side Slopes 4.5' Depth 48 Channel 61 4.0' Channel 50' Base $ 44,000 2:1. Side Slopes 4.0' Depth i S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE #1 TO EPA/DOrr-- GRANT 8X „ . TABLE 2 (Cont.) RIBCO URBAN FUNOF1 ;d4l) BASIN DRAINAGE STUDY ALTERNATIVE I FOR SUB-BASIN - MAY CREEK (continued) EXISTLNG FACILITIES PROPOSED FACILITIES Pipe Dia. Channel Max. Depth i Element E mated or Channel Side Slopes of Channel st "I ' a Bottom width Length (Horiz: ert. . e Capital Cost- Number 4P B V ) Ft )( �`-'P L' Bridge 20' 24' 2:1 7.0' Bridge 45' Base $ 17,000 2:1 Side Slopes 5' Depth 4h charr.ei 5' " ' '' i : 1 4.0' Channel 50' Base $ 2i,u00 2:1 Side Slopes 4.01 Depth 4� F-ilge 23' I1 ' 2:1 7.0' Bridge 45' Base Side to 2:1 Sd Slope 5' Depth 25 Channel 4.0' Channel 50' Base S 69,000 2:1 Side Slopes 4.0' Depth 44 Bridge i4' 12' 2:1 7.0' Bridge 45' Base $ 19,000 µ 2:1 Side Slope 7' Depth 1 Channel r,' 1800, 1 :1 4.0' Channel 17.5' Base 5103,000 2:1 Side Slope 4' Depth Stream Bank Protection -16- . yy 4 4� r� TABLE 2 (Cont.) I, RIBC.O URBAN RUNOFF AND BASIN DRAINAGE STUDY ALTERNATIVE I FOR SUB-BASIN - MAY CREEK EXISTING FACILITIES _ _ PROPOSED FACILITIES Pipe Dia. Channel Max. Depth Element or Channel Side Slopes of Channel Estimated Number Type Bottom Width Length (Horiz:Vert.) _ (Ft.) Type Capital Cost 25 Channel 29' 2000' 1:1 5.0' Drop 1' Drop S 68,000 Struc- 29' Base ture Approx. 50 required 7 Channel 15, 2000' 1:1 1.0.0' Drop 1' Drop $ 9,000 Struc- 15' Base tune Approx. 10 required - 6 Channel 35' 3200' }:1 3.0' Drop 1' Drop $ 90,000 Struc- 35' Base ture Approx. 64 required 3 Channel 35' 2200' 1.1 3.0' Drop 1' Drop $ 68,000 Struc- 35' Base Cure Approx. 44 required 36 Channel 30' 800' 4:1 4.0' Dr,)p 1' Drop $ 36,000 Struc- 30' Base tune Approx. 16 required 34 Channel 30' 1500' 4:1 4.0' Drop 1' Drop $ 34,000 Struc- 30' Base ture Approx. 15 required 29 Channel 30' 3450' 4:1 4.0' Drop 1' Drop $ 68.000 ') Struc- 29' Base ture Approx. 50 required 5 -17- TABLE 2 (Cont.) RIBCO URBAN RUNOFF AND BASIN DRAINAGE STUDY ALTERNATIVE I FOR SUB-BASIN - MAY CREEK EXISTING FACILITIES PROPOSED FACILITIES Pipe Dia. Channel Max. Depth Element or Channel Side Slopes of Charnel Estimated * Number Type Bottom Width Length (Heriz:Vert.) (Ft. 1 Type _ Capital Cos[ 23 Channel 8' 1500, 1:1 2.5' Channel Stream Bank $ 23,000 Protection 35 Culvert loll 32' 0 7.0' Bridge 45' Base $ 64,000 Modifi- 2:1 Side Slopes cation 7' Depth TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: ;1,555,000 *Cults are based upon ENR Construction Cost Index of 1760 and include Approximately: $1,550,000 , construction costs, land acquisition cost, contractor profit, engineering fee, legal fee and contingency allowance. -18- ------------ t TABLE 2 (Cont.) RIBCO URBAN RUNOFF AND BASIN DRAINAGE STUDY ALTERNATIVE II FOR SUB-BASIN - MAY CREEK aISTING FACILITIES PROPOSED FACILITIES Pipe Dia. Channel Max. Depth Element or Channel Side Slopes of Channel Estimated* Number Type Bottom Width Length (Horii:Vert ) (Ft.) Type Capital Cost 30 4.2' 60' 0 3.0' Culvert 3' x 12' $ 22,000 68 None Holding 16 Ac Ft. $175,000 Pond Storage 23 Channel d' 1500' _. . :-. ' Ch.. 1 Stream Bank Protection ; 23,000 25 Channel 29' 20C " L• i ;.'. ' Drop 1' Drop $ 68,000 Struc- 29' Base ture Approx. 50 required i Chan r. i : .' _ . . is i i .' ' Drop 1' Drop Struc- 15' Base !1 ti-re Approx. 10 required — Cka:nel ;`' 32f'!' Drop 1' Drop S 90,OU0 Struc- 35' Base ture Approx. 64 required 3 Channel 3i' 22fio :l 3.0' Drop 1' Drop $ 68,000 Struc- 35' Base ture Approx. 44 required Drop 1' Drop $ 36,000 Struc- 30' Base 4 ture Approx. 16 required 1 i 1 _ly_ ���-_.... _...,.-_gin... ..�...:._.a TABL-- 2 (Cont.) RIBCO URBAN RUNOFF AND BASIN DRAINAGE STUDY ALTERNATIVE II FOR SUB-BASIN - MAY CRELT (cont;nued) EXISTING FACILITIES PROPOSED FACILITIES Pipe Dia. Charnel Max. Depth Element or Charnel Side Slopes of Channel Estimated Number Type Bottom Width Length (Horiz•yert ) (Ft. ) Type Capital Cost 34 Channel 30' 1500' 4:1 4.0' Drop 1' Drop $ 34,000 Struc- 300 Base cure Approx. 15 required 29 Channel 30+ 35401 4: 1 4.u' Drop 1' Drop 5 b8.( A) Struc- 29' Base ture Approx. 50 required * Costs are based upon ENR Construction Cost Index of 1760 and TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $593,000 include construction costs, land acquisition cost, contractor Approximately: $600,000 profit, engineering fee, legal fee and contingent; allowance. **'[hose numbers on Maps No. 4 6 5 which are not fisted in these tables indicate a form of physical improvement which requires no new facilities. ***Coordination between the RIBCO Study and the Community Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatment Works has taken place. Since no decisions hsv. been made regarding surface drainage programs, the two RIBCO alternat ias are included in this report. SOURCE: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Draft Copy, Appendix A to the Final Report, Urban Runoff and Drainage Basin Study, Green and Cedar River Basiim of Washington, July 197». -20- Water Quality in May Creek Table 3 shows the quality of the waters of May Creek, as ubtained from the Draft Copy of Appendix "A" to the Final Report, "Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Study, Green and Cedar River Basins of Washington," as published by the Seattle District office of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 1974. In another study by METRO, seasonal nutrient concentrations at May Creek have been made from July 1971 to October 1972, as shown in Table 4. Table 5 shows similar data for lake Kathl ?en. These tables provide an indication of the water quality for water bodies in the drainage Basin as well as peak flow in May Creek. It is desirable to have this information in order to assess some of the needs for wastewater treatment within the drainage basin. The tables discuss coliform, phosphorous# nitrate# and ammonia. ' Each of these is an index of water quality. For example, the presence of coliform indicates that human or animal wastes are in the water. Weak sewage has a concentration of about 1 x 106 coliform bacteria per 100 milliliter (MP1 in Table 3 indicates most probable number). This compares to a high of 1 x 104 coliform MPH/100 ml at the mouth of May Creek, which is one hundredth the sttength of weak sewage. Sewers in the May Creek Drainage Basin will prevent human wastes from entering the creek. This should provide a considerable reduction in coliform. Algae growth is an indication of the deterioration of water quality in a calm body of water. When 0.015 mg/1 of phosphate are present in a calm body of water, algae growth is stimulated. When 0.3 mg/i of nitrate occur in a calm body of water, it also stimulates the growth of algae. Based on Table 5, lake Kathleen _ has the nutrients for algae growth at certain times of the year. May Creek appears to carry sufficient nutrients to Lake Washington to warra .t some concern. The elimination of drainfield effluent through sewer construction could eliminate or substantially reduce nutrients in May Creek and Lake Kathleen. -21- TABLE 3 RUNOFF QUALITY SUNMARY MAY_CREEK DENONSTRAT101I AREA BASED UPON A 10-YEAR STORM PRECEDED BY 5 DAYS WITH LITTLE OR 1i0 RAINFALL# CONCENTRATION AT PEAK. FLOW ALTERNATIVE PEAK FLOW TOTAL LOCATION PLAN (cfs) BOD COLIFORN NH3 NO2 + NO3 P0( Existing Land Use Lake Washington Existing Conditions 280 1.0 1 .0 x 104 0.02 0.3 0.05 2000 Comprehensive Land 'Use I 650 1.0 1.9 x 104 0.03 0.4 0.1 1I 350 0.5 0.8 x 104 0.02 0.2 9.05 Existing Land Use Below confluence with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 240 0.5 0.7 x 104 0.02 0.3 0.05 20M Comprehensive Land Use * 625 1.0 1.6 x 104 0.03 0.3 0.05 II 275 0.5 0.7 x 104 0.P2 0.3 0.05 Existing land Use Above confluence with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 125 I.0 0.7 x 104 0.02 0.4 0.05 2000 Comprehensive Land Use 7 SSG 1.6 1.0 x 104 0,02 0.3 0.05 II 175 0.5 0.7 x tO4 U.02 0.3 0.05 # Less than a total of 0.5 inches of rainfall in any of day. * Concentrations it mg/I except total coliform which is ii MPN/100 MI. Sources U. S. Array Corps of Engineers' Appendix "A" to the Fir, report. Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage - - - Green River and Cedar River Basins of Washington. July :974. -22- i TABLE 3 (continued) RUNOFF 4UALITY WWARY MAY CRFEK_- DEM14STRATION AREA BASED UPON A 10-_YEAR STORM _PRECEDED BY 15 DAYS VI1!k LITTLE OR NO RAINFALL# _. CONCENTRATION AT PEAK FLOW* ALTERNATIVE PEAK FLOW OTAL LOCATION PLAN (cfs) BOD COLIFORM N'H3 NO2 + NO PO Existing Land Use Lake Washington Existing Conditions 280 2.0 3.0 x 104 0.05 0.8 0.1 2000 Comprehensive Land Use I 650 3.0 5.7 x 104 0.1 1.1 0.2 I1 350 2.0 2.2 x 104 0.05 0.8 0.1 Existing Land Use Below confluence with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 240 2.0 2.2 x 104 0.05 0.8 0.1 2000 Comprehensive Land Use I 625 3.0 4,7 x 104 0.1 1.0 0.2 11 275 2.0 2.1 x 104 0.05 0.8 0.1 Existing Land Use Above confluence with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 125 2.0 2.2 x 104 0.05 1.1 0.2 2000 Comprehensive Land Use I 550 2.0 3.0 x 104 0.05 1.0 0.2 1I 175 2.0 2.0 x 104 0.05 1.0 0.2 M Less than a total of 0.5 inches of rainfall in any one day. * Concentrations in mg/1 except total eoliferm which is in MPN/100 ml. fl Source: Ibid. -2 3- TABLE 4 TABLE 5 SEASONAL NuMIE2T CONCENTRATION AT MAY CREEK SEASONAL NVIRIENT CONCENTRATION AT LAKE KATHLEEN JULY 1971 - OCTOBER 1972 JULY 1971 - OCTOBER 1972 Winter - Spring Sumer - Pall Winter - Spring Sumner - tall Location Type Mx. Min. Avg. Mx. Min. Avg. Type Depth Max. Min. AM Max- Min. Avg. nK/I jR12 ,(mall? i) At raoutb Phosphorous 0.07 0.03 0.05 G.DE= Nitrate 1 0.31 0.10 0.29 0.01 At Coalfield Phosphorous 0.05 0.02 0.04 Nitrate 3 0.53 0.10 0.01 At mouth Nitrate 0.% 0.16 0.61 0.31 Nitrogen 7 0.53 0.08 0.01 At Coalfield Nitrate 0.56 0.12 0.40 Ammonia 1 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 At mouth Ammonia 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.04 Nitrogen 3 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.02 At Coalfield Ammonia 0.07 0.03 0.05 Nitrogen 7 0.12 0.01 0.35 Sources Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle -24- l I I IP .ailure of Septic Tank - Drainfield in the May, Creek Drainage Basin Of the 2000 dwelling units in the drainage basin, more than two- The Kroll naps, even though incomplete, show the follo•.aing extreme thirds use septic tanks for wastewater disposal. The King County examples of septic tank-drainfield failures: Health Department maintains records of septic tank-drainfield failures. The renorted failures have recently been transferred to :assessor's Plat of White Fence Ranch - 26 lots Kroll maps in order to maintain a visual review of the individual May Valley Highlands - 21 our. of 33 lots have sewage conditions. A review of the maps indicates that Hewitt's Addition - 5 out of 8 lots ± problems have occurred in the western, urban portion of Mav Creek, Adams Vista - Total ("No especially south of May Creek. A problem also exists in the lake Occupancy" notices Kathleen area. posted when homes are vacated) One of the shortcomings of reviewing the King County Health Department maps for the condition of home sewage disposal is that Map No. 6 portrays some of the more extreme drainfield failures, I not all failures have been noted on the map. Even if -11 failures as obtained from the King County Health Department's Kroll maps. 11 were noted, a completely aconate record of all septic tank- i drainfield failures would .tot be possible. since only a sma11 percentage of homes have been tested. Tests are generally made when one subdivides, builds, or when a complaint is filed. The I i suitability of subdivisions for septic tank system installation is tested by means of specified percolation tests. When a complaint is filed in regards to an existing -esidenee, dye is put - - into a toilet and the sanitarian looks for surface evidence of 1 the dye to note failure. St It is possible to initially have good percolation tests, f indicating that water will seep into the ground at an acceptable ` rate of speed before hones are built. After several years of 1 intensive homebuilding, the ground may become saturated and the water ceases to percolate adequately. Intensive urban development changes the character of the soil and brings with it a high probability of septic tank-drainfield failures. i -25- i -v�.+�.... . �+.w—. -...aw+s�:-. - ,,...,ins•-.... ...ar, ._..wn....,. .-ins..-.».—., ,.�. '. t • K: �+ s^ e� � � q } x 3 20 1 t `Y � -•mow •\\} r ► a ,,r Z 1 LLJ uj f U- 4jfV Vol � 41 loww � t , • F « h r r N w W ► W N Q � w 4 e d f I 9 emu, SOCIAL AND ECONMC GROWTH Economy 1 The May Creek Drainage Basin contains few industries or businesses The continued growth in the May Creek Drainage Basin affects the and, by itself, is not at, economically viaole area. It is a design of the s-wer interceptors and trm.k sewers. Consequently, - residential community serving the people who work in the Puget the following assumptions are made: Sound Region and primarily those in the Renton and Seattle areas. The drainage district boundary is immediately north of the Renton 1. The growth of the May Creek Drainage Basin will A Boeing pint. The City of Renton is one of the principal continue, based on the following conditions: manufacturit,2 areas in the entire Pacific Northwest and has bc:h the largest (Busing) and second largest (Pacific Car and Foundry a. The growth rate in the Puget Sound Region x Company, Inc.) manufacturing wployers in the region. land for will continue at a slightly lesser rate than a future development of additional manufacturing industries is in the past two decades. . available in Renton, whey; rail transportation, highways, freeways { and nearby port facilities a;- available. b. There will be no major artificial deterrent to the home building industry, imposed by ... As may be expected, the very large �Dloyment impact of the Boef-g government, lending institutions or others. Company (over 100,000 employees in I%b in the Puget Sound Regioi as compared to 52,000 today) creates an impact on homebuilding in c. The Bceing Company will continue to remain a the drainage area whenever the Boeing Company hires or lays off leader in the aerospace field and in commercial f people. For example, few new homes were built in. the entire Puget aircraft. Sound Region between 1969 and 1971, when the Boeing �ployment - declined more than 50 percent. With greater employment in the 2. The western, urban portion of the May Creek Drainage Puget Sound Region and especially with Boeing employment Basin will obtain sewers within the time anticipated stabilizing, construction of new housing has again taken place :. in this report. , . the May Creek Drainage Basin. High interest rates and high cost of materials have restricted building. The County Sanitarian's 3. There will be no : jor economic displacement in the restriccicns, due to lack of sewers,13 has kept new buildings Puget Scund Region. In the area at a minimum. Even with these handicaps, some home construction has proceeded in the drainage basin. 13 In some areas the King County Health Department ha. not given permission to construct new septic tanks and drainfields, th=reby stopping new building activity. -27- Population The existing population within the May Creek Dr-inage Basin has As a point of beginning, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference _. been ob.ained through two methods. A dwelling unit count in (PSGC) analysis zone projections were considered as possible Renton and Water District No. 107 was done in 1974. Outside of patterns of growth. Unfortunatelv, the PSGC zones failed to those two areas, buildings were counted on U.S.G.S. maps photo correspond to the drainage basin, as illustrated by Map 7; interpreted in 1970. Based on these counts there were: however, the PSGC AAM Zones are the only agreed upon population projections. The trends established for these AAM Zones would T• 1. 792 dwelling units in the Renton portion of the a guide in developing future population projections to the yea. May Creek Drainage Basin (1974). . 2000. 2. 524 dwelling units in the Water District No. 107 Analysis Zone 3820 is largely a non-residential zone which may portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin (1974) . lose population between the years 1975 and 2000. However, the other three PSOC AAM Zones are projected to gain population. In 3. 550 dwelling units in the eastern, rural portion looking at a map showing the AAM Zones, it was evident that the of the May Creek Drainage Basin (1970). This ras greatest population growth was projected where transportation, upgraded for 1974. An estimated 630 dwelling units urban services and laud for development was available. Because were assumed to exist in 1974. the urban area of May Creek Drainage Basin contains undeveloped land, transportation and urban services, a high growth rate could By using 3.7 peopieL4 per household, a populatior. if 7200 was be anticipated. Table 6 lists the applicable PSGC Analysis Zones, estimated to be living in the May Creek Drainage Basin in 1974. shown on Map 7, their 1970 population, and 1980, 1990, and year For statistical 'urposes, it was desirable to bring the population 2000 projections. A percentage increase from 1970 to 2000 is i back to 1970, tine census year. Consequently, an estimate was made shown in the last column. The growth rate for the analysis zones of new buildings in the basin area between 1970 and 1974 for the was used as a stabilizing guide in developing population urbanized portions of May Creek Drainage Basin. This estimate projections. was checked against 1970 aerial photographs. The approximate 1,560 dwelling units in 1970 provided a May Creek Drainage asin population of 5,800 people. Population Projection The population projection for the drainage basin becomes critical in designing taa wastewater treatment works for the community. 14 Puget Sound Governmental Conference dwelling unit density Because so much importance in designing future sewers is based on for 1nalysis Zone Number 4000. Note: Puget Sound Analysis Zones population, the methodology in determining the oopulatio, is are frequently referred to in this report. The Puget Sound explained. Governmental Conference now refers to these as AAM (Activity Allocation Model) Zones. These z.mes are used interchangeably in this report. - -28- _ ![ HILL EYOE LANE SANNANISN TABLE 6 O PUGET SOLIND COVE7LNEEf:NTAL CONFERENCE ANALYSIS ZONES .. 011 POPULATION PROJECTION`' o AnalysiS Pioiected Population 1970 to 2000 r " 1111 Zone 1970 1980 I990 2000 % Increase ^fi $ ISSAONAN 38aJ 5,971 5,043 5,428 5,568 -6.7 1NION AVE. 3850 4,156 6,041 8,548 10,672 132 382 3E6 NSN fl��"NAY (REEK DRAINAGE BASIN 386U 12,844 13,793 16,681 18,402 45 cry 4000 11,472 16,784 22,449 35,112 216 RkNTON ` 117 TO ►I. LE. 11 1 1A1 TN Avi. S.E. Source: Puget Sound Governmental Conference Fj M S.F. 1 1 N TO S T. 711 r tARE TONNGS RENT SCALE IN MILES MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN l4i°o PUGET SOUND GOVT. CONF. A . A . M. ZONES -29- The school district growth curves for the Renton and lake Washington School Districts are shown in Figure 1. These curves wcre obtained from the King County Land Use Management Department. T:a curves provide an "S" pattern; they begin to flatten out after 1980, indicating that the growth rate will continue to decline in r. 1 these school districts. -- — :- 'WO -- The total population growth rate in the Renton School District 7- between 1970 and 2000 is projected to be 33 percent. The 7 V�.-1 Bellevue School District's comparable growth rate is projected tom -- ---- --- - -- - -/� - _ be close to 40 percent. Actual population growth projections in these school districts is 43,000 more people in thirty years. OFp --�� These school growth figures indicate that a conservative growth - - 11? estimate must be considered, since these two school districts take in a very large area. + �3' r To obtain a better indication of growth potential, recent { 7/ construction was reviewed. While home building in the Puget Sound - �! •w° j���/ Region has been at a very low level in recent years, new housi:+g vsrs _ .. - starts took place at an annual rate of 75 to 150 units within the -- drainage basin. According to the King County Land Use Management Department, the population of King County actually declined s,00p `} { between 1970 and 1973. Discussions with the staff of the Renton ._ / aso�ceTea •orp...ncx Planning Department ir,uuated that some potential homebuilders ~ - t were reiused septic tank permits and could not begin construction. / - - - - - 1- in the basin as long as sewers were unavailable. Consequently, a potential purge of construction demand, immediately after sewers ' "' _ -- - -" " - MAY COVE K 50A NAGS- 8A91N '- - are installed, may exist. - -' A lower limit of 75 housing units per year was established as one FIGURE:. ' growth potential, based upon existing development :rends, _ _ potential development when sewers are built, and the availability of undeveloped land with urban amenities. An upper population limit was sought. This upper limit was based upon saturation •- "`" - - - population or the maximum density allowed by existing zoning. An f . increase in the saturation population was projected for future x years, based on anticipated rezoning. -30- 3 M � � r j ,/fj" • , W \ ,e CL CL CL or r pp t i N + to 0 f[� • 1 ap i I od Z f uj fx ID Jere- 1 ^ \ I rY • • s J2 i 0 O W = �l Y N • 1 gy H F p 1J /r TABLE 7 Land Use POPULATION PROJECTIONS Land in the May Creek Drainage Basin is either rural or urban residential, depending upon its location. The westernmost MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN portion, approximately 3§ square miles, has urbanized during the Saturation past decade, while the eastern 8' square miles remains t . Upper Range Population predominantly rural with some clusters of residential Year Lower Rang- Median (Design Population) (Based on Zoning) --evelopments. 1970 5,800 5,800 5,800 50,000 In the westernmost urban area, Kiug County has begun to acquire 1974 7,200 7, ,200 7,200 land adjacent to May Creek for a public park. The City of Renton has also acquired land . long lake Washington for park purposes. ( d 1975 7,300 7,300 7,300 Approximately 30 acres of manufacturing exist; 20 acres of 1980 9,000 9,400 9,600 commercial development are at the Highland Park Shopping Center. All other buildings in the urban portion of the May Creek Drainage L985 10,500 11,000 11,500 Basin are either churches, schools, or residences. See Map 10. 1990 12,000 24,000 15,i00 ,able 8 shows both the existing and prujected lard use in the May Creek Drainage Basin. 1995 13,500 16,200 18,500 Projected land Use 2000 14,500 18,000 21,000 2005 15,500 19,500 24,000 Future land use plans for the May Creek Drainage Basin have been developed by the City of Renton, King County, and the Puget Sound 2010 16,500 21,200 27,009 Governmental Conference, as shown by Map 11. The principal 2015 17,70D 23,100 29,700 elements of the plan include the addition of new shopping centers 2020 18,800 25,000 32,2W near freeway interchanges and an increase in some high-density residential developments within the drainage basin. 2025 19,900 26,600 34,000 - 203U 21,000 27,500 36,000 The westernmost 3� square miles .,f land are anticipated to be r. .._ built as an urban area with between 60 to 65 percent of its buildable land iu urban use by the year 2000. Rezoning of land - to apartment house use is anticipated prior to that time. By Th Lake Kathleen vicinity is another area which may grow more ratidty than the Basin as a whole. Past experience indicates percent ilea should be built with 80-100 the westernmost 3e square p than land which surrounds water will build up more r,didly than percent of the buildable in urban use. Land around Lake Kathleen should also be built up with homes on urban size lots. other areas, es9eclally if within commuting distance of employment Table 8 shows the percentage of land uses by types for the May Creek sob-basin during 1970-72 and those projected for the year 2000 in the Corridor and Comprehensive Plans prepared by the Puget Sound Governmental Conference. It should be noted that the -34 .. 4 N u .1r^ LLJ LU r .a N� x I r' Y i .:WF`PIWIKN c.. .YMyp..V/'I�..�' •k4 r N�➢M�RIY�►CIY6:;�.xMf46 r'#NMMhMM '.xa.WM,'iMUiJU.�hn M.:•LkNWp�/MglY�n.� .: m S CL �f Q W \ � 1 CY- IL I f✓ i Y 1 s e I J 4 • r ,, ib Sn { a 16 �Y q, ASS 3' ra ... � �t ��1 ~ �Y a \\ •'�� .t` � �.,'� "� dam.. f a' 1 a>�n increase in use of land for family housing purposes will come TABLE 8 mainly from what is efesently, designated unused lands or lands used for agricultural purposes. These unused lands will probably PERCENT OF SUE-BASIN AREA IN SPECIFI:.L LAND USES have a major use by the year 2000 as tree farming, agriculture or parks. P.S.G.C, land Use Projection Parks are being developed for passive recreation as well as active Existing 2000 2000 ti recreation. For example, King County is acquiring the steep lards Land L: -s (1970-72) Comprehensive Corridor adjacent to May Creek from 138th Avenue S. E. to 109th Avenue S. E., primarily for passive recreation. The City of Renton is at Single Family 20 40 40 the same time attempting to regulate its shoreline and steep Multi-Family 0 2 2 slopes so that the lands along May Creek and Honey Creek would be sparsely developed; land with steep slopes should be left in its Commercial/Services 1 1 1 natural state as much as possible. Government 6 Education 0 1 1 As slide and flood problems intensify, Local governments will Industrial 0 1 1 likewise intensify their regulations, limiting buildings in these Parks/Dedicated Open Spaces 5 5 i f areas. Agriculture l0 5 5 Sho-eline Management - City of Renton Airports, Raityards, May Creek is considered part of the shoreline of the City of Freeways, Highways 0 0 0 Renton .`rom Northeast 31st Street to Lake Washington, and comes Unused Land 63 44 44 under the regulations of the State's Shoreline Management Act, Water 1 1 I The Renton portion of May Creek is designated as "Conservancy Environment," which means that the land within 200 feet of May Total 100 100 100 Creek is limited to park-type or extremely limited development. Teal Impervious Area 5 15 15 Acceptable activities in a "Conservancy Environment' in the Renton a Shoreline Haragement Program include uses of a nonconsrmptive nature, which do not degrade the existing character of the area, low-density reside:ti31, passive agricultural uses, ant passive outdoor recreation. The use of utilities is limited. Major utilities, including the i interceptor sewer, will require special approval by the Renton City Planning Commission prior to construction and application for a shoreline management permit. Once a permit is obtained for construction of the interceptor, the shoreline management permit 15 City of Renton. Shoreline Management Master Program, application may be submitted.15 July 1974. E -37- The portion of May Creek that is within King County is not considered to be a shoreline that comes under the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act, and no shoreline management permit is needed from King County. However, much land adjacent to May Creek is being acquired by th. 'irg County Park Department. The designation of May Creek as a conservatory environment and the purchase of land along May Creek as a park begins to establish a pattern for land use management, as suggested in Alternate 2 of the section on drainage. Zoning Zoning is the legal regulation of land use, building height, and density of land development. Zoning is one of the tools used to implement the land Use Plan. ?Lap 12 shows the zoning, which is generalized, for the urban portion of thL drainage basin. Zoning car, be used as one of many tools by both the City of Renton and King County to implement the May Creek land Use Management Plan, as suggested in Alternative 2 of the section on drainage. In the City of Renton, land is already either zoned for Im- density occupancy along Hay Creek or controlled by the Shoreline Management regulations, or both. In King County, most lance along May Creek and along steep areas is zoned for low densities of one housing unit per acre or less. Through zoning restrictions, King County can prevent the spread of urban development beyond the location of existing community facilities. This could prevent the checkerboard type of urban development patterns, which have been seen in the past, and which is costly in terms of providing urban services. Zoning would then complement the planned development of community facilities, espeaiallj those facilities used for wastewater treatment works. -39- `L - LE6EN0 �*rP yo SINGLE FAMILY DE'.ACNED DWELLINGS- RA SINGLE FAM!_Y DETACHED DWELLINGS- 9t SMIGLE SUP DE r,00 o DWELLINGS- R-1 ZONING � 2 35,OW 50. FT MIN AREA LOT AREA VARIES FROM 5 ACRE TRACT ALL LOTS UP TO �J600 SO fT AREA RB TO 7200 30 FT LOT, DEPENDING ON O pLEnS AND W;LTI-fAWIJ HOUSING R-2 SCALE SINGLE FAMILY DE TACRED DWELLINGS- SINGLE SO. FT MIN AREA SEWAGE DISPOSAL WARRT MPWJG OM w FEET 15, SS BWO MAWFACTURING " JPAINAGE BASIN BOUNDAP' BUSIN ti ASS 1 go All III el ST j � r J ! , Rf S R F / SI ir •- ' - C r EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN Introduction TABLE 9 Th, N.cnicipalxty of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) was organized to EXISTING SEWER SERVICE IN PLACE operr, to wastewater treatment plants and interceptor lines in the Seattle Metropolitan Area. At the present time, METRO operates a A_an Units Approx. Size sewer lin,_ which is able to pick up May Creek Drainage Basin's wastewater when interceptor severs are built. Wastewater would Windtree (Dry) 30 Homed 10 Acres r then be taken to the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. S. E. 102nd Street (Dry) 19 Homes 6 Ai-res The City of Renton and Water District No. 107 each operate local N. E. 27th Stree_ 35 Homes 18 Acres sewers which collect residential and industrial sastewater. Map Contribute to Honey Creek 17 Homes 7 Acres 13 shows existing METRO interceptors and the Renton Sewage Lift Station Treatment Plant. Contribute to Sunset Lift �15 Homes 207 Acres Local Service in the May Creek Drainage Basin Station 204 Apartment Units 3 Schools (2680 students r Of the 8100 acres in the May Creek Drainage Basin, approximately and staff) 250 acres are pi,_:^ ly served by existing sewers. These severs are in the subdivisions shorn by Table 9. Two subdivisions, Windtree and S. E. 102nd Street, contain dry severs. This means TOTAL 410 Hones 248 A-res that sewers are ready to serve the homes if an interceptor sewer 294 Apartment Units line or a pumping station and force main were built to connect 3 Schools to these sewers. Forty-nine homes are using septic tanks and dra'_nfield sewage disposal, even though sewer lines exist. Existing severer lines presently serve 367 homes, 204 apartment units, and 3 schools. Most of the existing wastewater collection system was installed by- land developers in conjunction with subdivision activity. Table 10 lists the significant physical features of the existing waste- water collection system. - 3T Wastewater is presently collected, then pumped to the City of Renton interceptor sewers. Three lift stations presently exist in ..`.e May Creek Drainage Basin. yyf T. -40- EXISTING METRO INTERCEPTORS .tPP"o & TREATMENT PLANT 13 SCALk 0.5 0 5 IA 1.5 2.0 IN MILES / - •.;.I . y % 4' _ 1, I S. MERCER,SLAND # ,.._.,.. �. COIN ION CREEK r G INTERCEPTOR ?�� ♦ EAST`- SIDE BR MAWR � �M INTERCEPTOR % �s ER TO SE W \ N -�;:... CEDAR VER 1 + \ D E EpT 1 `._ ♦ INTE PTOR �ANi v� owns 1 ` s�5+ rI E S7:, 4 r i SOUT�F i lR-INTERCEPTOR :fir t i B yM1 4 Existing Lift Stations Sunset Lift Station The Sunset Lift Station is a buried ',,telex packaged dry-pit lift The construction of May Creek Interceptor Sewers would reduce or + station. The station was constructed by the City of Renton in eliminate the need for these pumping stations. Map 14 shows the 1963 to serve the plat of Brentwood No. 2. The station areas served by sewers and the location of pumping stations. originally had two (2) 5 hp, 225 gpm pumps. In December 1974 and January 1975, the pump motors were changed to 15 hp and the Assessment of Needs d pump impellers changed for a new capacity of 500 gpm each at ` t 70-foot total dynamic head. This increased capacity was The adequately collection er cdbys in the May Creek Drainage Basin are not required not only due to the increasing number of services, but adequately served by interceptor sewers. st best, lift stations also to a substantial amount of extraneous water entering the and force mains are rc wired to handle existing sewage. Some collection system. The amount of sewage pumped averages about sewers cannot be served by existing interceptor sewers; therefore, 100,000 gpd in the summer, but increases to a peak of about they remain unused in the ground. Subdivisions within the May 550,000 gpd during wet weather. Creek Drainage Basin have extensive septic tank-drainfield t failures. Apollo Lift Station In order to satisfy existing needs in the May Creek Drainage The Apollo Lift Station is a Ki^e County Water District No. 90 Basin, it is necessary to provide ne. interceptor sewer lines to Lift 5cation which .urrently s. :es only the Apollo Elementary serve the built-up areas within the drainage basin. School, which has a current enrollment of 501 students and a staff of 42. This existing lift station ciseharges through 2100 fee': of 6-inch force main . :o the City of Renton gravity sewer system, leading to the Sunset Lift Station. The station is a buried duplex packaged dry-pit lift station, with each pump having a rated capacity of 200 gpm. -rhe quantity of sewage currently being pumped is approximately 9000 gpd. Honey Creek Lift Station The Honey Creek Lift Station is a City of Renton duplex vertical sump lift station. The station was constructed in 1968 and serves 17 homes in the plat of Honey Creek park. Each pump is 7.5 hp and is rated for 100 gpm at 58 feet total dynamic head. The quantity of sewage currently being pumped is approximately 2500 gpd and does not vary significantly from summer :.o winter conditions. F - - -42- - - e E 1 e 1 e i { TABLE 10 PHYSICAL FEATURES OF EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM Length Diameter Year Avg. Depth Area in Feet in Inches Installed Material in Feet Windtree No. 1 8 2 163C 8 1973 Concrete and 9 Asbestos Cement N.E. 27th Street 1800 6 1970 Concrete 10 f S.E. 102nd Street 700 8 1975 Concrete 7 CSierra Heights 6 3000 8 1968 Concrete 7 Sierra Heights Elementary School C ttt Clenco Division 1 800 12 1968 Concrete lU 750 10 5150 8 t Gtence Dicsions 6400 8 1969 Concrete 10 2 6 3 t` Hazen High School 2100 8 1970 Concrete 8 I !. Honey Dew Estates Div. 1 h 2 'i350 8 1963 Concrete 8 Honey Dew Apartments 800 6 1974 Concrete 7 ! 750 8 p Sunset East Apartments 1100 8 1968 Concrete 8 Brentwood, Div. 2 3700 8 1963 Concrete 10 f Total Length = 40,100 e t -43- t i i r Y Y 1_ ry 4 f W W ce Q (A 4+ F" I Epa4 LTIP .i "q*t T y � � r , 1 = t . ! m x 0 s N In 1J�W z ), Y U W W - 7- I- f COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE PLAN Introduction #� t The Comprehensive Sewerage Plan for the May Creek Drainage Basin approximately 6,750 feet long and is expected to be built in 1976. . has been prepared as an outgrowth of the projected population, DiagrammaticalLy, the line is shown to i,. near May Creek. The land use, and assessment of need within the basin for the years Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Volume IV, shows a variety of i 2000 and 2030. Map 15 is the diagrammatic reflection of the different alternatives. The Environmental Assessment Statement, comprehensive interceptor sewer plan. The lateral sewer lines Volume III, discusses the environmental considerations of these will be built as needed. alternatives. Treatment of wastewater is being handled by METRO in its Renton May Creek Interceptor, Phase 1I Sewage Treatment Plant. Consequently, the May Creek Drainage f ' tceptor, Phase II, will begin at Honey Creek, Basin needs no treatment plant. In the May Creek Drainage Basin 'rhe May Creek Inte the sewerage system includes wastewater interceptor lines, lift then go east to 13bth Avenue S.E., where METRO Manhole D will be _. stations, force mains, and lateral sewers. Map 15 only shows the located. As ii, Phase I, the comprehensive plan shows this line interceptor lines. Lateral lines will be put in place by local diagrammatically near May Creek, even though various alternatives government, as needed. are shown in Volumes 1I1 and IV. This 7700 linear foot line is expected to be built in 1977. May Creek Interceptor, Phase III May Creek interceptor, Phase I The May Creek Interceptor, Phase LIT, will serve the eastern The May Creek Interceptor line is scheduled to follow May Creek portions of the drainage basin, beyond Manhole D. This sewer line } from the central portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin to is not expected to be built until about the year 2000. However, Manhole B. Manhole B is an existing METRO manhole which is the Lake Kathleen service area may require this interceptor to be _ located at the end of an interceptor line that flows below Inter- constructed as an alternate prior to 1980. state Highway 405 and along May Creek to the METRO Interceptoc S Line along Lake Washington. Sewage then goes directly to the Interceptor Line Serving Lake Kathleen i METRO Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. Not all sewer interceptor lines are built at once. This is due to the status of When sewer service is provided to lake Kathleen, various alternate . Among these alternates i a force main urbanization, availability of funds, and other factors. The May routes may be conside-ed . Creek Interceptor is one of those lines which is scheduled to be to the Cedar River METRO Interceptor Line, a force main to Manhole { developed in several phases. The first phase of construction is D, or a gravity sewer line to Manhole D along May Creek, as shown from Manhole B to Honey Creek. This first phase will make it diagrammatically in this report. possible to provide interceptor sewers from the May Creek Inter- ceptor to the most densely populated areas in the May Creek Drainage Basin. Phase I of the May Creek Interceptor will be -4 5- .-;F The Lake Kathleen area is presently in need of sewers, based upon The West Kennydale Interceptor continues southward from the the water quality of the lake, and the septic tank failures of the Kennydale-May Creek Interceptor primaril, on private easements area. Present density could make a sewer line feasible from Lake near Jones Avenue until it comes to N. E. 20th Street in Renton. Kathleen to Manhole D prior to 1980. then goes east on N. E. 20th Street. Honey Dew Interceptor The East Kennydale Interceptor traverses east along private easements from the KennydalE lay Creek Intercepter near S. E. The Honey Dew Iuterceptor Sewer Line is the longest uninterrupted 97tb Street, then goes south along 116th Avenue .. E. to North- interceptor sewer in the Drainage Basin that connects to the May east 20th Street in Renton. Creek Interceptor Sewer. This sewer line will be about 7170 linear feet long, when built, and will serve the following The Kennydale Syster' is part of Phase 1 and will be built in sewer.d arras: 1976, if all expectations are to be met. Glenco Sewered Area Jones Avenue Interceptor Sierra Heights Elementary School Honey Dew/Brentwood Sewered Area The Jones Avenue Interceptor 4- north of May Creek, and like the A portion of Sierra Heights Subdivision May Creek Interceptor, empties v, nh�'e B. This interceptor Honey Creek Park has been designed and is expecteo to -t ..w.* , .ction during Hazen Senior High School the sl. ner of 1975. Water District No. 107 Is .., -,.ing U.L.I.D. ApoLlo Elementary School 5-S (Utility Local Improvement District) and the City of R, n? .n is forming an L.I.D. (Local Improvement District) adjacent to this By serving these areas with an interceptor sewer, it will be interceptor line to serve existing residences. This line is possible to eliminate the Sunset Lift Station and the Honey Greek approximately 3,600 linear feet long. Lift Station. In addition, "dry sewers" on 102nd Street will be utilized. The construction of lateral sewers in the remainder of 110th Avenue S. E. Interceptor the Honey Creek Drainage Sub-basin will become feasible as soon as the Honey Dew Interceptor Sewer Line has been installed. This The 110th Avenue S. E. Interceptor will serve a large number of line is expected to be bui-t as part of the first phase of the Nay existing homes in the May Creek Drainage Basin. This 6,630 foot Creek Drainage Basin construction in 1976. interceptor line is expected to be completed in 1976 as part of Phase I and will drain into the May Creek Interceptor. Kennydale Interceptor Systems Lower Northwest (S E 91st Street) Interceptor Me Kennydale Interceptor System consists of three separate sewer lines which serve the N. E. 27th Street severed area in The Lower Northwest Interceptor will serve existing urbanized Rent,.n. The first line designated as the May Creek-Kennydale areas that require sewers. It empties into the May Creek Interceptor, runs southward from May Creek to approximately Interceptor. This 3,100 foot long interceptor is expected to be S. E. 97th Street. This interceptor passes through the King part of Phase 11 and is to be built in 1976. County Park and then on private property easements. -46- .;..wpncwe.w! LEGEND COMPREHENSIVE INTERCEPTOR SEWER PLAN �PPtia MERCEPTOR SEW&RS-P"A'E ' MMIAGE BASW BEAR,` "" MAY CREEK BASIN 5 WERCEPfOR SEWER$-PHASE li EMISTMG wmwEPT(W SEWERS RV.-ERCEPTOR SEWERS-?+AS` W LFAn OF SERN CE APEA-PHASE 161 pp Oft P.' s •..~ S n% Qk lk s ti� Y Northeast (S.E. 93rd Street) Interceptor The Northeast Interceptor will be built as part of Phase I1, The interceptors will be paid for by the different owners from and is expected to be built in 1977. This line, about 7,140 their funds. METRO will advance the local share for that portion linear feet, will serve exisiting housing units and the windtree of the system adjacent to May Creek. That advance will be "dry sewers". The Northeast Interceptor empties into the May reimbursed to METRO by means of the current monthly charge made by Creek Interceptor. METRO for oath connected residence. King County Water District No. 107 and Renton have guaranteed the reimbursement. Renton Lake Boren Interceptor would pay for the local portion of Honey Dew, Kennydale and South- east interceptors from revenue bonds. Water District No. 107 a The Lake Boren Interceptor will serve the residential areas would pay for the local portion of the balance of the interceptors around Lake Boren and the land between Lake Boren and May Creek. from revenue bonds. It will empty into the May Creek Interceptor. This interceptor, of approximately 5,080 linear feet, is expected to be built in lateral sewer lines will be built by local improvement 1977. Lake Boren is a small lake that is surrounded by housing assessments. units. The water quality of the lake is not known; however, all indications are present for high phosphate and nitrate counts. c 1 These high counts could develop as septic tank-drainfield failures occur. A continuation of the Lake Boren interceptor is shown. For the purpose of this comprehensive plan, this is considered to be a part of Phase III. TABLE 11 Summary of Interceptor Data t SUMMARY OF INTERCEPTOR S('.We"[i5 ALONG MAY CREEK Table 11 shows the information for the interceptor lines along May Creek. Name Distance Estimated Estimated f In Feet Construction Construction_ Table 12 provides a summary of Information on interceptor sewers Cost in $1000 Year south of May Creek, while Tab!e 13 provides a summary of ' information for interceptor sewers north of May Creek. May Creek Table 14 summarizes the capital improvement program for sewer Interceptor interceptor lines through 1980 in the May Creek Drainage Basin. phase 1 6,750 316 1976-77 Construction is anticipated to cost $3,074,OOC. This cost is Phase IT 7,700 778 1977-78 expected to be shared in the following manner: Lake Kathleen 20,000 230 1978-80 Federal (Environmental Protection Agency) 7511. - State (Department of Ecology) 15% Local 10% -48- i f TABLE 12 TABLE 13 y SUMMARY OF INTERCEPTOR SIV ERS SOUTH OF MAY CREEK SU?lMARv 0-- INTERCEPTOR S1N ERS NORTH OF MAY CREEK. P Name Distance Estimated Estimated Name Distance Estimated Estimated s Construction Construction In Feet Construction Construction In Feet Co Cost in $1000 Year Cost 1n S1000 Y-_ar Jones Ave. Interceptor Honey Dew (Designed, awaiting funding) 3,610 211 1975 Interceptor Phase 1 7,170 404 1976-77 Lake Boren Interceptor (Phase II) 5,080 195 197%-78 Kennydale-May Creek Interceptor 110th Ave. S.E. Interceptor Phase I 750 52 1976-77 (Phase 1) 6,630 162 1976-77 East Kennydale Lover Northwest (S.E. 91st Interceptor Street) Interceptor Phase 1 6,980 157 1976-77 (Phase II) 3,100 88 1976-77 West Kennydale Northeast Interceptor 1976-77 Interceptor (Phase II) 7,140 165 Phase I 6,750 168 1976-77 Southeast (S.E. 96th Street) Interceptor Phase II 7,800 148 1977-78 Y -49- MEN TABLE 14 CAPITAL I'WROVEMENT PLAN FOR INTERCEPTOR SEWERS MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN Item Distance :ost In Year To In Feet ;100o Be Built Jones Avenue Interceptor 3,610 211 1975 Phase I May Creek Interceptor 6,750 316 1976-77 Kennydale Interceptor System 14,480 377 1976-77 Honey Dew interceptor 7,170 404 1976-77 110th Ave. S.E. Interceptor 6,630 162 1976-77 Phase II Lower Northwest (S.E. 93rd St.) Interceptor 3.100 88 1976-77 Northeast (S.E. 93rd St.) Interceptor 7,140 165 1976-77 May Creek Interceptor 7,700 778 1977-78 Southeast (S.E. %th St.) Interceptor 7,800 148 1977-78 Lake Boren Interceptor 5,080 195 1977-78 Lake Kathleen Interceptor 20,000 230 1978-80 Total Cost for Interceptors - Through 1980 3,074 COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS UNDER PL 92 - 500 MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN INFLOW - VOLUME INFILTRATION II ANALYSIS KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 ai IF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 C. Carey Donworth, Chairman Henry F. McCullough, Commissioner Stanley P. Kersey, Auburn Pzul C. Patterson, Commissioner M.F. (Mel) Vanik, Bellevue John R. Janson, Commissioner Isabel Hogan, Kent Sam Maeri, Manager .obert L. Neir, Kirkland -- kubrey Davis, Jr., Mercer Island Avery Garrett, Rentor, Wes Uhlman, Seattle James K. Bender, Seattle George Benson, Seattle Tim Pill, Seattle Paul Kraatei, Scatrle Phyllis lamohere, Seattle Wayne D. Larkin, Seattle f` John R. Miner, Seattle Randy Revelle, Seattle Sam Smith, Seattle �. Jeanette Williams, Seattle CITY OF RENTON Selw,,n L. ''Bud" Young, Other Cities Jc::n D. Spellman, King County Avery Garrett, Mayor ^` Paul Barden., King County Earl Clymer, Councilman Ruby Chow, King County Charles DeLaurenti, Councilman Robert B. Dunn, King County Perry, Councilman Thoaas M. Forsythe, King County Bruce, Coun-ilman :dward Heavey, King County hellert, Councilman Dove Mooney, Kir.g County W1 I Grant, Councilman Tracy J. Owen, King County 71•' Stredicke, Counci�man Bill :earns, King County w' nnason, Director of Public Works Bernice Stern, King County - -` Marjorie Arnold, Unincorporated Areas L. ilwmns Ecl•strand, Unincorporat,2d Areas John Fournier, Jr., Unincorporated Areas Jim Shahan, Unincorporated Areas - A. Dean Worthington, Unincorporated Areas Hanford B. Choate, Sewer Districts Richard S. Page, Executive lirector COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN MAY 1975 VOLUME II INFLOW/INFILTRATION ANALYSIS KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE MORE, WALLACE & KENNEDY, INC. ENCINEERS•SURVEYORS•PLANNERS 1915 FIRST AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 F Y TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1agg INFLOW/INFILTRATION ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM I Relationship of Sewage Flow to Water Use 9 Objective 1 Relationship of Sewage Flow to Rainfali 12 Scope i Inflow 12 Conclusions ) Infiltration 13 v INVESTIGATION AND DATA COLLECTION 4 Peak Flow 14 Service Area 4 Relationship of Peak Flow to Pipe Sizing for Honey Dew Interceptor 14 History and Physical Condition of Collection System 4 Relationship of Peak Flow to Pipe Sizing for May Creek Interceptor 15 Soil and Water Table Conditions 5 Relationship of Peak Flow to Treatment History of Collection System Costs 16 Observations 5 a" Total Cost of Excess Inflow/Infiltration 16 Flow Data Collection 5 - SEWER REHABILITATION COSTS 18 Relationship of Sewage Flow to Population 6 Inflow 18 Honey Creek Pump Station 6 Infiltration is Sunset Pump Station 9 Cost Summary 18 ,F. IV 3 a R.. .. AF TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Page ., MAPS - Map 1 - Vicinity Map 2 Map 2 - Severed Areas 3 J Map 3 - Existfag Sanitary Sewers 7 TABLES 'i Table '_ - Population on Severs 4 Table 2 - Existing Sewers 5 Table 3 - Maximum Daily Rainfall 12 Table 4 - Flaw - Capacity of May Creek - Interceptor 15 tl PLATES Plate 1 - Sewage Flow vs. Precipitation Honey Creek Lift Station B - Plate 2 - Sewage Flow vs. Precipitation Sunset Lift Station 10 Plate 3 - Sunset Lift Station Inflow 13 Plate 4 - Cost Summary 19 ii - yy 1 I I i I INFLOW/INFILTRATION ANALYSIS OF E%ISTINC SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ai Objective Conclusions The objective of this report is to comply with Step 1 (Fr-ilif.fes Inflow and infiltration flows from the existing sewers will not affect � Plan) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under Sectio.•. 201(g)(3) the pipe sizes or costs of either the proposed Honey Dew or May Creek 3 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 Interceptors. (PL 92-500) . Inflow and infiltration flows into the existing sewers of the Honey The Act requires that all applicants for a wastewater treatmment works Creek Basin exceed the design allowances established by the grant demonstrate the non-existence or possible existence o;' Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) and will result in a c "excesssive" infiltration/inflow flows into the sanitary sr,wer system. surcharge to the City of Renton for Metro's costs for the additional The term "excessive" is defined by the Regulations as "The quantities interceptor and treatment facilities required. This surcharge is of infiltration/inflow which can he economically eliminated fr,-m a projected to be about $2,250 per year over 20 years, if no sewer sewer system by rehabilitation, as determined by cost-effectiveness rehabilitation is done. analysis that compares corre-ting the infiltration/inflow conditions with increasing the *reatment wor' a capaci,y to provide the required The most c it-effective degree of sewer rehabilitation in the Honey wastewater treatment for the quantities of infiltration/inflow." The Creek Basin will be to remove about 300,000 gallons per day of peak term "treatment works" includes intercepting sewers. inflow by correcting low manhole covers and similar sources of surface water entry into the system. The annual cost of Metro surcharge, less Scope the annualized capital cost to make the improvements, is $1,130 per year average over 20 years. This makes the performance of this The location of the study area is shown on Map 1. The areas within reduction very cost effective. this study area having existing sanitary sewer collection systems that will ultimately be served by the May Creek and Honey Dew 'nterceptor Sewers are shown on Map 2. These existing sewers are _ither "dry" or the sewage is being collected and pumped to the adjacent drainage basin. a This report is concerned with the extraneous water (inflow/ infiltration) flows from the existing collection system and its effect on the proposed May Creek and Honey Dew Interceptors and subsegt.ent treatment facilities. _t_ ,✓. r. .. '......�""r..r^.",,,,,,,,.-', ..sue ......^" =_.....� ...r-. r ' . ....- x Aftic, T t AND SEWERED AREAS �PPtio SUNSET VET STATION m 2 HONEY CREEK LIFT STATION 0 PRO $ EXISTING AREAS SERVED %/RMIN MAY CREEK DRAINAGE B45!N a e l 'r ` i c 's ru:TwfE r..�< 4vsp x. J/ � /`; .. 5r NEB' S ELEfE%TYIT BexOx `xE1J 51Gn MQ J P/- s _--5E 'OJT MQ S+,IEET f 3 GLEXQO !X ^n � 3 3 T♦f�\`_ av v....-fay 1 r M ' tit r- INVEST/CATION AND ,IA COLI.?CTION - a Service Area History and=hysical Condition of Collection System _ Of the 7,700 acres in the May Creek Drainage Basin, approximately The majority of the existing collection system was installed by _ 150 acres are presently served by existing sewers. These land developers. Nap 2 shows the various developments. The areas are shove on Map 2 and are tabulated below as to area and existing sever systems are shown on Map J. Table 2 service. lists the significant physical features of each system. TABLE 1 - POPULATION ON SEWERS All sewer pipe has been installed with rubber gasketed joints. Area Existin�ervice Units Approx. Size_ All collection systems are separate systems and no connections -o -- '— any storm drains are known to exist. Windtree (dry) 30 homes 10 acres Existing manholes are 48-inch and 54-inch precast concrete units S.E. 102nd Street (dry) 19 homes 6 acres with single hole or recessed handle covers. - N.E. 27th Street 35 homes 18 acres The majority of collection system pipe was subjected to an air or water pressure test by the City of Renton or King County Water Honey Creek Park District No. 107 personnel, after installation. to Honey Creek Lift Station 17 homes 7 acres _. All Other Subdivisions 315 + homes - Contribute to Sunset 204 + apartment units 207 acres _ Lift Station 3 schools (2,680 pupils and staff) - - 416 homes 248 acres _ 204 apartments - 3 schools - The existing service area is comprised primarily of single family residences, apartments, schools and a few small commercial establishments. -4- 4';t L- TABLE 2 - EXISTING SEWERS" Soil and Water Table Conditions Length S Size Year Pipe Average Soil surveys of the area indicate that the majority of the area Development of Sewers Installer 4aterial Depth is classified as being in the "Alderwood Series.' A characteristic of this series is a substratum of consolidated impervious glnziil Windtree, 1,600'- 8" 1973 Concrete 9' till located at a depth of 24 to 60 inches. This impervious No. 1 S 2 6 Asbestos substratum resulr; in a winter ground water table which is normally Cement at a depth of 2 to 3-1/2 feet. The water which percolates into the overlaying gravelly sandy loam moves horizontally above the substratum. N.E. 27th Street 1,800'- 8" 1970 Concrete 10, Since the majority of all the existing sewer pipe is deeper than a S.E. 102nd Street 700'- 8" 1975 Concrete 7' 3 feet, the ground water table will cover the pipe in winter. Honey Creek Park 700'- 8" 1969 Concrete 8' History of Collection System observations Sierra Heights 6 3,000'- 8" 1968 Concrete 7' Interviews were conducted with Renton Engineering Department personnel Elementary School for the purpose of determining what, if any, operation flooding or overflow incidents had occurred in the past. Clenco, Division 1 800'-12" 1968 Concrete 10' 750'-10" The only significant problem reported has been a high flow rate into i 5,150'- W. the Sunset Lift Station. This has been, in part, due to an increasing number of services, but also was believed to be due to extraneous Clenco, 6,400'- 8" 1969 Concrete 10' water flows. Division 2 6 3 - Mr. Mat Kohl, Renton Sewer Maintenance foreman, reports that some Hazen High School 2,1001- 8" 1970 Concrete 8' attempts have been made in the past to isolate this problem. Dye tests have been conducted over the past three to four years in the Honey Dew Estates 5,350'- 8" 1963 Concrete 8' Honey Dew Apartment and Hazen Senior High School areas, but no storm Division 1 6 2 connections have been isolated. Some low manhole covers in the Clenco,Division 2 area have been raised to prevent surface water f Honey Dew Apartments 800'- 6" 1974 Concrete 8' inflows, but despite these attempts, winter flows have remained high. 750'- 8" Due to the threat of exceeding the capacity of the station, the existing 225 gpm pumps were replaced with 500 gpm pumps in l Sunset East Apartments 1,100'- 8" 1968 Concrete 8' December, 1974. - Brentwood, Division 2 3,700'- 8" 1963 Concrete l0" Total Length 34,700 Feet 1 D.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington, 1973. i r Flow Data Collection Relationship of Sewage Flow to Population The relatively small areas at Windtree (dry), S.E. 102nd Street (drys Population studies for single family residential areas in the service and N.F. 27th Street were inspected and spot checked for flow with area indicate a population density of approximately 3.5 people/home. "V"-notch weirs on several occasions during periods of high ground Similarly, approximately 2.5 people per unit are anticipated for water and precipitation. No evidence of substantial flow quantities apartments. were observed and these areas were excluded from further study. Honey Creek Pump Station The existing Honey Creek and Sunset Lift Station pumps are equipped with "time-running" meters, which are scheduleu .o be read daily. Experience data reported in the available literature indicates that _ for areas of this type (comprised mainly of Pump discharge rates were obtained from nameplate data and checked per capita sewage flows against pumping times anc wet-well volumes. Daily quantities pumped single-family residences) should be about 60 gallons per person per were computed -nd plotte.! : rom the above information. This day. For school staff and students, an average daily flow of 15 information is shown on Plates 1 and 2 for the Honey Creek and gallons as been utilized. Sunset Pump stations, respectively. Using the above figures, the average daily sewage flow at the Honey As shown on Plate 1, the quantity of sewage pumped at the Honev Creek Creek Pump Station should be: Lift Station does not vary with season, but remains relatively constant at an average daily flow of approximately 2,500 gallons per 17 homes x 3. 5 persons/hems 59.E people day. 59.5 people x 60 gpd = 3,570 gpd As shown on Plate 2, the uancity of sewage pumped at the Sunset Lift Station does vary significantly with season. While the average ' daily summer .flow is approximately 100,000 gpd, the maximua observed Referring to Plate 1, the quantity of sewage actually pumped daily wet weather flow is shown to be approximately 535,000 gpd. averages about 2,500 gpd and peaks at about 3,600 gpd. Since this flow does not vary with season and is below the anticipated sewage Based on this information, additional flow monitorinp at selected flows, this area is not believed to be subject to inflow/infiltration. manholes in the Sunset Lift Station contributo-p *as conducted. , The three "key' manholes selected for monitoring '. own on Map 3 and are labeled Manholes A, B, and C. An auto-- .ow depth measuring and recording device was installed ft. tch of these "key" - manholes on a one-week rotating schedule. Simultaneously, a portable - "event recorder" was installed at the Sunset Lift Station. This device recorded the pump operation with respect to time for the purpose of establishing hourly flow variations. '1 -6- .. . '.- :r. - �%a.frE - _- _��.___....,..,......--wE�Ss�.o.ifitlirMts�iii..�".-'-'- ..._ a..,.-�e` --"="- ,31grY.....-•...» :.uviti11Ri0 "' . . LEGEND g KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 107 BOUNDARY EXISTING SANITARY SEWERS �aP "°� RENTON CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY EMSTW, SAtNTARY SEWERS TO BE SEPVE BY T14E MAY CREEK ':NTERCEPTOR _-----_---- SCALE zwo III FEET — EXISTING FORCE MAIN ————— jj i _ -`�.+ �� `•>� L'� ,I .ice � ' Y - i .w I + IF 7 AL LIL - - -�� � A. F IN I f s C' '�.i t•t^ R I It ' sr.rox F`EC i �r SEWAGE FLOW vs. PRECIPITATION PLATE I (SHEET I OF I1 DAILY SEWAGE FLOW w 1 Y I w rt, I I � V u 1.1,000 0 DAILY PRECIPITATION 0 I,. 2"OO n r l I I (I ✓ w � � i I.30 1 t i 1.00 ( - • � 30 I c 3 IO IS t0 2! 301 S 10 6 20 23 b 3 10 IS YC 23 30 S 10 IS ZO T, >D ! IO 13 20 23 30 ! Ic IS t0 23 SOI 3 IO li 20 ZS 2R 0 RU6UST I SE 'TEMBER OCTOBER � ROVEMSIR ! DECEMBER I JAMURRY FEBRUARY 1$7I 1915 s Sunset Pump Station Again using the population densities and flow figures established August - September 1974 - 496,000 cu. ft. above, the average daily sewage flow at the Sunset Pump Station October - Novemiber 1974 - 310,000 cu. ft. should he: December - JanuA4 y 1975 - 228,100 cu. ft. = 1,706,000 gallons > 27,500 gpd average Residential Route 55 covers all of Honey Dew Estates $nd Honey Dew Apartments h. Brea and reported water age is as followst` 31. ; homes x -3.5 persons/home -1,403- people Julv -- August 1074 - 716,700 du. ft. 204 apartment units x 2.5 persons/unit 510 people September - October 1974 - 587,200cu. ft. 2-" - November - December 1474 ..- 460,300 cu. ft. = 3,443,000 gallons Total = 4-r614 people = 56,400 gpd average 1,613 people x 60 gpd = 96,780 gpd Utilizing the November, Decembe; ,January figures (to minimize lawn irrigation losses), the average daily water use in the Gl.ecco Schools and Honey Dew areas is 17,500 + 56,400 = 83,900 gpd. 2,670 students b staff x 13'gpd = 40,050 gpd In order to compare this with the Sunset Lift Station drainage = 136,830 gpd area, the 58 homes in Brentwood No. 2 and the 27 homes in Sierra Heights and the three schools must be added as follows: Referring to Plate 2, the quantity of sewage actually pumped averages Glenco and Honey Dew Water Use - 83,900 gpd about 100,000 gpd in the summer months (school. out), while several peaks in excess of 500,600 gpd were observed. (58 + 27) x 3.5 Persons/home x 60 gpd/cap = 17,850 gpd Relationship of Sewage Flow tc pater Use 2,670 students, 6 staff @ 15 gpd/ca; = 40,050 gpd Direct correlation of water use and sewage flows is somewhat Total Water Use =141,800 gpd complicated by the fact that water meter reading areas do not correlate with sewer drainage areas. The two wat-r meter reading sed on this information and the preceding population estimates, areas that best correspond to the Sunset Lift Star' ,- Drainage Area D 'i[ is estimated thgt,._t Sewage flow at the Sunset Lift Station that are City of Renton Water Department Routes 75 and 55. ..fig GL is wastewater is 1 0..}}0__0.0 gPd when school is in session and4P .009-- vaC3'CTbn. This correlates with the floes as Route 75 cavern all of the Glenco Division 1, 2 and 3 area and gPd .wring sumue ion" section ction .,y reported eater usage is as follows: computed in the "Relationship of Sewage Flow to PopulatT. above. Additional flows above this amount are attributed to "inflow/infiltration." _9_ ' v SEWAGE FLOW vs. PRECIPITATION PLATE 2 (SHEET : OF 2) DAILY SEWAGE FLOW 500,000 -- I !NFLOM r In I METRO ALIWANCE =368,000 GPD z t f O N O I I • i ' \0 300,000 - �z � � PROJECTrD WASTEWATER !3( INFILTRATION ' Z: 200,000 { INFILTRATION '� I 100,000 I � WASTEWATER—. i PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOW 0 I i W s DAILY PRECIPITATION W Q I t ao 2 00 I G 00 II � so a o 3 10 @ 20 23 30 3IC t a L rnrt„ _ 15 20 23 w 3 W 13 20 129 30 3 10 15 20 25� 16 20 29 30 ' dRMU<RY l FERRUARI I MIRCn i ♦PRII. I MAI I � I � 1 i 1914 I z�ur SEWAGE FLOW vs. PRECIPITATION x PLATE 2 i (SHEET 2 OF 2) Y DAILY SEWAGE FLOW 3DDDoo } -- — _ — — -- — —� -- — k t - METR ALLOWANCE IItLOW t _368, 00 GFD I = _ - 400.000 e � PROTECTED WASTEWATER 8INFILTRATION � r L n s € l_ I -_ -- . 300,000 LL + t 200,000 r INFILTRATION j — PRO ACTED WASTEWATER FLOW WA TEWATER o i W 0 . 1 ynt�" Y [ � W DAILY PRECIPITATION = y. r W O 1 t 1.9(1 y = 1.00 = Y 1(f _ o ] 10 IS 20 25 3C ] 10 13 20 25 30 10 IS 20 23 30 5 10 IS 20 25 3 ] 10 I] 20 25 3( ] 10 iS LO 25 30 3 R) 13 20 iB 2B0 NOUST I SE RT:NBER I OCTOBER I NOVE4BER D[.EYBER I JANUARY I FEBRUARY I i➢TI 1975 i s �S f ` Relations 'n of Sewage Flow to Rainfall Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and The above analysis indicates that the r ,or cause of inflow in the Atmospheric Administration Station at Seattle-Tacoma International Sunset Lift Station ..ontributory area not a result of direct storm Airport, Washington. The Sea-Tac station is located about seven water connections. If there were sir _ficant direct connections, miles southwest of the site and is approximately the same elevation. inflow quantities would not be relay to prior ground conditions. Daily precipitation figures for the study period are plotted agait.-t Sirc, the greatest daily rainfall observed during the study I.erlod sewage flows on Plates 1 and 2. was 2. 13 inches on December 26, 1974, after four preceding dry days, it is apparent that the maximum inflow was not observed. Seattle Inflow area "rainfall-intensity-duration" curves indicate the following maximum daily rainfalls for the indicated return periods. The The term "inflow" as used in this report is defined as twat portion average intensity for a 24 hour period has been used to calculate of extraneous water entering the sanitary sewer system as surface the maximum daily rainfall for various return periods. water through manhole covers and illegal connections of roof drains or storm drains to the sanitary system. The inflow portion of TABLE 3 - MAXIMUM DAILY RAINFALL extraneous water has a direct path to the sewer system, and any flows of this type will appear as sewage flows withir a short period of time Maximum Anticipated Return Period Dail Rainfall (Inches) after rainfall starts. �_ Referring to Plate 2, it is apparent that the total flow at the Sunset 2 year 1. R0 Lift Station shows a definite increa.-e on the day following a F?avy 5 year 2.28 rainfall. In order to establish what part of the total extraneous 10 year 2.64 water is "inflow," 4t is •ecessary to compare the sewage flows on days 25 year 3.12 with little rainfall and on days with heavy rainfall when the 50 year 3.43 groundwater table is relatively constant level. This condition. 100 year 3. 75 is approximated by c %, on Plate 2, total flows on days with heavy rainfall with t.,_ai flows on the nearest preceding day with Using a 10-year return period and the data shown on Plate 3, and little or no rain. - :zuming ,ior saturated ground, the maximum quantity of inflow or the sunset Lift Station is anticipated to be 510,000 gallons In order to predict a reasonable maximum quantity of inflow, data per .lay. from significant rainfall days during the study period as shown on Plate 2 was plotted on Plate 3. As Plate 3 indicates, the , quantity of inflow appears to be directly related to the length of time ^ince the previous rain. If the ground is previously saturated, �, ry little additional r in results in inflow at the lift station. Conversely, if the ground is not previously saturated, considerable rainfall is percolated into the ground or ponds where it does not result in Inflow; the net result being a lesser Inflow for the same rainfall intensity. -12- i 4 Infiltration The term "infiltration" as used in this report is defined as that portion of extraneous water entering the sanit, y sewer system SUNSET LIFT STATION I N FLOW throrgh the soil by way of broken pipes, leaking joints, or leaking PLATE 3 - manhole walls. Infiltration rates normally vary over weekly or N monthly periods as the groundwater level slowly fluctuates. In this W case, however, the ground water level is expected to fluctuate more rapidly due to the impervious layer, previously describe' at a 510,000 GALLONS/DAY - depth of about ? to 5 feet. 5OO,000 INFLOW (10-YR RETURN) ' .r e e�o Referring to Plate 2, it can be seen that with the total. flow, `moo p1l inflow and sewage flows established, the remainder is attributed ?P `w , to infiltration. The maximum quantity of infiltration at the Sunset 400,000 tiJ 2 4 Lift Station, during the study period, occurred during the period of gP �Pc. 0 'anuary 18-22, 1975. 3anuary 22, 1975 approximates a condition of /p maximum infiltration, with little or no inflow due to the lack of o J2 Jg - rainfall on this or the previous day. For this day the quantity of 3C�,OOC infiltration is established : follows: c Q q,Qet"g�=q- J g Jg W Tniiltration = Total Flow - Sewage Flow - Inflow o 1-14-74 • Infiltration = 310,000 gpd - 140,000 gpd - 0 3t 200,000 1-12-75 J Infiltration 170,000 gpd z I 15 740 75 Q5 5-'+ 2 19 75oP"0Jr' Due to the lim'ted ground water level variation available, it is 100,000 2-11-75 a q a assumed rhat the ground vat : was at or near its maximum level 12-2E 74 i and that the infiltration rate was at a maximum. 50,000 02 i-74 0 D 0.5 LO 1.5 'O 2.5 3.0 5.5 RAINFALL ES/DAY -1 3- ;i6• I i i I I� I Peak "low Using the flow rates established above, the peak daily flow at the ice the inflow and infiltration rates for the Sunset Lift Sunset Lift Station is projected to be: Stdtion contributory area are greater than the design rates allowed, i a greater peak des' ,n flow is required for the Honey Dew Interceptor - i = if the existing inflow/infiltration is not removed. This design flow Sewage Flow 140,OOG gpd is computed as follows: Inflow (10-year storm) = 510,000 gpd iInfiltration = 170,000 gpd Peak wastewater (basin developed) = 2,892,000 gpd Projected Peak Daily Plow 820,000 gpd Existing Peak inflow = 510,000 gpd Relationship of Peak Flow to Pipe Sizing for Existing Peak Infiltrat'--on = 170,000 gpd Honey Creek interceptor As reported in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, the Honey Dew Metro Allowance for Interceptor has a computed peak flow of 3.85 mgd (5.97 cfs) using (unsewered portion) the Metro Design Allowance of 500 gpd per acre for inflow and Future Inflow/Infiltration 6U0 gpd per acre for infiltration over the entire 869 acres which (8f,9 ac-207 ac) x (600 + 500 gpd/ac) 728,200 gpd comprise the Honey Creek Basin. The existing sewers in the Sunset Lift Station contributory area serve 207 acres or 23.8 percent of the 4,300,200 gpd = ' drainage basin. Using the peak inflow and infiltration quantities established above, inflow and infiltration per acre are as follows: 4.30 mgd (6.65 cf s) Inflow = 510,000 gpd = 2,464 gpd/acre Due to the pipe sizes available, a 12-inch diameter pipe with a slope 207 acres - of 0.0365 feet/foot was originally selected. This pipe has a maximum VS. - capacity of 4. 30 mgd which would still be sufficient for the increased 500 gpd/acre Metro Design flow. Thus, no increase in pipe size or post is 170,000 gpd required for the ( - - Allowance Honey bew Interceptor if the inflow/infiltration is not removed. Infiltration 207 acres 821 gpd/acre VS. C 600 gpd/acre Metro Design Allowance _14- „ - M Relationshl; of Peak Flow to Pipe Sizing for May Creek Interce for If the inflow/infiltration flows in the Sunset I.ift Station contributory area that are in excess of the design allowance are not removed, the flow from the Honey Dew Interceptor will increase from 3.85 mgd to 4.30 mgd, or 0.45 mgd (O. iO cfs). The May Creek Interceptor must be recomputed for this increased flow from the point of connection of the 1 ney Dew Interceptor downstream. Table 4 shows the design flows for each run of pipe as reported in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and the effect of the increased inflow/infiltration. s TABLE 4 FLOW - CAPACITY OF MAY CREEK I14TERCEPTOR Initial Tnitial Initial Revised Design Pipe Pipe Design Flow Size S Slope Capacity Flow Run (mid) _ (ft./ft. ) mod) (mod) M 16 to M-13 13.30 21” @ 0.0192 14.2 13.75 M-13 to M-9 13.66 24" 3 0.0133 16.8 14.11 M--9 to M-4 14. 57 24" 2 0.0140 17.2 15.02 14-4 to Existing MH-B 14. 75 24' A 0.0152 17.9 15.20 D Again, as with the Honey Dew Interceptor, the required pipe sizes for the May Creek Interceptor will not change as a result of the excess inflow/infiltration. Thus, no increase in cost is required for the May Creek Iv�terceptor if the inflow/infiltration is not removed. -15- i t . , d Relationship of Peak Flow to Treatment Costs In order to compute the annual cost of the surcharge, it is assumed -- (based ran the flow records) that the existing flows will exceed the Treatment costs to the City of Renton are those that will be Metro a.lowance four times per year, in the following amounts: charged by Metro for flow to their interceptor sys :.., i.e. , flow from the Honey Dew Interceptor (Renton) to May Creek Interceptor Assumed (Metro). Metro "Rules and Regulations, April, 1969" establish a Peak 1/I 1/1 $3.55 x 10 surcharge for flows in excess of the Metro allowances for inflow and Flow Allowance Excess Excess x 900ef Days infiltration. This surcharge is equal to the normal Metro billing Monti, mod) (gpd) (gpd)__ (cu. ft.) - A/day - $ rate ane is adjusted periodically to reflect the actual cost of sewage transport and treatment. The current rate is $3.55 per January P20,000 368,000 452.000 60,400 $238.24 $2,382 900 c._. _ 'et. Excess inflow/infiltration is defined by Metro as that excess of the design allowance of 1,100 gallons per Januar} 6(H),000 368,000 232,000 31,000 122.28 1,223 sewer per day as measured over any 30-minute period. The daily >,..charge remains in effect for 10 days following the day that February 500,000 368,000 132,000 17,650 69.62 696 the excess occurred and will be readjusted every 10 days. March 400,000 3E8,000 32,000 4,303 16.96 _ 170 _ Tie Metro Design Allowance is shown on Plate 2 for the existing Sunset Lift Station contributory area to be 368,000 gallons per day. Estima.ed Total Annual Surcharge = $4,471/ Ttis was computad as follows: year t 207 acres x 1,100 gpd/acre = 227,700 gpd Peak Wastewater Flow 140,00( gpd Total Cost of Excess Inflow/Infiltration 367,700 gpd The excess inflow/infiltration (above Metro standards) will not affect Say 368,000 gpd the required pipe sizes for either the Honey Dew or May Creek Interceptors. The only cost factor then, is the Metro surcharge As shown on Plate 2, the Metro allowance was exceeded twice in equired from Renton for additional downstream transport and treatment. 1974 and three times in 1975. As calculated above, this surcharge will initiate amount to $4,471/year if no sewer rehabilitation is done. This surcharge is based on the existing 207 severed acres of the total 369 acres in the Honey Creek Basin. If the sewers in cite unsewered areas of the Haney Creek Basin are constructed according to the State of Washington American Public V-trks Association (APWA) standards or 0.4 gallons per hour per inch diameter per 100 feet, the total basin inflow/infiltration would be: -16- r i z Assume, 160'-8" pipe/acre In other words, if the unsewered areas of the Honey Creek Basin are 240'-6" pipe/acre constructed to standards better than those required by Metro, to 1/2 oranhole/acre compensate for the existing sewers which are in excess of Metro standards, the average for the entire basin will not be excessive at the time when all sewers are in. Inflow/Infiltration New Construction = If a uniform growth rate is assumed the annual surcharge will decrease froc. an estimated initial $4,471/year to zero at the end of the 160 x 8 x 0.4 = 5. 1 gph x 24 = 122 gpd/acre projected development period of twenty years. The average annul cost of the inflow/infiltration is then $4,471/2 _ $2,236/year. 240 x 6 x 0.4 = 5.8 gph x 24 = 139 gpd/acre 1-00 1/2 manhole = 1/2 x 0.6 gph x 24 = 7 gpd/acre 268 gpd/acre Inflow/Infiltration New + Existing Construction = existing Inflow = 510,000 gpd Existing Infiltration = 170,000 gpd New I/I (869-207 acres) (268 gpd/acre) 177,400 pd 857,400 gpd 857,400 gpu _ 987 gpd/acre + 869 acres VS. 1,100 gpd/acre Metro allowance -17- SEWER REHABILITATION COSTS Inflow Based on the information presented on Plate 3 and physical observations, it is concluded that the majority of storm inflow is _ related to surface pouding conditions. It is estimated that 60 percent The final 20 percent of inflow is attributed to such items as cross- of the peak inflow portion (0.6 x 510,000 = 306,000 gpd) of extraneous connections with storm drainage facilities and other direct water can be eliminated by making a detailed survey of all runs and connections of storm water to the sznitary sewers. Such a situation correcting those manholes that show signs of allowing surface water is very difficult to isolate and correct. As this does not appear entry. Such corrections could include raising manhole covers, to be a significant factor in this case, corrections of ct.:s nature curbing around manholes and installing watertight manhole covers are not considered to be cost effective. where required. Estimated cost of this work is: Infiltration Inspect Lines - 10 days @ $200/day A Based on the limited number o: manholes oLzerved, it is estimated Correct Manhole Covers - 18 ea @ $200/each = 3,600 that 10 percent of the peak infiltration (0.10 x 170,000 = 17,000 gpd) can be eliminated by correction of manhole joint leaks and stub $5,600 grouting leaks. Estimated cost of this work is: Inspect manholes - 15 days @ $200/day = $3,000 Removal Cost = $530b0 - �i8. 30/1000 gallons Correct manhole leaks - 25 each @ $250 each = 6,250 Annualized Cost - $5,600 - = S280/year $9,250 20 years Removal Cost = $9,250 =$544/1000 gallons An additional 20 cercent (0.2 x 510,000 = 102,000 gpd) of the peak 17 inflow is attributed to such items as illegal footing drains, yard drafn�, etc. These locations can best be found by smoke testing. Annualized Cost - $9,250 = $462/year Estimated cost of this work is: 20 years Smoke Testing - 29,900' x 35C/it. $10,465 The remaining 90 percent of infiltration sources will require more Correction (Owner Cost) 0 difficult location and repair techniques. $10,465 Removal Cost = $100465 = $102.59/1000 gallon S10 465 A- talized Cost = 20 years = S523/year . -18- Cost Summary Plate 4 summarizes the cost of rehabilitating the sewers in the I,�Q C ' SUMMARY Sunset Lift Station contributory area versus the treatment costs (surcharge to Metro). As indicated, the most cost-effective degree T E 4 of leakage removal includes removing approximately 60 percent of the inflow (106,000 gpd) by correcting surface water entry problems such as low manhole covers. =he c)st of this work 1s estimated to be $5,600 or $280 per year over the project life. Ia addition, a cost of $2,000 or $100 per year is included for administration and 2900 _ p � preparation of the inflow/infiltration Survey report. It is 42,236/YR estimated that this removal will leave occasional peak flows of IW approximately 374,000 gpd. This will initially be in excess o. / Metro Design Allowances and will result in anticipated surcharges of 200(7 •-r _ I 4 / $750 per year, or $15,000 over the project life. This surcharge is n expected to start at about $1,500 per year and decrease to zero over I W v the project life as new higher standard sewer construction in the r ,1, � ' ( Honey Creek 3asin compensates for existing lower standard construction. I500 366/YR %07 I 4 VVV Qv The most cost-effective method of handling the excuse inflow/ / 4yP I infiltration in the existing Sunset Lift Station contributory area is: ` ? �� yJ Correct Low Manhole Covers = $ 5,600 10•)O/YR P� _ Inflow/Infiltration Survey s Administration 2,OOl. �903/YRJ � j Treatment Costs (Y�!tro surcharge) 15,000 f 380/YR boo ti. •• $22,600 = y f 1J0/1"R t` RfH49 LiTgTE /(I/S SURVEY $ 1,130/Year 0 100,000 2 3 4 5 6 7 900,000 LCAKAGE REMAINING _19- COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS UNDER Pl. 92 - 500 MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN DRAFT VOLLIAiE ENVIRONMENTAL III ASSESSMENT FOR SEWER INTERCEPTORS - KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 '/11k µ ,. METROPOL:.AN r'IUNCIL, KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 C. Carey Donworth, Chairman Henry F. McCullough, Commissioner Stat,ley P. Kersey, Auburn Paul C. Patterson, Commissioner _ M,F. (Mel) Yanik, Bellevue John R. Janson, Commissioner Isabel Hogan, Kent Sam Macri , Manager Robert L. Neir, Kirkland Aubrey Davis, Jr. Mercer island Avery Garrett, R xtton Wes Uhlman, Scatt-_ James K. Bender, Seattle George Benson, Seattle Tim Hill, Seattle Paul Kraabel, Seattle Phyllis Lamphere, Seattle Wayne D. Larkin, Seatt:e inhn a. Miller, Seattle Ran:ly Revelle, Seattle Sam Smith, Seattle Jeanette Williams, Seattle CITY OF RENTON Selwyn L. "Bud" Young, Othar Cities John D. Spellman, King Ccuncy Averry Garrett, Mayor Paul Bard`n, King County Ear: Clymer, Councilman Ruby Chow, King County Charles DeLaurenti, Councilman Robert B. Dunn, King, County Ceorge Perry, Councilman Thomas M. Forsythe, King bouncy Kenneth Bruce, Councilman Edward Heavey, King county Henry Fchellert, Councilman Lave Mooney, King County William Graet, Councilman Tracy J. Owen, King County Richard Stredicke, Councilman Bill Reams, King County Warren Gonnason, Director of Public Works Bernice Stern, King Ceun-,y Marjorie Arnold, Unincorporated Areas L. Thomas Eckstrand, Unincorporated Areas John Fournier, Jr., Unincorporated Areas Jim Shahan, Unincorporated Areas A. Dean Worthington, Unincorporated Areas Hanford B. Choate, Sewer Districts Richard S. Page, Executive Director IdML 11 It S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE #1 TO EPA/DOE GRANT 9X COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN MAY 1975 - VOLUME III - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE Y MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 1915 FIRST AVENUE VL SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 1X TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 P�&e Page SUMMARY SHEET iv Aquatic Life 7 RECIPIENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT vi Wildlife 8 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT I Air Quality 8 Introduction 1 Social Economic Conditions 10 Sever Service Area 1 Community Plans 10 ections 10lation Proj ections Communities Within or Bordering the May Population 3 Creek Service Area 1 Existing Traffic 10 City of Renton 1 Bus Service 10 1 PROPOSED ACTION 13 Newport Hills 1 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 1 Purpose of the Proposed Action 13 i - King County Water District No. 107 2 Design Criteria 13 1 Physical Characteristics 2 Description of Proposed Project 13 Geology 2 Construction Permits, Reviews, Approvals 18 Soils of the Area 2 Financing 18 Soils Along May Creek 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 20 Drainage 4 Description of the Future Env3roement Without the �. Vegetation of the Basin Proposed Action 20 5 7y. v Water Quality 5 a 1 YR TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Page Page Evaluation of Other Alternatives 21 ADVERSE IMPACT WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 29 Alternate "A" and "A-A" 21 Primary Impact 29 Alternate "B" 21 Secondary Impact 29 - Alternatives for Other Interceptor Lines 22 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 24 LONn-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 29, Primary Impact 24 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSFD ACTION SHOULD Y _ Environmental Trade-Offs 24 IT BE IMPLEMENTED 29 Construction in the Creek 24 CONCLUSION 29 �, Secondary Impact 25 TABLES (IN TEXT) Population 25 Table 1 - Aquatic Life 7' Land Use 25 Table 2 - Population 11 Environmental Effect on Water Quality 26 Table 3 - Design Criteria 16 - Traffic 26 Table 4 - Interceptor Lines, Phase I 17= .z MITIGATING THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT 27 Table 5 - Interceptor Lines, Phase II 17�, MITIGATING THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT - 911F. TO CONSTRUCTION 28 it a. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cort'd) Page faZe MAPS Table 8 - Listing of Major Plant Life in Map 1 - Vicinity Hap 3 the May Creek Drainage Basin 34 Map 2 - Drainfield Failures 6 Table 9 - Seasonal Nutrient Concentration Map 3 - Proposed Land Use Plan 12 at May Creek 36 Map 4 - Proposed Interceptor Sewer Lines 15 Table 10 - S. - :zonal Nutrient Concentration at Lake Kathleen 36 APPENDIX Table 11 - Runoff Quality Summary, May Creek 37 - r 6 Birds Within the May Creek and Fish Habitat Assessment� Tabley Exhibit A" Fish Drainage Basin 32 May Creek 39 Table 7 - Animal Wildlife Within the May Exhibit "B" May Creek Delta Observations 57 asin 33 " " Life Creek DrainageB and Animal Li May Creek Plant a 9 Exhibit C y 5 t e j 111 t a SUMMARY SHEET t Nature of this Report: S��ary of Proposed Action: 8.. f Draft Environmental Assessment The proposed action anticipates tt.e construction of interceptor sever lines in the western portion S orp �sor: of May (,reek. These lines include: King County Water District No. 107 1. Hav Creek Interceptor Sever. Bellevue, Washington. 2. Honey Dew Interceptor Sewer. 3. Kennydale Interceptor Sewer System, Contact: East and West. 4. 110th Place S. E. Interceptor Sewer. Mr. John R. Wailace, Jr. , P. E. 6 L. S. 5. Lower Northwest (S.E. 91st Street) Moore, Wallace n Kennedy, Inc. Ir.t-rreptor Sever. 1915 First Avenue 6. Northeast Interceptor Sewer. Seattle, Washington 98101 7. Lake Boren Interceptor Sewer. 8. Southeast (S.E. 96th Street) Type of Proposed Action: Interceptor Sewer. E Construction of sever interceptor lines Sume3ry of Environmental Impacts: in the western portion of the May Creek The Basin. e environmental impact of the proposed action will be the removal of household sewage, which presently Official Title of Proposed Action: causes health hazards, pollution of water courses, and - - nisances. During construction, some removal of natural Phase I and Phase lI construction of the elements will take place. Some sedimentation is also May Creek Interceptor and its tributary likely to occur in the creeks. interceptor lines. Street construction will occur. This will inconvenience people during construction as well as bring about noise, dust, and cause traffic rerouting. A secondary impact of sever construction on tl:e environment is its effect on urbanization; without severs, land densities would be limited. Urbanization causes more rapid g-ound water runoff, changes in land contours, and subsequently greatly affects the environment. IV Summary of Alternatives: The following alternatives have been considered: 1. No action - the continuation of the present method of sewage disposal by use of septa: tank- drainfields and by collecting sewage. then pumping it to another drainage basin. v 2. Alternate routes for the interceptor - construction of interceptors at alternate locations. _ Public Hearing: A public hearing is to be held on Monday, June 30, 1975 at 8:00 p.m., PDST, at the Renton City Hall in Renton, Washington. to Review Period; - The review period will be from June 1, 1975 to July 15, 1975. Hearing Body: - The Board of Commissioners for King County Water District No. 107 will be the Hearing Body for this project. - v ; i A i i j 1 i RECIPIENTS OF THIS DG. 'IM: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Siaa�t^;ton State Department of Highways Attn: EIS Coordinator, Mr. Walt Jaspers a.i. Mr. Brace Davidson, E:.iro,:mental Planner U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Attn: Mr. Walt Farrar . En: Mr. A. R. Damkoehler Executive Director office of Community Development Attn: Mr. Nicholas Lewis, State Planner Puge' Sa.and Covernmental Conference Mr. Hart Kask Washington State Department of Ecology Executive Director Attn: Mr. John Biggs, Director Mr. Gordon Wegwart King County Department of Budget and Program Planning A.. i: Federal/State Relations Division (4) Washington State Ecological Commission Attn: Dr. R. Masley, Chairman Kier r unty Department of Community and Environmental W, elopment - Washington State Department of Social 6 Health 'rt .: Mr. Thomas Ryan, Director Services - Water Supply and Waste Section Attn: Mr. Robert E. Leaver, Planning Engineer King L anty Park Department Attn: Mr. Ceorge Wyse Washington State Department of Game Attn: Ass't Chief King County Water District No. 107 Environmental Management Division Att.;: Mr. Henry McCullough, Chairman Mr. Kenneth Tupper Mr. Arnold Robbins Washington State Highway Department, District J1 King County Department of Hydraulics Attn: Mr. W. C. Bogart, District Engineer Ar, z: Mr. George Wannamaker - Washington State Department of Fisheries K'ng ;..aunty Division of Land Use Management Attn: Mr. Gilbert A. Holland Attn: Mr. Ed Sands Fisheries Research Coordinator ' vi t RECIPIENTS OF THIS DOCLWNT: (Cont'd) Seattle—King County Department of Public Health Attn: Dr. Lawrence Bergner, Director Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) Environmental Planning Division Attn: Mr. Peter S. Machno City of Renton Attn: Mr. Warren Gornason, Director of Public Works Mr. Gordon Erickson, Director of Planning Quendall Terminal Company, Renton, Washington Attn: Mr. John 0. Norman, Manager Washington Environmental Council Sierra Club Notification: Only those people requesting final Environmental Assessments in writing will receive a copy. A W vii i � . DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT (r Introduction t The May Creek Drainage Basin is located in Metropolitan Seattle a half Pile east of 138th Avenue S. E. Map 1, Vicinity Map, between the City of Renton and Newport Hills, and just east of shows the are: concerned, and Map 3, Proposed Land Use Plan, Lake Washington. The western portion of the May Creek Drainage shotia tLe se:v:ce areas. Basin is urbanized, while the eastern portion is rural and - contains rugged terrain, where elevations rise from 300 [0 1200 Communities Within or Bordering the May Creek Service Area }j feet. The western portion of the drainage basin is very close to Renton City of Renton where concentration of industry occurs. Urban services such as public water supply, roads and highways are increasing the Renton, just touching the southwestern portion of the drainage density in the western porticn of May Creek, and a demand for basin, is the largest industrial employment center in the wastewater treatment now exists. To meet this demand, it is Puget Sound Region. The C.ty's daytime population of over necessary to first develop sewer interceptor lines which would 70,000 dwarfs its residential population of 26,250. Renton serve the urbanizing areas. The proposed interceptor sewer lines is the headquarters for the region two largest employers, would connect to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle the Boeing Company and Pacific Car and Foundry Company. facilities, which provide for wastewater treatment for all Metropolitan Seattle. Newport Hills This environmental assessment is written to evaluate various Newport Hills is a suburban residential, unincorporated �.- alternatives for sewer interceptor service In the western portion community with antes commercial developments that primarily t' of the May Creek Drainage Basin. The proposed action could serve local shopping needs. Most hoots in this area have been ' result in the construction of sewers within the next five years. built since 1460; the community contains a very high percentage of young families with school-age children. A purpose of this assessment is to meet the regairementa of the ''. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State of Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Washington Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). METRL is a special purpose district which has been organized to provide interceptor sewer lines and wastewater treatment Sewer Service Area Jlant facilities for governmental agencies in the Seattle Metropolitan -ea. The original purpose for organizing METRO waa to toilec, and treat wastewater around Lake Washington. Sewer interceptor lines will provide sewer service in the western portion of May Creek Drainage Basin. This area begins just east of Interstate Highway 405 and extends eastwardly to an area about i King County Water District No. 1C7 section is more than 5,000 feet thick. It contains marine Invertebrate fossils that prove a Late Jurassic and Early Water District No. 107 is a special purpose district which Cretaceous age. supplies water and collects sewage within the boundary of the district. Water District No. 107 has been designated by METRO The es of Earnut Formation consists They postdate sandstones and and Renton as the "lead" agency to apply for State and Federal shapes of Early Tertiary age. They postdate the Cretaceous grants, plan oral aesfgn sever interceptors in the May Creek orogeny. D-afnage Basin. Sails of the Area eh;,sical Characteristics The soil of the area is an important determiner of the vegetation, associated animal life and other interrelated Geoloovl characteristics. Four of the sr .�n King County soil associations are found in the drainage basin. A soil different formations dominate the geoiogy of the western association is a landscape that has distinctive proportional Three These are the Chillivack patterns o Cascades. f soils and is named for the major soils of the foothills the formations orth Group, the Nooksack Group, and the Chuckanut Formation. associatfor. The drainage basin soil associa[fons2are Everett, Al rwood, Beausite-Alderwood and Kitsap. The the oldest is the Chillivack Group. It consists of a typical Everett association exr-nds inland two miles from lake eugeosynclinal assemblage--dark sandstones, black shales, Washington and is north and south of May Creek. The ; ciation is generally south of May Creek. The thin beds of chert, and submarine lava flows. The Chillivack Alderwood asso also contains some rather thick layers of limestone, Beausite-Alderwood association is north of May Creek. lenticular in fors and seldom extend'_ng for more than a few Characteristics of these associations are: miles. They are locally of importance as host rocks for ore deposits and as a source for a once-thriving cement industry. Fverett Association: Somevt.at excessively drained, The limestone contains most of the fossils found in the gravelly, gently undulating soils underlain by sand and Chillivack Group - fossils as old as Middle Devonian and as gravel; on terraces. young as sandstones and shales of Early Tertiary age. They postdate the Cretaceous orogeny. It contains many gaps, or .:derwood Association: Moderately well drained, unconformities, including an apparent absence of any strata undulating to hilly soils that have dense, very slowly of Mississippian age. The Chillivack Group has not beer. permeable glacial till at a depth of 20 to 40 inches; studied in detail; its thickness exceeds 10,000 feet. or. uplands rnd terraces. _ The Nooksack Group consists of dark sandstones and shales Beausite-Alderwood Association: Well drained and made up foi the most part of fragments of volcanic rock. It moderately well drained, gently rolling to very steep has been intensely folded and sheared locally by some of the soils that have sandstone or shale or dense. very slowly large Cretaceous thrust faults that cut through the foothills. permeable glacial till at a cepth of 20 to 40 inches; This deformation and the lithologic monotony of the Nooksack on uplands. make thickness determinations very difficult. Certainly, the -2- LEGEND MAY CREEK AREA VICINITY MAP 1 WATER z 3 a r �E3 a BAINBRIDIE r � 4I5 ' o 3 BELLEVUE F ISLAND _ o t oke SEATTLE {^ ^ ! J D USN 90 SNOOUALNIE 0 TIN Cis \ iy J Sea !ac At 5 VASION � IDS Loke ISLAND NAPLE VALLEY Kr Kitsap Association: Poorly drained, rapid runoff. Drainage Developed on eroded remnant of fine textured lacustrine sediments largely silt and clay. Kitsap with slopes of Present drainage problems include ponding and overbook 25 to 70 percent has a very significant slide potential. flooding in the upper u.d middle reaches of May Creek; erosion and sedimentation exist in the lower reaches and Soils Along May Creek middle sections of the upper Creek. Stream flooding begins -- at 148th Avenue S. E. and extends eastward to the Renton- The Soil Survey of King County describes the sosl series of Issaquah Road. The valley is extremely flat and its soil the area. A soil series is the soil profile, that is, the drains poorly. The flood plain, containing few buildings, sequence of layers from the surface downward to rock or other is presently used primarily for livestock pasture. As a underlying material. The soil most prevalent along wdy Creek nnsequence, no major damage occurs in the flood season. and 'having the greatest limitations is the Alderwood and Kitsap soils. Slopes are 25 to 70 percent. Distribution of Erosion and sedimentation take place downstream of 136th the soil varies greatly within short distances. Drainage acd Avenue S. E. on May Creek and avmstream of the Renton- permeability vary. Runoff is rapid to very rapid, and the Issaquah Road (Sunset Blvd) on Noney Creek. A natural erosion erosion hazard is severe to very severe. Estimated properties process would be underway on May Creek, even without of the soils are given for the Alderwood and Kitsap sr'l urbanization; the problem has been intensified by un w' *rolled series and others. The American Association of State Highway discharge of stirm drains at the top of the natural system and Officials (AASHO) rating of the soil is A-1 or A-2, which is by generally increased runoff flows from impervious urban a soil having the highest bearing strength. All the soils development. These higher runoff rates have accelerated the along May Creek are acid in reaction. The Alderwood soil erosion process. series has a pH of 5.1.-6.0. An estimated 3,000 cubic yards of eroded material is deposited in the lower reaches of May Creek annually, just before it enters Lake Washington. It forms a delta that is detrimental to the planned use of the area. The existing drainage problems will become more severe as increases in impervious areas bring about faster runoff. The total impervious area in this sub-basin is projected to increase frou. the existing 5 percent to approximately 15 percent of the total land use, as determined by a computer run by the Puget Sound Governmental Conference. A computer simulation of future runoff conditions was made as 1 McGee, Bates: Cascadia the Geologic Evaluation of the a part of the Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Study for the Pacific Northwest. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1972. Pg. 47, Green and Cedar Rivers. The model indicates that there will he increased velocity and volume of water reaching the 2 Soil Survey of Kic? County Area, Washington. Soil steeper, lower portion of May Creek prior to entering Lake Conservation Service, USDA, issued November 1973. Washington. This latter problem will accelerate bank erosion 3 Ibid. and sedimentation transport and deposition at Lake Washington. _4_ ati Damages that would occur, considering the existing drainage water. By compar;soi with the existing coliform count, which control system and future accelerated runoff conditions to is 1 x 10 coliform/ [OO nl , weak sewage has a coliform count the year 2000, are estimated to total approximately 17,000 of 1 x 106 coliform/IJO ml. This means that presently tha - dollars per year (1974 dollars) . These damage costs are flow from May Creek is one hundredth the strength of weak reflective of additional sedimentation deposits at the mouth sewage. of May Creek, as well as residential and crop inundation.5 Algae growth is an indication of the deterioration of water Vegetation of the Basin quality as well as a natural aging process in a body of water. Algae growth is stimulated when 0.015 mg/1 of phospharp or The May Creek Drainage Basin is predominately a woodland site 0. 3 mg/l of nitrate are present in a calm body of water. In its native state. The area east of 136th Ave. S. E. and Based on the existing water quality shown in Table .11 of the south of S. E. 96th Street (Coalfield Way) and adjacp- t to Appendix, the water in May Creek shows a deteriora+.ion in the creek have been cleared of the dominant species. fhe area water quality. The water in Lake Kathleen presently has the has been planted to grasses such as Orchard, Alta Fescuc, Rye nutrients to support algae. and Timothy. The grassed areas are mainly used as pasturage of livestock. Within the May Creek Drainage Basin, a large number of septic tank-drainfield failures have taken place. These failures The climax species of the drainage basin are coniferous trees were noted on maps by the Seattle King County Health Depart- such a= Douglas fir, Western Hemlock and Western Red Cedar. ment, based on home sanitary sewage disposal system tests. The dominant deciduous tree is Red Alder. Red Alder commonly These maps are not evidence of all septic tank-drainfield invades logged-off areas. The soils of King Uounty have been failures as only a small number of tests have been made in the grouped into 15 groups according to their suitability for wood area. Map 2 shows the results which were obtained from the crops. The potential productivity for the major woodland Health Department. group in the basin is 445-550 board feet 'ter acre per year. Failure of septic tank-drainfields is seer: when dye is A wi.ie variety of algaes, liverworts and mosses are to be flushed from a toilet and found in drainage ditches or else- found in the May Creek area. No detailed accounting was made where on the ground. Consequently, failure of septic tank- of these lower forms of plant life. A listing of major plants drainfields in &ny area is both a nuisance and a potential of the drainage basin is contained in Table 8 of the Appendix. health hazard. Water Quality The seepage of septic tank-drainfields flows into bodies of water. In the case of the May Creek Drainage Basin, this. Water quality of May6Creek and Lake Kathleen wt-re obtained would be Lake Boren, Lake Kathleen, Lake Washington, M,v from METRO and RIBCO studies. These water quality tables are Creek, Honey Creek, and some of the unnamed creeks fl.,.ing reproduced in Table 11 of the Appendix. The tables discuss into May Creek. Sewers would correct this problem. coliform bacteria, phosphorous, nitrate and ammonia. Each of these is an index of water quality. The presence of coliform bacteria indicates that human or animal wastes are in the + i _5 �- �. oil -LEGEND DRAINFIELD FAILURES DPP do DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY �N� Lm.S OF SEWER SERWCF AREA-PRASE 18II ' AREA 8 NUMBER Or REPORTED FAILURES 4 it r" s C _.ram° ♦ -. � z r ♦ yy ♦ �\ram ~ i t t \\\ 4Y f '.Y. \ Arm � ' r. • y Cry,. � � .`��N�jy �f�+• �` \ r In addition to sewage, storm arainege flowing into the May Aquatic Life i Creek receiving waters will bring ifth it sand and sedimentary material, litter, street oil, lead, lawn fertilizer, and The aquatic life in May Creek was obtained with an elec[ro- garden sprays, all of which have a deleterious effect on the fishing technique. This method provides a ::uisating D. C. quality of water in May Creek and Lake Washington. stimulus which causes fish to be * "'porar: .v immobilized. - Four sample stations were establ .:,hed on May Creek and the fish, shown in Table 1, were observed. r TAPLE 1 AQUATIC LIFE IN MAY CREEK m Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus Kisutch Rare Steelhead Trout Salmo Gairdneri Occasional R Cutthroat Trout S. Clarki Clarki Rare Sculpius Cottus Spp. Frequent Brook Lamprey Lampetra Flaneri Rare Literature surveyed indicates the .vailability of sockeye salmon and some chin --! lmon in May Creek. As in May Creek, the electrofish`-ng technique was -_d to determine fish in Honey Creek. Fish caught in the lower third of Hon.>y Creek resembled fish of May Creek. rook - 4 u. T. Army Corps of Engineers, Appendix A to the Final provides spawning ground for cutthroat trout in its lower Report. Urban_Runoff and Basin Drainage Study. Gr-en and Cedar reaches; habitat for sculpins also exists. Above the culvert River Basins of Washington, July 1974, C-16. of N. E. 27th Street, Honey Creek provides almost no fish habitat. Ibid. 'n 6 River Basin Coordinating Committee -7- Aw- A complete report entitled "Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment," Burning, on the other hand, requires permits from the PLIet on the aquatic life in May Creek and Honey Creek is included Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Almost all open burning in the Appen& . has been prohibited in King County. Wildlife There are only a few small industries within the May Creek Drainage Basin. These industries include a creosote plant A listing of birds either found within the May Creek Drainage and several gravel pits. Industries or industrial expansion Basin or anticipated to be in the Basin is listed in Table 6 would not tie affected by sewers proposed for the May Creek of the Appendix. Protected birds are found only on rare Drainage bas,�., since they are already served by existing occasions. The listing of birds was obtained from secondary sewer lines. sources. The Washington State Department of Game7 provided a list of birds that aie expected to be located within the Basin and a listing of birds was obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Study performed f-r the luget Sound and Adjacent Waters report.6 The animal wildlife that can be expected to be found in the May Creek Drainage Basin is listed in Table 7 of the Appendix. As with birds, the wildlife expected in the area wis obtained from the Washington �.cate Department of rame9 and the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters study.10 "- Air Quality The present air quality within the May Creek Drainage Basin 7 Washington State Department of Game, 1975. is below the standard which requires a halt in building permits.11 Consequently, building may progress in this area. 8 Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, P�LgPt sound _. Air quality is affected by: and Afiacent Waters, Appendix 11, October 1970. 1 . Automobile exhaust. 9 Op. Cit., Washington State Department of Game. 2. House heating. Appendix 11. 3. Burning. 10 Op. Cit. , Puget Sound and P.Jjacent Waters, A 4. Construction activity. 5. Industrial air pollution. 11 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, May 1975 - . Air qualit; 1n the May Creek Drainage Basin is below the Standard of Automobile exhaust, hone heating and construction are direct Concern. The Standards of Concern exist if 60 micrograms/cubic functions of population in the Basin. As the population meter of suspended solids exist in the air. At the present time, grows, these three activities will likewise increase. only 35 micrograms/cubic meter of suspended solids are it the May Creek Drainage Basin. _B_ t :. Electrofishing in May # q tR Creek. Net is across _ '* i creek. i 2. Closeup of Electro- _. fishing. r v+ 2 3. C-4tching stunned fish. r, i 'Al � T •- � -��_: 4/''{ 4. Measuring, sorting and returning fish to May r � j Social-Economic Condi.tlons permits, and req-t re changes in the comprehensive plan of the various governmental units towards larger lot sizes. Larger Community Plans lots would be more expensive, requiring a more expensive home, thereby limiting the market considerably. The plans for the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin have been developed by the City of Renton, King County, Existing Traffic and coordinated with, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, 48,500 a regional planning agency. These plans call for the The present traffic along Interstate Highway ton Is aquah urbanization of the area, primarily residential land vehicles per day, while the traffic along Renton-Issaquah development. See Mai. 3, Proposed Land Use Plan. Road (SR principal is tarter vehicles per day. These two highways a-s the principal arterial streets within the May Creek The Brown and Caldwell Metropolitan Seattle Sewage and Lcainage Basin and provide an indication of the extensive use Drainage Survey, March 1958, is a comprehensive sewerage of traffic in the Basin. Almost all of the interstate highway plan that was adopted by METRO and King County as their traffic is through traffic, while SR 900 traffic is official Comprehensive Plan. This plan is the first reference predominantly local traffic. to a sewer line for the May Creek Drainage Basin. A recent draft study by RIBCO, A Summary of Studies and Proposals, Bus Service .ianuary 1975, proposes sewer lines for the May Creek Basin. Metro Transit presently serves Renton and Newport Hills. As Population Projections the May Creek area urbanizes, demand for public transportation is likely to increase. Increased transit demand could bring The population projections, with and without sewers, are shown about more frequent service, which may reduce the overall in Table 2. These population projections are based upon past dependence on the automobile. building trends, anticipated restriction: If sewers were nut to be built, and community plans, as developed by local ., government. To obtain the existing population, a count of dwelling units was made in Water District No. 107 and in Renton. other population in the Basin was estimated from 1970 aerial photographs. Volume 112 explains the basis of the projected population more fully for Columns 1-3. figure 1 shows anticipated population projections, both with and without -ewers, ns indicated in Table 2. Column 4 of Table 2 was developed specifically for this report. It was assumed that for three years the population growth in the study area would 12 Moore, Wallace b Kennedy, ,ne Comprehensive Sewerage be u ,affected. Thereafter, population growth would begin to Plan for the May Creek Drainage Basin, May 1975. decline considerably as the lack of sewers in the drainage basin would limit land subdivision, limit new building - -10- r 2 M } • tom.....1.t. . .. �_..... - � -.. FN,.1 3z1 L [w�!`iI1 M 3MOifiiiS#t++- -'�i� i!. • ./ :11 :/1 :f/ :il 1 1 1 /1 •'[ _ L—ssa 1 11 Ifl 1 t1 - W3:i� 111 If 1/1 /11 III /{ - 3i 0.t.t A. ow 1 11 11 11 /1 e zi 5 ......r..---..z........�._... .. _...s _ . '.."'. .M. MH Y_:CC...�..... _ .. ._ ... .__. .. .. . ...a���w w. .Iiii� ~Fs•Z'1"�.I:i' iiCi7i.�'. 1 L 1 t i P O COMMERCIAL '� ,�ENBELT STRY PROPOSED LAND U.,t PLAN r WE" DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY LOOT BOW LIC S:-PUB r ME DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY �=i lM6T OF SEWF37 SERVICE DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY ARFA,~SE T 82I SCALE 4� a FEET +w J G � i `\ 5E 41 1 / i 7 J s �" PROPOSED ACTION Purpose of Proposed Action - The purpose of providing sewer interceptor lines in the western will be in or near the bottom of the creek; occasional portioq of the May Creek Drainage Basin is to implement existing construction may be above ground, with an elevated line, so that comprehensive land use plans of local governments which call for the grade will be as constant as possible. higher land densities. The long range plans for King County, METRO, Renton, and Water District No. 107 provide for sewers in It is anticipated that all property within May Creek will be owned _. the western portion of May Creek prior to 1980. by the King County Park Department. It is prcposed that a walkway be constructed after the sewer line has been installed. wherever The proposed action ie designed to improve water quality, mitigate the overhead line is to be built, it will be bored, and a wooden the existing health hazard, and provide for orderly land guard rail will he installed to enable people to walk on the top development. of the box. This will make the passive use of the park available to a broader spectrum of the population. - - oesign Criteria A second condition of installing severs in the park is that The design criteria used in this environmental assessment was construction will leave as much natural vegetation as possible, - established by `IETRO in its Comprehensive Plan.13 This criteria and restore the origi..ai condition as much as possible. Hydro- is set forth in Table 3. seeding is to be done after construction. Description of the Proposed Project A King County Use Permit will be required in order to build on the King ;.ounty segment of the road. _ The interceptor lines proposed for this project are shown in Table 4 for Phase I and in Table 5 for Phase II. Each interceptor The maximum sever size will not exceed 24 inches. Most sewers line is described, specifically, and the tables show the length will be considerably smaller. and estimated cost of each line. Map 4 shows the proposed interceptors. The Honey Dew Interceptor will be located in Honey Creek. Private property easements and King County Parks department - The sewer interceptors will traverse in or near Honey and May permits will be required before construction can begin. creeks, in existing city streets or county road:, or alotg abandoned railroad rigbt-of-way. The Kennydale Interceptor System consists of three separate lines. The first line connects between the May Creek Interceptor The May Creek Interceptor Sewer will begin at METRO manhole B, and S. E. 97th Street. This interceptor passes through the pro- then proceed along the existing Jones Road right-of-way until posed King County Park and then on private property easements, which _ " - Jones Road ends at May Creek. Thereafter, the sewer line will must be acquired. This line is designated the May Creek-Kennydale generally follow May Creek to 136th /venue S. E. Corstructien Interceptor. Feeding into this interceptor are the East Kennydale s.; -13- � woo ..�.. and West Kennydale Interceptor. These sewers serve an area to As soon as the first phase of construction is completed, the about N. E. 20th Street in Renton. These interceptors are second phase is expected to begin, approximately in 1977. This primarily on private easements and on street right-of-way. second phase includes the completion of the May Creek interceptor Easements and permits must be obtained prior to construction. from Honey Creek to 136th Avenue S. E. or Manhole D. Ti - expectation for thi_ early construction of the second phase is The 110th Place S. E. Interceptor traverses county roads on 110th based upon recognlved public needb as indicated by Washington Ave. S._'_., 110th Place S.E. and S.E. 88th Street. It empties into State Department Zc�logy (DOE) , who has loaned money to Water the existing Jones Avenue Interceptor Permits to build on county District No. 107 to plan and design intercepturs in the urban streets must be obtained. portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin. This design is scheduled to be complete early 1976. The Lower Northwest Interceptor is a 1,050 foot long interceptor line that is primarily inside King County Park and on private easements. Permits lot construction in the park and on easements must be obtained. This sewer empties into the May Creek Interceptor. The Northeast Interceptor is built on a former railroad grade (the railroad tracks were removed many years_ ago). This interceptor drains into the May Creek Interceptor Sewer. The Northeast Interceptor will be located almost entirely in the King County Park, where a permit for construction must be obtained. Private easements will be required where this line is to be built outside the King County Park. The Lake Boren Interceptor will be built from Lake Boren to the May Creek Interceptor and will be entirely on private easeme,�ts. These easements must be obtained prior to construction. The Southeast -nterceptor will be built on S. E. 96th Street aid on 138th Avenue S. E. and will empty into the May Creek Interceptor. Permits to build on these streets must be obtained. 13 Brown b Caldwell, Metropolitan Seattle Sewage and Drainage Survey, March 1958. -14- PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINES 4 SC41E 0_ ♦ 0 00__ I OP p FEET OF ;. �1, • :- la f YORE I, RLE E� / •,IIF ",n LAKE $ 1 OF .!ONES ' N 1 , y a � qN \�:. N.. ell LOWER'. ' N:1K .. ��„ .•-, �+ INTERCEPTOR�`� Z k 1![NTOp _ KENNYDALE- = MAY K ^ ETHEAST �NTERa��OR MAY CREEk Cps, INTEg6EPTOF 1_ ,...•—_...�" _- oG.g�`�5 .i _ NN A I OR ., _....-._..J r , 1 a '+._+....-'..—�.—� [ •..gyp _� '__...� .. .... 1 V• V F -_. C� . fll . rM - _ .-- - i TABLE 3 DESIGN GRITERLA AS ESTABLISHED BY METRO Sanitary sewage, vie'--ions per capita per day 60 Peak flow ratios Industrial wastes, gallons per acre per day Sanitary sewage, upper 2,000 acres - Heavy industrial area, less than 1,000 acres 4,000 of drainage basin 3.33 3 Heavy industrial area, more than 1,000 acres 2,000 Sanitary sewage within major sewerage areas 1.75 Light industrial areas 2.000 Sanitary sewage - two or mo.e sewerage areas 1.50 Ground water infiltration, gallons per a -e Industrial waste, heavy industry 2•00 per day Industrial waste, light industry 3.00 hinter conditions, future construction 600 Winter conditions, construction existing Maxiety size, local service area, acres 1,000 prior to 1960 1,200 Roughness coefficient (ManninRs formula) i d < 36" 0.013 Storm water inflaw, gallons per acre per day d 36" - 66" 0.012 Winter conditions, future construction 500 d 72" 0.011 Winter conditions, construction existing Design flow = peak sanitary flow + ground water prior to 1960 2,000 infiltration, winter conditions + storm water Inflow, winter conditions. -16_ t TABLE 4 TABLE 5 MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN INTERCEPTOR SEWERS - PHASE I MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN 114TERCEPTOR SEWERS - PHASE II Estimated Estimated Length in Construction Length in Construction Intercepter Name Feet _ Cost in $1000 Interceptor Name Feet Cost in $1000 May Creek Interceptor to Honey Creek 6,750 316 Honey Creek to 136th Ave. S.E. 7,700 778 110th Place S_ E. Interceptor 6,630 162 Lake Boren Ir -ceptor 5,080 195 Kennydale Interceptor Systems: Southeast Inte. otor 7,800 148 (1) Kt;.-,ydale-M-y Creek Lower Northwest Interceptor Sever 3,100 88 Interceptor 750 52 Northeas Interceptor 7,140 165 <Z) East Kennydale Interceptor 6,980 157 (3) West Kennydale Interceptor 6,750 168 Honey Dew Interceptor 7,170 404 -11- .._. ..�,5se�ylR�.y...<•,ae+nen-...s�sar"-� - ^�+�X' ...., _ _ ..ice`. . . Construction Permits Reviews, Approvals Financing Prior to beginning construction, the following reviews, permits This project Is anticipated to be financed: and approvals are required: 75 percent from the U. S. Environmental Protection 1. A public hearing on the Community Facilities Plan. Agency. 2. A public hearing on the Environmental Ass, -;ment 15 percent from the Washington State Department of 1� Statement. Ecology, Referendum No. 26 funds. 3. A Shoreline Management Perm..: from the City of Renton. 10 percent from local agencies. 4. A Shoreline Management Special Use Permit from the It is anticipated that the May Creek Interceptor will be deeded to City of Renton. METRO as a METRO Sewer. The other interceptors will be Renton and Water District No. 107 lines. 5. An approval of Plans and Specifications by the Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection The interceptors will be paid for by the differeia owners frrn Agency. their funds. METRO will advance the local share for that portion of the system at,acent to May Creek. That advance will be 6. A Hydraulic Permit from the Washington State Department reimbursed to METRO by means of the curr. nt monthly charge made by of Game and the Washington State Department of Fisheries. METRO for each connected residence. King County Water District No. 107 and Renton have guaranteed the reimbursement. Renton 7. An approval by the King County Park Department. would pay for the local portion of Honey Dew, Kennydale a:=3 Southeast Interceptors from revenue bonds. Water District No. 107 R. An approval of Use Permits on City and County streets would pay for the local portion of the balance of the interceptors and roads. from revenue bonds. Latetol sewers will be built by Utility Local Improvement Districts and Developer Extensions. 9. Easements on private property. s _lg_ t . k 1. Flooding; as it occurs, s ,t. about 11,8th Avenue S.E. A _ - 2. This illustrates the steepness of May Creek t as seen from 136th Ave- nue S.E. looking west. t 1 2 r 3. Lower May Creek, near r Honey Creek. ,, 4. Culvert at S.E. 93rd Street, lower May (reek. ^/ pr � � �!� `�- Y ice.• -. •. 3 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Description of the Future Environment Without the Proposed Action Without the development of interceptor sewers in the western T' e development of lift stations would be expensive, both in ;"rtion of the May Creek Drainage Basin, there would be a slowing construction and maintenance. Furthermore, these lift stations of new construction and a change in local land use plans. use a large quantity of tnergy. In case of power failure, alternate sources of power must be provided, further increasing In existing subdivisions that have been developed, septic tank- the cost of these lift stations and energy requirements. drainfield failures have been noted by the King County Health Department. Large acre lots are not planned in the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin. Since employment centers are near this area, Examples of these failures are: acre tracts within the western May Creek Drainage Basin would be wasteful use of land. It would mean that many people wishing to Assessor's PIat of White Fence Ranch 26 failures live near their place of employment could not do so and would be May Valley Highlands 21 failures required to commute to work for a -reater distance than they might Hewitt's Addition 5 failures if they could live in the drainage basin. Again, consumption of Adams Vista Total failure energy would be required to bring people to work from greater distances. In Adams Vista homes may not be reoccupied once an owner moves out, since septic tank-drainfield failures are severe. As use of Another major problem is -he legal aspect of large lot sizes in an septic tank-drainfields continues, more failures can be urban center. The courts have held that large lot sizes provide anticipated because the soil absorption will decline after many "exclusionary zoning" which has been ruled illegal. A potential years of drainfield use. conflict between legal rulings regarding lot sizes and Health Department requirements might occur. The net effect of continued septic tank failure will be: Exis.ing water courses would continue to be affected by fecal 1. Development of some sewers, lift stations, and bacteria and nitrates if sewers are not built. This pollution pressure lines to take -.ewage to other drainage would ultimately endanger Lake Washington, the region's largest basins. (Lift stations are used to pump sewage.) fresh water lake. 2. Continued pollution of water courses and creation of health hazards where sewers cannot be built . 3. Development of larger home sites and a reduction in the density. -20- 0. Evaluation of Other Alternatives Alternate "A" and "A-A" There are a number of feasible alternatives in the development of The primary environmental effect of placing a sewer line in interceptor lines in the May Creek Drainage Basin. These alterna- the King County Park would be: tives are examined with respect to significant primary environmental effects. The secondary environmental effects would 1. The development of a trail for human use, thereby be similar in all circumstances, regardless of the alternatives, bringing more people into a previously inaccessible and are discussed more fully in the chapter on "Environmental natural area. Impact of the Proposed Action." 2. If an overhead sewer line Is built, then a man-made The alternatives for the primary sewer interceptor in May Creek object will protrude in the middle of a natural park. are: This man-made object could be made to look somewhat desirable by creating a footwalk on it; however, it "A" - A line at or near the bottom of May Creek. would still contrast with its natural surroundings, This line would go from Manhole B to Manhole D aesthetically. within the King County Park. 3. During construction, it will be necessary to wt "A-A" - A possible alrernate in the rnnsrr"rtinn near or down shade trees over water, which could warm the in May Creek is an aboveground sewer line, which water; cause erosion and sedimentation in the creek; - would be built, on occasion, wherever the natural and possibly kill spawning fish. grade would otherwise require either abrupt changes in the sewer grade or a very deep ditch. This sewer Mitigating measures could minimize the environmental impact line would be boxed and a walkway with handrails will of this construction. be set on top of this box. (As a consequence, it would make it easy for many people to enjoy walks Alternate "B" along the creek.) � Interceptors on each side of May Creek would not leave a.+y +'g" - Interceptoz lines on each side of May Creek out of detrimental effects on the environment, except during the King County Park, using existing qtr,et right- construction. Some pumping stations would be required, of-way. which may be aesthetically inharmonious with its surrounding area. +'C++ - A combination of the above. During construction the streets will be torn up, traffic will be redirected, and construction noise, dust, and other inconveniences will occur. -21- Y Alternatives for Other Interceptor Lines The interceptor lines feeding into May Creek that will be built as part of this project are: Honey Dew Interceptor 110th Place S. E. Interceptor Z Kennydale Interceptcr Northeast Interceptor Lower Northwest Interceptor Southeast Interceptor Lake 3oren Tnterceptor The Honey Dew Interceptor can be built either in or near the middle of Honey Creek, bit unlike May Creek, there are no existing street rights-of-way or other areas available on the ton on either side of the canyon. There are a series of small ravines which connect into Honey Creek, thereby making it impractical to run one interceptor sewer at the top on each side. If the line is not c instructed in the middle of Honey Creek, a series of lift stations would be necessary. By placing the sewer line in Honey Creek, existing flora would be disGirbed. Some disturbance in the Creek could have an impact on aquatic life. The disturbance of the j flora in Honey Creek would have an effect on wildlife. However, mitigating measures could be taken to minimize the impact of construction in the Creek. The interceptors serving other drainage areas will be built primarily on existing street rights-of-way, easements and an abandoned railroad grade. If interceptors were placed in alternate lc^ations, there would be a greater chance that pumping or lift stations would be required. The pumping or lift stations are users of energy; however, no change in the impact on the environment would exist. -22- Ilk i1♦ �" `� !� J q l" R`+l^t^ �4 , I { � M 1 , i� jll tM 4 yam. M'\ j /1 �� •� � � 1� / 1F\�1 I,� d z � a oe A r ``L .r 7r 1 i i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Primary Impact The proposed action will leave the following positive impacts: Construction in the Creek 1. Assist in decreasing the rate of pallutfon of lakes Soil, plant and wildlife habitat will be disturbed as and streams in the May Creek Drainage Basin. a result of construction activity. Although construction areas will be restored, site restoration will not be 2. Improve the health conditions where sewers cannot now immediate. Some trees may be replanted. be built and where septic tank-drainfield failures occur. Construct during July and August when the creek is at low flow. When constructing in the creek during the months 3. Meet the goals of local comprehensive plans by enabling of July and August, the effect or. aquatic life will be the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin to minimal. Restoration of gravel stream Leds must take meet its Land Use Density Plan. place in order for the fish to reproduce. 4. Be consistent with the long-range plans for METRO. There are areas where construction in the toe of the slope could begin a process of hill erosion. In order to 5. Satisfy the King County Health Department directives for prevent this from happening, hill holders must be severing areas within the May Creek Drainage Basin. installed. These hill holders take several forms and are set in the hill at various locations. Once in place, the Failure to solve local sewage disposal problems within the May hill holders are not removed, ana will possib,y slow Creek Drainage Basin would compound current problems of septic natural ero ion due to surface drainage. tank-drainfield failures, development programs, and sound utilization of land. A foot trail will be constructed, which will make it easy for people to walk along May Creek. This foot path Environmental Trade-Offs will affect wlldlif" since it will bring more humans to a relatively undisturbed area. Trail bikes may be used .. The direct impact, d-te to construction of the May Creek on the tral, which would bring about noise and disturb - Interceptor and Honey Dew Interceptor, will cause some the area. damage to the environment. Some mitigating measures will be taken to minimize the damage done by this In summary, the direct environmental impact of the proposed - construction and restore the environment to its original action will be minimal. condition where possible. -24- gap z Secondary Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action The secondary environmental impact of the proposed action is Land Use difficult to measure, since not all secondary impact is directly due to the construction of interceptor sewers. However, much of The proposed Land Use Plan, shown on Map 3, indicates an the urbanization that will take place between 1980 and 2030 will urbanization of the western portion of the drainage basin, be aided or accelerated by the construction of sewers. which would correspond to the population projection shown for the medium or upper range of Table 2. A basic consideration Population in the ievelopment of the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, Land Use Plan, and population projection was that sewers would be - Growth of population in the May Creek Drainage Basin will built within the next five years, thereby encouraging a sport depend directly on the ability of the government agency to in population growth ir. the western porrion of the Basin and supply sewers in the area. Lack of interceptors will limit ultimate changes in land use. the ability of the land to hold people. Apartment house construction, which is already taking place, Within the Comprehensive Plan, one of the ^c..aiserations will increase during the next two decades as demand for for the continued growth of the !i^; creek Drainage Basin rental and smaller housing units are being met. New shopping has been that the western urh :.. portion of the May Creek certers and other facilftiza that serve a growing residential Drainage Basin will obtain ;ewers within the next three population are expected to be built. years. Without sewers, the King County Health Department will become less likely to issue septic tank-drainfield permits to people wishing to build homes in the area. The resultant population projection for the May Creek Drainage Basin is shown by Figure 1. The population projection indicates that growth will continue at approximately the present rate until 1980. Thereafter, the population growth will decline as building permits will be issued more selectively. Table 2 shows population projections for ,,�rious - considerations. - - By the year 2000, without sewers 11,000 people are estimated to live in the May Creek Drainage Basin, compared to a population that ranges between 14,500 and 21,000, should sewers be built. By the year 2030, there are estimated to be 12,000 people in the May Creek Drainage Basin without sewers, - while a range of between 21,000 and 36.000 people would live in the drainage basin should sewers be built. -25- Environmental Impact on Fauna and Flora As urbanization takes place, it will cause the clearing, grading, cutting and filling of soil, modifying the surface topography. It will also cause the removal of existing ground T cover and its replacement by man-made surface conditions. As existing ground cover is removed, food for wildlife would be likewise reduced; animals in the urbanizing area would be forced to move to other areas and compete with native animals there for food. Consequently, the net effect would be that wildlife would be reduced as their feeding grounds are eliminated. Environmental Effect on water Quality The population growth which sewers bring about would create additional surface runoffs. Storm drainage flowing into the May Creek receiving waters will bring with it sand and sedimentary material, litter, street oil, lead, lawn fertilizer and garden sprays, all of which have a deleterious effect on the quality of water in May .reek and lake Washington. a Traffic Urbanization will bring with it additional traffic. A design population of 21,000 and 36,000 is projected for the years 2000 and 2030, respectively. There could be 5,550 housing units in the year 2000 and 16,000 in the year 2030. If each unit generates about 7.5 trips per unit oer day, there would be 41,50C daily automobile trips generated in the Basin in the year 2000 and 75,000 in the year 2030. The traffic will create extensive pressure on existing streets and highways. -26- r MITI,ATING THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT f a i Population growth and changes in land use in the May Creek Trees are the first interceptor; shrubs are the secondary level of Drainage Basin can be controlled with good planning. This interceptors; the last level of interception is ground level planning would include plans for the location of various uses, plants, such as grasses, falling leaves and mulches. Tree density of housing, and plans for future transportdtlon of people interceptors should be native to the area. Secondary interceptors in the area. The protection of land having steep slopes through such as English ivy, Aaronsdeard St. .lohnswort, periwinkle, fire zoning, slope legislation, and other regulations which would thorn and blackberries may be planted from November through March. inhibit future erosion of properties, is possible and can be done. Other plant species provide food for certain wildlife, such as: As a consequence, local control can Impose a much greater impact Kinnikinnick, snowberry, salal, cotoneaster, Oregon grape, and red on the environment than the construction of sewers. trailing raspberry. The management of water courses through shoreline management Tr decrease the impact of contaminants entering water courses, it measures, zoning and subdivision control could minimize dawage `s possible to design storm drainage systems which have catch from development. These regulations could provide for lower basins and oil traps. These catch contaminants and oil and densities, erosion control, and drainage planning along water prevent many of the contaminants from reaching the water courses. courses. King County has passed a drainage ordinance which requires developers to retain some surface runoff water on their land. When builders construct new buildings, they should be required to obtain new or replace existing native vegetation, as practical. Supplemental planting of native vegetation should be encouraged as a means of mitigating the impact of development, A street tree planting program and landscaping can be instituted by local government. On sloping sites, the property owners should he required to landscape their yards in a manner which would minimize _ lawns and maximize shrub and ground cover plantings to reduce storm water flow. A diversity of trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover and grasses help prevent serious erosion; they break the Impact of rain drops and hold the soil in place with their roots. I -27- MITIGATING THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIROHENT DUE TO CONSTRUCTION 1 { The following mitigating measures will be followed to mitigate adverse environmental impact: - 1. Timing construction so that any construction in the 6. Construction along streets and roads will cause dust. Creek would be done in July and August. This would This dust emission can be mitigated by watering the have the effect of harming very few fish or fish area. eggs. See the report entitled "Fish and Fish Assessment" in the Appendix for effect on spawning 7. Traffic will have to be rerouted during construction fish. as one side of the street will be blocked for installation of sewers. _. Replace gravel bed after construction so that fish would spawn in their natural environment. 8. The construction contract could include provisions for the contractor to clean existing debris, litter, and 3. Use plastic pipe where possible in the park. This garbage that has been disposed of within SO feet of his p'.acing of plastic pipe, with its light weight, enables operation when constructing in the Creek. The area ease of handling and makes it possible to bring smaller around the Creek could be improved visually and a source machinery into the park, thereby doing less damage to of aquatic pollution would be eliminated. This would the environment. have an extremely favorable effect on water quality and aesthetics and oarticularly in Honey Creek. 4. Replant trees near the Creek which had to be torn down for construction, so that new shading over water 9. Hydro-seeding of construction areas will take rlace in is provided. the park. Th's would replace some vege'nion soon afrrr construction has occurred. S. During construction, it will be necessary in some locations to provide hill holders. The hill holders 10. Develop a spawning channel and egg box in the park to aid ara put in the ground and create earth dams, thereby fish spawning. prever.ting further erosion while construction is underway. These hill holders would be left In place and would have the effect of reducing future erosion which may be caused by more rapid runoff. -28- 6wmaima OWN"— ADVERSE IMPACT WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IRREVER`" .BLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH - WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE .'ROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED Primar} Impact Construction in nat -ei areas will bring about the removal of Once sewers are built, the western portion of the May Creek ground cover, trees, and disturb animal and aquatic life. During Drainage 2asin will become urbanized. Nothing would prevent this construction, some siltation is bound to occur in the creeks and from happening. Once an area becomes urbanized, this action in the lakes. The impact of the sewer line, which cannot be becomes irreversible. The King County, Renton and Puget Sound avoided, will be minimal. Governmental :onrrence plans all provide for urbanization to take place in the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin. Secondary Impact Zoning already allows for small lot areas. Many public facilities exist, which would aid urbanization. When sewers are built, they Sewers will contribute towards population growth, and all the will be operational in the ground for at least fifty years. attributes that go with this growth. This impact will not be Normal maintenance and replacement could keep sewers in operation avoidable. in perpetuity. At the present t.me, no urban drainage policies exist for this The proximity of employment centers near the western portion of _ area; however, the Corps of Engineers and ME1RO are currently May Creek would have a favorable long-term effect on the Puget making erainage proposals. Sewer construction would not conflict Sound Region if the May Creek Rasin is to grow. Such growth, with any ; -oposed drainage plans. especially if it is among those who are employed in or near Renton's industrial areas, vouid tend to shorten automobile trips, the eby take pres_,ire off regional transportation facilities and al.. pollution due to exte•uied automobile trips. RELATIONSHIt 1,ETWEEN LOC... SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S E.TVIROMENT AND MAINTZNANCE AND ENH_'CEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY If u.itigating measures are implemented, such . 5 the construction of spawning channel, egg incubator boxes, and other mitigating measures discussed, then no maior negative environmental impacts Sewers in the May Creek Drainage Basin will o vide an immediate would take place. relief for wa,er pollution and health hizard� Bused by failing septic tank-drainfields. During a short-term period, sewers -ould stimulate construction, change land densities, and improve urban development conditions. CONCLUSION The sewers, once built, will be permanent installations and facilities. It is anticipated that these sewers will be This project has an insignificant imprct on the environment, based maintained in good condition and replaced when required. As a upon the findings listed in this report and supported by the consequence, once sewers are in place, they will be in ,lace for appendix. a onsider,.bly long time and affect all future development. i -29- _.a F i J XIfiHIddd _ '.., 1 1 F �t _ I TABLE 6 BIRDS WITHIN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN Common Name Abundance Common Name Abundance Migrarory Game Birds Protected Birds Ducks Occasional Eagles Rare Mergansers Hawks " Coots (mudhens) " Owls " Wilson snipe (jacksnipe) Songbirds Common Horning dove Common Other Band Tailed Pigeon " Fox Sparrow Common CrA.,ud Game Birds Savannah Sparrow 11 Ch.nese pheasant Common American robin California quail 11 Bew' .k's wren " Blue grouse Occasional Common crow " Ruffed grouse Common Robin " -32- .z AU r n r TABLE 7 ANIMAL WILDLIFE WITHIN THE MAY DRAINAGE oASIN - Common Name Abundance Common Name Abundance - Protected Wildlife Fur Bearing Animals Douglas squirrel Cued-on Muskrat Comxann Gray squirrel Mink r. Chipmunk Not known Beaver - Rare Otter Not known Game Animals Bobcat Occasional Black tailed deer Occasional Raccoon - Common Black bear Weasels Not known Bobcat ( intain lion) Nutria - Raccoon Common Oppossian _. Snowshore rabbit � Weasel Cottontail rabbit u Non-Protected Animals Bullfrog Coyote - Not known Fox Skunk Common Mountain beaver Not known Mice Common -33- TABLE 8 LISTING OF MAJOR PLANT LIFE IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN $ Common Name Scientifi,: Name Common Name Scientific Name Flora Assemblage - May Creek Other Flora 1 Lady fern Ahyrium filix-femina Kinnikinnick Arcostaphylos Sword fern Polystichum muritum Oregon grape Berberis aquifolium Common polypody Polypodium vulgare Sedge var. Carex spp. Braken fern Peteridium aquilium Chickweed var. Cerastium spp. Western hewthorn Crataegus douglasii $ Evergreen Trees Scotch broom Gytisus seo pa rius Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Orchard grass Dactylis olomerata var. Western red cedar Thuja plicata Spike-rush var. Eleocharis spp. western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Fire weed Epilobium angustifolium $ Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis Common horsetail Fquisetum aruense Deciduous Trees Swamp scouring rush Equisetum fluviatile Foxglove Digitalis purpurea Bigleaf maple nc es md..ic�`-yllum $ pa;-y Erig eron howellii Vine maple Aeer cireinatum Pursh salal Cautheria shallon Red alder Alnus rubra Alta fescue Festuca rubra var. white alder Alnux ncc-bifolia Fraxinus Creeping red fescue Festuca rubra var. Oregon ash Po ulus trich a Ocean spray Holodiscus dis�oLor ocar Black cottonwood P P Rush var. Juncus spp. Lombardy poplar Populus nigra Lew_=ia LeeJisia Columbiana Western choke cherry Prunus demissa R yegrasses var. Lolium sop. Willuw Salix 3 or 4 species '$ kunk cabbage Lysichitum Mountain ash Sorbus sitchensis s Wild Lily-of the-valley Marianthemum 34- TABLE g (Cont.) LISTING OF MAJOR PLANT LIFE IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Other Flora (cont.) Other Flora (cont.) Black medic Hedicago lupulina Nettle Urtica ,yallii Devil's club Oplopanox Small red huckleberry Vaccinium mytillus Common plantain Plantago major Common evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Common purslane Portulaca oleracea Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium Kentucky bluegrass Poa compressa Wild pea - Vicia americans Cascara Rhamnus purshiana Wild blackberry Rubus ursinus Creeping buttercup Ranuncalus repens Stinking black currant Ribes bracteosum Wood rose Rosa gymnocarpa Common wild rose Rosa nutkana Evergreen blackberry Rubus laciniatus Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus Himalaya blackberry Rubus prxerus Salmon-berry Rubus spectabilis Red elderberry Sambuxcus calIicarpa Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara Canadian golaenrod Solidagi canadensis Bur-reed Sparganim® simplex - - - Hardback Spiraea dougiasii Cat-tail Typha latiolia _35- �.. ,_�. z TABLE 9 TABLE 10 SEASONAL NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION AT MAY CREEK SEASONAL. NUTRIEW, CONCENTRATION AT LAKE KATHLEEN JULY 1971 - OCTOBER 1972 JULY 1971 - OCTOBER 1912 Winter - Sprint Sumner - Fall Winter - Spring Sumner - Fall Location Type Max. Mi��n. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Type Depth Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg �� . IL.0 (m6/0 (re6/1) (mK/1) At Mouth Phosphorous 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.06 Nitrate i 0.51 0.10 0.29 0.01 At Goalfield 0.05 0.02 0.04 Nitrate 3 0.53 0.10 0.01 At Mouth Nitrate 0.96 G.16 0.61 0.31 Nitrogen 7 0.53 0.08 0.01 At Coalfield 1. 0.56 0.12 0.40 Aamonia 1 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 At Mouth Ammonia 0.05 1.01 0.03 0.04 Nitrogen 3 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.02 At Coalfield 0.07 0.03 0.05 Nitrogen: 7 0.12 0.01 0.35 .t Source: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle -36- TABLE 11 RUNOFF QUALITY SUMMARY 'x MAY CREEK 'EMiONSTRATION AkEA BASED UPON A 10-YEAR STORM PRECEDED BY 5 DAYS WITH LITTLE OR NO RAINFALL# C CONCENPRITION AT PEAK FLOW* , ALTERNATIVE PEAK FLOW TOTAL LOCATION PLAN (cfs) BOD COLIFORM NP,3 NO + NO PO Existing l .nd Use 4 Lake Washington Existing Conditions 280 1.0 1.0 x LO 0.02 0.3 0.05 2000 Comprehensive Land Use I 650 1.0 l.9 x 104 0.03 0.4 0.1 IL 350 0.5 0.8 x 104 0.02 0.2 0.05 Existing Land Use Below confluence with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 240 0.5 0.7 x 104 0.02 0.3 0.05 2000 Comprehensive Land Use I 625 1.0 1.6 x 104 0.03 0.3 0.05 II 275 0.5 0.7 x 104 3.02 0.3 0.05 r Existing Land Use Above confluence 4 with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 125 1.0 0.7 x 10 0.02 0.4 0.05 2000 Comprehensive land Use I 550 1.0 1.0 x 104 0.02 0.3 0.05 II 175 0.5 0.7 x 104 0.02 0.3 0.05 # Less than a total of 0.5 inches of rainfall in any one day. s Concentration in mg/t except total coliform which is in HPN/100 ml. Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Appendix "A" to the Final Report. Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Green River and Cedar diver Basins of Wash:nRton. July 1974. r r 4 -37- ona _. . s,:_ -.,.- . ,. Room TABLE 11 (continued) RUNOFF QUALITY SUNHARY MAY CREEK DEMONSTRATION AREA BASED UPON A 10-YEAR STORM PRECEDED BY 15 DAYS WITH LITTLE OR NO RAINFALL - CONCENTRATION AT PEAK FLOW" _ ALTERNATIVE PEAK FLOW TOTAL LOCATION PLAN (cfs) COLIFORM NH3 NO2 t NO3 PO Existing Land Use Lake Washington Existing Conditions 280 2.0 3.0 x 104 0.05 0.8 _. 0.1 2000 Comprehensive Land Use 1 650 3.0 5.7 x 104 0.1 1.1 0.2 „ II 350 2.0 2.2 x 104 0.05 0.8 t 0.1 3 Existing Land Use Below confluence 4 with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 240 2.0 2.2 x 10 0.05 0.8 J.1 2000 Comprehensive f- ` Land Use 1 625 3.0 4.7 x 104 0.1 1.0 0.2 y. TM 3 11 275 2.0 2.1 x 104 0.05 0.8 , 0.1 M Existing Land Use ' Above confluence with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 125 2.0 2.2 x 104 0.05 1.1 0.2 Comprehensive : Use I 550 2,0 3.0 x 104 0.05 1.0 0.2 II 175 2.0 2.0 x 104 0.05 1.0 0.2 # Less than a total of 0.5 inches of rainfall in any one day. Concentration in mg/l except total coliform which is in MPN/100 ml. Source: Ibid. -38- 4 EXHIBIT "A" FISH AND FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT - MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK By Dr. Stephen Martin, Ph.D. I. Introduction The primary purpose of this assessment is to provide information about three miles upstream, it flows through a broad ravine with concerning the present status of May Creek (lower section) and a gradient of approximately 150 feet per mile. Honey Creek fish populations and habitat. This information is required in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement Honey Creek originates 1.2 miles southeast of May Creek, at ap- for th,: proposed May Creek/Honey Dew Sewer Interceptor Project. proximately the area near the intersection of N. E. Sunset Blvd. Construeion of the sewer interceptor and trunk sewers in the May (Renton-Iss-quah Highway) and Union St. , and flows northwest for Creek Drainage Basin may often be in close approximation to or approximately 1.2 mites through a narrow valley to its confluen, e actually intersect with Hay and Honey Creeks. Hence it is with May Creek. According to local sources, the upstream two- important to assess the types and numbers of fishes present in the thirds of Honey Creek has little or no flow during the summer project area, especially salmon and trout, to evaluate the area's months. The drainage area is associated with heavy residential potential as a salmon-producing system and to determine the development. potential project impact on the fishes of these creeks. Background information and data from a recently completed study on The project area under consideration includes the lower section of May Creek fishes was includ,. this assessment. May Creek (from Jones Avenue N. E. and S. E. 83rd Street upstream to 136th Avenue S. E. and Honey Creek- from -ts confluence with II. Methods and Materiais May Creek upstream to the Renton-Issaquah Highway). A. Literature Survey - A thorough survey of the literature was May Creek is included in the Cedar Basin drainage system and utilized to obtain background information ou the fishes occurring originates from the outlet of lake Kathleen, located at the 500 in the Cedar River watershed in general and in closely related foot elevation, due east of Renton, Washington. May Creek flows creeks in particular. westerly 8.6 miles to its confluence with Lake Washington, approximately 0.5 miles th of Coleman Point, near Kennydale. B. Field Observations and Sampling - To survey the fishes present The creek generally follows a narrow valley that parallels the in May Creek, the electrofishing technique was employed. In this Issaquah-Renton Highway near Coalfield, then flows northwest and method, electrical current is applied to the water that has a r west along the northern Renton city limits and into the Kennydale resistance different from that of fish. This difference to area. pulsating direct current stimulates the swimming muscleq for short periois of time, causing the fish to orient towards and be Twelve short tributaries, including Honey Creek and the Lake Boren attracted to the positive electrode (cathode). An electical field outlet, flow into May Creek. The lower three miles of the creek of sufficient potential to immobilize the fish occurs near the is associated with moderate to heavy residential devel sent. cathode. From its confluence with Lake Washington to approximately one mile upstream, the creek lies in a flood plain, but from this point to -30- s} k