The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 1631 , .. . ,, � • ` � . p��Ci1N,A4. . x � . �. . � RESOLUTION NO . /I�o ,3l , WHEREAS, a Petition has been filed with the City Clerkof the City of Renton on or about May 29 , 1969, petitioning for the , vacation of a certain portion of Street as hereinafter more particularly described and said Petition having been signed by more than two-thirds of the property owners abutting upon said portion of street sought to be vacated, and the same being described on the attached exhibit, Labeled 1PA" , and incorporated herein as though fully set forth: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS : �Z/�- SECTION I : That the �t3� day of July, 1969 , at the hour t e it ouncil Chambers in the Cit Hall Renton of 8 m. a th C y C y , , r Washington, be and is hereby fixed as the time and place when the aforesaid Petition for vacating the afore-described portion of street shall be heard and determined. . SECTION II : The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said time and hearing as provided by law, and any and all persons interested therein or objecting to said vacation may then appear and be heard thereon, or they may file their written objections thereto with the City Clerk prior to or at the time of the hearing on said vacation. The City Council shall determine, at or prior to any such public hearing, as to whether an appraisal shall be secured to determine the fair market value of the property sought to be vacated as provided for in C�dinance No . 2349 and the City may likewise retain an easement for public utility and related purposes . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 16th day of June , 1969 ._,��./��.�� ,J��,G.---,� Helmie elsori, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR t s ��6 th day of une 19 6 9 . � �F A roved as to form: / � ,%'� U ' I PP . ,. �,� Donakl W. Custer , Mayor , John K. Pain, Jr. Asst. City Attorney Legal Description• Propezt to be vacated to Transamerica Title — � x. . In � �. � � � �� t x ��a��1�q��'�,� ', r. ;�;_`�� . ,Truste� for Transamexica Development Com �n and Gear ia-Pacific Inv nt n _ `:.;• .. (Parcels C & E) P Y 8 �� L��O� ' •"St ` � �^ ' • �V�� •I'� � Parce2 C: That portion of the southwest 1/G of Section 20, Township �23 Narth, Range 5 � � East, W.M. , described as fo2lowat Beginning at the northweat corner of the eauthwest 1/4 : ' ;� - af Sectian 20, Township 23 North, Rangc S EasC; thence N 89°10'20" E along north line of � �� E-+ smid southwest 1/4, A tl�S�flI1CG' of 31+4.88 feet ta a point an the northeasterly msrgin of � Benson Road; thence S 16°1.6'56"' � along said margin a distance of 489,,37 feat ta s paittt � ' H an the southwesterly r�argin of Bonneville Power Admfnistratian's right-of-•way as recorded � �• � under Auditor's File No. 3292927 and No. 32412Q6� the�ce 5 42°35�54" E a2ong eaid marg3n, � � W a disCance af 181.90 feet to the true paint of beginning; thence cantinuing alang eaid �: ; southwesterly margin, a di.etance of 62.01 feet; thence S 32°28'34" W a dietance of 1G3.86 feet to a point on the northeAeterl.y margin of Benson Road; •thence N 16�16'S6" W along - a�id margin, a di.r�Cance of 79.$d fecC; thence N 32°28'3G"' E, n diatance of 107.24 feet to ; tt�e trve Po�nt oF beginnfng. �XCI:PT the �ortion thexeo£ which lie� withit� the boundaries � - � of Eagle Ridge Driv�. �' Pazcel 8: That portion of the southwest 1jG of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 5 �'} `. East, W.M., described as follows: Beginning at the narthwe�t corner of the southwest : ' . 1!4 of Sectian 20, Tawnship 23 Narth, Range 5 East; 'thence N 89°10'20" E along north lina � af said southwest 1J4, a distance bf 523.33 feet to a point on the northeaeterly margin � �` af Bonneville Power Administratton's righC-a£-�way as recorded under Auditar's File Np. �..' 3292927 and 1Vo. 324I1Ob; Chence S 42°35'S4" E alang said margin, a distance of 433.97' � feet to the true paint af beginni.n�; eaid paint being on the narCherly margin of old Etliier Raad; thence �long said margin on a curve �o the right having a radius o£ 220,99 feet, an arc difltance of 2t�3.46 fect; thence S �2 Sl'3r+" W, a distnnce of 60,01 £eet, to ; a point on ttYe r�e>��tl�wetiter.ly m<irg"tn c�f (�1c� l:Chi.cr Ror�d; thcncr. nlang snid tnt�zg3n on e Cuz'V! k« tlii� le(�k !►:�visi�; i� r:�dli�t� ctf lfi(1.�9 fcet, :�n �rc difltnnce c�f 1.63.69 fcat to tl poinC oA ` tt�c nartt�c;�At'c!rly morFjl�n �f Rc�i�nevi] lc P��wc�r Aclrniniatr�t�,on'n ��l�ht-aE-way ae zecorded � �ander A��di�tor'�+ 1�I.le IVo. 32929�7 �c�d Nn. 3241106; thencd N G2 35'S4" W along enid margin, a dieCance of 62.01 fect to the true point a£ beinnf.ng. EXCEPT �he portione Chereof which , lie within the baundarica of Eagle Ridge prive artd the realigned section of Ethier Raad. . Property to be vracated ta Puget Power {parcel D} That portion c�£ the eouthwest 1(4 of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 5 Ea.st, W.M., ' � described as fallow�: Begtnning at the narthwest corner of the �ot:thwe�t 1(4 af Section► 20, Townet��p 2� Norkh. Range 5 F.��st; thence N 89°10'2Q" E along north line of eaid sauth- • � west 1/4, a dietance of 344.88 feet to a point an the narCheasterly margin af Benson Raad; --� thenc� S 16°16'S6" � along said margin, a digtance of 489.37 feet to a point an the south- westerly margin� of Bonneville Power Administration's right-of-�way as recorded under Auditor, �n File No. 3292927 and No. 3241106; thence S 42°35'S4" E along said margin, a dietance of ;;;,,� , 181.90 feet ta the true paint of beginning; thence N 32°28'34" E, a distance of 254.09 feet to a point of curvature; [hence along a curve to the right havir►g a radius of 220.99 . feet, an arc distance of 1Q5.55 feet to a point on the northeasterly margin of Bonneville . ' �Pawer Adminlstration's right-of-way as recorded under Auditor's �'ile Na. 3292427 ez�d No. , ': � � 3241106; thence S 42°35"54" E ,along said margin, a dietance of 62.01 feet; thence alang , ' � ' a curve to the left having a rAdiue of 160.99 feet; an arc diatance of 90.26 £eet; thenca ' k S 32°28'34" W n diatance of 27C1.09 feet tn a point on the eouthwesterly margin o£ Bonne� ' � ' ville Power Adminintrution's right-of-way As recorded uader AudiCor's File No. 3292927 - � ;,j and Na. 3241106; thcncr. N 42°35'54" W ul.ong eaid margin n dietnnce of 62.01 feet to the ' � true point of beginning» �7CCEPT the partion thereof which liee w�thin the baund&riee a! . �,:s Eagle Ridgs Dri.ve. Subfect to easemente af xeca�d. _ _ . ; . .--- �e,s, �d , l�-3/ � � � � +�' � AUBURN INTE RCEPTOR ENVIRON M ENTAL AS S E SS M E NT R! _ _ . ? � � �. �'� . r.�: ✓ 1 �1.. ..,,�w� \``_a K ' � .A�� "•,r � �M . .. �...�,"1��1,I��r+�l""` . :�`:.../'�r/ • � �� I •� � � � ~ �, � \ • . •� �� + � I � I + �� • yyih' � , d.� 1 � / , • � 'N' •�s:�1��• ~~w.y�.�'��Z � � • �� . �r i '� � � • • • • • •� • � �' -= t__ .' � •• • ��y ...1 / � ' l ` A ��.� i �UlLi � �'�r� � • 1 • �..� .,'+,e�TM � �-r. � . � �� _ . � ��.. �M :ir�+�. � �� ,� .�, �' . .t..� I�RA �+ 1 �� / t r � � ,, �� . .�..N�i _ y . +�� • �J�I _ ' ..�� . ! _ ' . 1 E: ' `�.��.�" .. ,, . , �...,,�,. , . � �_ -.., - ---��+�a,,,.., __. � ,a . �. . � . _ -'=,.,�,,, . - -ab.. . �'� � _ f .✓'"'3Yrtj' ��' . i , �;+.qs,,,,�:..sJfc`...- _ ► � _. - , �. �� . .. . � . � . -,_..,,. �_:,,,�= ._ ,. .. .� ;� a �' �- �x '--- +ti�"�.,.- _ � � I AUBURN INTERCEPTOR ENVIRQNMENTAL ASSESSMENT (DRAFT ENVIRONMEIJTAL IMPACT STATEMENT) by THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE � November 14, 1973 _� J � TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa�e No. Statement Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 I. Description of the Proposed Action. . . . . . . 3 II. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 III. Description of How the Treatment Work Design and Instruction Controls Will Minimize the Adverse Impact on all Aspects of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . 16 IV. Adverse Impacts Which Cannat be Avoided Should th� Proposal be Implemented. . . . . . .17 V. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-- Term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 VI. Irreverslble and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 VI�. Alternatives to the Pr�oposed Action. . . . . . 20 VIII. Comments and Suggestions Raised By Federal, State and Local Agencies, and By Interested Parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 METRO-Auburn Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Exhibit A Technical Appendix 1 � � � STATEMENT SUMMARY NATURE OF THIS REPORT: Environmental Assessment (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) SPONSORING AGENCY: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 410 West Harrison Street Seattle, Washington 98119 284-5100 CONTACT PERSON: Peter S. Machno, Manager, Planning Services TYPE OF PROPOSED ACTION: Construction of water pollution control and abatement facility (Auburn Interceptor) and related sewage disposal contract and comprehensive plan amendments. OFFICIAL TITLE: "Auburn Interceptor" SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: The basis of the proposed action is the construction of the Auburn Interceptor by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle which will be a sewer line varying i� diameter from 48" to 78" running from the southeast corner of the existing City of Auburn sewage treatment lagoon to a point of connection with the Municipality' s Kent Cross Valley Interceptor, at South 216th Street in Kent . The Municipality will be committed to construct the Interceptor by a pending basic sewage disposal agreement with the City of Auburn. Implementation of the agreement and construction of the Interceptor will require corresponding amendments to the Municipality' s Comprehensive Sewage Disposal Plan. COST OF PROJECT: • The estimated cost of the pro�ect is $8,400,000. Seventy- five percent of that cost will be paid by the U. S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, fifteen percent by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the remaining ten percent by the Municipality. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The environmental assessment of the proposed action under consideration indicates that the primary long-term environ- mental impact of the Interceptor pro�ect will be the removal of sewage effluent from the Green River 29 river miles upstream from Elliott Bay. This will allow the implementation of land use planning with minimal impact to the quality of the water resour.ces of the Green River Sewerage Area and a portion of the White River Watershed. i 1 I � Short-term environmental impact will be the construction of the Interceptor through public righta-of-way and private eaeementa accompanied by temporary disturbance and incon- veniences oP public utilitiea and roadways. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ALTERNATIVES: � 1) No Action -- This alternative provides for continuation of the present sewage treatment by th� City of Auburn's lagoon syatem with attendant problems of inadequate secondary treatment. . 2) BuildinR a Secondar.v Treatment Plant at Auburn -- Th1s a�ternative would remove biochemical oxygen-demanding (BOD) materials from the effluent and provide for future growth needs but would require substantial capital commitmenta and continuing measures to comply with seCondary treatment requirements . 3) Interim Solutions -- The interim solutions described herein would 811eviate the present water quality problem in the areen River but would not provide for long- range growth n�eds in the Green River Sewerage Area. 4) Alternative Routes for the Interceptor -- Two additional ' locations were eaamined for the phyalaal placement o� the interceptor in the Valley to meet the same ob�ectiv�s of the proposed action. PUBLIC HEARING: December 13, 1973, 7 � 30 P.M. , Auburn Amer2can Legion Hall, 707 Auburn Way South, Auburn, Washington. HEARING BODY: Sewer Committee of the Municipality of Metro- politan Seattle. OFFICIAL REVIEW PERIOD: November 13 to December 28, 1973• ii _ __ _ _ � RECIPTENTS OF THIS DOGUMENT; U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservatian Service Attn: Mr. Merle R. Br3tton, Area Conservationist United States Department of Army, Corps of Engineers Attn: Mr. Steven Dice, Chief of Environmental Resources Section Washington State Department of Ecology Attn: Mr. John Biggs, Directar Washington State Department of Ecology, Redmond Office Att»: Mr. Robert McCormick, Regianal Manager Washington State Office of Community Development Attn: Mr. Richard Hemstead, Directar Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Attn: Mr. A1 Koch, 5enior Engineer Washington State Department of Fisher3ea A�tn: Mr. Gil Holland, Fisheries Research Coardinator Washington State Department of Game Attn: Mr. Eugene S. Dziedzic, Ass 't. Chief Environmental Management Aivision Washingtan State Highway Commissian, District #1 Attn: Mr. W. C. Bogart, District 1 Engineer Puget Saund Air PolZution Control Agency Attn: Mr. A. R. Dammkoehler, Executive Director Puget Sound Governmental Conferenee Attn: Mr. Mart Kask, Executive Director King County Department of Public Works Attn: Mr. Jean DeSpain, Director King County Department of Budget and Finanee Attn: Mr. Joseph McGavik, Direetor Department of Budget & Program Planning King County Department of Cammunity and �nvironmental Development Attn: Mr. Thomas Ryan, Director Seattle-King County Department af Public Health Attn: Dr. Lawrence Bergner, Director iii I i Pierce County Department of Planning Attn: Mr. Hal Hagested Mayor, City of Algona Attn: The Honorable John E. Matchett Mayor, City of Pacific Attn: The Honorable Jack W. Johnson City Administrator of Kent Attn: Mr. Joseph Street City of Auburn Department of Public Works Attn: Mr. Pat Nevins , Director City of Auburn Planning Department Attn: Mr. aeorge A. Schuler, Planning Director Lake Haven Sewer District Attn: Mr. Ivan Day, Manager Chicago Milwaukee St . Paul and Pacific Railroad Attn: Mr. Robert Butler, Jr. , Engineer Audubon Society Attn: Mr. Thomas 0. Wimmer, President Washington Environmental Council Attn: Miss Joan Thomas, President River Basin Coordinating Committee Attn: Mr. Don Benson , Friends of the Earth Attn: Mr, Dale Jones Sierra Club Attn: Mr. Dick Fiddler Northwest Steelheaders ' Council of Trout Unlimited Attn: Mr. Jerry Newman Green for Tomorrow Attn: Dr. Gary Green iv � r: � PREFACE Thia Environmental Aseessment for the Auburn Interceptor and r�la�ed contractual and planning developments conaista of a de- tailed t�chnical appendix (Appendix) prepared by consultants to tbs Council of Muaiaipality of Metropolltan Senttle (Metro) and an aasessment sutamary (Swnmary) prepared as a Metro atafP anslysia of the proposed aetion and baaed on the information con- tained in the Appendiz. After a public hearing on the proposed actloti, tbe Metro 3eMer Committee pill recomtaend actions in regard to the proposed action to tbe full metropolitan Council ineluding forraal resolutiona authorizing a federal grant applica- tion� execution oP a baaie sewage diapoaal agreement between Metro and the City of Auburn and, eventually, aiaendmenta to Metro'a Comprehenaive Ser�age Dispoaal Plan. Thia Enviroruaental Asaesa�aent will serve aa the initial "Draft Environmental Impact Statement" Por the propoaed action. After the incorporation of comments from citizena and agenciea and responaes thereto, the document will aerve as the Environmental Impact Statement of the propoeed action in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971. The Environmental Impact Statement Nill be forwarded to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the Environmental Aesessment oP the Interceptor pro�ect Por EPA consideration in granting partial federal funding Por construction. EPA will independentlq �udge the environmentsl aigniPicance of the construction pro�ect in accordance with the National Environ- mental Act of 1969. v , 1 r INTRODUCTION I' � In meetin its responaibilities for water pollution control 6 and abatement for the metropolitan area on a long-term basis, Metro haa propoaed an action consisting oP three elements: (1) �, ; the conatruction of the Auburn Interceptor; (2) a related agree- ment Por sewage interception and disposal with the City of Auburn; and (3) corresponding amendments to Metro's Comprehensive Sewage Disposal Plan. The proposed construction of the Interceptor is the result of years oP careful and thorough planning by Metro, beginning in 1958. Although an interceptor similar in location and size has always been a part oP Metro's Comprehenaive Sewage Disposal Plan (Comprehensive Plan) , recent plan revisions have been authorized by Metro which re-examine the Green River Sewerage Area and a portion of the White River Watershed which will be served by the Auburn Interceptor. A study, which includes amend- ments to the Comprehensive Plan required by this proposed action, which reflects prior authorized amendments and construction, and which provides technical data in support of all such changes, is nearing completion and will be available pr�or to the December 13, 1973 hearing. The Comprehensive Plan amendments of concern in this assessment are those required by the purchase and construction of facilities specified in the pending Metro-Auburn agreement. The pending Metro-Auburn agreement represents the legal and administrative vehicle to commence construction of the proposed Intereeptor. The agreement, which is set forth in the attached Exhibit "A", delineates the responsibility of both parties in terms of long-term sewage disposal and, additionally, imposes specific conditions regarding the use, construction, maintenance and operation of the Interceptor. The three elements of the proposed action will be presented and discussed individually in Section I of this Summary entitled "Description of the Proposed Action. " The balance of the Summary, however, will not adhere to such a rigid division of elements in discussion of the total proposed action. The Summary assessment will thereafter primarily evaluate the environmental impact of the actual physical implementation of portions of referenced agreement and Comprehensive Plan changes through construction of the Interceptor. Additional public hearings and environmental assessments will be necessary in order to update the information in this assessment and to evaluate future construction activity and planning related to the construction of the Interceptor, the pending Metro-Auburn agreement and corresponding amendments to Metro's Comprehensive Plan. 1 The Appendix which serves as the basis for this Summary represents an indepth evaluation of the environmental impact af the prapased action and was prepared for Metro by the firm of Wilsey and Ham, Inc . of Renton, Washington. The canc3usions of that independent environmental assessment as described in the Appendix support irnplementatian of the proposed action. Althaugh particularly applicable gortio�s of the Appendix are referenced in this Summary, Metro would recommend that the supportive Appen��x infarmation also be examined in reviewing this Environ- � mental Assessment . � I � I I � I _ I � I, - - — �� . � � I � I I. - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION GREEN RIVER SEWERAaE AREA - PLAN AMENDMENT Residents of the metropolitan Seattle area recognized in the 1950's that serious water pollution problems were imminent in the Lake Washington drainage basin. Tn response to an area- wide problem, a citizens group in 1957 introduced a bill in the Washington State legislature to allow the creation of inetropolitan municipal corporations to deal with water pollution and other area- wide problems . The bill became law in March of 195? a,s Chapter 35 . 58 RCW. In September, 1958, the voters in the metropolitan Seattle area voted to create a metropolitan corporation to perform the function of inetropolitan sewage disposal. T�e specific powers granted by Chapter 35.58 RCW to this corporation to perform its statutory function included the power to prepare a comprehensive sewage disposal plan, t'o acquire or construct and to operate and regulate use of Metro facilities, to fix rates and charges for use of such facilities, and many other powers necessary for the per- formance of the function. Immediately following the election authorizing ita formation, the municipal corporation began organization and operation through its governing body, the Metropolitan Council, as provided in the enabling legislation. The Council' s first step was to prepare and adopt an areawide Comprehensive Plan for sewage disposal encom- passing a study area of approximately 230 square miles and ir�cluding two ma�or draina�e basins, namely the Cedar and Green River Basins. The Green River Basin inc�udes the City of Auburn. The Comprehensive Plan was based on a detailed report setting forth a long-range plan under which provisions would b� made for a systematic, cost-effective and environmentally sounc� construction program to provide necessary sewerage improvements for the metro- ' politan area. Metro 's Comprehensive Plan provides for the development of interceptors and treatment facilities to serve the Seattle metro- politan area. Facilities are planned for staged construction relative to pro�ected development in the metropolitan region. Sewers contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan are based on service to a minimum local area of 1,000 acres within natural drainage areas . Provisions for local sewerage facilities serving smaller areas are the inde end p ent responsibility and function of local political entities . 3 ' i i � The original Comprehensive Plan was corn leted in 195$ and I P adopted by the Metropolitan Council in 1959. That Plan praposed , facilit3es for the Auburn area quite similar to those now con- templated by construction of the Auburn Interceptor. Because unfaraseen changes in land use, population and employment can rapid2y outdate design assumptions, Metro' s Comprehensive Plan is sub�ect to periodic review and amendment ta insure its viability. In the case of the Auburn Interceptor, Metro 's Comprehensive Plan has contemplated construction of the facility for more than a decade. Several factors have affected the sewerage needs in the Green River Basin and a portion of the White River Watershed and accelerated the need for this particular Interceptor. Among these factors are : l. Regional and local Iand use planning. 2. Znduatrial and commercial grawth. 3. Location of residences . I 4 . The use of septic tanks as a means of treatment and disposal of sewage from residences . 5. Accelerated eutrophication (pollution) of water hodies resulting from the utilizatian of previously uninhabited land. The listed factors resulted in prior planning changes for facilities within the two basins and �he immediate necessity for the Interceptor and reZated Comprehensive Plan amendments. Those changes are a11. incorporated in the above�refereneed technical s�udy naw nearin� completian. The specific amendments to Metro ' s Camprehensive Plan related ta canstructian of the Interceptor and the pending Metro-Auburn Agreement are described in the attached Exhibit "A" . The currently adopted Camprehensive Plan is set I farth in Resnlution No . 1829 adopted by the Council an March 1, 1973• (See , generally, Appendix pages 1 through 53 . } I �t ME - Metro' s function of inetropolitan sewage disposal is imple- mented through basic agreements for sewage disposal services between Metro and component agencies . The pending basic sewage disposal agreement between Metro and the City of Auburn parallels Metro' s standardized agreement with other component agencies. The Metro-Auburn agreement will be executed by both parties subsequent to a hearing on the environmental impact of the proposed action. The referenced agreement attached as Exhibit "A" provides that Auburn will deliver its sewage and industrial waste to the metropolitan sewerage system and that Metro will accept such sewage and industrial waste for treatment sub�ect �o Metro's rules and regulations. The agreement delineates different responsibilities of Metro and the City regarding the acquisition, construction and maintenance of certain sewerage facilities. The agreement also sets forth terms under which the City will pay sewage disposal charges and other general administrative relationships between the parties. Section 9 of the agreement provides that Metro will construct both the Auburn Interceptor and that portion of the West Valley interceptor from llth Avenue North (in Algona) to Main Street (in Auburn) within a reasonable time after the Auburn Interceptor has been completed. Other sections of the agreement provide that in cases where Metro sewerage facilities are routed on City-owned property or rights-of-way, the City will have a right to approve the location. The agreement provides that the Interceptor will serve as both a metropolitan and local sewerage facility wherever the City has authority to provide local service . Under Section 4 , the City is guaranteed the right to connect any M t f ities of its local facilities into any manhole of the e ro acil whether or not the facility has been approved by any agency other than Metro or the City of Auburn provided the connections are in accordance with Metro rules and regulations . The terms of the contract remain in full force and effect until July, 2016 . (The Metro-Auburn agreement is referenced throughout Section 1 of the Appendix, i .e . , pages 10 and 34 . ) CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED AUBURN INTERCEPTOR The construction of the Auburn Interceptor represents implementation of a proposed element of Metro ' s Comprehensi�e Plan and is a portion of the second phase of the ultimate development of an areawide waste water and treatment system serving the total sewerage needs of the Green River Sewerage Area and a portion of the White River Watershed. 5 r t The proposed Interceptor will be a 48- to 78-inch rein- forced concrete pipe totaling 7.1 miles in length. The pipe will commence at the influent structure of the existing City of Auburn sewage lagoon and connect with the exiating Metro-Kent Cross Valley Interceptor as shown at Figure 14 of the Appendix at page 63 . Completion oP the Interceptor Nill terminate the operation of the existing Auburn sewage lagoon and provide for transport of waste water by the Interceptor to Metro's Renton sewage treat- ment plant . The existing Auburn lagoon has become overburdened and future growth and development in the Auburn area is now constrained by the inadequate treatment facilities. (The location and design of the Interceptor, corridor descriptions and necessary administrative actions for the pro�ect work are described in detail at pages 62 through 89 of the Appendix. ) BACKGROUND Sewera�e Area Boundariea The sewerage area to be served by the Interceptor encom- passes the Green River Sewerage Area and a portion of the White River Watershed. (See Figure 1 ) Included within this area is all of the Lower Green River Valley in the vicinity of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Algona and Pacific, and Des Moines Plateau (West Hill) to the west . The area to be served by the Interceptor in the White River Watershed lies north of Lake Tapps and within both King and Pierce Counties . Ph,ysio�raph.y These upland plateaus incised by the valley trough and flood , plain of the Green River are the principal topographic features of the sewerage area. The ascent to the upland areas is abrupt with differences in elevation between the river bottom and the plateau in excess of 300 feet . The uplands present a rolling glacial relief characterized by depressions and hummocks in which stream courses and drainage patterns are often poorly de- fined. Numerous local basins and de res p sions of retarded drainage are occupied by small lakes and swampy areas and bogs . The Green River is artifici�ally controlled by an upstream dam and man-made levees, which parallel the stream throughout most of its length within the sewerage area. Natural overbank flooding has been eliminated from most of the Lower Green River Valley . The White River loo s t hrou h the so h P g ut ern portion of the sewerage area, separating the areas to be served in Pierce County from the balanGe of the sewerage area. � 6 � JI ; - : .;• € ' a 1 � , .. • ��• ; ��F t � \ .✓ • -tiuc' � ��' � �•� '��si �� , ,ac � �• � i� I 'e - ' r� �,' �4'�-�� __ Y �. ' ' +� `r �Llif� ��'=' ' RE#YtO�i ; � - . � � , M{t w ` •� , ...� . ,� ♦ � Mb `�� •. � , , . �� . uEr � ,,.r �"e / • ' � a�, , , ui �� . n • � at s+.t � f� � � �� `�r ..,- �^,��.s i•• � w.��„�,.� :.�.� •, / � ~ � `•. � Vs'.� `�Z?� ,.�,,, � .1 - + /� W ` t --- �� i ' i'� l � �' , � �" ' .: ,.;,, ti� � .. • � ' - �„�„ �9 � � . � . . _ � . , ti . , ,1� � � 1\ s� � � y 1 . ' � . . { \ � �\ ( � r ' , \ \\ "'`� ,,� ' � � � �'�� ' + n , �\, \l` ,� i 1 � . , � �1\ ' j < Z " ', �\ �\ X • � , _ , \ � ... i ,�� `� ;s ` w ,� �t 9i►11 ,\� .(�� r r �� • x\ �' •t /� � ,y�i "!• ' 4 - =' "' � � :.a.�e:� ' .' � — ' KtlM a . �ee 5' � � � '. ^ �l r�.r� ; ': � .t , _, �'\ %1i� �--�`,.»a.. �- \ r _ �i , � �'?� ' \ � �f� � 1 . -.✓ � ` � . . i � ,�pt ♦ �� e�+s acP I W r � /�v ' / ' _ ' E(�j,� (�'.�. � A►M � t _ , \ /'\ \ , - �-__ r�' �. _ �L, _ . ',,f _ , , _ . :R.,� � , � ..__.� � '� : ' ,� ' j .+�\- ; .,..Af - ,1 ♦ I ��+ ' % �` � , � �7 � . ` ( . - .�:wn + --T-�---, wi-� � �� a�.; , �r� � r` . .t ,: f , � ,i ,\\ � ;� � �j. � ((`� lVp q,''` . { .� / � + ll _ , ,r i � a.. A y' . 1 ' r ^.� _ t .�„ , � . ` �� " � ' PROF�3Eb ADDI714N ,� , � T4 GOMPREHENSIYE PLAN � .. � �.�,�,��AH ' _ ."t �.r:.�n� * � '� � Lt9EN� >T ��Y N t � �M MOrIM�MIt� �n .._-� :.........+.,..... �K�1 d�1l�Mfll�11M4M� I �. � *�!�� PR rnM I �.I O�i IYrM tA11� � , �.� M �IIttM Yf�M�Mt�II{t ! - wl �MA�IM�M�AI�M�� tfa�l tA+10[�!�M M�! � • Acw�rr r'M'1�Mm iw•rw A�MI��11 COA�REM�NSNE PLAN AFAEPDI�AEMf FIfiURE t __ __ GREEN APD Wh#TE RIVER SEM►ERAGE AREAS Land Use In addition to its diverse topography, the sewerage area is characterized by a variety of land uses : agriculture and sharply contrasting industrial development in the Green River Valley, retail, commercial and residential uses in the cities and towns; and forestry, mining, open space , recreation, and scattered rural residential and farming uses on the eastern uplands . Recent photogrammetric interpretations of the sewerage area reveal the following land use allocations : k�oodland, 37 ,700 acres ( 40 per- cent) ; suburban land, including low-density residential, recrea- tional-home, and neighborhood commercial areas , 15 ,780 acres (17 percent) ; agricultural land, 9 , 030 acres (10 percent ) ; open and vacant land, 8 ,720 acres, (9 nercent ) ; high-density residential an� commercial areas , 6 , 300 acr•es ( 7 percent } ; transportation corridors including railroad yards and freeways, 5 ,890 acres (6 percent ) ; transmission line utility corridors, 4 ,140 acres (4 percent ) ; industrial areas , 1,140 acres (1 percent) ; and recreational areas , 410 acres ( . 1 percent ) . The acreage des- ignated as commercial areas probably includes some light industrial an� warehousing establishments on aerial photographs . , L" and use trends for the ma�ority of the sewerage area are ' taward more intensive uses , particularly in the Green River Valley f1Qod plain. The annexation of valley bottom lands by Kent and Atiburn, and the subsequent zoning of these lands to industrial ' and commercial classifications has stimulated dramatic changes in land uses from the traditional doniinance of a riculture to more g intensive uses with consequent demands for increased utility service . (See Appendix pages 2 through 3 . ) Population �'orecasts of population and employment for the central Puget Srund region, prepared by the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC) , a reg�cr:al planning body for King, Kitsap , Pierce , and Sr.ohomish Counties , provide a basis for estimating growth general- ?�� within the sewera�e area. The PSGC predictions extend to 1990 , w:.t!� extrapc�lations �rc.vided to the year 2000 . The 1990 fore- ca.s�s havF been �ro�Jected to the year 2030 by Metro ' s consulting �ngineers , usin� a logarithmic trend method in order to estimate :�f�we:age needs far the duration of the Auburn Interceptor' s service l..ife in the sev�erage area . The average density within the sewer- age ar�a, exclusive of industrial areas , is pro�jected to equal 5 . 1 ' ;?ersons per a.cre in the year 2030 . This is nearly double the PSGC ' s �' . 6 pro,jection for 199G . The total population within the study arr�� is preser.tl;,� ab�ut 118, 400 . The total population pro,jected fcr t��e }�ear 2('3�� is thus over 37� ,000 . Of this total amount , an estimat�eri ;�1 ,00� are art.�cipatea to require sewer service. !�:�� Appendix page 3.) ., Sewer DesiRn Pro�ections for sewerage facility needs have been developed by considering the most probable population F�o�ections and land uses for the sewerage area. Loadings for existing and future sewerage Pacilities are derived by applying established unit quantities to population totals and including factors for indus- trial wgstes, and infiltration!infl�w (water which enters the collection system due to ground water flow through pipe connec- tions or breakage) . Loadings are described in terms of peak flow pro�ections . A total peak flow of 153 million gallons per day is pro�ected for the sewerage area and for the design popu- lation of about 321,000 expected to be living on 55,535 acres of residental land having sewer servj.ce by the design year 2030. (See Apperidi� pages 3 to 5 . ) Washin�ton State Department of Eeolo�� In the State of Washington, tlie responsibility for water pollution control and abatement is vested in the Department of Ecology (DOE) . Under the provisions of the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 a Federal-State partnership was established and the State was required to develop and implement water quality standards and policy guidelines. The State compiled a plan that described specifie actions necessary to achieve compliance with established � water quality criteria. In 1970, the State s Implementation and Enforcement Plan was adopted and the City of Auburn was thereafter advised by a letter that interception of the Auburn sewage lagoon ' to the Metro sewerage system was required pursuant to agency guide- lines. This directive included a specific time schedule fnr com- I pletion of required improvements whereby the facilities were to be operational by April, 1973• Compliance with the directive was further insured by the D0� in a statement that denied approval of further extension of the Auburn municipal sewerage system until Auburn consummated a s�rvice agreement with Metro. (The DOE restriction on sewer extensions is still in effect . ) The DOE directive included an explanation for upgrading the water quality in the Green River to the established level. Any expanded use of the Auburn sewage lagoon would lead toward depressed water quality conditions in the Green River. (See Appendix pages 19 through 22 . j 8 Interrelationship of Proposed Action to Other Re�ional Planning Programs PuRet Sound Governmental Conference The Interim Regional Development Plan (IRDP) for the central Puge� Sound region provides the foundation for all research, planning, and program activities of the PSGC . The plan integrates local governmental comprehensive plans with the Regional Open Space Plan and provides a comprehensive statement of goals and policies for the region. An element of the IRDP is the Interim Regional Sewerage Plan, which has been adopted by the PSGC . The Auburn Interceptor and the tributary interceptors proposed in the original Metro Com- prehensive Sewage Disposal Plan are consistent with the PSGC ' s Interim Regional Sewerage Plan. Some of the plan changes antici- pated by Metro in relation to the pending agreement with Auburn differ with portions of the IRDP Sewerage element . It is hoped that at the end of this review process the PSGC will update that element to include the proposed plan changes. . Within the Green River Sewerage Area, the land use element of the IRDP generally supports the continuation of existing land use with the notable exception of the valley bottom areas . In the Green River Valley, exce�t for thase areas presently committed to intensive uses, the IRDP encourages open space use . This feature continues to conflict with portions of some local comprehen- sive plans . One of the ma�or conflicts involves over 1,740 acres of land west of the Auburn city center which will be eventually served by some proposedinterceptors tributory to the Auburn Interceptor. - (See Appendix pages 23 through 27 and 38 through 43. ) ` River Basin Coordinating Committee Recent federal and state legislation requires the develop- ment of water pollution control and abatement plans by river b3sin. To fulfill this requirment , King County and Metro were requested to �ointly develop such a plan for the Cedar and Green River Basins . Local government and agencies were invited to form a committee for coordinating the planning effort . The committee is currently providing technical guidance to the planning study and recommending actions to be taken by the Metropolitan Council, the agency legally responsible for the development of the Integrated Environmental Management Plan for the Cedar and Green River Basins. The program is in its second year and represents an ambitious effort on the part of local commuriities to work for solutions of enY�.ronmental problems . The planning program involves several interrelated elements : l. Water �uality Study 2 . Wat�r Resource Management Study 9 3. Urban Drainage Study �, 4. Regional Land Use Study , 5. Solid Wastie Management Study 6. Air Quality Study This prapased action has been coordinated closeiy with the RIBCO study. An interim repart far the Water Quality Study published in October, Iq73 by Stevens, Thompson and Runyan, Znc . suggests that this proposed action will be cansistent with the , fina2 recommendatians for a water gollution control and abate- ; ment plan for the basins. Many of the alternatives to the pro- ' posed action have been analyzed in the RIBCO study for its pre- � scrlbed purpas�, but the Auburn Interceptor and tributory facilities have been tentatively identified as the most cost- effective actian. (See Appendix pages 27 through 30. ) 10 I II. - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION The environmental impact of the proposed action can best be described by examining the specific impacts of the Interceptor � and its overall impact which could lead to the ultimate develop- ment of a comprehensive sewage disposal system for the Green , River Basin and a portion of the White River Watershed. The dis- cussion will emphasize the significant beneficial impacts, environmental consequences, and anticipated secondary impacts . The impact of the pending agreement between the City of Auburn and Metro will be described as it relates to the conditional uses imposed upon the proposed facilities . (The technical infor- mation upon which statements and conclusions in this Summary Assessment are based is found on pages 90-148 of the Appendix. ) � BENEFICIAL IMPACTS The proposed action will result in a number of positive impacts which are described as follows : Proposed Action Advanta�es a. Provides the most cost-effective solution to managing the quality of the water resources of the Green River Sewerage Area and a portion of the White River Watershed. b . Eventually decreases the accelerated rate of eutrophica- tion of some small lakes and streams in the Auburn vicinity. c . Eventually eliminates health hazards associated with the misuse of septic tanks for sewage treatment . d. Consistent with State , regional and metropolitan water pollution control and abatement plans for the Green River Basin. e . Satisfies the DOE directive for Auburn to connect to the Metro system. f. Allows Auburn to implement its land use plan without the present sewerage restraint by the DOE. 11 _ ; The philosophy characterized by the Green River Sewerage Area Plan amendment is a regional service concept designed for optimum water quality management . The potential benefits, however, go beyond the obvious improvements to water quality by allowing implementation of land use planning. The regional service con- cept advocated by the proposed action provides a systematic approach to developing staged facilities which can provide local agencies with a vehicle for orderly land development consistent with their respective land use policies so that sewerage facilities are not �ust responding to crisis situations . Failure to address the problem of sewage disposal on a long-term basis will only result in compounding current problems and constraints upon development . If local government is unassisted in solving the problem, solutions will be largely piecemeal, addressing only local problems and in most instances representing short-term solutions . ENVIRONMENTAL TRADEOFFS - SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM , The direct impacts of the proposed Auburn Interceptor itself will result in several temporary and permanent consequences. Eventual construction of interceptors tributary to the Auburn Interceptor will result in impacts similar to those described below and those impacts will be examined in further assessments and hearings as specific pro�ects are proposed for construction. The following is a brief summary of the Appendix description of the environmental consequences associated with the construction of the Auburn Interceptor. 1 . Soil , p�ant communities and wildlife habitat will be � disturbed as a result of construction activity. Although construction areas will be restored, site restoration will not immediately duplicate preconstruction conditions . 2 . Two areas cf concern lie in the path of the Interceptor. ' Both areas are wetlands and should be closely evaluated. �ne area is zoned industrial by the City of Kent , so it is only a matter of time before the ecosystem will be sub- stantially altered by land development. The second area, south cf Z77th Street , is already transversed by existing rights-of-ways . :3 . Ui^�ct ; rcipac� �apori existing human settlement , structures , and ac�iv:t.;-� area will be minimized because the ma,jority of the can:�truction is expected to occur within existing rigizts-c�f'-way or ad�acent utility corridors . The con- struction ac:tivit�� may cause temporary disruption of transpor`ation and utility systems . 12 In summary, direct physical environment , social and economic impacts from the construction of the Interceptor itself will be minimal . Though the proposed Green River amendments to the Com- prehensive Plan does propose new facility extensions to service and an expanded service area, adverse environmental consequences are anticipated to be minimal . For example , prior Comprehensive Plan revisions have eliminated the planned East Valley Inter- ceptor. Additional capacity to be provided by the earlier planned East Valley Interceptor has been designed into the Auburn Inter- ceptor. This deletion will eliminate further disturbances of the valley environment from construction of a second valley interceptor. (See Appendix pages 208 through 215 . ) SECONDARY IMPACTS Planning for the location and service by sewerage facilities is obviously bound to land use decisions . Decisions regarding the construction and location of functional facilities must be made on the basis of pro�ected patterns of growth and development . The proposed Interceptor is consistent with Federal, State , regional and local utility planning policy. Although the proposed Interceptor does support local land use policy and regional utility planning policy, the construction of the proposed system tends to create a dilemma for local governments controlling land use regard- ing preservation of open space . �_ Land use control and maintenance of the unique characteristics of an area is a difficult task when confronted with the dollar impact sewerage facilities have on land values . It is probably safe to assume an �increase in land costs will occur. Such increases would be based on the highest and best use of the land. Pressures would be brought �o bear on city and county planning bodies to change ' designated open space areas to more intense uses because of higher land costs . The end result is that a utility system built to allevi- ate existing and future pollution problems in conformance with urban � development policy can in the long run be one of the factors that lead to destroying the very nonprice values which the land use plan was designated to protect , i .e . , the preservation of open space ��nd unique features . The key to the problem is , of course , land economics and what is involved in 3etermining the costs and benefits of public investment . All too often, the determination of appropriate land use is base� upon prices established for land in the private land i, market . The benefits of increased land prices accrue to the I private owner or, as in a great many cases , to the land speculator. ' On the other hand, the cost to the public for providing services, facilities , :�nd utilities te such areas accrue to the taxpayer. Whiie �� wr,,uld t�e difficult to estimate the total costs to the public for urbaniz�n� 2reas unsui��.ble for development , the cost would run very hi�h. i3 � There are no easy solutions to this dilemma. Perhaps the community needs to heed the call heard more and more often for a "new land use ethic" , an ethic which carries with it an attitude toward land as a valuable natural resource to be conserved and developed wisely rather than bought and .sold on the open market as a commodity. Any such change would require not only legisla- tive change , but wholesale change in public attitude . Although the physical existence of the Interceptor may stimulate growth, it will allow urban development to occur where local governments determine it to be appropriate . In a positive sense , the Interceptor will reinforce patterns of human activity which have developed in the sewerage area during the past decade . The development of new industry and businesses could be a bene- ficial long-term effect of the proposed action. In contrast , urban growth will diminish the natural character of the Green River Basin if urbanization is encouraged according to present land use plans . The construction of the Interceptor will allow the City of Auburn to develop land use in a manner it deems appropriate . The development of the Green River valley by the City of Auburn is a notable conflict in land use plans between the PSGC and the City of Auburn. The conflict area comprises 1,740 acres of valley bottom west of the city. Auburn has chosen to zone the land for industrial use , and the PSGC believes it should be retained for agriculture. Many organizations and citizens in the community are sympathetic with the Conference ' s viewpoint . Auburn retains the legal authority for land use control and zoning, and therefore is the legal entity to determine the future of the conflict area. The only possible change in this authority could come from the Washington State legislature ' s consideration of HB 791. Hope- fully, the bill would provide an appropriate forum to discuss . and arbitrate land use conflicts which are thought to have state or regional significance. The contractual agreement between Metro and the City of Auburn will commit Metra ta construct a portion of an interceptor tributary to the Auburn Tnterceptor serving the identified conflict area. Further, the contract will allow the City of Auburn to utilize the Interceptor as a local sewerage facility. This condit�on provides unlimited access :;o the facility ,so long as connections are consistent with Metra ' s a�:opted rules and regulations, and a means to include anticipated industrial development such as the "Auburn 40�" proposal . Althou�h this particular situation will encourage argument , the implementation of the Ir.terceptor is a case where functional planning r.as followed legal local land use planning. il 14 The diler��la of compatability of land use and the proposed action would a� no less if any feasible alternative to the present Auburn lagoon were implemented. State restrictions on sewer extensions wo��:�d be lifted and the possibility of urban growth would exist a� a result of those facilities . 1�/ III. DESCRIPTIOiJ OF HOW iHE TREATMENT WORKS DESIGN AND INSTRUCTIOPI CONTROLS WILL MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE ENVIROIIMENT The construction pro�ect will employ state-of-the-art methods and rigid manufacturing and quality control standards . The con- struction process will utilize the best available �echnology, while at the same time preserving economics and will also be de- signed to meet or exceed all applicable federal, state and local standards and regulations . The specific design and construction controls respond to specific regulatory agency requirements . In all instances , these controls will assure that only minimal adverse environmental im- pacts will result from the proposed pro,ject . Some specific design and construction controls include the use of screened wells in the dewatering process to eliminate the intake of soil particles and the use of pipe outfalls and diffusers to discharge the water created by the dewatering process . This treatment will lessen the threat of soil erosion and the slumping of drainage ditch banks . Sedimentation basins will be utilized to prevent the degradation of streams used as spawning channels . P•2onitoring of the dewatering effluent will occur periodically to insure that no water quality impacts result . �ust and particulate matter will be controlled by sprinklin�; access roads and trenches . Noise can be controlled by conventional methods . Upon completion of the Interceptor the Renton Treatment Plant will treat all sewage flowing through the Interceptor by a very efficient secondary process which removes BOD and discharges that effluent to the Green River just upstream of the Duwamish Estuary. �i'he Plant exceeds 1977 requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 for secondary treatment . Recently, ;•Zetro initiated a study which will build upon the results of the HIBCO Stud,y to determine the needs for the treatment process to meet the requirements of best practicable treatment and the 1985 �oal of zero dischar�;e . (See Appendix pa�;es 1119 throu�;h 150 ) 16 --___ _ . IV. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided by the proposed action consist primarily of disturbance to plant , animal, and soil commu- nities within the pipeline corridor. The existing terrestrial ecosystem will be altered along much of the pipe route. Existing vegetation will be removed and trenches will require displacement of existing soils . Site restoration will not immediately duplicate natural conditions . Consequently, the quantity and diversity of birds and small mammals may be altered for a short time. Temporary disturbances associated with construction will occur along the route corridor. Increased levels in noise and temporary disruptions of roads and public utilities will occur. Noise will be regulated by control of working hours and local ordinances , and traffic flow regulation will be performed by local communities . Corridor aesthetics will not be impacted by equipment , materials and construction for more than a brief period along any one portion of pipe construction routes . The corridor will be restored to as near its original condition as possible. These disturbances should not constitute a significant adverse impact to the community and should not damage the surroundings aesthetically, damage human health, standards of living, or sacri- fice any environmental goals set forth in section 101(b ) of the National Environmental Policy Act . (See Appendix pages 151 through 152) 17 , V. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAZ SH4RT-TERM , USES �F MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE ' AND ENHANGEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ' The short-term temporary environmental impact associated with the pro�ect w�ll result in long-term benefits to the Green River Basin and por�ions of the White River Watershed and ta the metropo�i�an Seattle region as a whale by eliminating a suspected souree of pollu- � tants ta the Green River 29 river miles upstream fram E3liatt Bay . ' The RIBCO study has shown that if the PSGC Interim Regianal Develop- ment Plan {ZRDP} were implemented with the elimination of the Auburn lagaan, treatment as propased, �nd the elimination of other point ' saurces of pollution in the Auburn area, the quality of the Green , ' River would nat decrease in the year 2000. There would be mare poten�ial contaminan�s discharged to the river by way of runoff from land surfaces. HpWever, due to the lar�e amount of water associated with th�s runaff, the concentration of such cantaminants in the Green River woulfl nat exceefl standards for Class A waters. The proposed action w�ll allow for the City of Auburn ta expand its se�v��e area �ince �he Department of Ecalogy ban wauld be lifted. This w�uld allow Auburn to serve many residences with public sewers rather than the present use of septic tanks . The proposed action would allow Metro to eventually extend , service to other areas in King and Pierce Caunties where septic . tank prablems have b�en identified and have resulted frarn the density of urbanizatian. The propased action will also allow the City of Auburn to implement its land use plan without impacting the quality of the water resources of the Green River Basin. (See Appendix pages 153 thraugh 156} 18 - -- _ --, VI . I�jREVERSIBI,E AND IRRET�IEVABI,E CQMMITMENTS QF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD I�' BE IMPLEMENTED Givez� th� information presentiy av�.ilable , the commitment of $$. � mi2lion ta construct the Interceptar is consider�d the most eost-effective alt�rnative to pravide a solution to �he present and potential prablems in ��ie Green River Sewerage Area and a portion of the White River Watersh�d. The Interceptor will commit the community to a regianal approach to water qual,ity management . Metro has examined thi� questinn on several occasians . The latest published report in support of region�l- ization was in 1971, by the consul�ant firm Qf CH2M & HiII and now the RIBCO study is evaluating the concept again. At the present time, regionalization appears the most cost-effective and accepted r�ethod of praviding service to the commun�.ty and managing the quality of �he waGer resources of the metropalitar2 Seattle area. This appraach pro�rides for reliability and flexibility in future water quality m�.nagemeMt decisions � I.f water is required for uses othez° �han the present, there may be a n�ed for water af greater quality. For example, this could be for any number af rEasons such as dr�.nking water, irrigation, crr �'isheries . Higher quality wat�r could be provided by advanced waste tr�atment techniques at th� place where it is needed. Such a treatment plant could be located ad�acent to the proposed Interceptor. The Interceptor would be used for salid� transpo�t for tr�atment at the regional plant . A� the present time small trea�ment plants are nat feasible . (Se� Appendix pages 157 throu�;h 158} 19 I � L - I VZI. - ALTERNATIVES Tp THE PROPOSED ACTION The following is a summary of general a�.ternatives to the selected course of action. �he �lternatives are listed with their prpbable advantages and disadvantages . The alternatives have been proposed and evaluated in the context of the entire Green River Sewerage Area and a portion of the White River Water- shed. The technical information upon which this analysis is based is found in the Appendix, pages 159-223 . The summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed actiQn is found on page II of this Assessrr�ent . �� NO ACTION Advantages : � a. P10 capital costs � b . No �emparary direct physical �nv�ronmental, social and economic impacts rel�ted to construction activity. Disadvantages : a . Increasing water quality management problems in the Green River Basin and a por�ion of the White River Watershed. b . Cont�.nued accelerated eutr4phicat�.qn of some small lakes and streams in the vicin�ty o�' Auburn. c . Continued potential health hazards associa��d with misuse of septic tanks for sewage treatment . d . Not cor�sistent with �he present� state , regional and metropolitan plans for water pollution contr�ol �.nd ab�tement for the Green River Basin. e . TYie directive to the City of Auburn by the DOE would :zot be met . f. In�bilit,y of Auburn to implement its land use plan with the present sewerage restraint because the DOE Uan on additional extemsions to the Auburn sewage syst��;�� would still be in effect . 20 "BUILD A SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT AT AUBURN" Advanta�es : a. Meets the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 for Secondary Treatment . b . Eventual decrease of the accelerated rate of eutrophica- tion of some small lakes and streams in the vicinity of Auburn. c . Eventual elimination of health hazards associated with the misuse of septic tanks for sewage treatment . , d. The DOE would probably lift the ban on additional exten- � sions to the Auburn sewage system when the pro�ect was completed. This would allow Auburn to implement its land use plan without the present sewerage restraint , Disadvanta�es : a. Not the most cost-effective solution to managing the quality of the water resources of the Green River Sewerage Area and a portion of the White River Water- shed . b . Not consistent with state, regional a�d metropolitaM water pol�ution con�rol and abatement plans for the rreen River Basin. e . Doesn' t satisfy the DOE directive for Auburn to connect to the Metro system. d . Represents a aommitment to provide "Best Practical Treat� ment" , (BPT) (if necessary) at a smaller treaLment plant rather than the proposed cost-effective a�ternative . zl "INTERIM INTERCEPTOR OR TREATMENT" Advanta�es : a. Less initial capital costs . b . Eventual decrease in the accelerated rate of eutrophica- tion of some smal� lakes and streams in the vicinity of Auburn. c . Eventual elimination of health hazards associated with the misuse of septic tanks for sewage treatment . d. Probable satisfaction of the DOE directive for Auburn to connect to the Metro system. e . All.ows Auburn to implement its land use plan without the present sewerage re5traint by DOE. Disadvanta�es � a, Not tl-ie mc7st cost-effective solution to managing the quality of the wat�r resources of the Green River Sewera�e Area and a portion of the White River Watershed. If ultimate needs for sewerage facilities for the service area develop as pro�jected for the year 2030, then the over- all cost for providing new facilities �o meet that need will be higher than implementing the present proposed action. b . 'i'emporar�y physical environr�ental, social and economic irnpacts related to constructior� activity. c . Not consistent with present state, regional and metropolit�.n water pollution control and abatement plans for the Green Rj_Ve1' Basin. <<_ "ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR INTERCEP�OR CONSTRUCT�ON" Advanta�: a. Eventual decrease in �he accelerated r�te qf eut�ophica- tion of some small lakes and streams in the viaiMity of Auburn. b . Eventual elimination of �ealth hazards associated with the misuse of septic tanks for sewage treatment . c . Consistency with s*ate , regional and metrapolitan wa�er pollution contro� and abatement plans for the Green River Basin. d. Satisfies the DOE directive for Auburn to Gonneat �o the Metro system. e . Allows Auburn to impl�men� its land use pl�� withput the present sewer$ge rest�aint by the DOE. Disadvantages : a. Less cost-effective than the proposed aetion. b . More temparary physic�l environmental , soci$1 and eco�omiG impa�ts re�ated to const�uction activity than the pn�- posed action. � �j T�e "no action" alternative wpuld result in the inability to �xtend sewer lines to serve existing residences and proposed industry. The status quo would be maintaineda but the Federal Water 9uality Control A�t Amendment of 1972 requires the City of Auburn to provide additional treat�ent of its sewage to meet the requ�rement of Best Practica� �reaLment (BPT) . Thus , the "no action" alternat3ve would not meet national and communS�y goals . Cpmpared to all alternative solutions , the proposed action is the most cost-effective and e�vironm�ntall,y sound a1Ge�native to achieve the ob�ective . This eonclusion is supported by Wilsey and Ham, Inc . in their independent Environmental Assessment of thg proposed action (Appendix) . The reader is referred to the alterna- tives section of the Appendix far a thorough evaluation and compar- ison of alternatives . Since the proposed Auburn Interceptor is to be part�ally funded by a Fed�ral grant fnAm the Environmental Protection Agency (EPAa , that agency will be the final determinant in the �udgement of alternatives . In its environmental review the EPA will have to address aMy comments from the PSGC on the �dentified land use co�flict . At present , the Jackson Land Use Bill (5268) i$ bein� cons�dered by Co�gress . In that Bill, responsibility for land use planning would remain at the State level. Th� present form of Washington State Land Use Bill (HB 791) would complement the Jackson Bill and would leave land use planning with lo�al govern- ment . However, `here would be provisions to resolve land use con- fl�cts of regional ar statewide significance such as the PSGC/ Auburn issue . At the present time and in the present configuration of land us� controls , the local entity-- in this case, Auburn--retains the final authority far land use planning. In reg�rd �o the p�oposed ar_tion, whatever solution is chosen, other than the "�o action" al�ernative , the Washin�ton State Department of Ecology would probab�y lift the ban on the extension of Auburn' s sewerage facili- ties ar.d consequently Auburn could implement its land use plan without that rest.raint . Sewerag� facilities are considered by many �lanners as a prime too] to regulate urban growth as well as pro- :riaing necessar,y services to the communi�y . The basic question to this aommunit,y , which eventually must be resolved, is �hethe� "growth" car: occur anc'. �,till bc compatible with man' s part and dependence upon the natz,ira.? en�Tironment . The RIBCO environmental planning �tudy w�_.11 be provi.�ir?�, �.nforma�icn ta assist the community in those de- !'�S10riS . �� 1 VZII. COMMENTS AND SU�GESTIONS RAISED BY FED�RAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES, AND BY IN�ERESTED PARTIES This section will include the comment� and suggest�ons rais�d by Federal , State , and local agencies , a�d by interested parties during the revi�w period and public h�aring. ?� I � � i/•3!• � r��y O f ,�j,,,,,,.•,,,,,,,,,�„ Pee�stoH,THORGRiM5df1. E,LLIS.NO�MAN S� �LETCt{Eft .�,,.�<,,� 1'^Mf.�r>ri i 20U0 � � ra nlllLolrJ� ^��nr� flnl"� � et'W�+�{�'sTrA�l�N , Ir, � ��r� ••Fu SEA7TLE,VJnS�+thGTON 98ipi ��nL� ii r.��„_��.�. C1<��+t�r�r��'J�,r.f� AAEA CODE 2Qd fl27�)580 C Kfi+r C��+l.^,O'1 !(E`.nLU�',.n i'i'1� Ff_`liERf t �Ufli[q �RES'Vi +n�19 J�CniE L wS�+VR9T C�+<n�M5 E �'�EEav ('� M6E4 R STat>t^� LItFflY CAF�TEt1 November �/ �7��__ -,�'11� 1'1�`� LCOlMS HI.nq13 �� t� �"; � JON�TM�N BlANn f� � +� �r'�� j OAViD i BELIL� �,�.Y '� ; �1�.:�I W �-1�-,y� J M.�RK MaRSwe�L �, ll�"�.7 '• ' s�AN l WICM9 . i� 8�4rR QEitNSON �`,�� `` ��)� AONA�D C G41 U V + f.��„ �:,-t,',-a'�i�� .rt' tvtETRC?i'cJI.ITAN SEATTL� .�r. George AS. �fack Roberts, Shefelman, Lawrence, Gay & Aioch � 1818 IBM Building i Seattle, t�� 9810i � Re: hletro-Auburn Setaage Disposal Contract Dear George: Please find enclosed six execution capies and ten addi- tional capi�s of the above-referenced Agreement which includes al2 those changes agreed to by the lega�, caunsel ' and staff of the City of Auburn and Metro at our October 31, 1973 meeting. If the execution co�ies meet �vith your a�,pinyal., would yau �7lease forcaard those documents to the t�uburn City Co�ncil far consideration at their November 5 meeting. Since Z will be out af town for the rest of the week, please feel free ta call �Tim Ellis if you have any further questions or clarifications. ' Very truly yaurs, I PRESTON, T}IORGRIMSON ELLIS, HOLMAi3 & FLE'i'CHER I �►s'�-fJ� , d1�w ' nY �, Robert L. Gunter RLG.dmw Encs. cC Mr. C. V. Gibbs h1r. Theodore tJ. Malloz-}• Air. I?ichar.d L. Hibbard h1r. Georgc E. Coole}� ! J r < . . (_J\t',l3! � (J � � �E��rAANE:NT FA�t�tTIES , lt�lTEC7CCf�TGR Sl�WC17S ANf� L.IF�' STATI�N Si�'E * DEaCt�lC3ED ON 'fNt MAP BELOW , �� a'tAh' s��;•.� ,7. . �/ LAI''6 ' � �•..:,:�rr ..-., . „ Ii�:�Af . � _� �' � �— � � . (y} y s 3 D't �.�?."r'T3.-„� �� s tse sr , ('� �°s � �,.7i'ri�'rrn��-r.� �t+� { . ',�_.. �-�.. '� �7 �� r �� 47 � `'4tE {•: ,r�tES �J� - � �i�f+M+e�'_a"n�'_"rti�a�"�'►•� ---- ' ' . e: .v, � � _ ;.. �.. i Q r Y • 35 S.i N�� ; � Q � :+y �+� . a .. i [y 5 t �� R E�wnY -- . �-.-.=., ..�..u•_« �, �,y �Tf'BL . CROSSING ' y o! � " ��; , {TYRt �C"'� ', . _ '� :.:.: .: 1 ,.�� ncrc r,oFf � a ; .;......�,.. . �. � :�,z�:�,.:�t � �Ir6 �� j '�, � , r� , � [�� ,j � ��I F. +� �:.,,=r,y,i� ,' '� � N` •p �� \ .�/ . , . � � � � '�� Sr�'��Nr . . \./ ' -�h ST kf i• t � tW,. . � � V�� , '�'+,� �� :�"H:�.L��. I s azo sr , � � 8 ,?40 '{, , I � r� - ' �6 ��}'... ; Cdie0tl11'�CDIIE I a'� � �� , i J },� � � ' I , � �,. .__�...5,'+€._ �', r-�-i Qiltltlkf�S �.T��_ sr ' 2 �• �� „si � f, EOl7lE2; ; �'----� ''�' % ' � ,i i h7)FTJ� =� �� :� �., . --_ ti Lrs�'� � � ...t � t � � L ` ^� "'�*�hs��*"'^' « `'�. � ' � (�(i%!/TS' �� ~ � � �,� � .� t. � � .,.� -�--§S-:L`. � , � �R :� r .F`...,..�.iL.,_- t ,if �� I q i � r ...1 .�� y t j r1 '� :....SZ_.�,�. _,.� P � � L.�.C�l' ..�+..s'• ._�_ J� , �_a� si.s.�f "`i—�•*� ' '� fi'll'NICViI � ;\i '� ,�'` r 3.!,_,i4_._:'_ `4 '"f �'�i�n .1+�` T w � �,�� '�y+.r� «� �`{�^ � � i+yC *� )f- 'Q ' A'f�G�ARti'dl' � g;�� ;j ,� s o� � � i a�.�ar�r�� o . �� 4!5t 8� A $TS �tr � �� i�. •� _+..u�,�c�, S.F, LIFT ��i�.�T��!� +v .i/'lQF.� � i. � � S T it 7 I(}N ��~, t�' �. � •� � s��-� '�l �;� f�DRfA'C�' / � ; �: �,,,. ,� � � a l. / ;'"�.Y � 4 a , � �- 5 , ,.;� -� �,.� � , • ,-�� 3 � �1 � �o r�t� ._.. . " �__.,._.l (, ��^, '/� �- A�� 41 9 ... l✓ �t •' _ .�1 1L ♦ � r�lltil'.�, ; �' 'l� e' ��. -� � � ;' � ,�`�` - t P�#�i F 1 C /�' �� i - , � , It�C�UpfP1G PERMANENT .£� T�MPQRARY EA�EMENT `i""`""` FOF� �UN'iTfi�E�CTi�N UF AUBU�N iNTERCEPTUR . TEMPOF�ARY FACII�ITIE� TEMPCIRARY FACILI'T!F_S INCLI'JOE THE EXlSI'l�JG SEWAGE �AGQON ANU �PP��T'ENANT STRUCTURES A��D �qvi�MENI' t.uCllTEt� BE TvrE:EN HUF�LINGTON NORTNF�tt� Rti(Lf��7A0 ANU '�C�+ S1�RCE:T N. E. �XTENUf:�I AN(� :;Qtl1`ti OF 30T1i 57i2�:ET N,E. TME EXISTING LAG40N OUTFALL AN(? �ACKA�E l.IFT STATION LUCA1 EU AT �114T AIdD A ST�REET $.E. * *f'tirt-h,-�s-n c�f LTF'T �T.t1't'T(�P1 �LT'3: �tritl FRC3CRt;f: i,ZFT �: r:,�i a��ii . ��1,��„•� � �, i., ,e�.,l. � �,f 1 it 1��- - — - ---� I ' , MUNICIPALITY OF M�TROPCLITnN SEATTLE CITY OF J�UF3URN AGR�E[�IEtv'T FOR 5��P.GE DISPOSAL TFIIS 11GREEb1EI�T is made as of this day of , 1973, between the CITY OF AUT3URtd, a municipal corporation of the St�te of Washington (hereinafter r.eferred to as the "City") , and the bSUNICIF�lLZTY OF D1I:TP.GPULITi+t] SEATTLE, a municipal corporation of the State of t•�ashington (hereinafter referred to as "Metro") . W I T N E S S E T H: P1H�RF'AS, the public health, welfare and safet-y of the residents of the City and the residents o� the metropolitan area require the elimination of potential sources of water pollution and the preservation of the fr.esh and salt water resources of the area; and 4;tiEREAS, thc� State of Washi.n9ton Department of Ecology has adopted water qualit}r st<.indards and a plan of implementation thereof whicti r�quires that certain major sewage disposal works " be constructed and operated and that the cities and special districts within thc metropolitan area dispose of th�ir. se�vage in accordance kith a com�rehensSve plan for the metropoli.tan ar<:a; and ' WEIERFIIS, Metro is enr��ged in developing and operating a metropolitan se:aage disposr�l s}�stem and the City is engaged in developinq and o��eratiny a sewage co1.leCtion system; and �•7lII:LI:11S, tc� E�rovide Sor the dis�osal by Mrtro of sewage collc�cted L�• the �ity, it i_, r.��c� ss.iiy th��t a contract be now entered irito establisliiiig ti�� i iyhts and duties of the parties; — � i I . . � p10tJ, TiTFRFFOR}', �.n consa.deration of the mutual cpvenat7ts �ontainecl hercin r iT IS FII'RFF'Y I�C.RI'T'P AS FQ7.TrOk1�: Section l. t�Pfinitian of Terms. The fo�lowina wards � and phrases usecl in this contract shall have t#�e meanings here- � inafter Set forth in this section: � a) 7'he wQrds "Comprehensiv�; Plan" shall mean the Comprehensive �earage Dispcasal Plan adapted in Resolution r?o. 23 af the Municipality o� Pletropolitan Seattle �nd all amendments there�f heretofore or I hereafter adoptec�. I b) The words "Metxopolitan Seweraae System" shall ' mean �11 af the faai�.itzes to �e constx�tcted, acauirec� oa used by r1etro as a part of th,e �omprehensiu� Plan. The Me�xopolitan �ewerage �ystem sh�ll. qenerally incluc�e sewage disposal Facilit}es 4rith capacity to receive se�+arre from r�atural c�rafpac?e area� of a�- proximately on� thcrusand acres or �rore. The Metropolitan � 6ewcrage �ystem shall thus include trunk ar intexce�tor sewer �acilities ea�tenc�in,q to a point within each I, tributary and natural drainage area where nat moze than pne thous��nc� acres remain ta i�e servec� beyond the upper t�rminus of such trunk or interceptor sewt�r. �} R'h� �+ords "i,oe��l �ekcracse Faci_li�.ies" sha21 mean � all facilities own�c� or operatec� by a PaXticipant for the 7.oc��J. col2�ction af sewacte to be delivered to the � Metrapalitan �e��c�racr� eystern anc� all. sir�e sewers and � c�nriectian �itti.nas co�necter� c�irectly to such System whieh serve customers of the Participant. d) The words "Metropolitan Area" shall mean the area coptained within thc� �otindari�s af the _2_ � � JI � • Municipality of ldetropolitan Seattle as now or hereafter coq�tituted. , e) The word "Participant" shall mean each city, town, county, sewer district, municipal corporation, person, firm or private corgoration which shall dis- pose of any portion of its sanitary sewage into the Dletzopolitan Sewerage System and shall have entered into a contract with tdetro providing for such disposal. f) The words "Residential Customer" shall mean a single family residence billed by a Participant for sewerage charges. Section 2. De.livery and Acceptance of Sewac�e. On the �irst day of the month next following the execution of this contract or the acceptance by i•letro of a federal grant by the United States �;nvironmental Protection Agency for construction of the "Ruburn Interceptor" as hereinafter defined, whichever is the later, the Citp siiall deliver t� thP Metmnniitan Sewerac�e System �]1 of the sewage and industrial wastes collected or received by the City, and Dietro shall accept the sewage and industrial wastes delivered o for treatment subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as may be adopted from time to time by the Metropolitan Cpuncil. rietro shall not directly accept sewage or Hastes from any person, firm or corpor.ation ��hich is located �•�ithin the boundaries of or is delivering • iCs se�agge int:o the Local Se�•�erage Facilities of the Citx without the written consent of the City. The City sha11 nat deliver sewage to an}• ottiei- agcncy fc�r disposal without the written consent of Metro. The treatment and disposal by fietro of the sewage and industrial o-:aste deli��c�red b�• ttic City to hlet.ro shall comply �vith all applicable federal and state standards and requirements. -3- ; r Sectian 3. Constructian of PSetro Facilities. Metro shall construct, acquire ar otherwise secure the right �.o use all facilities within Y.ing County requireci fc�r the disposal af sewage delivered to bletro pursuant to this A�reement and shall perforrn all services required far the maintenance, operation, repair, replacement or improvement af the Metropolitan Sewerag� System, incluciing an� additions and betterments thereta. Excep� as otherwise provided in Sections 9 and 20 of this Agreement, Metro sha�l in its sole discretion determine th� nature, location and the time of can- structian of facilities of the Afetrapolitan Sewerags System. Scction 4. Connection of Loc��l Seweraqe Facilities to Permanent Ft�ci2ities of the Aletropol,itan 5eweraqe System. I,oca1 6ewerage I'acilities of the City sha11 be connected to the Me�ro- politan Sewerage System at such time as any of the permanent facilities of SUCI1 iietropolitan Sewerage System shall be available to receive sewage collected by su�h local facilities. Th� initial � connectian af a3I such lacal faci2ities existing a�. the time of this Ac�reemcnt shall be acccamplj,shed at the expense of Metra. Subseqtlent connections shall be accamplished at the ex�ense of_ thc_ City in accardance with the rules and reguiation$ o£ bietro and at such point or paints of connectz.on tis shall be determined by Dietr.o, exceN�t ttlat t:ze City shal.l' have the riqht to connect any of o its local facili�ies it7to an�� manholc of th� Metropolitan Se�verage System, a�id such right ma�r b�. etiercised �.hether ar nat the same has bc:en approved by an�� agency othez thC-�i1 the parties, The Ci�.y sh�111 sc�clire and ��ay� fcr the right to us� all Local Set,�eraye F'acilities of another Participant which may be rec;uired to de2iver the City's sewage to the Metrof�olitan Sewerag� System. � -4- I f . i . � Section 5. Pa}�ment for Snwage Dispasal. For the dz:;F�osal of sewage hereafter callected by the City and delivezed to Nietzo , the City shall pay to bSetro, on or b�fare the last day of each month during the term of this ligreement, commencing on the first day of II the month next £ollawing the date of execution of this contract ar the acceptance by Metzo af a federal grant by the United 5tates Environmental Protection Agency for the canstruction of the "Auburn Intercepror, " as hereinafter defined, whichever is the later, a I sewaqe dispasal charge determined as prov�ded in this Section 5. � l. Far the c�uarterly periods ending March 31, June 30, I F September 30 and Decembex 31 of each year, every Participant $ha2], subma.t a written repor� to bietro setting forth (a) the number of Residential Customers billed by such Particigant far local sewerage charges as of the last day of the qu,�rter, (b} the tatal number of , all custamers billed by such Participant as gf such day and {c) the tdtc�.1 wa*er Cpt?ctttTi[�t?.Q:'1 +:��SYlTln cilC�! tTL��Ytcr fnr s��.�. CUSt.01!trs7"S �7.12@C� by sucli Participant other than I'�esidential Customers. The quarterly �' water consumptios� report of the Ci.ty shall be taken from wa�er meter recprds and m�-�y be adjusted ta exclu�e water which, under the rules and regulations af Metro, nceds not and i� fact does nat enter tne sanitary facilities of a customer: Where actual sewage Plo�v from I an individual customc^r is mcterec3, the metered sewage flow shall be �' rrf�orted in lieu af t-�djusted ��atcr consum�7tion. The total quarterly watcr consum��"ian repor.t in cubic feet shall be clivided by 2,700 ta i dete2�n:iii� tlle number af. I.esiden�.ial Ct�stozt�er. equiva�lents re�aresented by e�ch Participant':� customers other than aingl.e family residences. �� Metra sh�ll t�aintain a perma�i�nt rccord of the quarter2}� custamer reports £rom each Participant. I The City's £irst qu�rterly report shall cover the period I fzom the date cahen se�.age is first dc�livered to Metro to the end of. t:he quarter in which s.ich dc�li��ery occurs and shall be sahnaitted taitliin thi.rty c.1ys th�reafter. Succeedi��g re�}orts 'I � ' -S- � � st�all bc rnade for cach yuartcrly period thercafter and ;,•}�al.l be eubmitted within thirty (30) days following L-he end of L•he quarter. . ' • 2. a) To form a basis for de�.ermir,ing the monthly sewage disposal charge to be paici by each Part;icipant during any particular quarterly periocl, 2detro sha].1 ascertain the number of Residential Customers and Residential Customer equivalen�s of each Participant, This ,deterMination shall be made hy taking the sum of the actual number of P.esidential Customers reportPd as pf the last day of the' ner.t to the last preceding quarter and the • average number of Residential Customer equivalents per c�uarter reported for the four quartcrs ending with saic� ner,t to the last . pr.eced.ing quarter, adjusted for each Participant to el.fminate I ' any Resicleni:ial Customers oz Resic�.ential Custor.:er eauivalents whose sewage is delxvezed to a aovernmental agency other. than Metro or other than a Participant for disposal outsic?e of the _ Metropolitan Area. The number thus determined is hercii�af.ter called the "basic reported nur�ber" . � b) For the initial period un�.il the City shall have ' � submitted six consecutive quarterly reports, the basic reported number of Resic?ential Customers anc� Ftesidential Customer eaui- va]_ents oi the City shall be deterr�iried as provic?ec? in this • subpar.acraph (b) . Qn or hef.ore the tenth day of cach month . ' begxtininR �:ith th� month F.ricr to thc r.onth in �;hich seH•aae fror,l the City is first dclivere.�. to tic�tio, thc Ci.i:y shall �ub- mit a �:•ri.tt:�n :>tatcr:�tlt of thc nuc^ber. of Resicicntial Custo:ners � • and Resic?cnti�-:1 Customer. eRuivaleni�s estimatc�3 to be bilJed by the Ci.ty during the ne::t succeeclina mont}l. For the puzF�ose of • `G^ . � . ' � ' . dctermining the,basic repor.tcd numbcr. of Re�i.clenL-iaJ. Cu�•�omers or Residential CustoMer equ:valents of the (:ity for such next succeeding month, Metro may at its discretion aclopt either such estimate or the actual number of Residentxal ('ustomers and Residential Customer eauivalents reportec? by the City as of the last day of the next to the last preceding reported quarter. � After the City shall have furnished six consecutive quarterly �' reports, the basic reported nur?ber of Residential Customers and #tesidential Customer eauivalents of the City shall be determined • as provided in the immediately preceding subparagraph (a) . ' ' c) If the City shall fail to submit the required � mon�hly and/or quarterly reports w11en due, Dietro may make its o�an estimate of the number of Residential Custot�ers and Resi- dential Customer equivalents of the City and such estimate shall consLitute tne basic reporzed number for tahe pt�r.pose of deter- mininc� sewage di�po�al eh�.rres. � d) The basic reported nu�nber of Residential Customers and Residential Customer equivalents of ,the City shall be further . adjusted b}• adding thereto twenty-five percent (25t) of the number of Resic?ential Customers or Residential Custor.?er equiva- � lents of. the �ity located out�i.�e thc boundarics of fdetro. The sum tlzus cietermined is heYeinafter callec� the °a�juste2l reported nutnber" . If all of the area ].ocatecl �rithin tt;c City or any area located outside Che City and servec� i.nt:o its Local Seweraae Facilitics sllall be annexcd �o ;lctra �t any time after the dat� of this agrec�m�nt or if the t��et�t��-five percent ar?ditive adjustment � shall have becn ��aid by the City for a period of ten years, sai� udditive adjustm.enL� sh��ll be elir+inatec� effective as of: thc first. day of �hc month follo�aincr such annexation as to the nt�ml�cr of. . _�_ � , � � I� •• I Resicicnti�l Customcr� or Reszc?c,�tiK-�I Custor�er equivalents I,ocated wit}i�n such ��ni�cxed arca rtnci .in �ny evcnt sha31 t>r. c�liminaLed enf:ire2y upan the tqnth annS.versar.y oi, the clate rr}�en seF�aqe disposal Chargcs shall have first been paici to rini.ro by the City. Zf the additive adjustment de�cribec� above shall not be applied to the Residential Customers or. Resic?ential Customer equivalents of any other Participant 2ocated outside of t}ie present boundaries af 1•ietro under any future aareenent bet�•reen Metro and such Partici- pant or shall be applied in a lesser amount, then the ad�'itive adjustment cle�cribed in this partiqraph (d) shall be �orrespandingly zeduce�3 .c�r de2eted. The uc3justt��, reported' nurnber o� Re$ic�ential Custorr.crs ancl Resider�ti�11 Custamer cauival�nts aE the City shall be the n�mber af P.esiciential CusComers anci Resic?ential Custor!er • ec;uivalents reportcc: by the Cit-.y f.or the purpose af deL-ermining setaage c?ispasal charges gtirsuant to Faraqraph 3 of this sect�.oT�. . ' , 3, T:�� monthly s�.wag� dispo�al `ctlaruG p1yable to t�ietro shr�ll. be determinecl as fo2lows: � - a) Prior to .Tuly lst. of each year, rtetro shall detcr.min� its t�otal manctary require�,ents Lar the di.sposa2 af s�ca�ae during l.he next ruccecc?ing calendar 3�car. Such xequ�.rcr.ients �h��ll a.t�c3.tade the cast of ac3rninistratic�n, aper�-�tior�, maintenance, re-- , pair anri �epl�ccnent of th� t�tet.ropolitan Sewerane System, es- tab].a_,lim.ent �i�c3 maintenai�ce of r7ecc�ssary r:orkinc� ca�iL-al �3nc1 ,re4er�-e., t}�e z-ecluarc�t^ents c�f an�� rerolution prava,c�ina ic�r tlle �.s�;u7iicr_ af rczvcnue Uottc'.N of t-?ct T-o to fi.rzaiic.e ttie .icutiisitiot�, can:>t.ructic>ix oi usc: of :�e�:cr<-�c�c faci.li.tics, plu� not to exccec� lv c�f.' thc f<7rcc;oi.nc� rc�<�uii:-et�cntrc f.or c�ciic�ral adc;�ii�� trativc� overttieac� cosi.s. b) Ta dctcrmi2lo thr. monthly raLc p�r Rcsicicntial Cu�iomer or ?:esidenti�l Ct�s'.:olrc�r enlsiv�ticnt to he tised dura.t}c� . -II- ; I i �___ - - - - - - � � the n�>:t succeeding c��lei,dar yecii , the tota] mc>neLary reciuirements Lor di�.posal of. :;et•�ayr as cictermined � n su}�para��r.aph 3 (a) of thi.s :section shall bc divideci by twclvc and th�: resultiny quoticnt shall be divided by the total number of Residential Custoir.ers and Residential Customer equivalent� of all Participants for the October-December quar.ter pre- ceding saici July lst. c) The monthly sewage disposal charges paid by each Parti- c�.pant to Dfetro shall be obtained by multiplying the monthly rate by the number of Residential Customers and Residential Customer equiva- lents of the Participant. An addi.tional charge may be made for sewage or wastes of uciu�ual quality or composition requi�ing spe�ial treat- ment, or Dietro may require pretre<<tment of such sewage or wastes. An additional charge may be made for c�uantities of storm or ground �aaters , enteriny those Local Sewerage Facilities which are constructed after January 1, 196�, in excess of the minimum standard established by the general rules and regulations o£ t�lQtro, except that any such additiqnal charyes shall be offset by any expenditures made by the City on the planning and development of faeilities for the correction of inflqw and infiltration into the existing sewerage system of the City. If ^ the City shall expend more than 550,000.00 in any one year on such planning and development from any source other ,than categorical grants, the amount eapended over $50,000. 00 in that year may be credited once to an}� future year.s in ��hicti the actual e:{E�enditure �aas less than $50, 000. 00 so as to avoid the cc�llection in those }•ears of the addi- tional charye F:rovided in the immcdiat�l�� precediclg sentence. o 4. A :;tatement of the amount of the moi•.thl}� sewage disposal charg.� shall b� submitted by Pletro to each Participant on or before the fir:;t da�� o£ each month at�d �.:��ment of such charge shall be due on the l��t c3ay of �uch month. 7f �i1y c}ZZrye or portioci tiiereof due to r1utro stiall remzin un��aid for Lifteen da}•s following its due date, the Participant shall be charged �;ith and pay to Dletro interest on the amount un_�aid from its due date until paid at the rate of 68 per annum, alld ttetro t�a}�, upc�n the failure of an}• Participant to pay such amount, �nforce pa}•r��nt b�� an}� rcrr,cd�� avsilat�].c at law or e�Zuit}•. -9- 5. 'The City irrcvoc�,l�ly o��li��tas and binds itsclf to E>�y its sewaqe Qisr�osal charcJe out of. the yr�:;r; revenu�� from sew�ye coller_ted or reccived by the City. City furt;}icr binds itself to establish, main- tain ancl collect charges for sewer service which �will at all times be sufficier,t to pay all costs of mainteii�ince ai�d operation of the sewer system of the City, includincJ the sewaye disposal charge payable to rietrq hereunder and sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on any revenue bonds of the City which shall constitute a charge upon such gross revenues. It is recognizeci by Metro and the City that the setaage disposal charge paid by the Cit}� to Metro shall constitute an expense of rnainteriance and operation of the sewer system of the CiL-y. The City shall provide in the issuance of future sewer revenue bonds of the City that expeilses of main�enance and operakion of the sewer system of the City shall be paid befor.e payment of principal and interest of such bonds. The City shall have the right to fix its own sehedule of rates and charges £or sewer service provided that same shall produce revenue sufficient to m�et the covenants contained in this Agr.eement. Section 6. l:espor�sibi.lit�> of Citv. The City shal� be respon- sible for the delivery to the Dietropolitan Sewerage System of sewage , Collected by the City, for the construct-ion, maintenance, and operation of I,ocal Se�•:erage I'acilities, for tkie prompt connection of all premises served by such facilities, and for the payntent of all costs incident to the collection of such se�;�ige aiid i.ts delivery to. the rletropoJ.itan � Se��era9e System, �c: tion 7. I:�cords. Permanent t>ooks and records shnll be kept by bletro ar,d L-he Cit:y of the r��spective rates established, the vo]umes of sewac�e deli•:�ered ai:d disch��ryed it�?o the tletropolitan Sekerage System where�er �ucti vol.umes are me�isured atici the ntimbc�r. of Ite�idential Custom- ers and Residential Customer equivalcnts reported. In addition, D]etro shall keep cotttplete books of account sllowing all costs incurred in connection wi_th thc hlf�t:r.oE�olitan Se�:craye System, and the City shall -10- keep complet-e recorcis st�o�cing the arnount billed to each of its customers for seo�er service and the bzsis used for such billing � including sewage flow and water consumption for each customer where applicable. The records required by thi.� parayraph shall be avail- able for er.ami.nation by eit-her party at any reasonable time. Section 8. Development of r�etropolitan Seti•erage System It is contetnplated that the P]etropolitan Sewerage System will be develqped in stages ai�d, except as provided irt Section 9 hereof, tlie nature of all faciliti�s uL ti�e i�ietropolitan Seti�erage System to be constructed, acquired or used and the time of such constructzon, acquisition or use shall be determined in the sole discretion of ' fdetro, it being coriem�lated t}�at tietro sliall ultiilintely pro-�ida sek�agc disposal for the entire P,etropolitan Area and such adjacent areas as may fea,ibly be ser.ved into tlle rletropqlitan Sewerage 5ystem. ' Section 9. Construct:ian of Cer.tain ^ictror.olitan Trunk Sea:ers by �letro. htetro agrees ttiat it �•�i.11 design, conski-uct and inspect facilities of the f•ietropol.itan Sew�rag� System generally described on Exhibit "A" attached her.eto (the "nuLurn Interceptor") upon the execution of this cotitract and the acceptance by Dietro of a fed- eral grant by the Un3.ted States Envi.ror.me:ttal PrOl;OC.t.LOI1 Agenc}� for censtruction �f said I�ubu�:n Interce�,tor. The facilities shall be ccrincct��d arid re�dy for service r:ithin t��enty-four caleiidar months ne�t. after the exrcuticn of this contrzct cind the acceptancc hy PSetro c�f a fcQcral 7rant :iy the Ui�iteci States L'nvironmental I'rotecti.on �.crencf foi the co::struc�ion of t.he Auburn Interccptor. Thc date of. coniiu��ti�t: may bc c:;tcI1C1�=(.� by th�� tim�� cotlsu:iu�d by acts of God, strikes, material �hortages or other dela}•s beyond the control of rlekro or its contr��ctors. In the event of a dispute -11- over th� �>:istence of any of the delays F�ermitti.ny such date to be extended or ovcr thc amount of timc of such extcnsion, eithcr party � ma}� submit such disputc to the Su�erior Court of King Coui�ty for � arbitration. If sucti faciliti�s are not completed by such date or extension thereof, the amount of t�letro charges paid by the City from such date to the actual date of completion thereof may be used by the City as a credit in determining the feasibility of eonstruction of future fletrqpolitan Sewerage System facilities which the City may re- yuest rietzo to buila. 5uch credit shall be applied directly against that portioii of the cost of such future facilities which is borne by tdetzo, other than Uy grant.s, and the test of feasibility used b� D?etro stiall be on� tahich is then gener�lly applied by t•letro to all e:ttensi.ons o£ thc Dletropolitan Sew�erage �ystem. In addition, Metro shall place in every cor�struction con- tract relating to the Intereeptor sewers described in Exhibit "A" a provision for the payment of each such contr.actor of lic;uidated I , dar�ages to the City of $300. 00 per day for each day such constrtic- tion has not beer. completed after such date or extension thereof, ancl such lic7tiidated dzmage provision shall provide for the enforce- ment ther.eof by th� City. Ptetro shail not approve any such time e>:ter.sior. �;�ithou:: prior approval of the City, ��tiicll shall not be unrcaconabl}� •..itliheld. • o Metro :�.hal.l construct ttiat portion of the West Valley Int:erc�F��tor f rom llth �1��enue Vc�rt.h (i n n]gona) to blain Street (in T.uburn) �:� trin �i rc��:,o:�a:�l�� .*imr. ��tcr the �luburn Interccptor �h,zll ha��e ,,�en �•ei^,i,l� t��d ciad th�� Ci t�� hall h�l�•e I'C2cIllrStCC� such con�tructic�n, ar.d thr Cit,• s!::�11 ��rovicli� s pumE� slation <ind £orce main connection froi�� the [tiest �'alley Elighti�ay alonq t•]ain Street to -1:'- . , (- � � the eYist-ing Poeing Trunk ser:er. A]Ctt'o shall a�prpve thc design of I � and shall operatc and maintain L-he pumi� station. At such time as the pump statzon is no longer raquired by Dietro, the possession of � such facility and responsibility for o�eration and maintenance therefor shall revert to the City. At such time as the Gity shall request Metro to construct additional tdetropolitan Se�oerage System facilities within King County and wit•hin the drair�age area of the City's Local Sewerage Facilities and such construction is feasible under the test of feasibility then generally applied b}� 1•Ie�ro to all extensi.ons of the Metropolitan S�caerage S}�stem, bletr.o shall construct such additional facilities within a reasonable time after such request. The City shall grant to tdetro witrout cost a fifteen-goot permanent easement and an adequate construction easemeiit on City property fox the construction of a portion of the Auburn Interceptor. The loGation of such easement �hall commence at the influent struc- ture of the existing City Secvaae Lagoon, thence nor.therly and qen- � era].].y parallel to the existing City Sewage Lagoon to 30th Street Northeast, the exact ].ocation t� be agrced upon by Metro and the City. Section 10. Use b�� D'.etro of. City Sewerage P'acxlities. Certain e:{isting se��erage facilities of- the City can serve as "tetnporary" DIctropolitan Sekerzge Sy�teiii faeilities and ceztain exisiinq s��:er�c�e fac.il.ities c��i �•�r.vc ar-� "permanent" Dletropolitan , Sewerage Sy:�tem £acilities. Effective on the date sewag� disposal charges sha11 fir:�,i. be ch�zrc(eable ;iereunder. , or such earlier date as may be ?nutuall�� agreed upon (hereinzfter callcd "takeover date") , Dlctro shzll h�ve thc i-ight to usc ��nd thc duty to maintain, op- erate, repair and replzce the £acilities owned by the City which aze described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this ref- erer.ce made a part hcrcof. The Cit}� shall have the right to jointly use t}�e interceptor s��ers described otl Exhibit "B" as -13- . �, I . . ' . • ' � • • � . . •City Crunl: sew�rs for thc deli�•�_r.y ot z)�y scr�ayef collected l�� - � . � the Cii.y, taut tlic m<�k�.nn of any z�clditional latcral �nct sidc scy�er connections shall be subject to approval by�ictro of the manncr � , � such connGctions are to be made, based on �;dopted 6tetro �andards. , If sewaye di.sposa� Charges are chargeable to the� City � � � and if the City shall construct an adclitional freeo�ay crossing wi�h th� apprqval by 1dei:ro of the desi.gn and 1'oCatiot: of such . , �ucility or crossing, the Ci,ty shall he zeimbursed for i:he City's actual cost thereof (less any orants received) iri addition to the amount of r�imburse.�nent set for.�h helow. The freeti�ay reim- . bur�ement sha�.l be made in eash �•rithin thirty-�ive (35) days fol- , �.00�ing ,completion an�i. billing by the City, but r�o rooner than the taY.c�over datQ. The C.i�y sh�11' cantin}�e to own the facilities de5crihed in this Seci:ion 10 aiid shall co�itinue to pay the principal of and },ntarest o� any bonds issuec� tq pay in ti�hole or in part the cost of aeguisitipn and constructicn of Such f�cilities, �Y.'�'viCG�ii t:liut. CiiC;A'11t.�LS �ani�n c71e C�E'.S14�I1�1�G'd d:i ��perr�anent�� Shdll be conveyed by �he C�ty to f�tetro hy �uit claim deed upon payment , o� all presently outstanding revenue banc� or general ohligation bond� of ihe City secured by or issued to acc{uire or construct saicl facilities.. � ' � • Th� riy}�t o� P�ctro t.o usc any of t;h� facilitic�s which �r.e des�nnated as "l.em.porary" sh��ll c��pire �L- such time as Ptetro • o sh��ll nq 1pIlner ronuire the usc± of such portioi�.. Upon thirty (30) days' not:ice by Pletxo ta� the Ci�}�, such t-er:porary faci].i�:ie� Shall 2�c; returned to tlie Cit}• R}rid 1•'.et.ro's O�Jllqilt:l011 to maintai.n t opereii.e, r.epair and r.eF�lricc thc�s;c• tcr,f�or.al-y f�1ci..l.itics sh�zll • cease. It is coi�ter�F�latecl by this I�qr.ec�nent that the Git:y shall, at thc� elrlic�C pra�ticablo clate ,�1nd at it•s evp�n::e, separate the stprm ai�ci scini�ary ::c<<�nge in �1rc�s of the City wharr st�rm ��nc'. sanit�iry sc�:��ic�c �ire now comhinc�cl. 7'he right oi- rtctr.o to usc the , _ 1�_ ; • � �ity Se��aae 'ireaCmr_nt Lac�c�on af.tf:�- inter.eePt-ion sh.�ll terminate �:han , the City sh<ill },avc apI�licci 4�f.tc1 thr_ datc of this contr.act at lcc��t 'i 5207,OOU o� Ci.ty fw�cls, fr.�m any :UUTCr' othcr. than catecforical cJrants, to tYie con�ruction of storm sewer :cparation faci.litics. Metro stiall havc the right to salvaye any eyui}.incnt which it has installed or purchased from th�� City i.n the "tem��orary" facilitics after the period of Metro's use, ot-herwise such faci].ities shall be returned to the City in "as then is" coY�dition upon expiration of use by Metro. For the privilege of using the facilities described in E}c�iL�it "R" Metro shall pay to the City the total amount of $713,713 (hereinafter called "amount of reirnbursement") . Said amount of reim- bursernent shall be subject to reduction and reimbursement to Aletro for any grant hereafter received by the City applicabl� to such facil- it;es. Metro s2�a11 also reimburse �he City �or the package lift statipn located at 41st a�id A Street S.E. as shown on E�tiibit "B" withiii thirty (30) days after tt�e City transfers title to t}�e lift. station facility and underlying property to Metr.o. The hietro reim- ubrsement shall i.nclude the actual cost of acquisition of the property plus the current depreci�ted v��lue of the lift station facility �ahich • is agreed to bc $37,495.00. . Tietro furthez agrees that prior to adver�.isement for bids for the construction of the faciliti.es gener<�lly descriLied on Eahibit 'A" attar_hed hereto, pr a�zy future cpnstructzori of Pietropolitan 5c�;;er- age System facilitics to �a��xch Loc�l Se�•:crage Facilities of the City could ciir.ectly connect, it will sttbanit ��lans and speCifications for , tho>e facilities to the City for it:; rc��ic�w and u�on timel}� notice to l-he Cit�• m3}� indiclte to r:etro wherc �u�tnhole st:ub cennc_ctions should be insta].led and ^]�tro shall thc�rezfter iiistall �ame, in antici.�.ation of. furth�,r fuiuT:e conni�ctionr b;✓ the City at those I�o�nts. The install- �tion of such stubs will be at no cost or e:cpense to L•he Cit}'. The City shall have thG right to connect any I,ocal Sewezage Facilities to those stubs. The City shall also have a right to approve the location of f•1et:ropolitan S�werage S}'st.em fzci.lit:ics on Cit}�-o�.ned propert}• or ri9ht o£ ��ays, which aE�F?ro��al shall not: be unrc�sui�ab]y ��ithhcld. , -15- '1'hc� C:i.Ly �.2i.�1.1 �3ivc ��.z:� ' i.� ri iiot.icc� tv t;c�tz{} (>2-L<,r L� tl;�, L•a}:aut�%:r. dnt�, rr•tt.i nca f.��rth t h�, � �,u�r.�.r i n ��1�.i c}7 t}�c ��tnour�C of r ��i.ni- rur�c�tr.z�nt shall };n �,aic3. 'Ph�� Ci- ,� t��.:�•.� el<�c;t to rr.ccive <<31 ar cxnl �aortic�n �t ��cl <+iuount in c��:;}i �;:it2�in thirly f3U) days iollowiny t.hc date t�+h�n sc�wac�� d.i.sgusal chxsryes s'.1�11 first bC charuc�zb2e hereuncler ihere� naft�r called "cash paymcn� d�tr."} ana r�ay eleci: ta receive any portian which is not paid an said car.h uayment date tc�y�ther with interest thereon at thn rate of 4" pr�r annum fram said c�ate, in the form of a credit aqainst the City's mc�nthly seti�age dispoaal charge in � equal monthly am�unts suff9.cicnt ta amortize ;,uch un��aic3 amount af II reimbursen:ent and iY�terest thereon prior to July 1, 19Q0. The City may at any time a�ter t3ie ca�l� pt3}•mcr7t date elect to receive an}� un- paicl portion o£ the ar,rount oE rcimF�urCement in cash with interest at � the ratc of 9� per annum to date af final �rayment by gzt•inq writtun natice to t•ietra at least oMe year ��rior to the da�.e such final �aa;'ment is to be made. SeCtian 12. Joir.t. Use of: �1;3;�ur.iZ Int_ercep�or. The City and t•letro �Zgree that the Auburn Int�rceptor (hereinafter called "'tirE S,ii��i cc��tor`') 5.iall s��rve as batta a Metr.o}>olitan ana a Local Se�:erage f'acility �+�}lcrc:��er thc City has authority t.o providc: local ser�ice. Th� City shall h�ive the right ta make dir.ect local , aonnectians to said ItiterceE�Lar for a:hich thc� City shall pay to bloi:zU, k�efnre u�akinq saicl connc�ct:ian, the sum of $B. OQ per I f.rvt�t faot of eac17 �3�r,-cel of �}rr�F�c�rt}• servcd on cach sic:e of the � ' I.t�te�rcci tar or a to' ril of $1G. 00 l�ci' fr.orit: f.aot of ��ach [aarcel of ��ro��cet, :;c.r:�t�c: � ` loc�l :c�r�•it�� is c;i�t��n <,n l.c�th si.d�s of � the Intc�i��pto��. S;tid Zrivunt r.��E�z'�>c�nte t1�c r�:;timated cn=:t of � con.>truc:tii,ci a.z �,.iglit-iz:cn (£3") l��c,�l �;cwc>i� o�� tl:t� s<�m�� i]_i.<�izm�nt. as th�� Int��r.4e�>to: tt�rounilc�,ll. tli,ii: ��r,rtion c�hcrc� local c�oni�cctic�ns are allc��:r�ci. C't�c�� ,�i}•n�c�iit o+: ...li<1 :it��tint, th�� it�, titi.i.11 cwcl an i eic�tlt-iz�ch (8"} �cluivalet�t _.iilrc r>C the Inter'ce�>tor ��t7c�re l.acal '� servicc is yivc�n c�n both sides of the Interce��tor, arid one-half � thetc��?i �;':c�re Str�•ic�c is qi�•,�n c7n oiii�; one �;ide. Lc>c=�.I cas�ttecti.on I to l}ic.� Int� i�c.'��rc�t� i,��,,�� k,�� ri.�c?�� 1�,� th�.�� t:}� itt :;uch a man��r. zs - 16- __ _ — - sh��ll bc al.pr.oved by i•letro. 7'h�• Ci.ty shall hold 1•tr_tro harmless fro�„ any loss, cost, ch�rye, liabi.lity or exi-�ense resultiny from or arisiny out of damaye to the Interceptor or to tlle pers6ns or property of others caused by the makiny of such connections or the City's fai.lure to observe an;� covenant of this Agreement relatiny to such eonnections. SecCion 12. Construct:ion arid t'aintetlance of Local Sek�erage Facilities. The City shall either construct, operate and maintain at it� ey:pense or cause others to construct, operate and maintain at their expense in a proper fashiori, any Local Sewerage Facilities other than joint use facilities connected to the Interceptor up to and including the tee connection. Metro shall have no zesponsibil,ity for either constr.uct.ion, operation or maintenance of such Local Sewerage Facilities. S�ction 13. Infiltration �nd Inflow in Auburn System. The City shall prepare and deliver to bietro on or before April 15, 1974, an inf.lo�a at�d infiltration analysis and survey of the existing Auburn Sewer System �•:hich shall compl}� with applicable regulatiot�s of the U�iited Stal-es Environmental ProL-action nyency. f9etro shall include in the Auburn Interceptor grant application the grant eligible portions � of the cost of such evaluation studies and t��e gzant eligible portions of the cost of any improvements or corr.ections t:o 1luburn Se�:er Systc�m f��cilities whi.ch are tributar�� to such Interceptor, which are recom- mende�d by t}:c e��alu��t.ioil studic:, and kI11Ct'l cotnpl.y �vith api�] icable � Unite:i Statcs En�•i.ronr.�.ent�,l F'TOt.CCL10Il ncJ�nc�• regul<ztions. tL�trc� shall rei�nl�ui-:,�� the Ci t:y foi- ttle eligi.ble F�ortiotls of the ev<ilultion stuciieS c1IlC� >>:1?�rovements or corrcctions as grant funds are recc�ived by �let.ro for such purposes. :cctio;i 14. In;.ur:incc� tind I,icihilit)' for Dc�m�iqes. Tlie City and rietro shall respectively secure and maintain with responsible insurers all such insurance as is customarily maintained with respect to se�aage s;�st�ms of li}:e charc�ctur a��ciinst loss of or dnmay� to the -17- ser�eraye faciliCics of tYic City a��cl :�.ntr.o re�,��ecL-ively ancl ayain�t public and other liability Lo the extent that sucti insurance can be secured and rnaintained at reasonable cost. Any loss or damage occurring as a result of tt�e operation by t•fetro of the hietropolitan Sewerage System, the temporary facilities described in Exhibit "B" and the joint use sewers referred to in Section 10, shall be the sole liability o� Metro and any loss or dariage occurring as a result of the operation by the City of the Local Se��:erage Facilitie5 stiall be the sole liabilitl� of the City. Secti.on 15. Assiqnment. The Cit}� shall not have the right to assign this Agreement or any of its rights aMd obligations here-- � under cither by operation of law or by voluntary agreeMent without tl�e written consent of tletro, acting reasonably, and neither party may terminate its obligations hereui�der by dissolution or otherwise with- out first securiny the written consent of the other party, acting rn�SO.^.�.h�1� ,...^.'? �k:l.� 1�7ICC:�:.I7� ;:iuii J;� wlil:iiliy UNGI� ii11C� 111U1:1: �U {:.ilC' benefit of L�he xc:spective successors and assigns of ttle parties hereto. In the event that tlie City should be dissolved or should no longer be authorized to oper.ate sewer facilities, the Local Se��erage Facilities owned and operated by the City shall be assigned and transferrc�d to ' 11eL-ro or such other public ayency authorized by la�•� to operate sewcr facilit.ies �ti�hich agrees to carry out the terms of t}Zis Agreement, subj�ct � to any ou�stai�di�:g debts of t21c City �ahicli t1z��e been iiicurred for ttie specific ��urpase of CUIISL'1UCLlI:cJ or acquiri.ng such flcilities and subjc:ct to the acceptaiice L�y t•tetro 01: that other agency of tlie obliga- tion to continue to provide sc�.ei: ser.vice to the residents served by such local facilities upon paymcnt hy such residents of sewage disposal charyes determinecl as herein �rovicled and the reasonable costs of lecal se��er servicc. SecCi�n 1 G . l.f fc�.t��c J�<.tc� [tu�? 7'crrn o� CotlCr�ct. This Agreement. shall t�e in ful.l £c�rce ancl effect and binding upOn ttie -1E3- � , partics hereto u��on the excci:tio� of: ihe Agr.cemeiiL- �t�r1 sti�ll. continUc in full force and effcct until �uly 1, 201G. Section 17. Terrnination of I�uburn-71]c�ona ]'ac� f.ic J�grcnment. Upon e•r.ecution of this Agreement and the e;:ecution of seo:age disposal agreements bet�.ecn hletro and the Citi.es of 11].gona and Pacific, that certain sewage disposal contract dated August 18, 1970 between the Cities of 1luburn, Algona and Pacif.ic shall be termi.nated by the City. This same paragraph shall be included in an}� �ubsequent �ontract for - ser�aye disposal entered into bet�•;een Dietro and the Cities of Algona and Pacifie. Secti.on 16. Idotice. i�henever by this Agreement r�otice is requir.ed to be given, thc same shall be given by registered mail addressc�d to the r.espective parties at the following addresses: Municipalitl of tt�tr.onolitan Seattle 410 t�lest Harrison �treet Seattle, ��ashington 98119 City of. Auburn 20 "A" Street Nol�thti�est F1U}Jlltll, j'ii,tciilillc�Cut1 yO�UG unless a different address shall be hereafter designated in writing by either of ttie parties. The date of giving such notic� shall be deemed to be the date of mailincj thei-�of. Aillings for and pa}�m��tits of. sewage d�sp�scil costs may k,e mad;� by regular m�il. SE'Ct1C�Il 19. L�:ecut�ien of l�ncumenis. This I�greement shall bc executed in si.x r.ounter��arts, ciny of which shall b� regar.ded f.or ' e a11 purn�:;cs �� c�n�.� origiuri2. ;��,ch ��,�rty �c�r.ee:� Lhat it ti�ill execute any and �11 deeds, instrur�ents, docur;ents ��nd resolutions or orc',in�nces t�ecess:u:}� to <Jive c�f.f.ect tc� the tc�rm�; of this I�greentent.. Sect.�c�r: 20, t�_ii��er. ido �;aiver by either party of. an}� terrtt or condition of t'�i s �1�i-er.m�nt �:h:il l t�e dee�ned or. constsued as a waiver of any other term or condi.tion, nor stinll a waiver of any breach }�c dremed to constitute a ��aiver of any subsequcnt breach wheU:er of the �:amc� or a di.ff�runt ��ro��ision of thi.s Agrccment. -19- --1 I , — — — I ± ' Ncct�an 21 . l�r,r�,.,c1ir �,. In ac?�l.ition to t3�e r.crncdie� �Prov�dc�d I by l�w, this Ilyrc:��rnt_�nt shall bc: S�aecifieally entorecable t�y eithex gar.ty. � Section 22. Entaret;�. This Ac,�rcement meryes and super- sedes all ��ri.or negotiations, rei�res�-ntations ai:d agreemcnts between the parties hereto re3atj.ng to tlic subject matter hereof and consti- tutes the entire contract bet4,�een the ��arties. Iid idZTh:ESS t•�HEREOF, the partics hereto have eaecuted this Agreement as of the dal and ye�i first above written. ' CITY OF 11UBURN, t•7TiStiINGTC?N ' Stz�n'_cy 1'. k:crsey, Diayar , j ATTF. T: k:arla L. B �crle}•, C:;.t}� C1erk } tIUIv'1CTF'ALITI OF t•3ETRCPOLITF�I� SEt'1TTLE R}' C. Care�� Donc.�oz�tfl Ch�iirman of thc COL1T7C1.1 ATTEST: ' L3.�,i. Carc�l Cieri; of th�� Cc�uncil � � -20- ( I - � 1 S1'T•.TL OF iJ11�lIZUG'fc�11 ) � SJ COUIITY OP' Y.7I�G ) Un ttiis da}� of , 1973, befor.e m� F�ersonal]� apt�c<�rcd ;T11C:1,EY P. I:L'1?S1.Y ur,d F.nRI,n L. }3YF.I2L1:Y, to r�e kno�•rn to be thc, t1.Zyor ��nd C� ty Clcr};, resE�ecti��ely, ot the City of Aut:urn, a municipal cort>or.ation, and ackno�,�ledqed the with- in �nd foregoing instrument to bc the fr�� and voluntary act and deed of said corporaticn, £or the uses and purposes therein men- tioned, �nd on oath stated that they were authorizccl to execute said instrurr:�nt and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. II� �9ITivF,SS �•;IlEREOF I have hereuiito set m� hand and afiix�d my official seal the day and year first above �aritten. �, I _ _ _._ NO'1'l+�tt' 1'U13f,IC in and f.or thc Statc of t7aGhington, residing at STAT� OF WASHINGTOti ) ) ss COUNTY OF KIA'G ) Gn tiiis ciay oi , 19'13, beiore me personz].ly api�eare:: C. C�1P,F:Y D��P:Ui�7'H nrld ?3. J. CAROL, to me kno�m to k;c� thc Chzir.man of tn^ Counci.l anil Clcrk of the Council, rc:�z�ecti��ely, of the tiunicip:�li.�� of !1,^tr.o��ol�tan Seattle, �� muni- cipal coruora"ion, and ackno�:rle'u�d tli� �•�ithin and foregoiny instru- metit to �e tne fr.ee and volt:nt�r.}• act: zr.d deed of s�id corporation, for th� uses anci �,urpa>r, thereir. mcnt�o::�:d, and on oath striCe3 that th��v wcr.� zur::or.ized tc� ex�cut.c said instrun��nt and that the , seal afFixed i.s t}ie cor.porate seal of sa.id corporation. IK iC]'1'i:`'SS �:!i?;ItEC�F I hnvr. her_uunto set tr,y hand and af�i::cd my offici.al soal the dn; and ycctr first z�1�o��e �.ritten. 1.'(�'t'�11:'i ?�l,'1'J�.IC ir. cu,d for the 5tate of iCashin<�ton, res.i.din� at -2 l_- _ _ � t • • EY.!'7PJ,,, '•F': The nuburn Tnterceptor iS a perr�anent Metro�olitan Sevrerage Gystem facility� that z•rill pr_ovic�e intc�rceptor service for that portian of the Green River valley that includes Auhurn's sec�.er service area sout!� an� �r•est o£ the C�reen P.iver, the toV:i�s af Alaona ancl Pacific, and the t'est Hill, South Kent and Thonas ses�.er ServiCe areas. The intercE�ptor cor^m4nces at the influent s�:ructure of the e>,istine� Au}�urn se�,•aae Iaaoon, thence nartherly and ti•esterly in easer^ent and pul�lic riaht-af-kay throuqh the City� o� I'ent ta a connecti�n t:it': the er.istinct F�etra-Kent � Crc�ss Valley Interceptor. � � � • ♦ � � � � , � �� I ' = i ► . . � - �� _/ �� . ► � i' � � 1 �� . �.► . � . • • • ' � . � . . . . , _ - � � ' . . . - . . i .� � Navember 5, t973 � File No. 3-!$16-020l-30 I Municipality of Metropalita� Seattle 410 West Harrison Street Seattle, Wash'sngton 98119 Attentian: Mr. Theodore W. Mallar Y Sub'ect: Environmental Assessment of the Auburn interceptor J '� Attached is a report summarizing the environmenta] impacts ta be expectad '�, from the proposed Auburn Interceptor. This assessment was prepared in response to Metrapolitan Council Resolutian No. 1$13, adopted April 5, 1973, which autharized the study. Throughaut our investigatians we have acknowledged METRO's desire that this assessment" should be an objective and independent third-party reporting of the significance of the proposed action upon the social and biophysical environments of the Green River Sewerage Area. We trust that this report wiii cieariy indicate our success in accomptishing this objective. We wili be prepared to discuss the cantents af this repart at the pubiic hearing ta be helc! in (}ecember: �973, in Auburn. Subsequent to this hearin g, any concerns expressed by the public or governmental agencies will be included within this assessment. Very truly yaurs, WI�SEY � HAM, INC. e� � /�}�+��, Frank E, Brown Project Planner � . Mi hael J. Br ks Praject Manager MJB/feb Attachment ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE AUBURN INTERCEPTOR Pursuant to : THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 SECTION 102 November 1973 Prepared by: WILSEY � HAM, INC. RENTON, WASHtNGTON ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors of this report are indebted to METRO and the other governmental agencies who rendered invaluable assistance and helped to make this study possible. Sincere appreciation is also accorded to the University of Washington, Department of Landscape Architecture, Robert Buchanan, Chairperson, for contributing significantly to the successful completion of this study. Under provisions of a research grant, the Department has assisted with the preparation of the computer grid mapping analysis of the Green River Sewerage Area utilized in this report. Special thanks are also due Mr. Frank Westerlund of the University of Washington, Department of Urban Planning, Earth Resources Orbiting Satellite � Project, for making available valuable data and assisting with its use. i i ! CONTENTS Section Page No. Introduction �i � Summary of Findings and Conclusions ix I . Description of the Proposed Action I A. Present setting and time frame I I . Sewerage area boundaries I 2. Physiography I 3. Land use I 4. Population 3 5• Sewer design criteria 3 6. Time frame 4 7. Relationship with existing and proposed projects, plans, policies, and regulations 7 8. Financing and cost of the proposed action 53 B. Purpose 54 t . Policy considerations 54 Z. Water quality considerations 55 C. Project description 62 I . Location 62 2. Interceptor corridor description 69 3. Interceptor design and construction 78 4. Construction permits, reviews, and approvals 83 I1 . Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 90 A. Introduction 90 B. Impacts directly related to the proposed action 9� I . Natural systems 90 2. Man-made systems 101 C. Secondary impacts stimulated by the proposed action 102 III . A Complete Description of How the Treatment Works ' Design and Construction Controls Will Minimize the Adverse Impact on All Aspects of the Environment �49 IV. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Proposed Action Be Implemented 151 V. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity �53 iii VI . Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented 157 VII . Alternatives to the Proposed Action 159 A. Introductory comments 159 I . Policy constraints �59 2. Context 160 3. The evaluation process 160 B. The "No-action" alternative-continued utilization of the existing Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant and treatment process 161 C. Individual source treatment systems �63 D. Local short-term collection and treatment systems-improving the existing treatment process 158 E. Short-term reduction of volumes utilizing existing facilities 176 F. Regional short-term collection and treatment systems 182 G. Land disposal systems 186 H. Local long-term collection and treatment systems �99 � I . Regional long-term collection and treatment systems 208 J. Administrative alternatives 2�5 K. A comparative evaluation of the major alternatives, including the proposed action 22p VIII . Comments and Suggestions Raised by Federal , State, and Local Agencies and by Interested Parties 224 References ��5 iv FIGURES Figure No. Page No. I Vicinity Map 2 2 Sewer Oesign Criteria 5 3 Existing and Propased Sewers 6 4 METRO Comprehensive Plan 9 5 METRO Water Quality Monitoring Stations 35 6 Bacteriological Summary 36 7 Nutrient Summary 37 8 Auburn Conflict Area 40 ' 9 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 57 10 Water Quality - Upstream of the Mouth of Big Soos Creek 58 II Water Quality - Immediately Downstream of the La oon Outfall g 59 ' 12 Water Quality - South 212th Street Bridge in Kent 60 13 Pollution Sources 61 14 Auburn Interceptor - Location Map 63 15a- 15d Auburn Interceptor - Plans and Profiles 6�•=67 16 Birds Observed at the South 277th Street Marsh and Riparian Grove 77 17 Typical Cross Sections 84 18 Fragile Areas I10 19 Forestry Suitability 112 20 Agricultural Suitability 114 21 Residential Suitability 116 22 Industrial and Commercial Suitability 118 23 Land Use Suitability Composite 121 24 Existing Land Use 124 . v 25 Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans 126 26 The Interim Regional Land Use Plan [IRLUP] 128 27 Composite of the Existing Land Uses and the Land Use Suitability Composite 131 28 Composite of the Local Comprehensive Land use Plans and the Land Use Suitability Composite 135 29 Composite of the IRLUP and the Land Use Suitability Composite 139 30 Compatibility Comparison of the Existing Land Use and the Land Use Suitability Composite 141 31 Compatibility Comparison of the Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans and the Land Use Suitability Composite 143 32 Compatibility Comparison of the IRLUP and the Land Use Suitability Composite 145 33 Waste Loadings per Acre 148 34 Existing Auburn Treatment Plant 170 35 A Proposed Treatment Plant Expansion Scheme 177 36 Potential Land Disposal Sites 192 37 Land Disposal Requirements 194 38 Land Disposal Requirements 195 39 Auburn Interceptor - Plan b 209 40 Auburn Interceptor - Plan c 210 vi � INTRODUCTION Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act requires the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct an environmental analysis of waste- water treatment projects by agencies which apply for federal assistance under provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. To accomplish this , EPA requires that environmental assessments be prepared for all projects. This assessment must enable EPA to determine if the awarding of a new con- struction grant or the continued support of an existing grant involves a significant environmental impact. EPA reviewers must be able to make this determination with the information indicated in the assessment. Region X EPA will utilize this assessment in its environmental review process and in its decision to either issue a negative declaration or prepare an impact statement. If a significant number of adverse environmental impacts are indicated in the assessment , EPA is required to prepare an environmental impact statement. EPA does not review an environmental assessment until it has been commented on by State and local clearinghouses in accordance with provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-95. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC) is the local clearinghouse which will be responsible for the review of this assessment, while the Washington State Office of Community Development will be the state agency responsible for such review procedures. For the applicant, the environmental assessment is a tool used to define and evaluate the effects of a proposed project on all aspects of the environment. It exhibits two essential features. First, it is a documentation of the logic, including intermediate decisions, that led to the formulation of the proposed project. Second, the assessment is an environmental analysis and comparison of project alternatives. A public hearing must be held on all wastewater treatment works , except when the requirement for such a hearing is waived by EPA's Regional Administrator. A record of the public hearing is part of the applicant's environmental assessment. The record shall contain, as a minimum, a list of witnesses to- gether with the text of each presentation and a statement that the participants at the hearing were informed that one of the purposes of the hearing is to discuss the environmental effects of the proposed treatment works and alternatives to it as required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Before a grant application can be considered as complete and submitted to the Regional EPA office for grant processing, it must contain: (a) a completed environmental assessment (b) comments on the assessment by the state and local clearinghouses in accordance with OMB Circular A-95 (c) a copy of any published advertisement of public hearing (d) a list of those notified of public hearing (e) certification that the hearing was held in accordance with the notification requirements contain�d in 40 CFR 6.58(b) (f) a record of the public hearing, including as a minimum a list of witnesses, text of each statement , and a statement that participants at the hearing were informed that one of t�e purposes of the hearing is to discuss the environmental effects of the proposed treatment works and alternatives to it as required by the EPA. vii This environmental assessment fulfills the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Section 102. It also complies with EPA regulations governing the content and format of an environmental assessment as contained in the January 17, 1973, Federal Register (40 CFR Part 6) and CG-42 and CG-47 (Revised March, 1973) . The requirements of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 are also satisfied by this assessment. viii � � SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed action is the construction of the Auburn Interceptor, a 7. 1 mile 48 to 78 inch reinforced concrete pipe interceptor sewer. It will be under- taken by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) as the first linkage of what will ultimately develop as an extensive waste water collection and treatment system serving the existing and projected sewerage needs of the Green River Sewerage Area until the year 2030. The Green River Sewerage Area contains over 85,000 acres within Southwest King County and Northern Pierce County, extending west to Interstate Five from the town of Black Diamond and south to Lake Tapps from Lake Youngs. The Lower Green River Valley, including the cities of Auburn, Algona and Pacific, and most of Kent, and the Black Diamond Plateau and portions of the Des Moines and Enumclaw Plateaus , are included within the Green River Sewerage Area. Over eighty percent of the sewerage area is presently devoted to woodland , agricultural , open space, recreational , and low density residential land uses. Intensive urban develop- ment has been limited to areas served by major sanitary sewers and waste water treatment facilities in the cities of Auburn, Algona, Pacific and Kent . The proposed action will terminate the operation of the existing Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant, a two stage stabilization and oxidation pond, and transport the wastes collected by the Auburn system to METRO's existing Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. The Auburn Lagoon has become overburdened as a result of continued urban development in the Auburn area. Treatment efficiencies have consequently suffered, At the present time further growth and development dependent upon the Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant is constrained by Auburn's inadequate treatment plant. The effluent from this plant is suspected of creating conditions in the Green River which do not meet existing water quality standards. In particular, the Auburn Lagoon is suspected of contributing to depressed dissolved oxygen levels in the Lower Green River during critical summer low flow conditions. Though the present adverse water quality impacts of the Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant are slight by all standards, the continued utilization of the existing plant represents a potential source of pollution to the 6reen River. It is antici- pated that a low flow year in combination with an upset condition in the existing Auburn waste treatment facility could result in severe violations of water quality standards in the Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers , possibly damaging their aquatic ecosystems. The proposed action is , however, as much a response to policy decisions made by federal , state, regional , and local agencies during the last fifteen years , as it is a response to a potential or existing water quality problem. The proposed action represents a continuation of METRO's policy to serve the needs of an expanding urban area. An interceptor similar in size and location to the Auburn Interceptor has been a part of METRO's Comprehensive Sewer Plan since 1958. Downstream facilities have been designed and constructed in anticipation of upstream facilities , including the Auburn Interceptor. The proposed action is encouraged by and consistent with f ederal and state policies , plans , and regulations. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1970, for example, stresses the regional area services concept (regionalization) , the intent of which is to limit the number of point source discharges in order ix to effect better control of water quality within a drainage basin. Regionali- zation emphasizes the construction and utilization of large centralized treatment facilities and the use of interceptor sewers to transport waste water from collection systems to regional treatment facilities , such as METRO's existing Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. The Washington State Depart- ment of Ecology and Region X of the Environmental Protection Agency both strongly support the regionalization concept. Regardless of water quality considerations , the Auburn Interceptor is viewed by these agencies as necessary in order to comply with water quality management requirements. Impacts directly related to the proposed action will be minimal , primarily affecting the interceptor corridor and the water quality of the Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers. The soils, plant communities , and wildlife habitats of the proposed interceptor corridor will be removed or disturbed as a conse- quence of the construction activities associated with the Auburn Interceptor. Two significant plant communities and wildlife habitats, including a natural wetland area, will be impacted by the proposed action, if the present route remains in effect. The water quality impacts of the proposed action are difficult to ascertain. Available evidence does, however, suggest that a slight improvement in the water quality of the Lower Green River may result. Adverse impacts upon water and air quality will be minimized by design and construction controls throughout the construction of the Auburn Interceptor. Direct impacts upon existing human settlements , structures, or activity areas will be minimized, because the construction is expected to occur primarily within existing public rights-of-way or adjacent to existing utility corri - dors. The construction activities may, however, cause occasional temporary disruptions of transportation and utility systems. The most significant impacts on all aspects of the environment related to the proposed action will be those affecting the land resources within the Green River Sewerage Area. Urban development within the Auburn area, in par- ticular, is likely to be encouraged by the presence of an adequate sewage treatment system,because an existing Department of Ecology ban on extensions of the City of Auburn's sewerage system will be lifted when the Auburn Lagoon is retired. Local governmental planning and policy decisions consequently may encourage growth in presently undeveloped areas or may lead to the inten- sification of existing land uses. Future planned and proposed METRO facilities serving the entire Green River Sewerage Area will stimulate urban development, if local governmental land use decisions favor such development. The construction of these facilities, many of which will provide sanitary sewer service to areas presently dependent upon septic tank disposal systems, is encouraged by the Auburn Interceptor. Water pollution problems resulting from improperly sited and maintained septic tanks and the density of development relying upon these systems have forced some public health officials to restrict development throughout much of the sewerage area. When METRO facilities reach these outlying areas, development could be allowed if local governments desire such development to occur. Urbanization stimulated by the provision of adequate waste water collection and treatment systems is quite likely to change the character of the Green River Sewerage Area and affect many aspects of its environment given the existing local land use plans and the present planning framework. Certain critical components of the sewerage area environment are presently marginal x in quality or extremely fragile, creating possible hazards to public health and safety if infiuenced by development. Critical conditions or problems may result if growth is allowed to occur within t�e sewerage area in an uncontrolled manner. It will be difficult, for example, to maintain the existing marginal air quality within the Green River Valley, if relatively uncontrolled urbanization, perhaps stimulated by the proposed action, is allowed. Urban development (even if carefully controlled and in accordance with regional land use plans) , possibly encouraged by the construction of the entire Green River Sewerage Area's proposed sewerage system, could also adversely affect the area's water quality. Though the quality of the Lower Green River would be expected to improve if the wastes from existing point sources (including the Auburn Lagoon) discharging into the Green River were eliminated, preliminary studies by the River Basin Coordinating Committee (RIBCO) , a technical advisory body to METRO, show that the quality of Big Soos Creek and the Black River would decline, due to the increased coliform bacteria and nutrient loads in runoff associated with urban development. Overall water quality within the Green River Basin, as well as the entire Seattle metropolitan area, will decrease by the year 2000 as a net increase in wastes discharged occurs. The Green River's expected improvement should occur, however, because the urban runoff wastes will be diluted by the higher streamflows associated with the rainstorms that wash the wastes to the river. During runoff periods, these large amounts of wastes washed off existing and future urban and developed areas, may create problems, however, as they "flush" quickly through the Green River and accummulate in the Duwamish Estuary. The expected irapacts upon the estuary will be known in early November, as the RIBCO estuary studies are completed. Like the environmental costs, the public costs associated with the urbanization of the Green River Sewerage Area may be substantial . The costs of providing services , ' facilities, and utilities to such developing areas presently accrue to the taxpayer. A sharply increased demand for additional public facilities will occur if develo - � P ment, possibly stimulated by the provision of adequate waste water collection and treatment facilities within the sewerage area, is allowed to take place in a manner similar to that by which urban areas in the United States have historicall develo ed. Y P The physical existence of the Auburn Interceptor, in itself, will not create urban development. It will , however, allow urban development dependent upon public sewerage facilities to occur, if the local governmenfial bodies with existing land use planning powers, including the cities of Auburn, Kent, Algona, Pacific, and Black Diamond, and King and Pierce Counties, determine that such development is appropriate. The significant secondary impacts created by the construction and operation of the proposed action will be the result of local governmental planning and policy decisions. An additional impact of the proposed action is related to the contractual agreement required between Auburn and METRO before METRO can divert Auburn 's wastes to the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. This agreement, when approved, will probably require METRO to construct an additional interceptor sewer to the site of a proposed major shopping center west of Auburn's existing central business district. This sewer, the West Valley Interceptor, is not presently a part of METRO's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the impacts of the West Valley Interceptor and the modification of METRO' s Comprehensive Plan are associated with the proposed action. In its entirety, the proposed action can be considered as basically irreversible, due to the large commitment of resources involved. Such irreversible actions, though in conformance with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations, generally commit future generations to specific actions and resource uses. The commitment to a regional waste water collection and treatment system, for example, xi probably represents an irreversible approach to water quality planning and manage- ment. Though technology may develop new waste �ater collection and treatment systems, ne� facilities in the Green River Sewerage Area will pro6a61y continue to be built around the proposed interceptor facility and the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. However, if in the future, �ighly treated effluent at Auburn becomes necessary (for flushing pollutants out of the Green River, for example) , a local treatment plant could be constructed. At times when the plant could not operate efficiently, the proposed interceptor could be utilized, transporting t�e sewage to t�e regional treatment facility. Alternatives to the proposed action are constrained by existing policies and plans of the Department of Ecology which require the retirement of the exist- ing Auburn Lagoon. Environmental Protection Agency policies and regulations also affect alternatives to the Auburn Interceptor. A recent Environmental Protection Agency interpretation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, for example, states that construction grants for treat- ment facilities utilizing any lagoon system without supplemental treatment components will not be approved. Therefore, the construction of facilities which would terminate the use of the Auburn Lagoon or, with Department of Ecology approval , the construction of supplemental treatment facilities which would be capable of improving the Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant's effluent to an acceptable level , appear to be the only feasible alternatives. As noted previously, Environmental Protection Agency regionalization regula- tions and guidelines further limit the possible alternatives. EPA cost- effectiveness criteria restrict alternatives to an even greater degree. In fact, the proposed action may be the only alternative which meets long-term cost-effectiveness standards and conforms to regionalization concepts. Fur- thermore, since the Auburn Interceptor is and has been a part of the Seattle Metropolitan Area's water quality management plans for fifteen years, the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant and METRO facilities in the Kent vicinity have been designed to accommodate the Auburn sewage system's wastes after inter- ception by the Auburn Interceptor. These past actions and existing policies, regulations, and guidelines, as well as many additional factors, appear to limit the possible alternatives to providing Auburn with a sewerage system capable of accommodating growth and solving potential and/or existing water quality problems associated ' with the Auburn Sewage Treatment System to the Auburn Interceptor. Though other facilities would solve existing and future problems, resource commitments and decisions made during the past fifteen years have created a situation in which only the Auburn Interceptor appears to fulfill all requirements. Only the Auburn Interceptor or a similar interceptor project is likely to be funded, constructed, and placed in operation. Due to the existing policies, plans, and regulations affecting war_er quality management, the proposed action does appear to be justified. Feasible alternative solutions seem to be less cost-effective than the proposed action, particularly if the Auburn Interceptor, a similar project, or a new treatment plant at Auburn is required in the future, due to the more stringent water quality standards embodied by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Reserving long-term options by inaction or implementation of an interim or short-term solution at this time would probably only delay the construction of a permanent solution, thereby increasing the costs of water pollution control in the sewerage area. Growth would continue within much of the sewerage area, but the present regulations xii limiting the extension of Auburn's sewers and restricting the use of septic tanks to specific areas �ould, however, dictate where the g�owth could occur. Water quality impacts resulting from the continued use of septic tanks within most of the Green River Sewerage Area woutd increase. Other adverse impacts would continue to occur even if the proposed action is not implemented, because land use planning and related policy decisions (not the potential stimulus of the Auburn Interceptor) are creating the impetus for the continual degradation of t�e sewerage area environment. Further justification of the proposed action is provided by the fact that if any atternative solution providing Auburn with adequate waste treatment facilities were implemented, the Department of Ecology restrictions upon trunk, lateral , and collector sewers would probably be eliminated. The stimulation of urban growth provided by the availability of these facilities, particularly in the undeveloped portions of the Green River Vatley, would be no less than that provided by the proposed action. These sewerage facilities would allow urban development to occur, just as if the proposed interceptor were built. By itself, the construction of the Auburn Interceptor will not create any significant adverse impacts upon the Green River Valley environment, partic- ularly if a small portion of the proposed corridor is rerouted, bypassing a significant natural wetland area. The major benefit likely to result is the fact that the Auburn Interceptor's construction will allow local governments to regulate land use within their jurisdictions without the constraints imposed by inadequate waste water collection and treatment systems. If intensive urbanization continues to be encouraged, several adverse environmental impacts are likely to result. This urbanization, which in some cases, would not be consistent with present regional plans and policies, could significantly degrade the long-term quality of South King County's natural environment. As the Auburn Interceptor and future METRO facilities serving the Green River Sewerage Area are constructed, their potential long-term secondary impacts upon land use and the environment should not be ignored. xiii 1 . DESCRIPT(ON OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Present Setting � Time Frame The Auburn fnterceptor, a 7. 1 mile 48 to 78 inch reinforced concrete pipe interceptor sewer, in conjunction with the on-going expansion of the Renton Sev�age Treatment Plant, represents the first phase of wf�at could ultimately develop into an extensive waste water collection and treatment system serving the existing and projected sewerage needs of the Green River Sewerage Area until the year 2030. 1 . Sewerage Area Boundaries (See Figure 1) The Green River Sewerage Area encompasses over 85,000 acres lying within Southwest King County and a small portion of Northern Pierce County. Its general boundaries extend east and west from the Town of Black Diamond to Interstate Highway Five and north and south from Lake Youngs to Lake Tapps. Included within this area is all of the Lower Green River Valley in the vicinity of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Algona�and Pacific; portions of the Des Moines Plateau (West Hill ) to the west; and the majority of the Black Diamond Plateau (East Hill) to the east of the Green River Valley. 2. Physiography These upland plateaus incised by the valley trough and flood plain of the Green River are the principal topographic features of the sewerage area. The ascent to the upland areas is abrupt with differences in elevation between the river bottom and the plateau in excess of 300 feet. The uplands present a rolling glacial relief characterized by depressions and hummocks in which stream courses and drainage patterns are often poorly defined. Numerous local basins and depressions of retarded drainage are occupied by small lakes and swampy areas and bogs. The Green River is artificiallly controlled by an upstream dam and man-made tevees, which parallel the stream throughout most of its length within the sewerage area. Natural overbank flooding has been eliminated from most of the Lower Green River Valley. The White River loops through the southern portion of the sewerage area separating the areas to be served in Pierce County from the balance of the sewerage area. 3. I.and Use In addition to its diverse topography, the sewerage area is characterized by a variety of land uses: agriculture and sharply contrasting industrial development in the Green River Valley; retail , commercial , and residential uses in the cities and towns; and forestry, mining, open space, recreation, and scattered rural residential and farming uses on the eastern uplands. Recent photogrammetric interpretations of the sewerage area reveal the following land use atlocations: woodland, 37,700 acres (40°6) ; suburban land including low density residential , recreational-home, and neighborhood commercial areas, 15,780 acres (17q) ; agricultural land, 9,030 acres (10�) ; open and vacant land, 8,720 acres (9%) ; I � A � � � �a � �• � C� �1 t:-:s-. :;: � /��*��' � �� _.�...� �� 07 � � vi� � - I � � � �(/� L �j�j�l" ::J; � � � " � � q. � ;:=z;,� �{'-'� � �• 3 ;:ti. �,•• �i-- Y'4 .� �'�i,.'��Y y�`� T r, .`� � •..� � ` 1d • � Y.�.','Y.}.':.'.:� ii � � j� �rti_�'�� '.1�.; •.i .�:'. .. : '�'•�• �.� T 'V•�� :•::.� .Y.•:•.:..:•.•.*•••• •:: ::� dAF. �• :.Y •�t:::•:•:�.•'.•.•.. �;yr• .... � :.�'r��;:•: ti,{:;::•,' �;�iirS�,.�: \a�`�� f i•, '` a-��• '+ , ::,,;.ti �� ;c:y:•:.;.�. ,,t`-• 3� ! `r .,[ r` ^ �� ►j`��"""�- �+,'� � ':'�/�'"�' �- �� r�� I �? ••:.,•:::�::,::::.:�• °:::,-: :,... .��+.�r.ti'�� . ,{ /� i � .�u :•,'.;rY,:}•'.•.•:}:{.• >�:n w{,• ti•'' r r „�, � �L `i � ,_ ''.�{�.:.".�:.•.,'�• � :� :.•.a�'�:: � �� ` .a .� � '}"„��`��.�. `� r � � �O � I '� F.�t•? h•{:. �::'.••:•::••,4`,�;:;•Ah� •:•:•�•� /� � �Q Q � � ': •.'.�.i'.'I.ti,;:�� :�!•:" �\- � �:};� ;.',�.• �j} � wrl�.TR"^.� •• ':T�4'�:'' J.f••' •`•••'•�•.�'.L'.•.' •.��:•::•.':..�Y• 1.i;•s�i�4 � :M:• .��.::��:".:.'::'.'.:�J'!1 . � 1r �' :1ti':.::.".��S:�.�� . �Q �' "iY:�•.'•.•:S.' ti� �T •:`:•�•�:::,.-•:•�::':!�� 3'�'� "t:".i•':.�1�J'i�:�:;'� � �� : z::..;;::3� �......-r�-`plt� .;.{:••';.•:�:;.ti�.+,14.,I;;;_� � 1Y ri � :::;:;��` .. ==�� =�ti�� . . Z � �`� ... _ � ... � a { � , a , a i � ----------- -- --------- - ------ — - - - high density residential and commerciat areas, 6,300 acres (7�) ; transportation corridors including railroad yards and freeways, 5.890 acres (6�) ; tramsmissior line utility corridors, 4,140 acres (4i) ; industrial areas, 1 , 140 acres (l�) ; and recreational areas, 410 acres (.5%) . The acreage designated as commercial areas probably includes some light industrial and warehousing areas which are difficult to distinguish from commercial establishments on aerial photographs. Surface water covers approximately fivE percent of the sewerage area. See Figure 24. Land use trends for the majority of the sewerage area are toward more intensive uses, particularly in the Green River Valley flood- ptain. The aggressive annexation of valley bottom lands by Kent and Auburn, and the subsequent zoning of these lands to industrial and commercial classifications has stimulated a dramatic change in land uses from the traditional dominance of agriculture to more intensive uses. Growth on the Black Diamond Plateau, on the other hand, has been slowed recently due, in part, to existing restrictions and partia) moratoriums on the issuance of septic tank permits. Almost atl of the Black Diamond Plateau lacks public sanitary sewerage facilities. 4. Population Forecasts of population and employment for the Central Puget Sound Region, prepared by the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC) , the regional planning body for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, provide the basis for predicting growth within the Green River Sewera e Area. The PSGC redicts onl to 1990 with 9 P Y � extrapolations provided to the year 2000. The 1990 forecasts have been projected to the year 2030 by METRO' s consulting engineers, using a logarithmic trend method in order to estimate sewerage needs for the duration of the Auburn Interceptor's service life. The average density withing the sewerage area, exclusive of industrial , areas, is projected to equal 5. 1 persons per acre in the year 2030. This is nearly double the PSGC' s 2.6 projection for 1990. The total population within the study area is presently about 118,400. The total population projected for the year 2030 is over 370,000. Of this total amount, an estimated 321 ,000 are anticipated to be provided with sewer service, according to METRO' s consulting engineers. The many large land holdings and unihabited areas in the southern and and eastern portions of the sewerage area should be the last to develop. METRO believes that it is probab)e that they will not require sewers for many years. 5. Sewer Design Criteria Many indeterminant factors affect planning for specific sewerage needs within the sewerage area. Among these are: (1 ) the extent of industrial development and the ratio of water-use industry versus non-users; (2) the economic growth rate and housing demand; (3) the effect of land and open space planning on curtailing urban sprawl ; and (4) the possibility of implementing new types of urban development. Projections for sewerage facility � . needs have been developed 6y considering the most proba6le population projections and land uses for the sewerage area. Loadings for existing and future sewerage facilities were derived by applying established unit quantities to population totals, _ industrial �astes, storm water inflow, and infiltration. Infil- tratian and inflow quantities were found to be t�e dominant factor affecting sewer design within the Green River Sewerage Area, as shown by Figure 2. According to an analysis by METRO, a straight line projection to 2030 of the PSGC' s population estimates for the year 2000 results in a population only three percent lower for the Green River Sewerage Area than that utilized in the preliminary engineer- ing studies for the proposed project. A growth rate equivalent to Central Puget Sound from 1975 to 1990 (1 .86 percent annually) results in a population five percent higher. A 78-inch sewer was determined to be required even if the sewerage area population does not increase beyond the PSGC 's year 2000 level , and a 84-inch sewer would be required if the entire study area were sewered, given the unit quantities utilized in this analysis. For the sewerage area, a total peak flow of 153 million gallons per day is projected for the design population of about 321 ,000 expected to be living on 55,535 acres of residential land having sewer service by the design year 2030. 6. Time Frame The construction of the Auburn Interceptor is anticipated to begin sometime in 1974. There will be two or three simultaneous construction contracts awarded with a specified construction period of two years. Completion of the Auburn Interceptor will enable the eventual completion of additional METRO facilities ptanned to serve the sewerage area which are slated for construction between now and 1985. These facilities include the Dolloff Lake Interceptor, the Lake Geneva Interceptor, the East Green River Valley Inter- ceptor, and the West Soos Trunk. See Figure 3. In addition, the construction of atl or specified portions of the West Valley Interceptar, which is currently a part of Auburn's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, is likely to commence soon after the completion of the proposed action. This facility is not presently a part of METRO's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, but is likely to be incorporated into METRO' s Plan in the future. The proposed agreement between Auburn and METRO will , if ratified, actually require the construction of the southern portion of this interceptor. Depending on the Washington State Department �f Ecology' s prioriti- zation for funding of similar facilities throughout the state, m3n� o� these facilities ma;� be constructed before 1�80. 4 - y _ _ �c r. ye,.u�. � por t;�n scv,rere� S�' L��e > St'ra��9h� t-it�e. 1 RT�p� �n�eY t m i�c'�ticr►�x} Deve�1�Nrrtv►�' 1't�d�t`� i1�!' IRP�"' JIqDt' �low S?i�e•b 191� ��-p 4►nwtfi z000 p .- roua� xoa0 :5� t.v+�4tiur� ��r ��" to�po �a��Zt��a ko°�Zd��i {�p��D:� t� t'b - 5�tt#�jr�'1ot� �q�w�e� r�rnt°--t�d�r,�r,oxl qrux tc�p�nd�s rw� Qrr,�► r� t r,�n•c� 4r�a � tKbp 1�d. at suv. . � por. �cw• a!I �w. psr• �w• atl st,a� Pa►- ssw at!�. �� al(xur. �� • �Df�tl�t�OR 8.5 8.1 Z0.� I?9 3Z.2 28.0 33 3 Z9.0 37�✓ '�73 l.�'��) '�?s`� ��'►�� ZtS 2t.8 Zt$ 2i�8 21•8 2t.9 48.7 �43.9 21•S 48.y ztu�� i�! 9q.0 78.8 99.0 7 8.8 �9.0 76.8 yg.0 78.9 g�a qg:o l�Do ��W __LOk�(�..� "�D�'a t J ZA.3 1�►8.? /-90.9 /r�i.5 i�3,o JZtl.-¢ /Bl.o 153.Z j3�j 165.o tw+g�) � P,p�5�,r� �g,� 7t�� g" �ajf re" �a• e�" �e" �e' e4" �EWE�t DESI�N �RITERIA f� , 2 � _ � . l _-------_ _-----____—_—- — �.� �i4C�a f �e�e ��,� R�a� o y y -� � �H�SoN � ••,� . 1 , �,•,,,,... ..,,..,M,,, � � � � . .• p '� v� 1 �.,,r,, r' �� `ti � p �� +r :...� ! � h �. �� ` . � � �. ♦ j : � � .r `�'� \`� ,J � r► ' . / . �N� r.: � t /,,r r *. t j -- `� s � f � , � � � � . 1/ t �� : 1�d;o+'� � ,r �'r�uu� ' • �ee�� t t / ,� ,m.�,t,,��° . 1 �NG�' � / � , � t�o11c�" • �'�,. �, t � .,`� ,�,�� . � TYvr�-�7t r � ♦ � ; � piP3�'�' 1 '� ar �„r„.► . �� r � l , , .. :�' ' / . _ � ! , _ _, • •••-----! •. •�. � ; �, � �t/ '� � � 1 ` • a�.,..,,,,,,. .� ��tw�ter t�`�'` i •�'�� r ► Pl�� ' � ----� • E�V,p ' EG •�� ;r �1 ` -- � ��,�y�M�T1�O 1iY�t`� YL�P�Y' • - �__-%r � .� r �d p„�p�'rr' „� s-4� e,�ne5 � ��: �. - � ►1111N t�'"°r' �,,�,�o��a�� ,�es '�t,:?�• �Go. t• •"'' �'Y��pr'�hr��`vait��,. Pr°4'°��tvc� M�p�.o e� •• —'-"' � , � � x •""`�.,, • ,..,--_-_�'�"�io'�'°�� ° � �°� � _.....--- kH�� X°'0� : � �.� � 4` f�g, 3 �,�� E'�E�' Ep �' � o�a� . ND �`� X��T �� A E ` 7. Relationship With Existing and Proposed Projects, Plans, Policies, and Regulations [n order to clearly understand the relationship of the proposed action arith existing policies, plans, and regulations, the following description of the administrative, enforcement, or interpretive agencies involved is provided. Their specific concerns regarding water quality management planning will be highlighted. a. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) In the early 1950's the waters of the Seattle Metropolitan area were seriously polluted. In response to this situation and recognizing that such problems had to be dealt with at a regional scale, a citizen effort to find some means of dealing with community problems that were areawide in scope was launched. In 1957 a citizens study group was successful in introducing and obtaining legislative approval far a bill authorizing the creation of inetropolitan munlcipat corporations empowered to perform certain specified functions. The bill became law in March, 1957• It enables voters of any area of the state containing two or more cities (at least one of which is a city of the first class) to establish a metropolitan municipal corporation to be governed by a metropolitan council . The obJects and purposes of the act are set forth in the act as follows: "(t is hereby declared to be the public policy of the State of Nashtngton to provide for the people of the populous metropolitan areas in the state the means of obtatning essential services not adequately provided by existing agencies of local government. The growth of urban population and the movement of people into suburban areas has created problems of sewage and gar- bage disposai , water supply, transportation, planning, parks and parkways, which extend beyond the boundaries of cities, counties and special districts. For reasons of topography, location and movement of population, and land conditions and development, one or more of these problems cannot be adequately met by the individual cities, counties and districts of many metropolitan areas. It is the purpose of this act to enable cities and counties to act jointly to meet these common problems in order that the proper growth and development of the metropolitan areas of the state may be assured and the health and welfare of the people residing therein may be secured." On September 9, 1958, the voters in the Seattle metropolitan � area votad to create a municipal corporation to perform the sewage disposal function. The specific powers granted this metropolitan corporation for the function of sewage disposal 7 , ,,. � __ _ ,. ,.: > - �� <,,. ....;;,-::,, ;;.�,,� , �/////%/ s � �.y�f � o .,�; � �� >��,%�;/`.` , �;.i�'�"'�/y/,'�%/��//„��,�.�"�f�� ,�', F ii�,,,� „� ..,, i/ ;�.t w�u ,�, , %�'"�/�,s "�r, i � /�, ��i, ,,// %/f i ,.n,;: ,.. ,o, .i,� „< . , ,.,,, ,i' �,�� .f.i. !�+��y,M�µ��s,;v;!:�'� �%;,n„?�/ ',,r' 'i — h 'i�� .0 ��. �i � / . , r..,.:. . , ,..... �. -,..,i.,... .�... .,.. ..;"�f%,,,.x .. ...i.......„ .. �ti,., ', ,i, �/� �� '%�'' .':,."�5 �,i- �,� .,.,. :.r ,�� l%!„�� "';.... ,�� p ;'�% �� .��: ;, �, ,<, -,��`""""`.;»"'".-. . f'' ;�." ,� ",`�,;.'` ,, i�� ;. ;si;, i i, d' ,�i-�, .,. °r' /i:, ,.i. i. i, i � �%i' ,.?;�. ' "i".:.�/,:'/i.�..':,p�:,. L '. t!%i,;,�`iq�. ;�, ' . .. ,� �� .: ; �,;.. �,/;: ;i. .,�..,; ,,,�� ,� �;%/%% �� ; '✓y,/:"-� ;;�,�i ,,�j,; ;.:i .,a�>j , ;�';�'s,�'� r .,+�i+.✓,��✓'"' "' y i i,'%','jir. /,�/jii//j, ��/�j'�„ ;�.� �a�;, � �.;.�,32ii��j� %%%�j/ ��i'r'� � ;..i: ,. >3^'/�,f� /, ,j;:,/� ,�- r.., /' / /� %r��y-�.,�,-�� .. � `,,,,�, /�� /�j�..i'� //r i �.,i :..a�.� �{�" �� / � ,�S �,I /%%/��%� ��/ '�' ...� �:'"°i � / �a . ;�/ / /, / � /, /,� /- ../ ;i, � w f i // , /.. / ��"/��/� �� ,� � sr'� .,< ..: � '�;`i, �/ �,i,ri��,, �i,��; �ww.� `,� _ � '�.� ^! ' / ��! �', iii '��,�'� � � ;,�Z,-�9 .,, . u r / � /✓��... �� . }�y. NiEOCEviOe / � i/./�'�', /I/ r�iSiSECJ .e`�� • ` Y�':'�.: ....rr. .,e�o� po� //� M�[, � r� t,alTA.jA'•,.- / /// �M_ REDM �51 "�Kf HIILSINIENIM T.[ AS�V�RR .� N�S.�.N.M�iv.iSHiN15FCl �1AEI.IMENt VI�Ni pHNECtION £ S�M MINM NOl�rw000 � AREMIllSaa •llF^I i 1 R YI i # IN E CF O• � YS { �%///� �%�%ti��/i � // � J/' wOODINVII�E / 7 .... ~ UGiEY SOOF ��/Ii0�1Y � I S CREE�1P y VAIIEv CP fACiOGI♦ � � LRUNIt CO�I CREER i 1 � iRUNY 1 � �� V[� • ♦ ND t1 Nk . CI MR CNEEK /� SECi�MEDMO U � ��, { `NtFGCEiiOM � a �� iMUNK � , wOODINvIIIE, 1UM11i� rOE O iHt iNiEMCEI�Oe `j5� �N�fq YEEI(ixUNx �• , o � G�vvi50N:iFE� " H��^ BELLEVUE " TON v�Eacev�oc ueta RIGKIAN pFOW BAY �E�� . . 1 IIN�iERCEP10� � IU/� ' �pNNECIIOr+ Y'�' BE • ," � Ll ✓�� KIIINN ' �' �ONNECiION "' ��" ` 5 xFntON f h MERCE .1 AIXf � ��0'fM[Ll 1.} ��w _.r�[ R SONNEG��I� � i tv1Ux ..' PJBURN P ! . sw.Mv ca d� _'+i rx't :�'"''�"'• •�� .t�ny' 1 S L A N D � .i �ENTON TRE,S'�- __. .. ,�� __�. .�...- ....__.- rau�+� .e�Mowe ��a* ''� .. .. MENT PLAt�i I(FMT �� MYH,� �I� inifP�EGiOi ¢ [DNG '-�:"J . ta � .•.... J,IIC . ,'�F 'S�y�','h .w'r-,f ENCEVLOM �••� .."¢-�' ., 1 �ON4 i�� S Ev.v.OVE VS 1„fWS� —$^ t � .Y}�IENOi y�r'yj�,�'��SIUDGE i�•r��iH�lEFCIE`v16I��r��. �SIPUnNfY I `) ��/�� /rt' � �• �R _ • �I �IAO.�CE � _�, I � ..�//�'� �RKIL�YvOn �_ __ 5 � yrv; � •iy .." T iN5 _ PEfW�r _. % �i'r�/�/�� IQRUN� . '"_ •5 EElJO1P YS�{�"ri i Y . �'�'k, —_I I CO�+n r.fFKEVtOR y %•.%�G� / � L �� r" fP�vF PS I� ii'T .[�Y �//,/�� l�N�_ _ -"�ri�H�Oti ��vENEaS�`�}' �r K � 1 � . , .. /%�/ f011ESi _werrieJr�K� ��F ' i'� W�sH �Hc I�c�iHi q }. i� �. //j� m�C�E'�6� � (.. s � �1 . Ep.o I ',I I I � r9' ��aKk ..,ly.�"ceeeKrauNi � `� �� 1 _ �°� ` �5� �li�l,lllllllli �liiil i,rq�q�rpl ��-II� I�II�III . � �r« r o'eaw ce r'. • � - ,� 1 . " ?t �,i iii I�i Ill�ll�lill�l�iil!"�!II'�I lii��l liullllli' �IIII�I�I��• ' i �� I � p i� i I J,i i I I��f II I� i i " %// /"%//� 1'.......e.�^' .,�. •� j - nRv�-— i I II Illillli!iIIJ, II I ��i�lil � IIIII�III � I Illlill��li�� %�'� " i� ! � .. �4 «t'E'� I i,,,��I�i �I��I��i,lill;l II � li p I'It'illll'�ilrli I� � i�, �I'� i I � � n• ;Q%!/ ,�- ___ , � Wi �,,,I�� 4� I,hl, i�� i„ I'�I��,�r, ��jl��lllll i li�llilll�li � I I ,//,•,, � ,/;� - w ouw.M sH I.I I;i� \.� i ��j� , �sr -� ,... _ , �''�Mdw"!'ei ', ' "�'II'i �N a '�'Iitia'r I I ,, iI '`%%% ��% �/ %�jv'/ � I N Excevrox p '"ji ! i!�.li _►.�.� ��/�i,%J�j�j/,,� T e�e r.� a�E. exte�Pez. h� � �iI i I I II i�i i / SrSiEM 14f�Mf�+'e ♦• ��I P � II II II /C%/'/%;�//� H� I=� r ,�II I \ ,./,�/� I _ \ .� ♦ .;�2: y, I�� iljl'il�l � '� � ///��T � t . u�i ,� I-aS,' .:�/ ��II I N4� i�'��/%%� °�s�� ;./%i„/� ! r �Noi� wEvsE�niEsrsrEM 'k. � �I iJ ,., % ..wN.w.a.r �"? i!'i�t rlwt�i nw � rqu� ;� �R„� � s7;�r"86 � �/ 1�„=� a.;, :'/ . N�� ` �--_„�,�-' '��lAa.M f A} /� � � %j� o�p �� F , f�u� /i . :'3r�' ''r��,� }�.« ��' .,,. I J< �9%; ,�6� •.aarh�.e `�\_ � (f • �, � ' . .. ' +, ,:�3.;. .Fk„'� t�„ � ��K�wii�re�� % ,`.Y ir �' .. � ,d`t,y , sty S �SK�. � {�.�� r�.nwa..�s..�M � � / " , ' �,,,,`+... �.�.�.'�s. :b'"' .� 3�.�,�. �'x :3. f �'�' ' ��%/ � i/ //�% 9% , M�omprehentrve Plan / tw �yeyr� ��j�/��// i rcx n� �v n�aa. /{ " . TMlfy��€r '� .ty.�• F +�"�<�9�� 'i'�/I % �/ j��%/j%��%��j �wsE W A �-�I�Cwn�p�ry�monon�M� `p/ .n��,'��'t•j�,'4� � �`y�„'-.,r � //�%��/ �j��j Fvin�n�tM nnsn1 n• e u u 'j"'a�. 1~. / �/.% /j / /j „ S�SoI�o1•Mil��M �O /��// , , r �.2;'' � x's' �:..�� ,i• AS'( ♦ i/i% /�//��%/� �.�m�M�w� s�9 %i � '��%'/ _ __ ! /%%�;.. 'q. . � _2,F�`:t . �,^> � i� .NJ. / /,j/�::';': •ji�/i� (�( /� -_[ )----� 5 � '3Yf. { .�SC'��: �� /. ��{0 .. /� '/ /%��':'. . � ' . ' ' •ah�', t.'�. �it' ��%i./ ./��/'� �__ . ,.. . ..r� . � . ' � %/_ �'�I(/ �'[�7)� i .:�. '. ".t�'.�S..•f .`^S' � � i. . / �//� �/�/%��% ' _ ` �.. F�`, � '..ii: //, � /��. .� �,� //.i,�:./' � +�e''-• . G %/�� /%.i:%,,, . ;. ;..•.e. ;. ��-n;;:.�,� / Metro service area / /'%i�:.;:Y .l%/.j/..�,. /%"�! %�i: - , /i.: ,�",;'/ , Arsa w�lhin the Comprahansrve Plan /' '/ i%�// %i�//k-'v'i;�i., t ,-,/.,i, � f%�i,.,/, ,/.,.", . � ,`i� %rj�s'�;� ih rs �ii/i �i%��/��/�i:;- i�/� <i '�' li�i �; ,� ////,/� served oy o a ::� / /�,/j-,. %�j/!/::��'9'� �i,.,%✓i'i�/,.%.�, �i%%'/% ,/// ^,ryq�,' /��, ./�/i.� 6 ��/i�i�/j/ ��i�/�;;�:,o r %/�%:��;: �//,� /��i �//,;� ��> ',2"•4>'' , ��/%,, - /� -./.,/.�,��/„/„ii //�o�..%�/i,ii,:.;.p,/i, .,G ,/i2�i ,,% �� ?�.tr..,� ".�rr,: ;i ///•//i%:��%o-/' i.�/i-/-i..i�o;.:; '� `.'%f;.�:/:,/r��if�:; '.-�ij ; �%;ii�;-.,,. � Sewerape study(servical boundary // � �j � a�z ,.:-��: ;-li6"/i%i• ,�%/� //% / /� „�//,i.i/ �%/�%%'�' �� %//////:�,i � <-: -;�/... .,/' L,,. . „/�'." �dr . ,..w.� io:� %w� ;""i�/// �./.� � ,/. ,./ /, ++`%� '�� . �,ri��,� � Fac�lihes compleled -iir ;�i�/i/,,.$i�l,��.. /��/ // �/i��G,'� "i%,i.,%/�;,.' �,.,,. "�%i /� 1' / �i/i}. �:�,%.. -/� ,!i�. , a/Gr� //./� �6� , ,,,. � .ry .,/„-,� � Second era faulih 197 i�1985 /' i ii,i�-/,: ,�.. ../.;.. /.� .. . �� l j ��.. pe ;la "'� „i/ / // ;.:�,; ,�i- p% /�i�." ',;.,- ,j..,, �/ /// � ��- �I s ac�wrod b Metrc �j;v �.;,. �.///.�//n'.,° ,,'�' 4/ _�.a: , �i/'ri, �� -,f••r;;',:�'� �, i ,i,,, Exnhng fac iu• a Y .,, .,,,-i.. ,;, i ;. ";;. -. ,. . 6, ��i ./ / ��+.�., .r i%/.:' r / �/i i. ,Z / / r . . . , , i�%%�i ./ ��<i�% , /„�. . � r/, ./ //,.,�!,,.i i� .,�';,,,, ,,,,/,,.. 2} .,/ . - '.....:,: ,/n.,, '�. , , ;:o/�- ./ �. //,/ ,� -r-'ii �.,i 'oi," 'i. . ":% F �iies to be comtrucrod aRer 198s /„ �/ /ii .i:.," �°;i'%� .%;"<:.: �� onl /, / .a, �' n,�;,, .•r." :'i:;� ✓l�¢.`i '�;j%', .%., �/ / / ci' /. ii /� / � " ;..., oy .,, ' ,;. -,,,.. :, y s . ii . . , „;< .,. , ..,., . '.�i%.,,% . '.: ..,, ,,.-r- ..,/ii�,/ i � ,�v�.;, .:.,;.�`,, .'; .,9�.ii; ' �//r12,.. . , ,;.., : . :�-., .•;.� . , ,. .r.�i o o /�./,/� ,, ';:.i i' ;,-;i'., ';i/. ..�/�'��%';� ../�' £6i/''%..,� - ,% �es�o be constructed �, � /�j i, �/� ,i;r,�.i.ri�� 'i/' / �%%,//i .,,/.,:;i .i� .r... MelroPoLfan faaLl .r ;, ' ,. �,... ., „i-�:;��,% /��///l % ,/.'ii; �� ,// sr� !�/..�! ,.,--<. " ;>,;<� /� si,; :i�','i;., �'i,,;��, .. . ;n,:',:,,�i/,r,s , /,<%9,'%�.. /�:�/�// /� ;r i.. ,./i,,.'x7."r,' ,i�%�oyr :,,//�/%. /., r7� others afre. 1970 �o.;i. ';;7 „/ ,,. ,,, ,,,s. . /,,,�i ' ,,��/��//�;- �/��:�;,.r; //i�/,//r� / �� / - . and ooe�a�ed by . , .,� � ,, '/.- /, . / �-., � ;'/'r%, ,:.�/.' "�/��;�„ . "",,,.:<;:- ,:..., ..- ,.;/,,//��O//;,�°% „ , „;%,% ;.3 '%�� ,. �: � /�i%��i,�i%:�i%/�%.,.;,,%.;;;,'�'�, �� , ��,, �"�� ' ,.i"" `:>,i,. ;`i hbiroPol�ton Facil�hes � nsirucfed ,� ., » /i'/%�%/G/, i�i�''/;�i�,�� .��/ ' � '�'... �/�� /� /% <,y , �- j..,iir P Y � .;. , ' ": � , / /p/ , ;, ... .. /. . , '�'> ,, ' . , /.�jii�///,i�, i //.; !%i:�.i-G.:i%/%i�i i, •' ''.'. .. � , i...// ' , . , . .-i. //i�uG G,<. �� i//.��i/,/ �/,/�i.;i�.o/ a, / � ,.� . �. /%"'i�r;,i,� � �' -.,� 'i�%"% .��"';%�i�!��!i s,"' and o eraled b olhers � �'�` /'i%.ii-��%�//,�//,�.,/,,��i i��/, � �// �// , i/�%i/�� j // i ��%: P� 9 � G..i �j/ �%��%/iiij::/%i� i "' i',i / �i `'�,��,i� /,�.%% o/�� i% � Vum n stahon > .%�%//�%:%�///��/ii�%%/�%/%i;i;j�i�i��%��/�/�/� :f�'. ,�'%�/// ,� / ,�/%/��'i.�/i��/�:i�j/%��/�j��/ /i.,. ,`:s�a B //. � ii �i c/ � j /'�/// METRO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN fig. 4 - � completion of these facilities was to result in the removal of all sewage discharges to Lake Washington and the inter- ception of all raw sewage discharges to the Duwamish River, Elliott Bay, and Puget Sound. In keeping with the philosophy of providing essential services to the entire metropolitan area as contained in the legislative act authorizing formation of inetropolitan municipal corporations, the Metropolitan Council authorized construction of core facilities with sufficient capacity to serve the entire metropolitan area even though much of this area was outside the boundary of the Municipality at , that time. ' The first facility constructed by METRQ to be placed in operation ' was the Carkeek Park Treatment Plant. Commencement of operation '� of this plant in July 1962, marked the beginning of the achieve- �� ment of METRO' s goal to provide clean waters in the metropolitan ' Seattle area. At the dedicatior of �he Carkeek Park plant on , July 6, 1972, the "No Swimming" signs with which the beach on Puget Sound adjacent to the plant had been posted were ceremon- iously burned. Activation of the Matthews Pa�k pumping station in April 1967 stopped the last discharge of sewage effluent to Lake Washington. Completion and start-up of the Duwamish pumping station in October 1g69, permitted interception of the last raw sewage discharges to the Du�amish River and Elliott Bay. Thus, within 8-1/2 years after adoption of the 10-year con- struction schedule by the Metropolitan Cauncil , the objectives of the schedule were attained. Because of pressure to provide service to additional areas , the need to upgrade the standard of service, and because construction of needed facilities could not be financed with bonds authorized for the first stage program, the Metropotitan Council authorized the beginning of the second stage construction program of the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan on November 3, 1966. The issuance of $80,000,000 in revenue bonds to finance facilities to be constructed under this second stage construction program was also ' authorized. The Auburn Interceptor and the associated existing planned METRO facilities within the Green River Sewerage Area are part of the second stage construction program. ' The first phase of this program, wnich has been completed, extended sewer service to many areas not previously served by METRO. METRO believes additional facilities to be constructed during the second stage program have now become necessary to maintain receiving water quality at the levels required by regulatory authorities and the general pubiic, as well as to keep up with the growth of the metropolitan area. The Auburn Interceptor is such a facility. The Metropolitan Council , relying upon the recommendations of the en ineers and staff of the Munici alit 9 P Y� authorized the construction of the Auburn Interceptor on March 15, 1973, subject to the execution of an Agreement for Sewage Disposal with the City of Auburn. 10 METRO' s primary function of eliminating pollution from the �aters of the Seattle Metropolitan area is implemented through such agreements for sewage disposal entered into by the partic- ipants and METRO. The agreements provide that each participant will deliver all sewage and industrial wastes collected by the participant into the METRO sewerage system. METRO agrees to accept suc� sewage and industrial wastes for treatment subject to specific rules and regulations. The agreements also delineate METRO 's responsibility to acquire, construct, and maintain the facilities required for disposal of sewage delivered to it. Each participant, in turn, is responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities necessary to collect sewage and deliver it to the METRO system. The plar.ning, construction, and operation of new works,and the maintenari�e and u�e�dtiG� of existing METRO facil- ities remains the responsibility of METRO. Major trunks and intercepting sewe�s are extended to a point in the natural drainage area to serve the local sewerage agency. The extent of service by METRO includes providing trunk and intercepting facilities to serve a minimum local area of 1 ,000 acres. In other words, service is planned for each natural drainage area to a point where not more than 1 ,000 acres remain beyond the upper end of the trunk system. Local drainage areas less than 1 ,000 acres will be served by the local sewerage agency. METRO derives its revenue from charges levied on the various agencies to which sewerage service is provided. These charges are based on the number of customers reported by each agency and are at present $2.75 per month per single family residence or per residential equivalent. Residential equivalent customers include all multiple unit dwellings and commercial and industrial establishments. The number of equivalents is based on water consumption and is determined by dividing total quarterly water consumption in cubic feet of a particular establishment by 2,700. METRO's scope of operation can, therefore, be considered that of a wholesaler. While METRO is not precluded by law from entering into the collectian of sewage from individual residential and commercial customers, it has restricted itself to t�e conveyance and treatment of sewage collected and delivered to it by local sewerage agencies. Long-term contracts, such as the required contract between the City of Auburn and METRO, form the basis for conduct of METRO's business. The proposed action must be recognized as the resutt of years of careful and thorough planning by METRO, beginning in 1958• An interceptor similar in location and size to the Auburn Interceptor has always been a part of METRO' s Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. Such a facility has always been envision�d as f ! necessary to serve the needs of the growing Seattle nietropolitan area. Downstream facilittes have been designed and constructed I in anticipation of upstream facilities, such as the Auburn Interceptor. METRO's policies and plans have encouraged the ' Auburn Interceptor's eventual construction since 195$• Federal and state actions have, however, also played a major role in encouraging the proposed action. I b. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) � Federal legislation regarding water quality dates back to the nineteenth century, when Congress enacted the River and Harbor Act of 1886, recodified in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. It is only within the last seven years, however, that major water pollution legislation has been passed. Recognizing the threat that polluted water posed tc the �ublic health and welfare, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) , in order to "enhance the quality and value of our water resources and to establish a national policy for the prevention, control ,and abatement of water pollution", in 1948. FWPCA and its several amendments set out the basic legal authority for federal regulation af water quality. Yhese amendments, in particular, have broadened the federal role in water pollution control . The Water Pollution Act Amendments of 1956 strengthened enforcement provisions by providing for an abatement suit at the request of a tate pollution control agency. The federal role was further expanded under the Water Quality Act of 1965. That act provided for the setting of water quality standards which are state and federally enforceable• It also became the basis for interstate water quality standards. The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 imposed a $100 per day fine on a polluter who failed to submit a required report. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 again expanded federal authority, and established a state certification procedure to prevent degradation of water below applicabie standards. Despite the improvements achieved by each amendment to the original Act, the result of this sporadic legislation was a hodge- podge of law. Eleven reorganizations and restructurings of federal agency responsibility compounded the difficulty of effectively implementing the law. To solve these problems, in 1972, amendments to the FWPCA restructured the authority for water pollution control and consolidated authority in the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The objective of the amended Act is to restore and maintain the chemical , physical , and biological integrity of the nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective, the Act set two goals. The first national goal is the elimin- ation of the discharge of all pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States by 1985, The second national goal 12 is an interim level of water quality that provides for the protection of fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation hy July 1 , 1983. The 1972 amendments changed the thrust af enforcement from water quality standards, regulating the amount of pollutants in a given 6ody of water, to effluent limitations, regulating the amount of pollutants being discharged from particular point sources. Ambient water quality requirements can still , however, dictate the amount of pollutants permitted for a discharger. The Administrator has been directed to publish regulations establishing guidelines for effluent limitations and identifying the "best practicable" water pollution control technologies available for various industrial categories. Factors considered included the cost-benefit of applying such technologies, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process used and the environmental impact of applying the controls. Industrial dischargers must meet these standards by July l , 1977. Public treatment works must meet effluent limitations based on secondary treatment by this same date. In addition, the Administrator shall identify the "best available" technologies for preventing and reducing pollution. He is also responsible for identifying technology which would achieve the elimination of the discharge of pollutants. In both cases, he must take into account the factors enumerated above. Industrial dischargers are obliged to meet these standards by July 1 , 1983, meeting zero-discharge requirements if the Administrator deter- mines that such a requirement is "economically and technologically achievable". By July 1 , 1983, public treatment works must use the "best practicable" waste treatment technology over the life of the works. New sources of discharge are required to use the "best available" technology as determined by the Administrator and published in the regulations. Zero-discharge by 1985 is the goal ,however, though it is not specifically a requirement under the 1972 amendments. The 1972 Amendments to the FWPCA still stress the basic state responsibility for water pollution control by requiring the states to submit to EPA water quality standards for all interstate and intrastate navigabte waters. These state standards spell out water use classifications , such as recreation, fish and wildlife propagation, public water supplies , and industrial and agricultural uses. States are then required to define the quality of water required to achieve these uses and develop detailed plans for maintain- ing the desired levels of quality. If the Administrator determines that application of technology required by 1983 will not assure protection of public water supplies, agricultural and industrial uses, and the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife,and allow recreational activities, he may impose such additional controls as he finds necessary to meet such standards. � 3 In addition to setting watar quality standards, where effluent limitations will not be stringent enough to meet these �. standards the states are required to establish maximum daily ' loads of pollutants permitted in the waters that will allow the propagation of fish and wildlife. A similar assessment must be made for thermal discharges. States are also required to develop a continuing planning process which is able to deal with the changing patterns of water pollution within the state. Beginning in 1975, the states must submit to Congress and EPA annual reports with an inventory of all point sources of discharge, an assessment of exlsting �water quality and projected goals, and proposals of programs for nonpoint source control . EPA must submit a similar report to Congress on January 1 , 1974. � Recognizing that effective plans are an essential part of the process of esta6lishing, implementing� and maintaining water quality standards, EPA requires that any municipal waste treat- ment facility or interceptor sewer receiving or applying for Federal grant support be included in a basin plan, and where appropriate, an areawide (or metropolitan/regional) plan. Basin plans provide an overview of the impact of pollution sources and alternative pollution control measures on the receiving waters, basic information on stream flows and water quality, and requirements for jurisdictional cooperation within basin hydrologic systems into which liquid wastes are discharged or ultimately flow. Areawide plans are functional plans for urban concentrations and/or groupings of small cities and are subsets of the water quality management plan for a river basin. They also take on the role of the functional waste water collection and treatment (sewerage) plan element of the comprehensive areawide plan as set forth in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Areawide Planning Requirements. , The purpose of these extensive planning requirements is to insure that: (1) The construction grant investment to which the Federal Government is committed is cost-effective; (2) The investment will be supplemented by actions to abate other sources of pollution; and (3) The investment will provide maximum protection and enhance- ment of water quality. According to national EPA guidelines, the metropolitan/regional plan must be consistent with all elements of the areawide . comprehensive plan and the basin plan. All must consider the environmental impact of the implementation of the plan. Land use considerations must also be included and utilized as a planning predictor. In the formulation of inetropolitan/regional plans, growth patterns are to be determined from a social and 14 ' i � economic analysis of existing development and "scenarios" of possible development patterns and then used as a base to project the need for treatment plants and sites. The Federal guidelines continue to place primary emphasis on regional wastewater management systems for the locational and capacity aspects of the collection system. Such regional systems are encouraged to utilize one or more treatment plants which provide integrated, but not necessarily interconnected wastewater treatment for a community, metropolitan area,or region. Regionalization implies that a single administrative agency plans, constructs, and manages all wastewater collection and treatment facilities in an area. Certain economics are known to accrue from centralizing the functions of personnel , laboratories, and maintenance. Other economics may accrue, however, from planning a dispersed configuration of facilities. A regional agency, such as METRO, can plan facilities in a way such that the most cost-effective configurations result. Metro- politan/regional plans (e.g. METRO's Comprehensive Plan) must, in fact, define the strategy which results in the most cost- effective solution for wastewater disposal problems within the planning area. METRO has avoided the planning or construction of small treatment plants, realizing the economies of scale associated with the operation of large regional treatment plants, such as METRO's facility at Renton. EPA guidelines note, however, that with the advent of reliable and effective advanced waste treatment facilities, it is now feasible to consider maintaining good quality waters in small streams and rivers by using small local advanced treatment facilities. The metropolitan/regional cost-effective strategy may be several of these facilities dispersed throughout the metro- politan area rather than one large centralized facility with � its attendant interceptor and trunk sewers. The overriding constraint in water quality planning is the maintenance of I water quality goals through a coordinated and unified planning a effort within a metropolitan/regional area. Large regional treatment facilities are not required by Federal EPA guidelines. I Cost-effective water quality management programs for metropolitan regional areas consistent with the overall strategy for the basin, as defined in the basin plan, are required. � The states and their political subdivisions have been assigned the basic responsibility for the water quality management planning effort. EPA's role is primarily one of assistance, � guidance, and evaluation. Within the Seattle metropolitan area, the state has accepted METRO's Comprehensive Plan as the metropolitan/regional plan. When the ongoing major basin planning effort, required by the 1972 Amendments to the FWPCA, is 1 completed, modification of METRO's plan may be required. The River , Basin Coordinating Committee, a technical advisory body to METRO, is assisting METRO' s basin planning efforts in the Green and Cedar I River Basins. A fully developed basin plan is required to be completed by July I , 1974. � I 15 The existing federally-designated areawide planning agency and designated clearinghouse, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC) , adopted an Interim Regional Sewerage Plan in October, 1971 , assuring the continued eligibility of local jurisdictions for Federal assistance in wastewater treatment works. Facilities planned and proposed by METRO as part of METRO's Comprehensive Plan are included on the PSGC's Interim Regional Sewerage Plan. Since the basic responsibility for cleaning up the nation's water is retained by state governments, Congress authorized numerous grants to aid the States' pollution abatement efforts. These provide assistance to states for research and development, manpower training, water quality planning, monitoring, and enforce- ment. Grants are also available to institutions of higher edu- cation for programs designed to bring students into professions that deal with water pollution control . The major thrust of the Federal grant effort is, however, directed towards munici- palities for the construction of sewage treatment plants and sewers. The Administrator is authorized to make grants of $18 billion to the states, according to need, for construction of new treatment works duing the fiscal years 1973-1975• The Federal share for these projects is 75 percent with the remainder to be divided between state and local governments and industrial users. The construction of the Auburn Interceptor will be financed by an EPA construction grant, covering 75 percent of its cost. Municipalities are also eligible for grants for demonstration projects that utilize new methods for treating sewage, joint systems for municipal and industrial waste, and � new water purification techniques. The construction of federally financed waste treatment works generally is accomplished in three steps; (1 ) preliminary plans and studies, (2) preparation of construction drawings and specifications, and (3) fabrication and building of a complete and operable treatment works. Although in most cases completion of preliminary plans and studies will be a prerequisite to award of a grant, in order to allow State and Federal officials an adequate basis to determine the merits of proposed projects, the EPA Regional Administrator ' may award a grant for completion of preliminary plans and studies . �n no case, however, may a grant be awarded unless the Prbposed project has received a priority certification which accords with an approved state system for determining the priority of needed treatment works. Apptications for grants and grant amendments must first be submitted to the state agency, The State agency then forwards the complete project applications or grant amendments, after certification that they are entitled to priority, to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator. � 16 ! --- _ _- -- � Sewage collection systems for new communities, new subdivisions, or newly developed urban areas must be addressed in the planning of such areas and must be included as a part of the development costs of the new construction in these areas; they are not covered under the construction grant program. Before approving a grant for any project for any treatment works, . the Regional Administrator must determine: 1) That a current basin plan and regional or metropolitan plan has been adopted. 2) That such works are in conformity with any applicable state plan. 3) That sm¢h works have been certified by the appropriate state agency as entitled to priority and that the award of a grant for the proposed project will not jeopardize the funding of any treatment works of higher priority. 4) That the award of the grant will not result in the , total of all grants awarded to applicants of a state, including grant increases, to exceed the total of all allotments and reallotments available to su�M �tate. 5) That the applicant has agreed to pay the non-federal project costs. 6) That the applicant has provided assurance acceptable ' to the Regional Administrator that any necessary discharge permit has been or will be obtained in accordance with $ection 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. ' 7) If the application is for a project which includes the building and erection of a treatment works (including sewers) , (a) That the design, size, and capacity of such works are cost-effective and relate directly to the needs to be served by such works, including adequate reserve capacity; `(b) That such works will meet applicable effluent limitations and applicable water quality standards and attain not less than secondary treatment as defined by the Administrator; (c) That alternative waste treatment techniques have been studied and evaluated; 17 (d) And, if the grant is to be awarded from funds authorized for any fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1974, that such works will provide for the application of the best practicable waste treatment technology over the life of the works consistent with the purposes of Title II of the FWPCA; (e) And, if the grant is to be awarded after July 1 , 1973, that each sewer system, including interceptor and collection sewers, discharging into such treatment works is not subject to excessive infiltration/inflow; , (f) That the design for the project meets or exceeds such guidelines as the Administrator has published con- cerning treatment works design; 8) That the applicant has complied with applicable require- ments of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 9) That the applicant has complied with the applicable requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 10) That the applicant has made satisfactory provision for assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treatment works, including the employment of trained management and operations personnel . 11) That, prior to award of any grant after March 1 , 1973, for a project which includes the building and erection of a treatment works the applicant (a) has adopted or will adopt a system of charges to assure that each recipient of waste treatment service will pay its pro- port#bnate share of the costs of operation and maintenance (including replacement) ; (b) has received firm written commitments satisfactory to the Regional Administrator for the payment to such applicant by the industrial users for their proportionate share of the Federal share of capital costs for the project allocable to the treatment of such industrial wastes to the extent attributable to the Federal share of the cost of construction; and (c) has legal , institutional , managerial , and financial capability to insure adequate construction, operation, and maintenance of treatment works throughout the applicant's jurisdiction. 12) That, if the project is for, or includes, sewage collection I system work, such work is for replacement or major rehabil- itation of an existing sewer system and is necessary to the total integrity and performance of the waste treatment works servicing such community, or is for a new sewer system in a community in existence on October 18, 1972, with sufficient existing or planned capacity to adequately treat such collected sewage. 18 � 13) That, for grants made from fiscal year 1975 or later funds, for the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodel- ing, improvement, or extension of treatment works, the applicant (a) has studied and evaluated alternative waste management techniques to insure that the proposed works will provide for the application of the best practicable waste treatment technology over the life of the works; and (b) has, as appropriate, taken into account and allowed to the extent practicable for the application of technology, at a later date, which will provide for the reclaiming or recycl- ing of water or otherwise eliminate the discharge of pollu- tants. Applicants for grants awarded after July 1 , 1973, must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional Adminis- trator that each sewer system discharging into such treat- ment works is not subject to excessive infiltration/inflow through an inftltration/inflow analysls. 1�lhere approprlate and approved by the Regional Administrator, a sewer system evaluation survey must be undertaken. c. The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) The responsibility for water quality control in the State of Washington was originally vested in the Washington State Water Pollution Control Commission. Established in March 1945, this Cortmission, which was reorganized and renamed in 1970, becoming the Washington State Department of Ecology, has played a major role in water pollution control planning in Washington. _ Under the terms of the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965, for example, each state was required to adopt water quality ' objectives applicable to their interstate waters and to develop a plan for the implementation and enforcement of these objectives. Policy guidelines for implementing the act, as contained in '�f�uide�lines for Establishinq Water Qualitv Standards for Interstate�'Waters," U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Wate�r- Pollution Control Administration, May, 1966, stressed the formation of water quality standards designed "to enhance the quality of water." To meet the goals established by the Act, water quality standards had to protect and upgrade water quality in the face of population and industrial growth, urbanization, and technological change. The plan for implementing and enforcing the water quality criteria had to be submitted in sufficient detail to describe the nature of the actions to be taken to achieve compliance. A time schedule for such compliance, and the enforcement authority and measures for ensuring compliance were also required. The Water Pollution Control Commission complied with the - requirements of the Act.and, in June 1967, published a report entitled "Implementation and Enforcement Plan for Interstate and Coastal Waters." 19 � , St�iiar require.ments were issued by the Fadera3 �overnrnent 1n 1967 rGgarding the abatemer�t af water poilutlon af intrastate I waters. Each state was required to prepare a five year p1an, the first s f wh � tep a ich agatn �nvolved the setting af standards and wate� qaality criteria. Qn January 8, 197Q, the Washington State Water Poliuttan Control Cortmission, adopted a regulation relating to water quality standards for all intrastate surfa4e waters af ' tite 5tate of Washington and a plan of implementation and enforce- ment of such standards. This regutation ciassified the Lower Green River as Giass A water, ta which the foilawing revised water quaiity standards, adopted June i9, 1973, aPply: CLASS A EXCELI.ENT General Characteristic Ltater quaiity af this class shall meet ar exceed the require- ments for all or substantially all uses. �Ctaaracter i st i c Uses Characteristic uses shaTl include, but are not limited to, the foitowing: Water supply (domestic, `rndustrial , agricuitural ). Wildlife habitat, stock watering. General recreation and aesthetic enjayment {pic- nicing, hiking, fishing, swimming, skiing,and baatingj, Commerce and nav i gat i or�. Fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing,and harvest. Water Quaiity Criter:a ' T4TA� COI.IFORM QRGANlSMS sh�? ? not exceed median value �f 240 (fresh water} with less �han 2Qi af samples exceeding I ,OQQ when associate� wit� any f'ecal sources or 70 (marine water) wfth less than 10$ of samples exceeding 230 when associated with any fec31 s��urces. QISSOL�fED OXYGEN shal � exceed 8.0 mg/1 (fresh water� ar 6.4 mgll (marine waLer} . TOTAL p15SOLVED GAS - the concentration of totai dissoived gas shall not exceed ii0� ��f $aturatian :�t any point of sample caltectian. . . I Ti�'EMTU1lE - wata� temp�tratures shat i nat exceed 65°�. (fresh � r+ater) o� b1° F. faa�rine water} due in part ta measurable (4.5°F.} increases resul�ing fran human activities; nor shall such temperatu�e increases, at arry time, exc�ed t = 901{T-19) {fresh wate�} or t = 40/{T-35) {�rine water} ; for purposes hereof "t" represents the permissive tncrease ar►d "T" repre- sants thc water temperature due ta all causes cambined. � pH sha1T be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 (fresfi wat�r) or 7.0 ta $.5 (marine water} with an induced variation i of less Chan 0.25 units. TURBtDITY shall nat exceed 5 ,1TU ave� naturai conditians. ' TOXIC, RAQIQACTIVE, QR DELETERIOUS MATERIAL CONCENTRATIQNS � shal) be below thase 4F pU�7� IC: health significanc�, ar whi%h � may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions to the a�uatic � biota, or which may adversely affect any water use. � AESTH�TIC VALt1ES shait not be irnpairgd by the pres�nce of j nrateriais or tfieir ef�ects� exeluding those of natural origin, �tich affend the s�enses af sight, smell , tauch, or taste. I The GreenlDuwamish River belaw the autfall of the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant was classified as Clas 8 water (good) , which meets or exceeds the requirements for mast uses. Coli- farm, dissalved oxygen, turbidity, and other water quality criteria are less stringent for Class B waters than Cl�ss A � w�ters. Simitariy, the characteristic uses of Cia,ss B waters are samewhat more iimited. The Impiementatian �nd Enforcem�ent Plan iricluded both industries and me�nicipalities and specified the t}�pe af w�ste treatment or ; u�grading necessary far that entity to cofnply with the water 44$� ity standards, It also specified definite time schedules far cqmpletion of various phases af the prolects. The City of Auburn was inclucied on the 1970 tmpiementation an� fnfarcement t�lan for Water Quality Standards and was advised by ietter dated February 1"7, fi970, that the interception of the Auburn Sewage Treatmenr P1ant ta the METRO Sewerage Syste�n was required. This directive tetter included a s{3ecific time schedule far �anpletian af ttie required impraver��ent as follows: A. Contract execution far errgineerir�g 5ervices- July l , 197�. B. Completion of engineerin� ,report - Octaber 1 , 1970. C. Cpmpletion of constructian plans and Sp�CI�lGs�LtOtiS�- Aoril 1 , 1971 . D. Arr�tngement of flnancing� advertisi��y t�r bids, ar3d start canstructi�n - October l , 197l. E. Facil �ties placed in aperatian - Apri1 l , 1973. I_ � � --...— -- - � As early as August il , 1969, the Water Pollution Control Commission had stated that the use of the Auburn Lagoon should be limited to three years. The State Implementation and Enforcement Plan supported this statement with legal enforcement powers, which the D.O.E. soon utilized. To ensure compliance with its February directive, the DOE, in May of 1970, stated that approval of future extensions of Auburn's local sewerage system would be denied until such time as the City consummated a service agreement with METRO. This ban on sewer extensions is still in effect. This May 1970 letter also included an explanation of the need for upgrading the water quality of the Green River to the established level , as well as the need for assuring that the highest water quality reasonably possible would be maintained in the river. The Department of Ecology noted that these conditions had been anticipated by the design and optimum location of METRO's Sewage Treatment Plant at Renton in order to minimize waste- water impacts on the Green River. The fact that future require- • ments for advanced treatment of wastewater were also considered in the size and location of the METRO plant also made the interception of the Auburn system to METRO's regional collection and treatment system a beneficial action. , The concept of such regional systems, known as "regionalization", was stressed in the Federal Water Quality Act of 1970. This further encouraged the Auburn Interceptor project, for the State Department of Ecology strongly supported the regionali- zation concept. Though regionalization does not necessarily require the construction of large centralized treatment facilities with their attendant interceptor sewers, it does imply a single administrative agency which plans, constructs, and manages all waste water facilities in an area. Within the Green/Duwamish . River Basin, the D.O.E. recognized METRO as the regional administrative agency and approved the METRO Comprehensive Sewerage Plan as the areawide plan for the Seattle metropolitan area. The Department of Ecology noted that, "as a consequence of the Federal Water Quality Act of 1970, all sewage co) lection and treatment projects are required by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to conform to the regional area services concept. This concept would be the interception of sewage for treatment at optimal regional locations as developed in the METRO Comprehensive Plan for the King County Service Area. The intent of the regional service concept is to limit the number of point source discharges to effect better control of water quality within the drainage basin." To further emphasize this point the Department of Ecology stated that, "In a heavily populated area such as King County, numerous small or medium- sized commercial and domestic discharges receiving varying ' degrees of treatment impose an intolerable burden upon the rivers, streams, and takes of the region. The most efficient, and perhaps the only effective, means of controlling such a situation is by interception, treatment, and discharge of these wastes on a regional basis." 22 d. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC) Recognizing that many issues, inciuding the control of pollution, the provision of adequate transportation facilities, proper land use planning to advert environmental degradation, and economic stability, transcend local boundaries, requiring the combined attention of all governments within a metropolitan area, the Commissioners of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties formally organized the Puget Sound Governmental Conference to undertake regional planning in 1957. Two years later, the central cities of the Central Puget Sound Region, Seattle, Bremerton, Tacoma and Everett, were invited t� join in the cooperative effort. With the prospect of increased planning responsibilities as a result of federal legislation in the mid-1960's, the Conference broadened its membership in 1967 as the suburban cities and towns were invited to participate. In January 1972, the Indian triba] councils of the region , were extended membership. The Conference continues to serve as a medium of communication enabling officials of both large and small cities, urban and rural counties, together with state and federal officials (participating as ex-officio members) , to understand the differing needs of each and to account for those needs at all decision-making levels. By participating in the policy-making activities of the Conference, local governments assure themselves that the interests of their own communities, each with its individual characteristics and needs, are represented in the development of regional plans. The Interim Regional Development Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region provides the foundation for all research, planning, and program activities of the PSGC. Incorporating studies reflecting years of effort and extensive Conference and citizen review, the Interim Regional Development Plan (IRDP) was adopted by the Conference on August 12, 1971 . The plan integrates local governments' comprehensive plans with the Regional Open Space Plan adopted by the cities and counties of the region in the mid-Sixties, and provides a comprehensive statement of goals and policies for the region. The IRDP brings together in one document a consensus of locai government po] icy on many issues, including the natural , economic, and social environments of the region. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference recognizes land use and open space planning as the key to maintaining a unique quality of life within the Puget Sound Region, as well as a balanced economic and social structure. The PSGC views the location of major industrial , commercial , transportation, and residential facilities as having a direct impact on the nature of neighbor- hoods, the opportunities for work and lesiure, and accessibility. The Conference also recognizes that the location, nature, and extent of these facilities can affect the quality of air and water resources, the stability of soils, the survival of plant and animal life, and environmental quality in general . 23 The PSGC believes increasing pressures on the land resource�, for housing, industry, and commercial development, often result in development occurring without regard to social , economic, and, particularly, environmental considerations. In adopting the Interim Regional Development Plan, the Conference agreed that no major new commitment of existing open space and agri- cultural lands sfiould be made for development until precise land use suitability studies are completed. These studies, which are a major work program of the Conference, should provide a much better foundation for deciding which areas within the Central Puget Sound Region are rrbst suitable for development, and the degree of development desirable. These studies will also delineate the lands which are least suitable for development and therefore should be preserved on the basis of natural hazards, ecological significance, and natural values or amenities. � An example of such a special study is the on-going PSGC - Wash- ington State University study of maintenance of a regional agriculture industry. This study will define a regional agriculture industry, its benefits and costs to the region, its requirements for viability, and the existing and potential means of maintaining those requirements. The results of this study, which should be completed by June, 1974, will be especially important to the future of the Green River Valley and similar valleys throughout the region. If a regional agriculture industry is determined to be feasible, policies encouraging the agricultural utilization of valley-bottom lands may evolve. If the study reveals that the costs or problems confronted in maintaining a viable agricultural industry in the region are considerable, the trend toward the industrializa- tion of valley-bottom land will be encouraged. As noted previously, the Interim Regional Development Plan , provides the focus for development and implementation of regional policy by the Conference. The plan is the vehicle for the Conference's primary policy implementation mechanism, the Federal aid application review process, or the "A-95 Review", as it is commonly termed, referring to the U.S. Office of Manage- ment and Budget Circular A-95. This circular sets forth review procedures and lists Federal aid programs requiring regional review. Through its various policy advisory committees, the PSGC serves as the designated regional clearinghouse within the four county Central Puget Sound region. Over one hundred categories of federal programs , including EPA's "Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works" program, require the PSGC's review. The purpose of this review is to advise Federal agencies whether proposed programs and projects are consistent with regionally adopted plans and policies. Conflicting and duplicate projects are also minimized by the "A-95 Review" process. Comments or recommendations made by or through 24 the PSGC may include information concerning: a. The extent to which the project is consistent with or contributes to t�e fulfillment of comprehensive planning for the State, region, metropolitan area, or locality. b. The extent to which the project contributes to the achievement of State, regional , metropolitan, and local objectives as specified in section 401 (a) of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, as follows: (1 ) Appropriate land uses for housing, commercial , industrial , governmental , institutional , and other purposes; (2) Wise development and conservation of natural resources , including land, water, minerals , wildlife, and others ; (3) Balanced transportation systems , including highway, air, water, pedestrian, mass transit, and other modes for the movement of people and goods ; (4) Adequate outdoor recreation and open space; � (5) Protection of areas of unique natural beauty historical and scientific interest; (6) Properly planned community facilities, including utilities for the supply of power, water, and comnunica- tions, for the safe disposal of wastes , and for other purposes ; and (7) Concern for high standards of design. c. As provided under section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the extent to which the project significantly affects the environment including consideration of: (1 ) The environmental impact of the proposed project; (2) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposed project be implemented; (3) Alternatives to the proposed project; (4) The relationship between local short- term uses of man 's I envircnment and the maintenance and enhancement of long- term productivity ; and � (5) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed project or action, should it be implemented. 25 F � I � � � When appticants submit their completed applications for federal d al a enc the must include; assistance to the appropriate fe er g y, y {�) Any cor�nents and recommendations made by or through clearinghouses, along with a statement that such camments have been considered prior to submission of tF�e application; or (2) A statement that the procedures as outlined in Circular A-95 have been follawed and that no corrgnents ar recommenda- tions have been received. Whiia not a "veto" pa�wer, the opportunity to review and make specific cortxnents and recommendations regarding proposed prajects and programs provided by the "A-95 Review" process can affact the the praposed action's design or funding priarity. The Department I ' of Ecotogy, far example, generally expects favorable comments from the regional ctearinghause before approving funding for sewer projects. Before granting funds or forwardin� the grant applicatian to the EPA, the DOE would expect ta receive pasitive comments from the PSGC (and, of course, the Office of Community peveiopment} , noting that the Auburn Interceptor and West Valley Interceptor are consistent , with a11 applicabie regianal plans. Because bath interceptars pass thraugh areas designated as open space on the Interim Regianal peveloprnent Plan, the PSGC staff are not likely to farward the propased action' s "A-95 Review" to the Conference for approval without recommending that restricfiions be placed on the use af thnse portions of the interceptors in the open space areas. The PSGC staff will , �, no doubt, be particularly cancerned with the West Valley Interceptor, and the modificatians of METRO's Camprehensive Plan, which are required to implement either af these pipelines. '� The sewerage element af the IRDP, which was adopted by the PSGG twa � months after adoption of the lRQP, shows present and future (1990} facilities and areas to be served in confarmance ta the policies, goals, anr� abjectives of the overall Regional Devel.opment Plan. The Auburn Interceptar is consistent with this sewerage plan, as are many of the tributary interceptors and trunks prese»tiy propased to be built after the Auburn Interceptor is constructed. The West Vatiey lnterceptor, in particular, is not consistent with the Interim Regional Sewerage Plan. � !n the e�d, however, the PSGC is not likely to greatly influence the � DOE and the EPA tan award funds far the proposed act�on. Both the I praposed action regardless of PSGC complaints. At the state level , water quality consideratians (not land use considerations) appear to be the averriding factor, influencing the prioritization and awarding of funds for sewer construction. EPA, which has the greatest amaunt of "power" with regard to the propasad action, must only clearly poi nt out why i t awarded funds for a project ��+at i s� i�tccxas#-stent wi th I` regianal policies, ptans, ar abjectives and 9oals. � I 26 ( -. r _ i ii Within the Green River Sewerage Area, the tand use etement af the I Enterim Regional Plan generally supparts the continuation af existing land uses with the notable exceptic�n of the valley bottom areas. In the Green River Valley, except for those areas presently committed ta more intensive uses (those areas currently provided with pubiic facilities encouraging urban growth and I industrial-cammercial development) , the Interim Regional Develop- ment Plan encourages agricultural and open space uses. 7his I feature of the IRpP continues to canflict with portions of � some local camprehensive plans. One major canflict area, invaiving over 1 ,7�t� acres of tand west of Auburn's city center, is proposed to be served by the West Uailey lnterceptar artd some af the aCh,�r proposed i nterc��stors tri butary to the Auburn interceptor. The utilization of this conflict area tor industrial-commercial I uses would be inconsistent with the Regional Land Use Plan. I Proposed sewerage facilities serving the conflict area, includ- , � ing the West Valiey Interceptor, are contrary to the Regional � Sewerage Ptan. 'I I e. River Basin Coordinating Cosnmittee (RlBCQ) In 1969, state legislation was passed requiring the development of water pollution control and abatement plans for river basin I areas. Seeking to fulfill this requirement, the Water Pollution I Contral Commission asked King County and the Municipality of I Metropaiitan Seattle, together, to suggest ways of deveiaping I such a pian far the Green and Cedar River Basins. _ Locat govern- � ments and agencies in the Lake Washington-Cedar and Grean River basins were invited tc� form a committee far coordinating the planning effort far ME7R0. In 1971 , as the Federal government i be an to em hasize similar basin planning pragrams, represent- 9 P � atives from nine cities and agencies together established the River Basin Coardinating Cammittee. As the river basin program I took shape under the direction of this committee, it became I ' apparent that funding and legislative responsibitities for the pragram should be under fihe controi af elected represent- I atives, At the request of the corr�nittee, the Metropolitan rr n ' Counci ] assumed lega] and financial responsibility far the ' effarfi. � � The following agancies are members af the RIBCO Committee: , � King CauntY I Snohomish County � City of Seattle , Green River B�sin cities Lake Washington-Cedar ftiver Basin cities Sewer districts King County water districts Puget Sound Gavernmentat Conference Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Enviranmental Protection Agency (non-voting} METRO Army Corps of Engineers (r�an-vating} Task Force for Citizen Participation ' Department of Ecology (non-voting) 27 - The River Basin Coordinating Committee is made up of represen- tatives from the cities, utility districts and government agencies handling water and waste management in the Cedar and Green River Basins, which are the drainage basins encompassing the metropolitan Seattle area. In addition, citizens have been involved on a person-to-person basis in a community involvement program. The Metropolitan Council , which has ultimate responsi- bility for the program, wil � make the final recommendations, by approving an integrated environmental management plan for the two river basins. The basin plan is scheduled for completion by July, 1974. The implementation of the plan will be the responsibility of existing agencies or be accomplished through intergovernmental agreements. Agencies not now in existence may be required. The RIBCO Committee will "self-destruct" in the near future as the planning phase is completed (July l , 1974) . The river basin planning program has been an ambitious attempt to bring concerned citizens together to work for solutions of our environmental problems and plan strategies for the wise use of our natural resources. The goals of the program remain: l . To achieve a quality physical environment in the Lake Washington-Cedar and Green River drainage basins. 2. To develop an awareness on the part of the people of the interaction of public/private decisions on environmental resources. 3. To provide the people and policy makers with information necessary to make better decisions on the use and allocation of our environmental resources. The anticipated results of the program include: t . An integrated environmental management plan for the two river basins. 2. A coordinated process of accumulating, organizing and interpreting information which will provide planning tools for the decision-makers in the two river basins. These planning tools will be able to be continuously updated so that the impacts of various events and decisions can be assessed and analyzed by our elected officials. 3. Identification of institutional responsibilities for the continued operation of the various water and waste management functions in the two river basins. , To achieve these goals, the River Basin Coordinating Committee compiled a unique package of five environmental studies which deal directly with all aspects of water and waste management in the Cedar and Green River basins. Though the RIBCO study 2$ initially centered on water p�) lution control and abatement, it soon became apparent that the total , environment had to be considered. Other components, including water resources, urban drainage, air quality, land use, and solid waste management, were consequently included in an � integrated system during the RIBCO program. In order to develop an integrated water and waste management program, it became essential that land use activity be analyzed. The Metropolitan Council decided to call upon the regional land use planning program of the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC) to produce the needed basic land use plan. The PSGC land �se �llocation Study is developing a mathematical modeling tool called the activity allocation model , which will forecast the amount and location of population and economic activity in the basin areas. These projections will be based on the land use strategy of the Interim Regional Development Plan. Projections also witl be made for two other land use concepts. The first, a "continuation of past trends," assumes a laissez-faire policy in land use control , and consequently, relatively unplanned growth. The second, the "corridors" concept, calls for strict land use controls to ' produce a ri�id pattern of land developments along major F tr�nsportation routes. The land use element of the basin studies wi11 6e used to evaTuate the water and waste - �' i facility alternatives to see �ow sensitive these plans are to • different potential growth patterns in the region. The resulting � information will be used to measure the desirability of tne plans. � The Wa�er Quality Study is developing management plans for achieving and maintaining high water quality in the major bodies of water within the Green and Cedar River basins. Data on water quality and existing and patential sources of pollution has been collected. These pollutants result from urban runoff and industrial wastes, as ' well as storm and sanitary sewer systems. This study utilizes ' water quality and quantity models which simulate stream and river flows for flood and drought conditions. Thus, it relies on the models developed in the Water Resources Management , Study. The Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan which will result from this study will establish water pollution control needs including plans for sewer trunk lines, pump stations, interceptors, and industrial treatment plants. This will include a capital improvement plan as well as a non-facility implementation plan. The goal of the Water Resources Management Study is the development of a management plan for water supply for the river basin areas which considers future sources of water and future demands for water. This study focuses on the supply and demand for water for municipal and industrial purposes in the river b�sin ar�as while ma�ntaing�g adequate flows in the �ivers and streams. Data has been collected concerning � 29 --_ � existing and potentiai sources of water. Tfie demand for water h�s been determined by projecting future popuiation growth and activity based an the three land use concapts af the �and Use Allocation Study. The nature of the prablem af water resources management for the regian will be determined by the reiation- ship of the supply and the demand for water. Water quantity and quality models have also been develaped to project stream and river flow in flood and draught periods. Alternative plans wiil be developed to satisfy future needs. The management plan for water resources resuiting from this study wi11 contain recommendations abaut new storage areas, new saurces of water, ', changes in the pricing of water, and new management arrangements for existing water saurces. The Urban Runoff and Basin Qrainage st�dy, directed by the Army Carps of Engineers, is analyzing existing and pote�tial urban drainage problems. A generalized plan for handling drainage in the river bastn ar�rs wiil result from the study. Th1s study canplements the Water Resources Management and Water Qvallty studies, assuring that ali the water-related probiems are included in the river hasin studies and giving it a campre- � hensive environmentai planning approach. Five small draina�a areas serve as demanstration areas in this study, assessing tlie �� relationships af runoff, pallution, and floading, Detailed alternative solutions ta these prablems will ae tested in the demanstration areas. Urban drainage models will also be developed in order to predict urban runoff quantity and water quality. 7he study will atso evaluate the efifects of urban runoff and water quality and quantity based on the three land use concepts contained in the land use study. The fifth Rl8C0 Study is involved with salid waste management, An Air Pollution Control and Abatement Study was alsa originally caordinated with the river basin plar�n'sng process. Funding for the air pollution studies was discontinued and is still lacking. Totat funding for the five major RIBCO studies totals over $5,p�a,000. The praposed action is not likely ta be affected by the RiBCO study activities, though tha result of the Water Quality Study may be a water qua] ity management plan which suggests other facilities for the Green River Basin than thase shown on METRO's existing Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Many af the alternatives ta the proposed actian have been and will conCinue ta be analyzed by the RiBCO study. New alternatives may be identified as feasible and cast-effective actions. By the time the RIBCO studies are completed, the contractual agreement obiigating METRO to build the Auburn and West Va3iey lnterceptors is, however, likely to be signed. f. The City of Auburn The City of Auburn was incarporated in 1891 , at which time a sewerage agency was farmed. Though Auburn's first sewers were constructed in i910, collecting only sanitary sewage, its first majar sewer pianning and canstruction project occurred in tg28 3a , _ — L i when a combined sewer system was installed in the downtown area, together with a treatment plant cansisting of septi: tanks, located in the vicinity af Henry Road. Combined sewers continued to be used in newer sectians of the City, serving until 1950, when they began ta be replaced by separate sanitary sewers. The septic tanks functioned as the only means of sewage treatment until 1954, at wt�ich time a primary sedimentation tank with a design capacity of 1, 1 million galions per day (mgd) was constructed. The septic tanks were converted ta sludge digestion and sludge starage units. Chlorinated effluent was discharged directly into the Green River. in i9�1 an engineering report recommended that a new treatment piant and outfall , tagether with the necessary trunk and intercepting sewars be constructed. The recommended facilities, which included the existing treatment facility, were constructecl, and the use af the ariginal primary treatmenfi plant was dis- , continued in 1q63. The ald 42" outfall was converted into a storm sewer and the plant site has been developed into a City Park. During the rtxid-196o's rapid deveiopment began to occur in the Auburn vicinity, requiring new sanitary sewer facilities. In 1965, for example, the Green River Community Callege site w�as seiected on the undeveloped piateau area east af Auburn. The Coliege coordinated its efforts with the City and constructed the lea Hill Trunk Sewer. €n 1966, the City and the Baeing Campany joint]y constructed tF�e West Interceptor ta serve the newly treated Baeing Plant at Auburn. As such actions continued, forcing the City to provide public facilities in response to development , it became apparent that a laca] comprehensive sewerage plan was required to coordinate the urban development of 1:he Auburn area with the provisian of sewerage faciiities. The Comprehensive Sewerage Plan for the C'sty af Auburn was compieted in November, 1�68. Several recommendations for the enlargement and improvement of Auburn's sewerage system were proposed, including the continued extension af sewer service to areas beyond the city limits. Nearly the entire South- western quadrant of the Green River Sewerage Area, including Auburn, Algona, Pacific, and portions of Pierce and King Counties, was prapased to be served by the Auburn system. The plan also recommended that the ongaing city sewer separation program be cantinued. Various other improvements and enlargements to the sewer callection anc! treatment system were detailed. The ptan determined that the existing Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant, a two stage stabilization and oxidation pond, was loaded to abaut ninety percent of its 196$ design capacity. Infar- mation avaiiable at that time indicated that its capacity 3� � - - - would be exceeded by 1970. The Comprehensive Plan recarxnended that the existing lagoon system be improved by the construction of four additional six acre aerated lagoon structures. This system was determined to be capable of adequately treating the projected 1980 BOD loadings of 11 ,200 lbs./day and average flows of 5.3 mgd, plus industrial waste water flows averaging 0.6 mgd. See Figure 35• At the same time, the plan also recommended that the City of Auburn begin preliminary planning and discussions that would lead to Auburn's joining METRO for the treatment and disposal of its sewage. After further study of alternatives to joining METRO�. the City of Auburn began negotiations with the MUnicipality. These negotiations have been continuing for nearly five years. Though no agreement between Auburn and METRO has been approved by the Metropolitan Council , an agreement 'is expected to be ratified in the near future. ' The present Auburn sewer system serves over 4000 business and residentiat connections, together with the Boeing Company and the General Services Administration Depot. Service to Algona and Pacific was provided two years ago, resulting in an additional burden upon the Auburn Lagoon. The existing sewer system still utilizes some of the old combined sewers in the downtown portions of Auburn. Some roof and street drains remain connected to the sanitary sewers. Consequently, the inflow and infiltration of storm water into the Auburn system remains a problem, affecting the quality of treatment provided by the lagoon during the wet winter months. Despite the provision of r��Qr sanitary sewer facilities in , Auburn for nearly fifty years, over forty percent of Auburn's , residents still utilize septic tank treatment and disposal systems. The extension of sewer facilities to many of these areas within Auburn which utilize sept.ic tanks is prohibited by the existing ban on sewer extensions by the Department of ' Ecology. This ban will be lifted when the Auburn Lagoon is retired and the Auburn system is connected to METRO. Additional growth within the Auburn area will also be accommodated by the proposed action. The existing Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant is located south , of 30th Street Northwest and east of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Composed of approximately 38 acres of tagoons preceded by a lift station and a grit removal facility and followed by chlorination facilities, its }agoons were qe.iginally arranged in six compartments or cetls. The first three were designed to operate as anaerobic units, while the secondary phase of treatment was provided by three aerobic units. Difficulties experienced with the removal and disposal of grit, the large amounts of fat and greases contained in the Auburn raw waste, and with odors emanatr�g from the anaerobic lagoon� ' 32 forced many design and engineering changes to the original treatment plant scheme. The disagreeable odors associated with the anaerobic lagoons were particularly noxious. Although ' the lagoon remained an effective and economical means of treating municipal wastewater, its inflexibility became a major drawback. When the Auburn Lagoon was placed in operation in October 1963, it was far from the densely populated areas of Auburn and odors were of no consequence. Duri�ng the late sixties, however, as urbanization encroached upon the lagoon, the odors became a nuisance. To combat this problem,in 1969 the anaerobic cells were converted to two aerobic cells utilizing floating aeration devices. This action also improved the degree of treatment provided by the lagoon and its capacity to treat wastes. The treatment capacity of the lagoon is presently 8 mgd. The on- going installation of two additional floating aerators in the aerated lagoons is expected to increase this capacity to over 10 mgd. See Figure 34. Generally speaking, raw waste presently enters the first two aerated aerobic units where a detention time is maintained for about five days; it then flows to the final aerobic cells where the effluent is held for an additional twenty to twenty-five days. The average daily flow of sanitary sewage entering the Auburn Lagoon prPsently approaches 2.0 mgd. Peak wet weather flows, however, sometimes surpass 10.0 mgd, upsetting the quality of treatment provided by the facility. The occasional overtoading of the Auburn Lagoon is the major problem associated with its operation, though the typical problems related to the maintenance of proper treatment conditions in lagoon treatment facilities also occur. Due to the occasional overloaded conditions, the normal depth of wastewater within the lagoon is sometimes greater than its optimal operating range and retention times are sometimes less than those desired. Occasionally, effluent must be released without receiving the desired level of treatment. The effluent is not, however, a major potlution source under normal Green River flow conditions. Typical BOD reduction rates have, for the last three years, consistently ranged between the values shown below: Month BOD Reduction January 92 - g5� February 92 - 95� March 85 - 90% � April 90 - 95� May 7� - 95� June 85 - 90� ��Y $5 - 95% August 70 - 85% September 65 - 75� October 50 - 65i November 0 - ° 5 �9ti December 65 - 85� 33 � Data made available by METRO shows that the quality of the efflu- ent presently produced 6Y the Auburn Lagoon is typically equal in quality to that presently produced by the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant, with the exception of slightly higher ammonia- nitrogen concentrations i� the lagoon's effluent. A special Green-Duwamish River Coliform Study, which was conducted ' from October 13 to November 30, 1972, identified sources of coliform contamination and nutrient enrichment in the 'I Green-Duwamish Rivers from below the Renton Sewage Treatment I Plant to the Au6urn Packing Plant outfall at Big Soos Creek. I This study found that Auburn Lagoon did not contribute greatly to coliform counts and tF�at its nutrient concentrations were quite similar to those of tF�e Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. Figures 5, 6, and 7, detail the results of this study. Department of Ecology efficiency checks conducted in August 1973 I�, d A oon do s r a a rath r ' foun that the existing uburn Lag e c e te e � acceptable effluent. The recently established EPA secondary treatment standards for suspended solids and BOD were not met however. EPA standards require treatment reductions of 85 per- cent, weekly averages of 45 ppm, and monthly averages of 30 ppm for these pollutants. The DOE data shows that treatment ' efficiencies for suspended sotids and BOD averaged 79 percent; suspended solids were reduced from 271 ppm to 55 ppm; BOD was reduced from 155 ppm to 32 ppm. Tests conducted by Auburn showed treatment efficiencies of 83 percent for BOD reduction, as the BOD was reduced from 175 ppm to 31 ppm. Almost all of the suspended solids contained in the effluent was found to consist of very fine green algae. Coliform bacteria reduction rates exceeded 99 percent. This data can be considered typical . A summary report for 1973, through August 15th, shows that the average BOD reduction efficiency has equalled eighty percent. The average BOD reduction rate in 1972 was 79 percent; in 1971 BOD was reduced by 84 percent. The ongoing addition of two more mechanical aerators to the lagoon should increase BOD reduction rates to levels acceptable as secondary treatment, as well as increase the treatment capacity of the lagoon. The City of Auburn has operated the Auburn Lagoon in a very efficient manner. State and Federal agency officials have praised the Lagoon's reliability record and the performance of the City's staff, which operates and maintains the treatment plant. When an agreement between Auburn and METRO is reached regarding the interception of the Auburn system by METRO, the Auburn Lagoon's operation will become METRO's responsibility. After completing the Auburn Interceptor, the Lagoon may be retained by METRO and utilized as a storage facility to reduce peak wet weather loadings. METRO may also return the Lagoon to Auburn to be utilized for storm water retention. 34 � r � � 4� 4„� `'F . �� a0� �51��!'tt{� eT��yB!'t�""� ��o� �n�r,�r 5ewa� '�"Yaa�"merC�" l�an�" 3108 �r c ��n�Fe,Ysfa-� '�� 3�2 (,5. (�0� -�..r�',} 13 (�. 212�� 313� -� �C2�K�"" �C'+qOoM ,. s � �132 �.�r 31'�� , 31�! �31a`53 �, is7��U`"� � (Pp�MLY! 3►�' pa� rty attf� �I� �Ie f.,."`"'�.� (��y� ��(�olf�ur� � �u�u rrt �.aqaorrC}- �t�(Gr��r�e� � � � ��' 3!9� �� ub�r �� 3�� unf � �V�" I � � METRt3 WATER QUALITY fig. 5 Mt�NiTt'3RING STATIE31\IS � - - B1ICTERIOLOGICAL SU."SA4ARY OF THE GREEN-DiJWAMISH RIV�R October I3 - November, 1972 Station Total Colif/100 mis Fecal Colif/100 mis Max. Min. Median P•Sax. Min. Median 3106 5900 25 1000 630 20 85 3107 2700 20 1500 lOCO 20 140 351 4200 70 1300 380 20 25 3108 25G0 20 1500 6?0 20 180 311 3100 45� 1100 170 20 58 312 � 300Q 260 1400 3Q� 20 GO 313 3100 20 920 160 20 62 3Z31 4800 20 960 40 20 2Q � 3132 2200 20 320 20 20 20 3Z5 3200 140 700 180 20 85 3151 94000 380 7200 540 51 240 3152 7700 200 1200 1500 120 370 3153 1000Q� 1200 38000 16000 70 760 315? � 2.8x106 26000 �w�� ;�!OCO 364nn er�nnn, 2C�QQ0 �$OC1 1_�Q00 3155 20000 1U400 15000 3300 340 1800 �156 9200 480 20 250 3?58 58 , 95 96 32 20 26 c � 3I5.? �OO HO 31.6 ?30Q 30 620 1Q0 20 38 hr �18 �vOG 30 324 100 20 40 3183 ?.20� 30 130 40 20 24 sj P i ''r 1.7�� rL� �� 2� 7V �� 31 s� 4�G 55 260 GQ 20 5G �20 �.GO{J 5� 400 7r3 ?_0 ?0 315� ? 800 100 490 i.�00 20 3� 31°3 1�.��:14G G 24000 2.Ox106 440G00 5C0� 44000 3a.9=� �00 68 120 55 20 ?.0 BACTERIOLOGICAL SUMMARY fig. 6 �� . NUTRIENT SUMMARY, GREEN-DUWAMZSH RIVER 4ctober 13 - November, 1972 Station NH�N mgfl N43+Nt}�-N myfl PO�--P mg/3. Ma;;. Min. Mean Aiax. P4a.n. Mean biax. Min. Mean 3106 1.00 .09 . 39 .79 .34 .4S .59 .22 .37 3107 2,20 .09 .55 .78 .34 .51 1.42 .12 .34 351 13 .00 2. 35 6 .'��. 5 .40 I.00 2 .�2 7 .8U 1..00 3.�b r 3I08 2 ,OG► .09 , 49 .98 .34 .55 .95 .12 ,40 311 .I4 .0? .11 .48 .34 .39 .47 .22 .20 � 312 .18 .02 .10 .38 .32 . 35 .�I7 .11 .20 31� .i6 .07 .11 .38 .2_6 .34 .50 .10 ,21 31.31 I8. 30 4.04 13.5{3 .32 .14 .18 9 .00 2 .1� 5.12 � 3332 . 3I, .04 .].4 .32 .06 .16 .62 .12 .27 3I.5 .14 .02 .08 .36 .12 .25 .94 .0? .33 31.a� . 37 .I2 .24 .�4 .30 ,3I .2� .2.�. .18 3152 9 .00 . 22 3. 82 .44 .Q4 .23 2 .4Q .1.5 1.22 :i153 ,37 ,.1.0 .�4 .64 .30 .43 .5i .17 .33 3157 ' .10 .20 4.{�t3 n=]. :�--i n�3 315�1 3. 12 .39 �..7& .28 .26 ,2'7 .�7 .7t1 .?4 31�5 18.84 .16 9.48 .28 .24 .26 9 .�8 .26 37.2 3256 .49 .18 .34 .6$ .26 .�7 .�,� .39 .48 j 3158 .08 .08 .08 .32 .28 . 3Q .56 .11 .3� � n=2 n=2 �,_2 i3159 49 .60 .�t3 5.0�! ' 316 .16 .(�8 .11 .36 .18 .29 ,37 .�.0 �21. � 31E .i6 .06 .10 .3� .24 .29 .�3 .3.3 �23 I 31.�33 .l� .06 .l0 . 34 .3Q .3Y .52 .�.Q .29 � ' 31�i� w�.5 . 24 8,49 .20 .04 .�.0 7.�?2 2.24 4.12 I 31�� .05 .03 .0� .34 .26 .30 .�5� .t35 . 20 i �20 1.5C1 .49 .91 .80 .06 . 55 2 ..64 .20 i.3A � 31�1 .43 ,02 .03 .30 .2Q .23 .�� .U6 ,21 � �193 1I.60 1. 20 6 .27 �..2t3 .22 ,&7 7 .£3t? .70 3.67 � 3I94 .Ql .O1 .01 .34 ,2� .2� .F6 nR� .19 � � I I � NUTRIENT � � SIJMMARY • � f� . 7 , � � � - - . � i Auhurn's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which was adopted February 17, 1969, suggests that a substantial amount of the projected gro�rth of the Seattle Metropolitan area should be absorbed by the Green River Valley. Auburn's central location, and possession of major transportation systems and large quan- tities of undeveloped land, were viewed as an advantage to the Auburn area with respect to its ability to compete for indus- trial and population growth. The saturation population estimates for the Auburn Planning Area range between 98,000 and 121 ,000 people according to the Comprehensive Plan. Auburn's 1970 population was 21 ,817. Though the plan notes that the climate, soils, and topography of tF�e Green River llalley are ideal for dairying and truck crops, it recommends the industrialization of all valley bottom lands north, west, and south of the exist.ing city center. Over 3560 acres of tf�e Auburn Planning Area are allocated to industry by this Comprefiensive Plan. All of the industrialty designated land is found in the Green River Valley. Today, nearly sixty percent of this land is devoted to agriculturat or open space uses. Approximately two-thirds of the Auburn Planning Area, which makes up most of the southwestern quadrant of the Green River Sewerage Area, is vacent, forested, or utilized for agriculture. A primary reason for the absence of much of the intensive urban development encouraged by Auburn's Plan is the present inade- quate sewage treatment ptant. The Auburn Lagoon simply cannot accommodate much additional growth in the Auburn area. The lack of sanitary sewer facilities, which are required to facilitate high density residential , commercial, and industrial development in the Green River Valley, has also delayed the development of much of the Auburn Planning area. The Auburn Interceptor will eliminate both of these constraints on growth. The recently expanded Renton Sewage Treatment Plant is capable of adequately treating the largest projected Auburn area waste loads, and the existing Department of Ecology ban on sewer extensions will be ti�fted when the Auburn Interceptor is completed. This will allow presently unsewered valley bottom areas to become sewered. The construction of the Auburn Interceptor will , therefore, allow Auburn's Comprehensive Plan to be fulfilled. The Auburn Interceptor and its related METRO and non-METRO components of the Green River Sewerage Area, including the Dolloff Lake, Lake Geneva, East Green River Valley, and West Valley interceptors, and the West Soos Trunk will directly �� serve the proposed industrial areas within the Green River � Valley, as well as downtown Auburn, and proposed residential areas upon the Black Diamond Plateau. All of these proposed facilities will serve areas and direct growth to areas which Auburn has determined as desirable for development, with the exception of the West Soos Trunk. Auburn proposes to preserve the Soos Creek Vatley as an open space and rural area. The West Soos Trunk, which is facilitated by the proposed action, is proposed to be routed through this valley, and may stimulate its development. 3g I The futfiliment of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, which is a I' likely result af the proposed actian, would nat be consistent with the PSGC's Interim Regional Development Plan. The iRDP I� encourages the utilization of a large portion of the Green River � Valley for open space and agricultural purposes. 7he canflict between the IRDP and Auburn's Comprehensive Plan has been a ' major cantroversy for over a year and remains unresolved. The PSGC has, however, upheld the iRDP's open space/agriculture designation af the major conflict area at its monthly meeting in November 1972. This contraversy highiights mast of the key land use and tand develap�nt issuas currently confronting the Puget Saund region; the preservation of open space and agriculture in the valleys I versus the industrialization and development af valley botfiom- � lands; the role o� regional planning and land use activities � in influencing local land use contral decisions; and the � effect of the provisian of public facilities, including sanitary � sewers, upan urban develapment. Portions af both t�e proposed � Lake Geneva and West Valley Interceptors would serve the 1740 acres within the conflict area (See Figure $) . METRQ's com- � prehensive Sewerage Plan, the Auburn Comprehensive Sewerage ' Ptan, and the Puget Sound Governmental Conference's Interim Regional Development Plan all suggest that the construction of the Lake Geneva lnterceptor should begin saon after the com- pletian of the Auburn Interceptar. Oniy the Auburn Camprehen- sive Plan present]y proposes to construct the West Valley Inter- ceptor. METR4 will , however, probably have to construct this � facility as part of any agreement with Auburn that provides for the regionalizatian of the existing Auburn sewerage system by METRO, requiring an amendment to the METRO Comprehensive Plan. This sewer wauld also serve Algona, Pacific, and the Lake Tapps area in the future. The Puget Sound Gavernmental f�nference staff daes not favor the canstruction af the West Valiey interce�tor. ' To report the total scope af the Auburn-PSGC controversy would I require a large chapter of this assessment. The fotlowing informatian provides the basic facts and the chronoiogy of events regarding the Auburn Conflict. 1 , March 1972 - The PSGC requested its staff to review the Interim Re ional Development P1an (IRDP) and local plans � 9 ' and report differences. � , 2. July 1972 - The PSGC adopted a report stating the difference ' I ocal lans and the iRDP. Process for resoTving � I� between 1 p differences was aiso adopted. (50 conflicts were originaliy identified; over 35 have been resolved to date, including � two invalving Auburn). 39 , „,� ��:� ? � _ . ;�� J y _ �� i�` � � :.:,,,.,..,, � �'� j. �t��;i� ,{,� „ �” .� , ,r� �S' `•� �s\1�111 ` , y��;��' �t .��,� � ,� ��'� { `j ��` ��`�` ��`t � � t � ��''� ,� ';,� ,,,•o �,,,,, ' ��/ ff `w. �r ,�'''�,r ',..� "i . r.�'� _ .�.��^^^^.,x„°^ �.. �r`,�y�'��' 4��'°`"�L...,...� �v �+`,�r�� .,+y J'?�{�r?` � Gh,n„n: ,'+'��.� ��Ay+,,. II�'�,.'/r�r t,,/,,'IJ t'`''I'I .�,�``r �: * �y ty i,t4'Y�a',l '�: f \�`'sy�++ ''�h _ ♦ � � _�� v,ti �'%I"•�J i, � F ,,,,.,... ��;y,, ".. 4. ��/� � � � ;� . ryt� � 1 � � - � � • ♦ '� 1 � • • :� .•` :`'� 3. July/August - PSGC staff ineetings were held with the City of Auburn to develop facts for presentations to both the Auburn City Council and the PSGC. 4. The Auburn Conflict was first considered by the Environ- mental Policy Advisory Committee of the PSGC at its regular meeting on September 22, 1972. At that time the decision of the Committee was that a visit to the site was necessary in order to familiarize all members of the committee with the conflict area. 5. A special meeting of the Environmental Policy Advisory Cort�nittee �EPAC) was held on Friday October 6, at the Auburn City Hall . The meeting was precede� by a bus trip which toured the Auburn conflict area and the designated industrial areas of the City of Kent. After hearing presentations by staff and the City of Auburn, the Committee voted to postpone a decision until the next regular meeting of the Committee. 6. At the regular meeting of the Committee on October 27, the group again heard presentations from the PSGC staff and the City of Auburn. A motion was made to amend the Interim Regional Development Plan to reflect the industrial desig- nation of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. That motion was defeated by a 4 to 2 vote. The recommendation of the Environmental Policy Advisory Committee to the full Con- ference was then formulated: That the Conference uphold the Urban Open Space/Agriculture designation in the Auburn conflict area. 7. The PSGC at its regular monthly meeting of November 9, 1972, after considerable floor debate and additional testimony by the City of Auburn, land develo ers and ro ert owners P � P P Y . voted to uphold the IRDP designation of the Auburn conflict area. 8. At its meeting of December 14, 1972, the PSGC voted not to reconsider its November 1972 action on the matter until such time as new information was forthcoming from either the City of Auburn or the PSGC on the subject. The EPAC was requested to continue its review of the matter and has continued to date. The following facts summarize the basic issues relating to the ' Conflict Area. ' 1 . The soil types in the valley adjacent to Auburn are classified �, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Class II and Class _ ', III , or prime, agricultural soils. These soils are a scarce �I natural resource comprising less than six percent of the soils found in the entire Puget Sound region. Less than , three percent of the soils of King County are classified as � rime a ricuitural soils consis i f P g , t ng o Class I , II , or III soil types. 4� ' 2. The Interim Regional Development Plan Policy No. 62 states: "Not all farm land recently used for farming should be kept for that purpose. But where soil quality is high and where conditions are better suited for agriculture than for urban uses, measures should be adopted to preserve such sites in agricultural use." 3. The area alrPady has a ponding problem; any increase in the amount of impervious cover may aggravate this condition. 4. The Conference's adopted policy is to encourage future regional development �vithin existing and committed regional centers, located near regional transportation routes and where utilities and public improvements aiready exist. Regional benefits of this policy include preserving regional open-space resources, eliminating unnecessary expenditures for public facilities and improvements, and reducing the amount of time spent in home to work commuting trips. 5. Trans ortation and utilit ri ht-of-w P y g a corridors resentl Y P Y exist in the conflict area. 6. The PSGC encourages identifiable, self-sufficient communities. 7. The total land allocated for industrial use within the Auburn area equals 3,563 acres, of which 1 ,179 are presently developed. 8. The Interim Regional Development Plan of August 1971 , desig- nates a 1 ,740 acre area as Urban Open Space/Agriculture, whereas the Auburn Comprehensive Plan of 1968 designates the area for industry. 9. Auburn is a signator of the 1965 Open Space Plan which was incorporated as an element of the Interim Regional Development Plan and predates the 1968 Auburn Comprehensive Plan designating the area for industrial use. Section 1 of the 1965 Agreement reads: "It is the intention of the parties to this agreement to cooperate with each other in the joint exercise of responsibility for the acquisition and preservation of permanent regional open space land in the Central Puget Sound Region and in the development of such plans, policies and procedures as will best promote that objective." 10. Auburn received a letter from the Governmental Conference on January 10, 1969, stating that "The objectives, goals and policies, as put forth in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan appear to mesh well with those of the PSGC.. .The recreation and open space policies and plans coordinate closely with the goals of the PSGC." 42 6oth the Au6urn Comprehensive Plan and the PSGC's IRDP are approved and certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, further complicating the matter. PSGC and other governmental officials recommend the utilization of controls on the use of sewer facilities where they pass through conflict areas, such as the West Auburn area mentioned above, or areas which are composed of prime agricultural soils (Class I , Class II , and Class III soils) or simitar scarce resources. The open character of some existing valley bottom lands in the Puget Sound region, for example, could perhaps be retained through controls on use of sewers or other utilities. Such measures have been adopted by the Metropolitan Council and successfully used in King County. Lbca1 land use planning decisions and policies, however, contribute to the success of these measures. , Without the cooperation of the local agencies with existing land use planning powers, these regulatory measures are ineffectual . An example of such a measure, a resolution adopted by METRO regarding an interceptor in open space areas of the Sammamish River Valley, follows: "The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle will not permit a connection on the Sammamish Valley (nterceptor between the North Redmond City Limits and the Woodinville-Duvall Road which is not approved by the governmental agency with lawful authority to zone the area served by such a connection." Many governmental officials do not wish to see such use II controls imposed upon any sewer facility. Others view such � regulatory measures as totally useless, for the local agencies can still approve of connections to the interceptor sewers, and open space areas could be developed. Within the West Auburn j conflict area, it is quite unlikely that any use-control regulations would be implemented, for, though METRO could adopt a resolution similar to the above example, it would probably have little or no effect. Auburn is not amenable to such measures, and would likely approve connections to the West Valley, Auburn, or other proposed interceptors in regionally-designated open space areas. 43 g. Relationship with Other Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Sewer Systems Land use studies and plans are the basis of the planning process of establishing guidelines for the orderly development of an area. Their use serves as a guide for locating parks, schools, roads and highways, and in the determination of utility require- ments. Land use plans are also a functional device directing the establishment of zones for various units of residential , comnercial , industrial, and agricultural land uses of an area. Land use plans also form an essential part of population pro- jections, for future growth is typically allocated according to proposed land uses. Only the local governmental bodies within the State of Washington have actually been given the power to control and direct the use of the land within their jurisdictions, utilizing such measures as zoning actions. Many governmental bodies which lack legal enforcement powers nonetheless create plans which act as guides for development and growth. Because local comprehensive plans are adopted and approved by elected representatives, the land uses proposed by the Green River Sewerage Area local comprehensive plans supposedly represent the desires of the study area residents. The comprehensive land use plans are the only existing identifi- able growth and development policy statements regarding land use'within the sewerage area which can be implemented and d his time. 2 enforce at t See Fi ure 5. 9 In the near future, however, the implementation of some form of State and/or National land use planning appears likely. The Federal government's concern with local land use planning activities has been apparent for a number of years though Congress has only recently seriously considered National land use legislation. Typical of the recent statements issued by Congress regarding land use is the following declaration issued in June, 1973� "The Congress hereby finds that there is a national interest in a more efficient system of land use planning and decision- making and that the rapid and continued growth of the Nation's population, expanding urban development, proliferating transporta- tion systems, large-scale industrial and economic growth, conflicts in patterns of land use, fragmentation of governmental entities exercising land use planning powers, and the increased size, scale, and impact of private actions have created a situation in which land use management decisions of wide public concern often are being made on the basis of expediency, tradition, short-term economic considerations, and other factors which too frequently are unrelated or contradictory to sound environmental , economic, and social land use considerations. . . .The Congress (also) finds that intelligent land use planning and management can and should be a singularly important process for preserving and enhancing the environment, encouraging beneficial economic development, and maintaining conditions capable of improving the quality of life." 44 I II I Most Federal land use plann�ng proposals presently under con- , sideration encourage the tate governments to assume the position af leadership in developing plans and implementing land use management powers aver matters of regional , tate, and national I concern. t�Iashin tan State in antici ation of Federal action, 9 . P has already created a State Land Pianning Commissian, which II has drafted a State Land Use Pianning Act presently undergoing �, I review by State, regianai , and Iacai governmental agencies. !t is possible that this Act, with minor modifications, may be passed by the egislature c4uring the caming year. if this were to accur, it is possible that many af the present land use planning activities throughaut the State, including those affect- I ing the Green River Sewerage Area, would be modified, At this time, however, the effect of State planning upon lacal land use I� ptanning remains speculative. I 1} King County � � ln accardance with a directive of the Board of Gaunty � Corrumtssioners, dated May t , C96( , the King Gaunty Departmertt � of Planning and Planning Commissic�n prepared the "Comprehensive � j Plan for King County". The Comprehensive Plan was submitted ! to the Board of County Commissioners an June 23, 1964, and approved and adapted by the Board on Octaber (3, 19b4. �The ptan defines the goals and pravides the generat guidance far the continuing development af King County. � Some industrialization af the Kent and Auburn areas is � proposed by the King County Plan, however, open space areas j are specified as being valuabte to preserve within the Green River Valley. The plan is not specific in regard to the actual amount of apen space desired, except that it does clearty express the concept of the preservation of open space west of the Green River. An open space buffer, separating Kent and Auburn is alsa specified. The fulfilir�nt of the , King County Plan has, however, been made ineffectual by the ' planning palicies and annexations of Kent and Auburn; today, virtualty no county jurisdiction remains within the valley bottom. In fact, only in a small area between Kent and Auburn, I through which the Auburn Interceptor is proposed to be routed, does King County retain controt af the land. If the praposed praject is completad, tt may be difficult to maintain the desired , Auburn-Kent buffer proposad by the King County Plan, due ta deyelopmental pressu�-es. A resolution by METR4, regulating the use of sewer facilities in this area rnay have some effect, however. King County has cooperated with such �resolutions, restricting: access to sewerage facilities, such as the Sammamish Valley resolution nnted previously. Development of the Sammamish Vatley has been restricted to uses consistent with the local plans affecting the area (the King Caunty Plan) . King County planners and t�ff icials have noted, hc�wever, that a METRO �+5 I resolution for the Green River Valley would only affect a very small portion of t�e flood plain. The implementation of such measures �ould also require an agreement between K,ent and Au6urn to restrict access to t�e buffer area and to prevent its annexation by eit�er city. Upon the upland areas the King County Plan is a "saturation" plan, showing residential development occurring over virtu- ally all of the Black Diamond and Des Moines Plateaus. No particular development restraints occur, given the provision of sewerage and water supply systems. King County, at this time, has no policy of directing or confining growth to certain more suitable areas. Residential development upon the plateaus is suggested to be largely moderate-to-low density in nature, averaging less than eight housing units per acre. A small area in the Soos Creek vicinity, known as the Covington site, is represented as being suitable for industrial development. The development of this site would likely occur only if efforts to preserve the remainder of the prime agricultural Green River Valley lands in the Kent-Auburn area are successful . King County planners believe that restricting or precluding further industrializa- tion of the Green River Valley would direct attention to the Covington site, accelerating the already rapid residential ' development of the Black Diamond Plateau. ' The King County Plan does give consideration to the value ' of green-belt, agricultural , or open and recreational areas by designating portions of the Upper Green River Valley and Enumclaw P,lateau as agricultural reserves or very low density (less than two dwelling units per acre) residential areas. Though extreme developmental pressures occur, King County favors a policy of retaining the agricultural functions and open space areas of these unincorporated portions of the county for as long as possible, rather than allowing widely scattered subdivisions to develop between Auburn and Enumclaw. 2) Pierce County The Pierce County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, approved on March 6, 1962, and adopted and certified on April 2, 1962, affects approximately seven square miles in the extreme southern portion of the Green River Sewerage Area. This entire area, north and east of Lake Tapps and south of the White River, is designated as rural residential . This classification identifies areas �vhich lie outside of the path of irnmediate urb�n expansion and beyond the areas of su6urban residential development provided with adequate public services. Rural residential uses are recommended to occur ari tfiin tE►e P ierce County port ion of the studY area in order to avoid tC�e premature and uneconomic exten- sion of public facilities and services. The reservation 46 of potential residential land in sufficiently large parcels �, ta permit proper subdivision at a future date is also a beneficiat feature of this proposed iand use. Pierce County has aiso recognized that the provision of areas where rural living can be enjoyed with a m'rnimum of use restrictions within reasanable commuting distanca of majar emplayment centers camplements snare urban and suburban residential areas, This entire area presently utilizes septic tank waste water treat,nent and disposal systems. I 3) Kent I Incarporated in i$90, the City af K�nt is the second oldest city in the Seattle metropoiitan area. Sewer canstruction began in 1909, and by 1955 Kent had approximately 10 miles of 6 to 24 inch sewers, one pumping statian, and a sewage treatment plant with a design capacity of l .7 mgd, 7reatment consisted af primary sedimentation and effluent chlorination. During the canning season, a trickling filter was used to accammodate and treat the extra loading created by Kent area canneries. Effluent, containing the filter humus during the canning season, was discharged directly inta the Green River. On July 1 , 1e67, Kent agreed to became part of METRO. � Encouraged to join by the Washington State Water Pollution Contral Commission, Kent was then utilizing two local treat- ment plants, a 56-acre lagaon, constructed in 1964 as an interim treatment warks with a iisted design iife of ten years, and the sma} 1 inefficient Kent Sewage Treatment Ptant. When Kent jained METRO an January 1 , 1968, METRO assumed tha operation af bath facilities. METRO d'ssmantled, maved, and rebuilt the Lagoon facility, activating it in 1969, after an interceptor was completed, linking the Kent area with the Kent Lagoon. METRO con- tinued ta aperate the Kent Lagoan as a temporary treatment facility until August, 1�73, at which time atl sewage flow from the Kent area was diverted via the Kent Cross Va11ey Intercep�or to METRO's Rentan Sawage Treatment Plant. The recent expansion of this plant enables this additional greater sewage flaw to be treated. The old Kent Se�age Treatment Plant was decommissioned in late summer of 1969. The Kent Lagoon will be maintained by METRO on a stand-by basis. In the event of a prolonged rainy period, when the sewage ftow from Kent to the Renton plan can increase from the normal ) .5 mgd ta as much as 9 mgd, the lagoon may be put to use as a temporary storage facility. When the City of Kent completes its pragram of separating starm and sanitary sewers, METRO will return the lagoon to the City. At that time, only sanitary sewage will be treated at the Renton plant and all storm water runoff from Kent will be diverted by Kent through a storm water system to the Green River. 47 Kent's revised Comprehensive Plan, adopted October 18, 1971 designates lnost of the valley flat-land north of the core area of Kent and lying between the Green River and the Valley Freeway as industrial . The land sout� of the core area, between the West and East Valley Highways is also proposed to be developed for industrial purposes. P�oposed commercial districts are situated in t�e central business district, at t�e intersections of major highways and in areas where local neig�borhood shopping districts are determined to be needed or already exist. Agricultural uses are proposed in two areas presently south of Kent's corporate city limits in King County. The plan notes that many factors, most of w�ich are beyond the control of local government, may require a change in this land's use to something other than agriculture, and therefore, the designation as agriculture may be regarded as a desirable but transitional use. The flat valley ground west of the Green River and north of the Kent-Des Moines Highway is proposed generally as Residence-Agriculture. Residential areas are situated primarily on the plateau areas east and west of the Green River Valley and in existing residential areas on the valley floor. The Kent planning area population projection for 1988 anticipates 145,000 residents. In 1970 Kent contained 16,275 residents. According to the City of Kent's t973 land use inventory, sixty-seven percent of the 16.5 square miles in Kent is vacant. The developed portion of the city has 1700 acres used for residential purposes, 1000 acres used for industr- ial purposes, 170 acres used for commerce, and 150 acres utilized for agriculture. For comparative purposes, Kent's 1967 land use inventory found 642 acres of residential land, 720 acres devoted to industry, 174 acres used for commercial purposes, and 1071 acres of agricultural land. The current zoning designates 3400 acres for residential use, including 724 acres zoned for residential-agricultural purposes; 5�35 acres zoned for industrial uses; and 1000 acres zoned for commercial uses. About 1800 acres of the industrially zoned land is designated manufacturing-agri- culture, allowing either use. ' The PSGC has determined that the industrial space require- ments for King County will be approximately 6500 acres in the year 2000. Since approximately 3200 acres were estimated to be in industrial use in 1g70 this indicates that only an additional 3300 will be needed by the year 2000. Because of the technique used in generating the King County employ- ment forecasts and because the land per employee ratios are calcutated at the aggregated level of total manufactur- ing, which is by no means a homogenous category, this forecast of industrial space requirements for King County must be considered a gross approximation. The PSGC has therefore calculated a range of industrial space requirements under the assumption that the true requirements will be within 15q of those forecasted. The range indicates that between 2,340 acres and 4,300 additional acres will be required for manufacturing and wholesaling uses by the year 2000. 48 Kent, therefore, has enough already cort�nitted industrially- zoned land, served by METRO'S sewer system and an adequate city water system, to provide for all of the projected industrial development likely to occur by 2000 within King County. Industrial development of the Kent vicinity would also be consistent with all applicable regional plans. Despite the fact that almost all of the Green River Valley north of Kent is comprised of prime agricultural soils, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference approved the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference's policy of focusing development in existing utility and service areas seems to have bsen more important than the poticies which recommend the retention of naturally suit- able open space and the conservation of criticat natural processes and resources. The policy of encouraging self- sufficient identifiable, communities and reducing the need for long-distance commuting also seems to support the Conference's industrial designation of the valley bottom north of Kent. When the City of Kent Planning Commission attempted to revert some of the industrial areas on their comprehensive plan to agricultural designations, the large property owners (80� non-residents) of these areas pre- vented such action. The designation of these committed lands as industrial areas presently insures their ultimate � industrial development. Throughout most of its route, the Auburn Interceptor passes through the City of Kent within areas designated as industry or industrial park on Kent's Comprehensive Plan. Only at the Green River crossing does the Interceptor pass through another land use area. Kent suggests that the Green River's � shoreline be preserved as an open space area. The proposed action must, therefore, be considered consistent with the - local land use plan. Kent officials do fear that t�e Auburn Interceptor will focus additional developmental pressure on areas to the south of Kent in King County, which are less expensive and taxed at lower rates. The development of the area between Kent and Auburn is very likely to leave parcels of undeveloped land, particularly in areas already designated and zoned for manufacturing uses, bypassed. Governmental officials and planners for Kent, Auburn, King County, the PSGC, and the Qepartr�nt of Ecolo�y have acknowledged that the Auburn Interceptor is likely to influence land use in this manner. Over 4000 acres of the Green River Valley north of the Auburn Lagoon and south of the Green River is presently unsewered. The Auburn Interceptor will pass through the heart of this area. 4) Algona The Atgona Comprehensive Plan, submitted to the Algona citizens on April 6, 1970, and adopted by Algona on March 16, 1972, supports the industrialization of the 4g eastern third of the city. Residential land uses and a small area devoted to commercial development occupy the remainder of the city. The lack of adequate sewage treat- ment facilities a61e to accor�nodate growth presently pre- vents the fulfiliment of the Algona Comprehensive Plan. Of the 770 acres of land in the City of Algona, almost sixty percent remains devoted to some form of productive agricultural use or is classified as nonproductive and vacant land. Much of the Algona Comprehensive Plan con- flicts wit� the Puget Sound Governmental Conference's Interim Regional Land Use Plan, which suggests that the combination of existing agricultural production and open space uses is optimal . Algona is presently served by the Auburn Treatment Plant. Under a joint agreement with METRO, a new sewer system begun in mid-1970 was just completed. About sixty percent of Algona is served by this system. Algona is not likely to be affected by the proposed action even though the West Valley Interceptor, which is associated with the Auburn Interceptor project, would pass through portions of Algona which are presently unsewered and undeveloped, perhaps encouraging their urbanization. Algona officials note that the areas presently unserved are not yet populated enough to justify sewer facilities. As development occurs in the remaining agricultural or vacant areas, sewers would be constructed as required by the City of Algona regardless of the proposed action and its associated sewers. 5) Pacific The proposed Comprehensive Plan for Pacific, completed in November 1969, stresses the desired residential character of the town. Low density residential areas are proposed to occur on the Des Moines Plateau, above tfie future extension of the Valley Freeway, and separated from it by an existing forested open space buffer zone along the valley wall . Medium density and multi�family housing will comprise the valley bottom portion of Pacific, according to the unadopted plan. Industrial develop- ment is iimited to t�e area adjacent to the future freeway route and that portion of Pacific between the Wf�ite River and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul , and Pacific Railroad main line. The streamway and shores of t�e White River are designated as proposed parks. Pacific's wastes are treated by the existing Auburn Lagoon, and approximately ninety percent of the town is served by a reasonably adequate sewer system. Only the southwestern portion of Pacific and a small develop- ment along the Valley Highway are unsewered. The � I i 50 Au6urn Interceptor should not significantly affect Pacific. The town of Pacifie presently believes Auburn's Treatment facility is adequate and that they are experiencing no major growth problems requiring a higher degree or expanded form of treatment. 6) Black Diamond The Comprehensive Plan for Black Diamond, adopted in May 1968, anticipates moderate growth and development of the town, yet ignores the serious water quality problems which have plagued the Black Diamond area , for years. Fire protection, water supply, educational , storm drainage, park and recreation, parking, tele- phone, electrical , and library facilities and services are considered while sanitary sewers are not. Black I Diamond officials do acknowledge that anticipated growth, fulfilling this identifiable policy statement, will further degrade water quality without the con- struction of adequate wastewater collection and treat- �' ment facilities. Therefore, sewers are now a top priority need in this community. The lack of an �� adequate sewer system is hampering growth. Black Diamond presently has three unrelated small community systems , one serving 7 houses, another 9, and the . largest serving twenty-two homes. A) l provide no treatment of the wastewater. The proposed action will make it possible for METRO to construct the West Soos Trunk sewer and additional facilities upon the Black Diamond Plateau. These facilities wilt eventually relieve the town of Black Diamond's present water I quality problem, as well as the existing problems in the Lake Sawyer and Llpper Soos Creek areas. 5� � h. Relationship �ith Flood Control Projects and Plans flood control for the Green Riyer Ya11eY is �eing accoloplis�ed bY t�e Ho�ard A. Hanson Dam 4vftich serves to conzrol destructive floods originating in the �igfier �mountains. T�e U.S.D.A. , Soil Conservation Service, Green River Watersfied Project, a camprehensive drainage plan, has 6een approved and will provide a system of drainage cfiannels whic�, when supplemented by local feeder canals and land treatment measures, will afford 100-year protection against lowland flooding. The pumping systems to be incorporated into the S.C.S. Project will ultimately disc�arge the increasing quantities of storm water into tfie Green River. These waters pond in the Green River Valley each winter, unable to flow into the river because of the levees and unable to seep into the round because of the saturated soil conditions. It 9 is quite possible that the levee capacities of the Green River may ultimately be exceeded during extreme conditions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently investigating alternative plans for increasing the heights of these levees where they are deficient. The possibility of reducing flows as controlled by Howard Hanson Dam and increasing the channet capacity of the Green River from Auburn to the Duwamish turning basin to accomodate increased flows resulting from the SCS project has � also been investigated. The integration of such flood control measures with enhanced opportunities for recreation was also investigated. Further action awaits a King County investigation of the potential influence of flood control implementation upon land use patterns in the valley. The tops of manholes along the Auburn Interceptor will be set approximately one foot higher than ground level when traversing low lying areas in recognition of the present ponding problems. i . Other Projects, Plans, Policies, and Regulations Many of the previously discussed agencies are responsible for some additional aspect of the Auburn Interceptor's construction corridor or construction process, Included among these agencies are METRO, the Cities of Kent and Auburn, King County, and the State Department of Ecology. In addition, the State Departments of Natural Resources, Fisheries , and Game, the State Highway Department, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul , and Pacific Railroad, have � some particular concerns regarding the corridor or construction process. The approvals, review procedures, and permits required from these agencies are described in detail in Section I C 4. 52 � I � $. Financing and Cost of the Propased Action The general terms of the proposed aqreement between METRO and the City of Auburn, esfiablishing the canditions under which METRO will extend its sewage dispasal system to Auburn, specify the construction of the proposed action (the Auburn interceptor} , a short south section of the West tlaltey Interceptor, and the addition of severai otF�er sewer iines to METRO's Comprehensive Plan. 1'his proposed agreement must be ratified by the Metropolitan Cauncil and the cities of Auburn, Algona, and Pacific. The mast costly element involved in the proposed actian, the Auburn Interceptor, wilt cast an estimated $$,400,000, State and federal aid will pay for ninety percent af the cost of this faciiity. The south seetian of the West Valley Interceptar is estimated to cost an additional $840,Q00 to $I ,$OO,QOQ. METRO may have to pay for the entire cost of this facility, due to the PSGC's objectians to its construction. Though the PSGC may disapprbve construction of the proposed portian of the West Valley Interceptor, the PSGC cannot prevent its construction. The "A-95 Review Pracess", nated in the previaus sectian, could, hawever, block federal financiat support of the section of the West Valiey tnterceptor proposed to be con�tructed. The estimated maximum share of the tatal cost af the Auburn and West Vailey Interceptors that may be borne by METRQ will be $2,604,000. If federal aid is available, it would reduce METRO's cost far the West Valley Interceptor ta only $8Q,000 to $18q,000. METRO may, therefare, have ta spend only $q20,000 ta construct the twa proposed interceptor facilities. Regardless of the amount of federal aid available, revenue from customers in the Auburn area wili more than pay METRO's share pf the construction casts. Other canditions af the proposed agreement would require METR4 to pay Auburn $713,7l3 for sections of the Auburn sewerage system to be acquired by METRO and for the interim use of the Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant. Because the present Aurburn sewerage system serves the cities af Algona and Pacific, the proposed agreement is extended to inctude these cities. METRO would pay Algona $239,�� r its facilities, and Pacific would receive $5�►9�Q, if the proposed agreement is ratified by the requirec! parties. 53 B. Purpose The purpose of the proposed action is to terminate the operation of the existing Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant, thereby eliminating an existing and potential source of pollutants of the Lower Green River and providing the Auburn area with an adequate sewage treatment system capable of accommodating additional growth. The effluent from the existing Auburn Lagoon is suspected of creating conditions in the Green River which do not meet existing water quality standards. The proposed action is, however, primarily a response to policy decisions made by Federal , State, regional , and local agencies during the past decade, regarding the cost-effectiveness of wastewater treatment strageties which antic- ipate water quality problems, rather than response to actual existing water quality problems. 1 . Policy Considerations METRO's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan for water pollution control and abatement in the Cedar and Green River Basins, adopted by METRO in 195$ and by the Puget Sound Governmental Conference in 1971 as a portion of the Interim Regional Development Plan, outlines a regional sewage collection, treatment and disposal system. METRO has determined that this system is the most cost-effective means for meeting water quality goals and maxi- mizing' human and environmental beneifts within its service area. The Auburn Interceptor and its associated proposed METRO facilities, including the Dolloff Lake, Lake Geneva, and Eest Green River Valley Interceptors, and the West Soos Trunk, are viewed as necessary extensions of this planned system. These facilities, as well as the West Valley Interceptor, proposed by Auburn, will link the Green River Sewerage Area with the regional sewerage facilities that have already been developed in conform- ance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Auburn Interceptor, a short sout�ern sect'on o� the '..'est '�.'alley Interceptor, and additional METRO facilities, proposed to serve the Lake �apps and Soos Creek areas, to be added to METRO's Comprehensive Plan, constitute the proposed action. The existing Comprehensive Sewerage Plan (Figure 4) indicates that two parallel interceptors are planned through Kent; one would extend the South Interceptor through the central valley to Auburn and the other would be a future line to serve the East Hill and Soos Creek areas. Preliminary engineering studies for the Auburn Interceptor have determined that a larger single line through Kent would be a more effective alternative from the standpoint of reducing overall construction costs and eliminating disruption ta the Kent urban core during construction processes. The construction of only one line also reduces the primary environ- mental impacts associated with the construction process. Consequently, the purpose of the proposed project can be described as an expansion of METRO's regional collection, treatment and disposal system to Auburn in accordance with METRO' s Comprehensive Plan and all applicable State and Federal policies, regulations, and plans. The METRO Comprehensive Plan must be slightly modified 54 ---, ta allow the construction of a single large interceptor line in place of the t�vo paralle) lines indicated an the existing pian. Regard- less of existing water quality standards and canditions, the proposed action is necessary in order to meet existing water quality manage- ment requirements. Because Federai , State and Metropolitan area plans, policies, and regulations suppart regionalization, oniy a facility such as the Auburn interceptor is likely to be approved, funded, or constructed. The cantinued aperatian of ti�e Auburn �agaan daes nat conform ta ME7R0's existing Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, t#�e Puget Saund Governmental Conference's tnterim Regianal Development Plan, and the Washington 5tate Department of Ecology's tmplementatian and Enforcement Plan for lntrastate Waters. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 place additional restrictions upan the continued operation af the existing Auburn Lagoon. These amendments require that all sewage treatment piants provide secandary treatment by Juty 1 , 1977. Ait publicly-owned waste treatment piants wiil have to use "best practicable" treatment techniques by July 1 , 1983. Recent EPA interpretations of the 1972 Arnendments appear to eliminate the Auburn Lagaan from the "secondary treatment" category without the installation af supple- r�ental treatment facilities or the land disposal of its effluent. 2. Water Q.uality Considerations I� Data available to the Department of Ecalogy indicates that the ( Green River, approximately six miles downstream of the discharge � of the City of Auburn (at a sampiing station identified as statian I #315 of tha METRO Automatic Water Q,uaiity Monitoring System) , I has experienced dissolved axygen depressions below the minimum applicable standard {8.Q mg11) on numerous occasians since I July, 1969 (See Figure 9). These data do nat indicate a continuing violation af water quality standards, but do indicate that the Green River only marginally meets the applicable standard. The Department of Ecology believes that the City of Auburn is a can- tributor ta this depressed oxygen condition in the Lower Green River. It is anticipated by the D.O.E. that a low-fiaw year in � cambination with an upset conditian in the existing Auburn waste i treatrr�ent €acility could Iead to severe violations of water quality standards in the Green or Duwamish, possibly affecting their � aquatic ecosystems, As noted earlier, the quality of effluent produced by the Auburn b uite similar to that produced by METRd's Lagoon appears to e q Renton Sewage Treatment P1ant. {See Figures 5, 6, and 7} . Department of Ecotogy measurements of the �agaon's effluent in 19]2 and tg73 ��V�, however, found that the established levels of effluent quality acceptable as "secondary treatment" are not consistently met i�y the present Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant (see pages 33 and 34) . EPA's defined levels of "secondary" effluent quality are: 55 - - - - -- - -- — � I � Units of Measurement M onthly Averaqe Weekly Average I BOD (5 cfay) mglt 30 45 ; Suspended solids 30 4� '� Fecal Coliform bacteria 2QQ 4QQ ' number/100 ml i � p� Within limits of 6.p to 9.Q � In accordance with Section 301 (b) (1) {g) Qf the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendmenfis of 1972 (P•L. 92-500) , compli- ance with the abave tevel of treatment is to be achieved for all pubticty owned treatment warks by July 1 , 1977. Regian X EPR notes that "It is generally recognized that neither standard axidation lagoons nor aerated lagoons by themse3ves will be able to achieve the required level of treatment." Recent monthly Department of Ecotogy sampiing tests faund the BOD of the Auburn Lagoon's effluent to be 32 mg/1 . Suspended solids concen- tratians averaged 55 ppm. DOE officials note, however, that I though they suspect the nutrient load discharged by the Auburn Lagoon into the Green River may contribute to Che dissatved axygen depressions downstream, every DOE suruey af the Green River below the lagoon's autfall has four►d no chemical or biological damage attributahle to the lagoan. The only existing problem known to be created by the Auburn Lagoon is an aesthetic problem relating to the algae contained in its effluent. Typical water quality data supplied by METRO from stations approxi- mateiy five miles upstream and ten mites downstream from the Auburn t�agoan's autfall , as well as information from an automatic monitar- ing station irnmediateiy downstream af the Lagoan's outfall is shawn on Figures 10, 11 , and 12. This data further substantiates the minimal pollution created by the discharge af the Auburn Lagoon into fihe Green River. No significant degradation of water quality, directly attributable tn the Lagoon effluent, can be discerned. For comparetive purposes the present CTass a, water qu�lity etanderd� affecting this reach of the Green River are detailed an pages 20 and 2 i , An analysis af water quality data of all major water bodies through- out the sewerage area, conducted as a part of this assessment, deter- mined that many identifiable pollution sources exist, mast of which are more significant, with regard ta their associated environmental impacts than the Auburn Lagoon. The major sources af the typical high coliform counts within the Lower Green River , far example, appear to be upstream dairy farms and manure sprayfieids. Wastes and decaying carcasses at the Green River Salmon Hatchery cantribute to the BOD laad within the Green River, while the two active meat packing oper- ations in the sewerage area add very high BOD and coliform loads. Urban drainage within Auburn and Kent, no doubt, contributes ta water quality problems, and many portions of the sewerage area experience problems directly related to improperly sized, sited, and/or maintained septic tanks. Figure 13 nates known poliution sources within the sewerage area. 5� DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS Station � 315 Metro Automatic Water Quality � Monitoring Program ! Date mg/1 Dissolved Oxygen 1969 August 1 7.60 1972 August 4 7.84 4 7' 76 5 7.62 l0 7.86 6 7. 14 il 7•94 � 6.78 14 7•52 g 7. 12 15 7• 32 �� 90 9 7.28 1B 7.66 �� 7. 42 1 g 7. 86 > > 7.82 20 7.40 12 �'�8 �5 � �h 13 7• 72 27 7. 46 27 7.66 28 6.80 28 7.74 30 7•52 31 7.48 1969 September 1 7.87 2 7.80 3 7•54 4 7.90 7 7.82 9 7•94 l0 7.72 • 11 7.64 12 7.84 , 1971 August 3 7.62 4 7.62 5 7• 78 6 7.52 . 7 7•58 8 7.64 9 7. 48 10 7. 36 11 7• 34 12 7.40 13 7.42 14 7.72 16 7.94 17 7.88 18 7.g2 19 7. 72 20 7. 34 21 7.78 . 22 7.86 29 7.98 1972 August 1 7.96 . DISSOLVED OXYGEN fig. 9 _ CON�ENTRATIONS VARIABLE AVERAGE STANDARD MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEDIAN DEVIATION Temperature (°C) 17•992 2.266 22.000 14.200 17.400 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1 ) 9•787 0.696 10.95� 8.500 9.820 pH 7•540 0.217 8. 100 7.080 7.600 Total Alkalinity (mg/1 ) 26•990 1 .906 29.000 22.800 28.000 Bicarbonate a (mg/1 ) 26•990 1 .906 29.000 22.800 28.000 Conductivity (umhos/cm2) 70•333 6. 190 77.000 57.000 73.000 BOD (my/t ) 0.843 0.438 1 .800 0.080 0.760 Turbidity (JTU's) 1 .062 1 .219 6.700 0.400 0.850 Kjeldahl (total ) Nitro- gen (mg/l ) 0. 196 0.079 0.320 0.060 0.200 Ammonia (mg/1 ) 0.015 0.006 0.030 0.010 0.010 Nitrite-Nitrogen (mg/1) 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.010 � Nitrate-Nitrogen (mg/1 ) �• 155 0.049 0.230 0.080 0. 150 Total Phosphate (mg/1 ) 0.081 0.050 0.250 0.020 0.080 Hydrolizable Phosphate (mg/1 } 0.059 0.030 0. 110 0.010 0.065 Orthophosphate (mg/1 ) 0.018 0.013 0. 100 0.010 0.020 Copper (ppm) 0. 186 1 .300 10.000 0.010 0.010 Lead (ppm) 0. 100 -0.000 0. 100 0. 100 0. 100 Zinc (ppm) 0.007 0.009 0.047 0.000 0.004 tlercury (ppm) 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 Total Coliforms/ 100 mis 5126.379 10686.703 60000.000 1 .000 1200.000 Fecal Coliforms/ 100 mis 83•311 215.040 1280.000 1 .000 27.000 Chtorophyll a (mg/m3) 1 .480 0.706 3.680 0.450 1 .330 i WATER QUALITY UPSTREAM II OF THE MOUTH OF . fig.10 i BIG SOOS CREEK VARIABLE AVERAGE STANDARD MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEDlAN DEVIATION Temperature (°C) 17•229 1 •932 20.600 13•700 17.200 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1 ) 9•742 0.717 10.600 8.500 10.000 PH 7.368 0. 149 7.600 7.080 7.400 ' Total Alkalinity (mg/1 ) 31 • 192 2• 151 33.500 25.700 32. 150 Bicarbonate a (mg/1 ) 31 • 192 2• 151 33•500 25.700 32• 150 du 'vit umhos/c m2 85.000 10.555 122.000 67.000 86.000 Con ct i y ( ) I BOD (mg/1 ) 1 •239 0.604 3•300 0.600 1 . 125 Turbidity (JTU's) 1 .044 0.418 2.400 0.500 1 .000 Kjeldahl (total) Nitro- gen (mg/1 ) 0.207 0. 144 0.500 0.050 0. 150 Ammonia (mg/1 ) 0.022 0.010 0.040 0.010 0.020 Nitrite-Nitrogen (mg/1�) 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.010 � Nitrate-Nitrogen (mg/1) 0.216 0.060 0.300 0. 130 0.230 Total Phosphate (mg/1 ) 0. 108 0.083 0.460 0.0.40 0.090 Hydrolizable Phosphate (mg/1 ) 0.086 0.034 0. 140 0.030 0.070 Orthophosphate (mg/1 ) 0.035 0.027 0. 150 0.010 0.030 Copper (ppm) 0.024 0.023 0. 120 0.010 0.010 Lead (ppm) 0. 100 -0.000 0. 100 0. 100 0. 100 Zinc (ppm) 0.007 0.007 0.031 0.000 0.005 Mercury (ppm) 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 Total Coliforms/ 100 mis 16709.426 45802.602 270000.000 200.000 1600.000 Fecal Coliforms/ 100 mis 377•438 1146.380 8400.000 1 .000 87.000 Chlorophyll a (mg/m3) 2•727 2.364 16. 160 0.580 � 1 .970 WATER QUALITY. IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF THE fig. 11 LAGOON OUTFALL � VARIABLE AVERAGE STANDARD MAXIMUM MtNIMUM MEDIAN DEV IAT ION Temperature (°C) 17.947 1 .543 20.000 15. 100 18.000 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/i ) 8.916 1 .310 12.500 7.360 8.650 pH 7.277 0. 117 7.480 7.000 7.300 Total Alkalinity (mg/1 ) 37• 152 3• 317 39.900 2g. 100 39•200 Bicarbonate a (mg/1 ) 35•848 6.633 39•900 9.400 38.900 Conductivity(umhos/cm2) > > 1 •560 13•672 130.000 78.000 118.000 BOD (mg/1 ) 2.920 2.067 7•360 0.420 2.200 Turbidity (.1TU's) 2.444 0.945 4.800 0.600 2.500 Kjel dahl (total ) Ni tro- gen (mg/1 ) 0.401 0. 184 0.900 0. 100 0.390 Ammonia (mg/1 ) 0.067 0.022 0. 100 0.020 0.070 Nitrite-Nitrogen (mg/1)' 0.012 0.004 0.020 0.010 0.010 Nitrate-Nitrogen (mg/1 ) 0.256 0.058 0.340 0. 190 0.240 Total Phosphate (mg/t ) 0. 185 0.093 0.460 0.060 0. 180 Hydrolizable Phosphate (mg/� ) 0. 167 0.067 0.270 0.060 0. 150 Orthophosphate (mg/1 ) 0. 122 0.040 0.240 0.060 0. 130 Copper (ppm) 0.023 0.029 0. 190 0.010 0.010 Lead (ppm) 0. 100 -0.000 0. 100 0. 100 0. 100 Zinc (ppm) 0.008 0.008 0.045 0.000 0.005 Mercury (ppm) 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 Total Coliformsl 100 mis 21242.016 61583•797 445000.000 250.000 2900.000 Fecal Colifarms/ 100 mis 363•8t3 932• 381 5500.000 10.000 160.000 Chlorophyll a (mg/m3) 6. 114 3.065 12•380 1 .070 � 5•940 WATER QUALITY SOIJTH 212 th ST. BRIDGE fig.12 IN KENT � r � . Q�,�` s��" , �� `s....,.�. �► w� . "�'��, ` �+. '",.' �l�� '} •�j •• �z Q �. 1 �.-�, � �'"-• •�'' "`�,; o `°'�S t ' •,%� . . � : � f ..'� %'�..,.,�' . i � �,,�c„�.Y� � �� Q �� . � . . � •. : • �,.n�;� M�� °'�►�' � � a � : ,�. i N��n �'�` ....? � V�1G�`S�y1tY1f.� ��G'��0►� � �� ("� Y1 L��U � .••� �• \1 � '`I, , ��a�� a : I •. �°��''�� .,� ', . �. �}��,�,�,r'`�°�-�r�r"1 ".--,► j �� --" _ �......� `�, � puk�v+n'1 a '"..' t,�recr� s�+�te~• �� ,a� I ��►bUr' ' ,•. �;� -�Ca�r'�'� �erv�{� :' O��'�'e� � �� : I , � �,_ �. l .�,,,,""' � l , �� `•,~� � �� '� ...! '', ,, ,� � �� f�+�-13 �' po��'�T� ' _________ St3 V RGE C. Project Description 1 . Location a. Route Selection Criteria A first priority in route selection for sewer construction is to wisely utilize both natural and man-made resources. METRO usually attempts to locate sewer improvements wit�in existing or future publically owned rights-of-way. This generally minimizes envir- onmental impacts and avoids as many acquisition and easement costs as possible. If, however, a public right-of-way is saturated with existing utilities, the costs to METRO for construction in, around, or under these utilities is often so excessive that it is more economical to select routes over private property and acquire the necessary easements. The high probability that there will be inconveniences to utility users during the construction process also affects this aspect of METRO's route selection process. b. Location (see location map, Figure 14 and preliminary plans and profiles, Figures 15a through 15d) . Accordin to the reliminar n ' g p y e gineering plan, the preferable route for the Auburn Interceptor begins at a point of connection to METRO's existin Kent Cr g oss Valley Interceptor at the location of what would be an extension of South 216th Street, and runs south on Kent's proposed 72nd Avenue South street alignment to South 228th Street, then east to a regulator and future diversion struc- ture on the west side of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company right-of-way (formerly the Interurban Railroad ri ht-of-wa 9 Y) • At this point, the line continues south until it reaches the Valley Freeway (SR-167) where it bends to follow the west toe of the freeway embankment. At the James Street undercrossing the Interceptor makes a jacked diagonal crossing beneath the street and the freeway and then continues south through Kent on Lincoln and Naden Avenues. These streets abut the freeway and are relatively undeveloped. A jacked crossing on the east side of the Willis Street freeway interchange allows the Interceptor to connect with the South Kent main, retiring the pumping station at that location. The Interceptor continues south on 74th Avenue South to a siphon crossing of the Green River. The Interceptor then parallels the freeway on 72nd Avenue South to South 277th Street where the proposed Dolloff Lake Interceptor will connect to the Auburn Interceptor. The Interceptor makes a jacked crossing under South 277th Street and parallels it a short distance to the east where it again reaches the west side of the Puget Power right-of-way. It continues south to 29th Street N.W. in Auburn to a future connection with the Lower Mill Creek and West Valley Interceptors, then east, making jacked crossing under both the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul , and Pacific/Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroad embankments. 62 '�' �` " .� 1 ' i'i ."_ F, , ,� , ;.:. '��r+S2/,Z�H 3. �. �i--K- k;NT CR S�r ,..� A yk � , ' , . .,r :'�'° - " ` �= C N CTI �._ -_ ►. . � 9 • °�� ,� I �� p . . . : ��' ... � � :� , ' ,. " 4;.� :�• Y � � t y i — � °� - �� . ,—,^ , � ' �. 3. - K u ., � E W � ..L�� ' � 4' .Z'_.E �.. � �+..� i.-.` � � �� . .�. :,..:-F- . . L_ , i �t �..,�iy, � �iS, .j ��y� ' �� 1' � � 66 r �� . :, ` 22erH sr. .�---4 � � � ,�`;�� ' I"� � M�l,j� ' 4 �►A�L E Y � :, -� � E��?if�E'1�� L E'Y m :. > > ..,� �S'� -r. REGULATOR� ' ; E�GEP� . A�:� � � . ;� � I, A.44+2i'�ia` i t- . �,�i =� -,, : . • '� .` '. , * KE� - '_ - a..��.._� �. .� ' ��N D z�`, r�� ,'� ...� � w-,� :�:_�.. _.. .1�,.}.- � � yGQ�1NE6�`TY0�! .."...• SEWE'R�(i9;7�) ` . � / 3 y �.J - n ,.,�.; a� �..►+i _� .,.� . . . . `...�. _...r.. I � .3� ' , � �S�yyER�19�5y�18� � , �,{ 4 � � � r � � d� {, � � .� .� , i ' h� � 72.�MK� ' (( , i � 'i �� i. , . �. r. �,.-� �� ;t .�. ' „a•� ��..�,�� 1�. . . , 1 '�� •y�. .r � xt � Y { H} • • ' �!. — ' ��. . �� . . n � y ,� � �'• ;�:�,. �`_, �:...� .n ti , 't ,` . .. _ • :��KE , . S• � �� , }y_ . '` .,', �, N i `�, . _— � `.,, �:" y� `' ::c4t' 7�e ',.� f � ' � -� �� rs, , /� w,' + ... s zu � 1 .3 ^ ` ��- �.�.A '�� s� r t � � . r'..-..? , ,. ; ' �� . � — � �i# ��tCE�Z � �* :,. i. ,� � : , � � " . .:. " > >� �., i . , : . . � ;�� . i y �--�,� , • ,, � :��..� � � \ ,. � �. PUMP STi�. ��.�i; a 1� s ,�:.;�.: . � �. �- �x �.. = _ � � � � , �`t�-��. ..�_�_ �f�' !'��. '�i�„; ' t w� ..� '. .c.N . � f�. �i��..JSr• � ��14��,. �� g�.,�; ' � i � �� . �°: ` ��;, +�r � • � `__... .'" �_ � i >"'�`r ' ' ,�. � '�g,. � M ; �,�..w�,�.�F a �4 ` ,.� 'g �.�;�- : . . ; ' ��l�ta�r�ji `"'�.^"^+� �' �� . ,'1 • .'��'.��, �Jz ,,. .l3, � �' �` ��z�',t � , •� ' M r � � 1t� ! � Y ' �'� .F� ' �t': :1 , '"} �}i.-.-.- . � L. . • �Z��, a., ;� i�:.,„ ,� . ��.-� -- : , j : > .. �' ;. � .�. µ � : ,ir., s. � ;� . �a. �; � �. .�TA.32 '",.,:� .' . .. :,: , ;" ,,, r , , � , �� .""'" _ . \ � � • i � •�,,t"P,,�- ». s• � ' . . e�'�. .. :al K :u�. . ^ . } �. ., � . .;4� - _� �::..; , . . 4�y, . .�--^�x-- ,-, � ;�., �� " S 7 "f :.. , _ j, 2 .� . LOWEl� 1111 . ��`3 �_z . �� '� � CRL��K `` ��T:, , _ �'Aj}' ' ' : , , w y� y ; .� I t�rt' q� .� x; , „ :$ _,. .ti .�� i "1( _ � � 3 `\ �'� � I�s��AVC _ � a � t „�. ;E. GFt�EN RItr�R V � . �lJIOLLOFF , �� 1� -±� -"��'' , ., { 7 ��. � _ �.. , \ , ��} i � STA.3 7�+80 `,,r,,�'..,�. , �a �p£EPT�t t ,1 w: ��_ r:=��Y - � �AIf�U N � ,,.�-- ' , _` '��+`� .§ . ',,1� '- ,,..;�� -` ,� �� P t, N � ..: .,�-A�� ,�' � � _ � �`�' _` �,�, �� " CO�VN Ct1011� `�t �` � ,P `4 ' ` pr' , ; J .. . . . a ...4 ' „ ` .., '_.. _t„�. ., e,w-�- �� y j . :�'.._.T... .._... . ��4�� +{ �,d' ;„ J k . # •r- ,�'�', y �f^�'' ...��i� "y.:4. �i "� , � , !' �4�: n i x i • ; 4� , . , � f � s` fi� _ .. i ,� • �'�t ;�. 1��y�^ djf_* p ��'' �;, t,.. t ., �#, r . _ • `�,.'��4� 76 � r''f!""�... �� , "i:✓.:, ,�,. .�' ' �y�.' , � � .G. .,� '/r� t5 1�' \� � • � ,ia., . i•,Y�� y,._.�`. � �k..:i. i.' . .f j"��' . _t ..._..-��— ,,�- ' . " •� ., ��. i�, ' , �� . t..�' . . , r y , +,Iri�..� � . � � . . , t . �r � -n- ,� . . ,� �., `r <.,.__"�"..` •w:'• � � , i ' {°�� t � ��"�''`-- �� l T � ' � ,� � i��';�,;' ,,� � .-. � �. . . . � ` . . " , ' ._' � t�; ..n, j . F � 1.' : � ,1 sT� . ��'��,f•(� f� � ��.,��.. • ..�: ly- � � � .aa� ~�. . � :�' r .,, `�, � ,i • '.� i�l � 'T x. .�s ``-�' ,1 �s ,'',� ..� , s��VL�/ Y y '��'�?'_�ti..c ,�,,"'." ;., w � w AUBURN INTERCEPTOR location map fig. 14 I a i I I 1 I �n �#�� EiC1�11 n Ca � �p Q� p d'a ,�a,i� 1 nlzY'ce�'or � � ,�- q ,p d�no a oa , L • �'ii� — a'' � oKy � � ° s ..�` � p � � �u{rrr��vu^srort �r�� `'4.,� D 1 ..��, �-1 G�tiG4 o MIfWA4� ��Idul attc� ��C- �1'a1lYOAa i k Va�:�"IS-f'in��4�r . . ��" � q � � ,. . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . , , _�..__��_. �:==-i`�»��e. dwi �G +`a-.:=�==_w�_-=_---------..:Y-� . ._�� ..��-�-_.�,...>r..,-:�_ --�PQG{8�Sya�;,i��PowGe' _ t,� t d�rGk "� ��kcti(-fiowiry wa{-c►-) poor� dra�ne� � _ _ .d►aina9ad� rj�i kt�o � �"'�`� a�{�urr. ti Y ? �ra�na9c,d��F�.� , ..�..-,..,��`1�---�..� , ...,.... ....., � (� ..r�„ „ _.. �,,,. i �yanc�cfl�o 1,.� � � �urr.1 c7 � t�Mul� , "'�`"'.`'"''",�, ) ��`--�"'ti.-,^.' �{.u�ttYe�n� � a ,,,�„ �t� �'YNGK- 1"GYI�'`; 'i�� u6��A�iatt� ,�h'te.i'af�r�nmenl" � . II 6 ' � � ! � t'OCG"'.h�1'C� �j we.hl�nd� � ^� �n5ku►'ri �ian�' � C3 � ' � , oPan��te�c� N n �' � Pau��c. U o� �, ° n�-�-h�o��t 0 � 'R i b� C:�!! o n`e �a � �s� � �. A --=�%'y� � .1.- O I � " °�n°n �`� � J� ..°� � no o'q � � ' ' I ,� o m��,Q , --� a ° � i _____ �-. ,`";r------,��• ---- �,� _... --... � � h ' a r.�f soa beo nm ��ttor�'�t ' J'��a • ' I , • , � , ' �.� I � � r I 7•3 T — � � �J � �un��i�i:i�ui��r�ai.+ w�i��7�r — _� 1 i i 1 i I ��,q:.ii,.s:a:-�y�.��„�.��..-.�� I I I i I I { zd I I ( � � � ��' d�a//!�reY , ,� I r'L� l ( � . . - � ,a � � , , a ' 1 - 1 l l I I I � , . I 1 I I C I I � � I I I Ila j AUSURN 1NTERGEPTOR fig. 15a , 4' � _— —!` • 'L�.._._J�.._.J�J� p u � t � ,� ' � o � a�Dn [� � 1 � �— 4 , a 1 q��•. I� �� m 1 , o � v ; 1 , � � � s ) 1 µ i a:i 1� R o � ! o d o a.�d' D n�'u ° U b4 e 1 Q� I �3 i 3�1,�� CS�ap��p'o onoA Oa ooa,�� p a:❑ Q o"'a+ h �d�l1 4fIQ �QG��C' �AtlY�G1 � � �,� �,- . _ _ _ I � � a P Q r" � $ � �` � ° �o ",.� � C�1��9°M{�rt�u�",�'� _� �,�y � � ��° v i;r�,,fi�" � � �a� �C fl o (� p d � ,�+ i—..._.- I t `� � �� .. �'�Ll t_J ^ _ -r x,�r r� 4 � 4 ��, . . � � �� I "��._,..,� _�G.,r, _ ` + �.... ."..........� ��g � i � ! D ��IS �dYi Yt-i� ��.. . ..�•�• f 1. '� \[1 � � � . , _ __ .s �.�d.. '147UIL� t N 1�.•• ( i�� J'r!�--..> r-�_-T t.att�ei}'��17 _"1► ' ( opc.'� "'—"'1� "�.r�� `� �0 �� `�t�1 � f � � 1 �;.' `d � � �_ ��'7�Cr I� , o;r `•�, :;Ct. a �9�AvG. �J'. � � a�uJ�'b'�1'c�t� I L�+�C.�n � f,__'_'�°y �qaLh AvC, o ' �/l��,.'�64r!'G! �nLt�A�}"W �'� � I�clK.a ��w]7q7��' .,�� --�--_..— _�-� �, — l�a!!a �-rtcWa ��hOni �;� ; �_ .,_v_._..___..i , a !, ' ?�I �� j,�, �'�i �� a° y� ;� �o o tP+Mp6��on �� a � �dra�n�,9e, �itc� ,.� },,9�`3 0 � {ardra�n«�4 : . ,� � �3�; '� 1 �----- dii'ch �; � .P� i] ...�.. �L._.J p �� / �.�J � � �r�j%� � ,(ju + ��.e�i `��o� .. �'aa�q, . _ ,,M o. Aoi : � �«� �,+ �� ;� �r p � � �Q ia4 Q �7 i 4/ � � u• � a ' � _ c+q 7� p n A �i �� , � o Kuck Ca�y tim��s �r-,,,.n-- a _ _ � n i a q � o cy _ ; � � ` ii � ...�. •w--_._.w � p++___.• ..; D'� .._ a � .• •• -�.' •• • .• _._ � � .. �, 6 � O ��E'1 � o i� so0 iao IWJ v "�"'�J. � I I ! � I I I 1 i � I I i I I ( I ( � t 5Q I I E I � ; � ! ( I 1 1 � ) � ! I I l I f ! I } � I � ( { !__ I 1 5D � � � � � � (G,�,r�v��# I 1 I j� -�v �o � � � i i , .� , , , { ' i ; 30 � ! ' ' I E I I � � � — I I I f 2o I I I I i � i • - ; '18'd,a.ha�►' 79"d�arna-kr �Z1J � i 1 I. � � to . i �3 M,�J��1�-��d6«, � i ��o � 1 I I I ! i i ! t I I i i ' I I I } . o I I ! 1 f I I I ' I i I ! I I 1 I 10 AUBURN lNTERCEPTClR ��g. 1�� \� n I . . � � ��ff . .�. 5.�1�'.. __—.. . ' _,......�-.-r,^.— { i',._,. .��..y,� * . . . . �',t-� - -____ _ - . . , , - . . '•�^-� � -•I � y� ta�' �pp � � � � o i p p p � _ � J D �,j � Q p �u�r'tt,�� Q� o � � U 0 A � � u.��..i�f1{!'b 1 a .� � Q �i � a ,,�-'� ° � �+ �,. � � ��h � G:? : Gfi� ,p � t� "'._ "t.r- `� 1'�1�c,�'cn-bun ra��rrx� � � : __- --..__� �' . . �1 5 krehkle rerria�n� �t'i S . �a�-ur� � o � ct�ica o MiiWAu� �' �'au�arr� �'act�1� tZR. . ! ,�o ��,..�..�"" .. :��`�_��_":..o+Owaees�wb+ rwcfM __-__�_�_____!1L-=•=='—�=.�,�.�..y-==^='^_'-=^.-c�.:,��.:�,.:t>sc_��oz=====�_�'�.��s'�..��-- --- - -'r`� �__--- � ------ - _ _ ' .. :�,. ��-�.�,-a�d ;_ - � �� 7��-ur� � � � r��m�an�eE' � � � �i ;�hf-�:�,a� � �: O�nert�lt� 4 �` '� ; au�o�ksYL�e�yarcl �` . o n j� �� J �+ . ��Q✓lUY� p � '{ o P Q rw�rtt� wt,�{an�s , �I� , �. n da 0 � r � 4tY.� �"I�lYl4rl q►0 C+ � a l �� ' f � e� 7Z�i�.5. t__--,. O _ .. . � � �� , e�a i; �f�'�'t/ . p rxo eea Goo r�ro I I `.z R t l07 �1 {,r.�.�,,ye.�---`�``i„`�Um��! � ,,.��,,,. !� r.�rm�.fiorz i�b � t h � t N A�11off I.,�kt.Tn�k►�cep�- �+ Q tl � • , GO �va . — I � i � 58 Sa 1 I I �.._ I I I 4a � f I ! —_ ��r�� 4� ' , ._._ r..��.�..�a��,�� 30 ; C —' � , ' 8"d�amefur ._ ' ; 7 r u, �`—� � � �-- , � —,—'�" � � I � � I I I I � � I ! I 1 I s ! ! I ! ! I I _ i ia iei I l I i f l I I I l � I I I I I I �, I � AUBURN 1NTERCEPT�R ��9• ��"� � � I L I , /'""�� 1�►1N� N , ��1d3� / o� � a� P��,•6!� , . 7�'I �� 2�� ,.,�+„'�'+-"' cp ��, � ' �� \i�W �rit"' �°'"" '�?vu� � a ��'�ai F'��"� {��' ,o e,�� o 4� � �,��`?��rvM`tU1 w�� 'a"� � , ,, � . � c, �na,�,b� �►�"°a p" ,��ti� � , _,:_--� �a� a� J ;__ i�e _— . p l�`��, ,Q a� o� Q ;,g-, � �( D � . p a � � n�o ,aX+kfi�°� '��u,,An� ,�b�o'�ua"�n� ".�' �, � ( A�,� � h � � ?� e+''"�� 9 � �..Q�" V�-' '�a�.�aan`�CU� Q� � o aQ°� oo'� Just east of the Burlington Northern crossing, the Interceptor angles northeasterly to N.E. 30th Street within the location of a planned street alignment revision. At a point just west of C Street, where the proposed future connection to the East Green River Valley Interceptor will be made, the line turns south, adjacent to the Auburn Airport, to run to its terminus at the southeast corner of the existing Auburn Lagoon. Here it will intercept the influent and retire the existing Auburn Lagoon and its 30-inch outfall to the Green River. c. Construction and Permanent Easements The preliminary route selected for the Auburn Interceptor incor- porates both public rights-or-way (both existing and future) and easements to be obtained through private property. In the latter locations, METRO will obtain a fifteen foot wide permanent ease- ment. A 100 foot (50 feet on each side of the pipeline centerline) temporary construction easement will also be obtained from each property owner. These will revert back to the property owner after construction is complete. The following sections of the proposed route are to be located within existing and/or future public rights-of-ways: 1) From South 216th Street along proposed 72nd Avenue South to South 228th Street. 2) From proposed 72nd Avenue South along South 228th Street to the Puget Sound Power and I Light Company right-of-way. , 3) From the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and James Street, along Lincoln Avenue and Naden Avenue to the Intersection of Naden Avenue and Willis Street. 4) From Willis Street along 74th Avenue South to the Green River. 5) From the Puget Sound Power and Light Company right-of-way along 29th Street N.W. and 30th Street N.W. to the Auburn Lagoon. The following sections of the proposed route are to be located in ease- ments obtained through private property. ( I•n addition the interceptor is proposed to cross two pr�vate rallroad rights-of-r�ys). 1) From South 228th Street along the west side of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company right-of-way to th� Valley Freeway right-of-way. 2) From the Puget Sound Power and Light Company right-of-way along the northwest side of the Valley Freeway right-of-way to James Street. 68 3) From the Green River south to South 262nd Street. 4} From Sauth 2b2nd Street along 72nd Avenue South (on a private easement adjoining the existing 72nd Avenue South right-of-way} to South 277th Street. 5) From ]2nd Avenue 5outh alang South 277th Street (on the private easement adjoining South 27?th Street) to the Puget Sound Power and Light Campany right-of-way. 6) From South 277th Street along the west side of the Puget Sound Pawer and Light Ccxnpany right-of-way to 29th Street Northwest. 7) From the Burlington Northern Railraad, northeasterly ta � 3�th Street Nortl�west. $} From 3�th Street Narthwest, sauth alang the east side af the Auburn Lagoon ta its infiuent structure. 2. lnterceptor Gorridor Description a. Biophysical Environment 1) Physio_qraphic Conditions. The corridor of the prapased project , iies entirely within the mature flood plai� af the Lower Green Rivar. This broad ailuviated valley resuits frorn thousands of years af flooding and sediment depositian by both the Green River and the White River. Steep va] ley walls border the valley ta the east and the west, delimiting the natural floadway. Man has altered the natural flood plain condition of the Green River Valiey in several ways, first by altering the caurse af two majar rivers, the White and the Biack, and then by building 1ow dikes and drainage ditches to promote farming. These actions were followed by the contral of river flows through building higher levees and the construction of Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River 30 miles east of Auburn. U1- timately, by fiTling much af the vatley flaor for industrial and other urban land uses, much of the natura} flood plain has disappeared. Relief on the flaod plain with'sn the Auburn Interceptor's pro- pased carridar approximates twenty to thirty faet. The existing ground surface alang the proposed route slopes somewhat uni- formly fram an elevation of 54 feet (above mean sea level) at the influent structure of the Auburn Lagoon to an eievation af about 23 feet at the connectian to the existing Kent Cross Valiey lnterceptar. 7he slope is approximately 5 feet per mile. Localty, the natural topography has been severly aitered by highway cut and fill , railraad embankments, and the river levees. � 69 I L - -- - � 2) Geolo9ic Conditions. The subsurface conditions along the proposed route of the Auburn Interceptor have been explored by drilling numerous borings. The following discussion of the corridor's geologic conditions is based on data derived from these explorations. � As the ice of the last (Vashon) glaciation retreated north, the Straits of Juan de Fuca became ice-free and the ocean invaded the Green River Valley, In the 10,000 - 15,000 years ' since the glacial activity within the Green River Valley, this embayment has slowly filled with alluvium carried by the White, Green, and Cedar Rivers. At first, the Green and Cedar Rivers built large fans in the deep water of this embayment, which remained until about 5000 years ago. At this time, the Osceola mudflow flowed into the Green River Valley from the flanks of Mount Rainier, ex- tending down valley into the marine embayment nearly to Kent and perhaps further. This mudfiow forced the White River to change its course, flowing into the Green River Valley rather than the South Prairie Creek and Puyallup River Valleys. Until 1906, when its flow was diverted southward into the Puyallup River during a flood, the White River was the pre- dominant source of the sediments which were deposited as a large alluvial fan in the Green River Valley embayment, covering � the older deposits and filling the valley to nearly its present level . As the profile of the valley sta6ilized and the White River began to meander back and fort� across the valley floor, normal flood plain deposits were laid down as a thin but per- sistent 6lanket over the fan deposits. � j While Osceola mudflow deposits and the underlying Green River aliuvial fan deposits were not identified by the borings along the Auburn Interceptor's proposed route, based upon previous work done by others in this area they can inferred to be present at greater depths. Nearly all of the material penetrated in borings of the proposed corridor can be assumed to be White River alluvium, overlain by a variable thickness of White and Green River flood plain deposits. Since the White River alluvium locally contains some silts and clays, and the flood plain deposits locally contain sand, the contact between the two units is very difficult to delineate. The contact between the two units must surely be gradational and interfingering occurs. There is no marked difference between the depositional environments of the upper part of the fan deposits and the lower zone of the flood plain deposits; the outer edge of the fan, in fact, at times was a flood plain. White River alluvium varies in depth throughout the Green River Valley, with portions in the middle of the valley containing deposits as thick as five hundred to six hundred feet. Areas near the valley walls usually contain only a few feet of al- luvium. Throughout the length of the Auburn Interceptor corridor, many hundreds of feet of alluvium underlie the surface soils. 70 The proposed pipeline will require excavation ranging from 15 to 25 feet below the ground surface, which will be primarily in silt, fine to very fine sandy silt, and silty fine sand. Based on the exploratory data, it has been concluded that special foundations (i .e. piling) will not be needed and that the pipe will be supported by the underlying alluvium. It is possible that concrete bedding within the trench will be required in view of the backfill loading, surface loading, and/or foundation characteristics. Imported backfill to just over the top of the pipe may be warranted for more uniform load distribution. The reusability of the excavated material for trench backfill has not been fully evaluated pending consideration of subsequent backfill settlement. Compaction of the trench backfill will be necessary in improved streets and the suitability of the excavated material will be partially dependent on whether construction is carried out during the winter and early spring months. The excavated trench material would generally be suit- able for backfill in unimproved land depending on easement agreements and consideration for lateral support of the shallow petroleum products pipeline (1400 psi) which parallels the proposed alignment adjacent to the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. ' Paul , and Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad tracks. 3) Hydrologic Conditions Surface Drainage. Prior to 1906, when the White River and its tributaries, the Green and Black Rivers, flowed north- ward through what is now called the Green River Valley, the rivers often shifted their meander patterns within their natural fluvial hydrologic bounds. Old aerial photographs and maps reveal many point-bar sand deposits, natural levees, meanders, and oxbow lakes (cut-off ineanders) in the now largely artificially altered flood plain. In 1906 the White River changed course during a flood and was thereafter permanently diverted into the Stuck and Puyallup Rivers. With flow through the valley thus reduced, use of the valley floor for farming became more feasible. Farm owners, individually and by districts, constructed low dikes along the river, which,while not effective against major winter floods, did permit the land to be worked earlier in the spring and later in the fall . Drainage canal systems were also constructed to further reduce ponding and flooding problems. In 1962, Howard A. Hanson Dam was constructed on the Green River about 30 miles upstream from Auburn. The Eagle Gorge site was the best available for storage and was utilized to its maximum practicable capacity. Major floodflows were reduced to the maximum capacity of the river channel within its existing dikes. At Auburn, for example, floodflows are now limited to tess than 12,000 cubic feet per second. By way of comparision, a natural flow of 24,000 cubic feet per second occurred in 1933• 71 Internal drainage within the valley is severely restricted by the presence of an annual high water table (usually just below the ground surface) and the presence of levees along the Green River which act as barriers to surface water flow. During the 1960's, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) , in conjunction with the Green River Flood Control Zone District (administered by King County) , completed planning for a valley drainage system comprised of a network of channels and large capacity pumping plants in the valley. During storm periods interior valley drainage will be pumped into the Green River at several locations. In the near future, the drainage discharged by these pumping plants added to the controlled flood flows released by Hanson Dam could result in fiows exceeding the existing river channel 's capacity. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress to initiate a flood control study of the Green/Duwamish River in 1960. In 1966, with the cooperation of King County, the study was revised to include an investigation of the possi- bility of reducing flows as controlled by Howard Hanson Dam and increasing the channel capacity from Auburn to the Duwamish turning basin in order to accommodate increased flows resulting from the SCS Project. Study funding terminated in 1968, but resumed in July 1970. The Corps has investigated alternative ' flood control measures and integration of these with enhanced opportunity for recreation. Further action awaits a King County investigation of the potential influence of flood control implementation upon land use patterns in the valley. Groundwater. The phreatic surface in the Green River Valley is approximately parallel to and has about the same gradient as the land surface. Gradients range from about 30 feet per mile near the apex of the White River fan south of Auburn, to about 10 feet per mile north of Kent. Along the western edge of the Green River Valley, groundwater is discharged directly into the alluvial material from the Des Moines Plateau. The Green River, which traverses the northern part of the White ' River fan, is a gaining stream throughout its course in the sewerage area. A substantial part of the gain probably occurs just south of Kent, where the Green River cuts diagonally across the valley. North of Kent, the water-table gradient is probably influenced strongly by inflow from the Black Diamond Plateau and upward leakage from artesian aquifers beneath the valley floor. Groundwater resources contained within the alluvial deposits of the Green River Valley are utilized as a source of many private and municipal water supply systems. Shallow wells � generally yield adequate domestic supplies. Deeper wells may produce very large quantities of water, depending on the , coarseness of the sands and gravels penetrated. The City of ' 72 � Renton, for example, obtains 3,000 gpm (gallons per minute) ' from a well that taps coarse alluvial sediments. High water yields are also obtained north of Kent, where discharges of 20 to 1 ,730 gpm occur fran artesian wells, and 500 to more than 2,000 gpm from wells which are pumped. The alluvial deposits which underlie the proposed interceptor's corridor gene�ally yield only 50-500 gpm, due to the fine grained alluvium that , dominates the alluvial deposits between Auburn and Renton. Over a dozen wells providing domestic and agricultural water supplies occur within one thousand feet of the proposed pipe- line corridor. Though many are located within two hundred feet of the proposed right-of-way, the proposed action will probably not significantly affect groundwater quantities or quality. Because the shallowest wells near the proposed corridor range from 49 feet to 65 feet in depth and the deepest exca- vation required to construct the Auburn interceptor will be less than thirty feet, the water source tapped by the wells should not be affected by either the construction or operation of the Auburn Interceptor. Most of the wells near the porposed corridor yield very small amounts of water, normally between 20 to 60 gpm and supply single residential units of clusters of one to four homes. the Auburn interceptor will undergo stringent testing procedures which will insure that only minimal amounts of leakage wiil occur, thereby protecting groundwater quality of these nearby wells. High water table conditions exist throughout the length of the proposed corridor. An investigation of the piezometric ground- water elevations along the right-of-way route shows that through- out most of the route the seasonal high water table remains at elevations within 1 to 2 feet of the ground surface between the months of November and April . Many portions of the corridor commonly experience flooding and pondi�g during the summer months, A depressed water table is, however, typi- cally found at depths of three to four teet below the ground surface during the driest portion of the year. Near the Green River, the piezometric groundwaf�r elevation is lowered, due to the influence of this major �ater body. In the vicinity of the Green River crossing, the high water table probably remains at depths greater than. l0 feet below the ground surface elevation and tops of the levees throughout the year. Groundwater Quality. Within the Green River Valley, g�roundw�ter is, in general , of excellent quality. Some of the wells near the proposed pipeline do exhibit high chloride concentrations, which is a common occurance in wells which penetrate the finer grained alluvial sediments of the valley. 73 -. Residual sea water trapped in these deposits less that 5000 years ago as the Green River embayment filled with sediment contributes to this phenomena. Many of the samples from the wells near the corridor also exhibit noticeably high iron concentrations, perhaps due to the common occurrence of peat and peaty sediments in the Pleistocene and Recent deposits of the Green River region. Some well water samples also contain noticeable natural gas odors, which may also result from the occurrence of peat deposits near the water source. 'The entire alluvial Green River Valley bottom functions as an aquifer, replenishing the water supplies of Kent, Renton, and Auburn, as well as the many small water supply systems, such as those adjacent to the Auburn Interceptor's proposed corridor. 4) Ped�lo�ic Conditions. All of the surface and near surface soils encountered along the Auburn Interceptor route are fine to medium textured alluvial soils, which have developed from the silt, sand, and clay flood plain deposits of the White and Green Rivers. According to the most recent (1971) Soil Con- servation Service Survey of King County, large areas of Oridia silt loam, Renton silt loam, and Briscot silt loam are crossed. Smaller areas of Woodinville silt loam, Pilchuck fine sandy loam, and Puget silty clay loam occur within the proposed cor- ridor. All of these soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained nearly level soils, typical of the major river valleys of the Puget Sound region. The Hta�ter table remains at or near ' one to two feet below the surface for much of the year in these soils. A1l are classified as Class II and Class III soils, , which co�stituta prfmsry agricultural soils. Oridia silt loam is a rather poorly drained, heavy, fine-grained soil . Under a thin 9 to 12 inch surface layer of dark gray brown silt loam; grayish brown, dark gray brown, and gray silt loam and silty clay loams form a deep subsoil . Mottles occur throughout the subsoil , indicating the poorly drained character of this soil type. Renton silt loam is a rather poorly drained alluvial soil with a thin 6 inch grayish brown silt loam surface layer and a mottled dark gray brown very fine sandy loam and fine sandy loam subsoil . The substratum is a deep mottled black sand. Permeability is � moderate through the surface layer and the subsoil , and very rapid in the substratum. Briscot silt loam is a poorly drained alluvial soil quite similar Oridia silt loam. Briscot soils have a dark grayish brown silt loam surface layer between 9 and 12 inches thick which grades I into a deep subsoil of mottled gray brown stratified fine sandy � loam, silt loam and fine sand. 74 Woodinville soils are rather poorly drained silty clay loam alluvial soils, highly mottled below 12 inches with iron stains, and containing layers of peaty material throughout the profile. The surface layer is grayish brown and highly organic. Sur- face drainage and subsoil drainage is poorly developed. Woodinville soils are subject to frequent overflow and ponding and maintain a high water table throughout the year. Pilchuck fine sandy loam soils are rather excessively drained recently deposited sandy alluvial soils. Their open porous sandy nature results from the lack of glacial flour in the river waters that flooded Pilchuck soil areas. They normally occupy the natural levees along streams or the higher undulations and hummocks in the valley bottoms. The typical profile exhibits a surface layer of 8 to TO inches of brownish-gray fine sandy loam which overlies deep deposits of grayish loamy fine sand or sand. Subject to overflow in the winter months where not protected by levees or flood control projects, they are droughty in the summer. Only a hundred feet of the proposed corridor crosses Pilchuck fine sandy loam soils. Puget silty clay loam soils consist of recently deposited very deep poorly drained fine textured alluvial soils. Formed under conditions of ponded or stagnated �drainage, they contain a great deal of glacial rock flour and fine glacial sediments. Many prominent mottles occur in the upper portion of the profile, 'which becomes very blue-gray below 30 to 35 inches. Low flat stream bottoms, shallow brackish backwater areas, and sloughs and deltas usually develop Puget soils. Drainage is very poor. Al1 of these surface and near surface soils (5' to 6' below the ground surface) possess inherently low load bearing capacities and shearing strengths. Extra construction costs or damage to buildings, roads, and public facilities sometimes results from development upon the soil types encountered along the proposed pipeline's route. The Woodinville and Puget soils, which sometimes flow like peat when wet and shrink when dry, are particularly poor foundation materials. All of these soil types are moderately important as aquifer recharge medium and participate in the aquifer recharge process of the Green River Valley, though their intake rates are relatively low. These intake rates, which express the interaction of infiltration and percolation rates, range from an average of about 0.3 to nearly 0.5 inches per hour. 5) Biologic Conditions. The proposed corridor of the Auburn Interceptor passes through plant communities and animal habitats typical of both urban areas and areas of remaining rural character. Within the rural areas, the typical vegetative cover along the proposed pipeline right-of-way consists of cultivated crops and pasture grasses. Occasional wetland areas contain various rushes, sedges, bulrushes and tules, grasses and herbaceous annuals and perennials. Most of the vegetation along the route is representative of an early successional plant community/ habitat type. 75 . _ � _ i i � i � Two portions of the propased route have davelaped established � plant corr�nunities and associated habitats af an expeciaily diverse and complex nature. The first lies ir�nediately south of the proposed point of connectian of the Aub�rn lnterceptor ' with the Kent Crass Valley Interceptor. A combination of fence o ion lines, drainage ditches, and wet soil canditions at this 1 cat , has prevented cultivatian of an area af appraximately twenty acres. Accordingly, plant succession has continued undistrubed and a srnall grove of Wiiiows, Indian-Plum, Western Cr�b- app�e, and Oregan Ash has established itself. This tocation � stradcllss the proposed right-of-way of 72nd Avenue South and caincidentally the proposed pipeline canstruction carridor. Many bird species have been observed in this area, and it is assumed that small mammals alsa utilize this plant community � as a habitat. � � The secand diverse and compiex piant community transected by � ' the propased interceptor route is the marsh and riparian area lacated south of South 277th Street and immediately west of the Qlympic Pipeline Company, Puget Power,and raiiroad rights- af-way, This natural perennial wetland has deve]aped from an old w troff river meander which extends thraugh the Puget l��wtr i right-of-way (formerly the Interurban Railroad right-of-way� to a trestle at the Chicaga, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific/ 1 Union Pacific Raitroad tracks. Field observations have noted I , a great variety and number of birds in this 2d acre maze of j ' thick brush, shrubs, �rees, and marshy vegetation. Figure 16 j lists the birds species abservad in this area in June and July, ]973, during a series of five one hour f�eld investi- gations. I� b. Existing Land Uses Land uses adjacent to the proposed interceptor route range from I rural ctassifications such as open iand, pasture tand, and cuitivated j fields (predaminantly corn}, to urban uses including residentiai � neighborhaods, industrial plants, automobile distribut'ron yards, and the Auburn Airport. As mentianed previously in the discussion af easements, the prapased route has been selected to coincide with public rights-or-way far streets and highways ta the fullest extent possible. Much af that portian of the interceptor construction corridor for which easements from private property owners will be obtained is contiguous with raiTroad, power tine and petraTeum product pipeline rights-of-way. As a resutt, the interceptor wiil either lie within or adjacent to estabiished transportation or utilities carridars. A visual survey of adjacent land uses daes not necessarily convey � their often tentative status. Almost ali of the proposed inter- ' ceptor's route lies within fihe incarporated limits of Kent and Auburn. These cities fiave zaned most of the land through which the interceptor will pass ta a11ow mnre intensiva uses than those now occurring. For example, the land in Kent through which the interceptor is proposed to pass is zoned to ailaw industria] use. Much af this land has been sold to investars and developers who are leasing the land to farmers until it is f�asible to 6egin industrial development. 76 Common �Wame Scientific Name Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Green Heron Bcitorides virescens Mal lard A�ias �platyr�i�nchos Shoveler Spatula alypeata American Coot Fulica aa+ericana Common Snipe Cape��a- ga�linago Ki 1 ldeer CharadriUs voci fer'us California Gull Larus caaifornicus Mourning Dove � Zenaidura macroura - Unknown Owl Comrtan Nigf�thawk C�ordei les r�inor Traill 's Flycatcf�er E�pidonax�traillii Western Flycatcher Empidonax di#ficilis Western Wood Pee Wee Contopus sordTduTus Violet-green Swallow Trachycineta ttialassina Tree Swallow Iridoprocne 6icolor Barn Swallow Riparia riparia Common Crow Corvus tiracFiyrFiynchos Black-capped Chickadee Rarus �atricapilTus Common Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Bewick's Wren Thryomanes tiewickii Robin Turdus mi�ratorius Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla ceclrorum Starling Sturnus vulgaris MacGillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei House Sparrow Passer domesticus Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus American Goldfinch Spi_nus tristis Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichenis Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia birds observed at the �ou�h 277 th street mars� and riparian grove . f�g. 16 In other locations, land owned by industrial firms has been with- held from intensive development due to industrial plants having been built on a portion of their large sites with the remainder reserved for future expansion. Large portions of the Green River ' Valiey within the sewerage area therefore appear to be commited to open space or agricultural uses when in reality they are commited to industrial uses. The neighborhoods in Kent near the proposed {nterceptor route can be considered in transition. These middle-class residential areas have been transformed into less appealing areas. The desirability of these neighborhoods as living areas has undoubtedly been in- fluenced by the nearby Valley Freeway _(S.R. 167) and its resultant visual and noise impacts. The only formal recreation facilities near or in contact with the construction corridor are the undeveloped Kent Park Department . trail system which utilizes the Puget Power right-of-way and the Green River Levee maintenance road as trail routes. These trail locations have not been improved with the exception of signs erected to mark their location. The Green River Levee is planned to eventually become a part of the Lower Green River Trail of the King County Urban Trails System. There are no other existing or planned parks or recreation areas in or near the construction cor- ridor. Of, informal recreation value is the opportunity afforded by the pond and riparian grove south of South 277th Street in King County. This area contains a rich diverse habitat character that attracts a variety of birds. Observation of birds at this location may be considered an informal recreation opportunity. There are no known registered historical sites within the con- struction corridor. The Puget Power right-of-way is, however, centered on what was once the road bed of the old Interurban Railroad which ran between Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett. At the above mentioned natural wetlands immediately south of South 277th Street, there are trestle remains of this old railroad line. 3- Interceptor Design and Construction Engineering for the Auburn Interceptor has not proceeded beyond investigations conducted by METRO's engineering consultants and reported upon in the "Preliminary Engineering Report, Auburn Interceptor, Green River Sewerage Area." Consequently, the de- tailed engineering design, including specifications, has not been undertaken and an exact description of the proposed project cannot be given or referenced. The following discussion, however, provides a generalized description of the assumed design and construction techniques to be followed in the Auburn Interceptor project, based on similar projects which have been undertaken by METRO. The most recent example of this type of project is the Northwest and North Lake Sammamish Interceptors, which have been under construction during the summer of 1973• 78 a. Construction Techniques and Specifications The project primarily involves the construction of a reinforced concrete pipe intercepting sewer to transport untreated sewage from the influent structure of the present Au6urn Lagoon to the existing Kent Cross Valley Interceptor. The pipeline will vary in diameter from 48 to 78 inches and will be installed wit� all necessary structures, manholes and appurtenances in order to function as a completely operable system. Des.ign and construction of the system will take into account site conditions characteristic of the Green River Valley that will 6e encountered throughout the length of the proposed pro- ject, namely unconsolidated alluvial soils and a high water table. Excavation and trenc�ing will be undertaken to such depths as to allow for proper pipe bedding, given the specific soil conditions that will be encountered. All excavations will be accomplis�ed only after adequate dewatering measures have been undertaken. , When a contract for construction of a project such as the proposed interceptor sewer is awarded, the intent of such a contract is to allow the contractor flexibility to choose his own methods or construction within specific parameters given in the contract plans and specifications. The intended improve- ments are fully described in these plans and specifications antl the contractor is required to construct these improvements in accordance with generally acceptable methods, except where special conditions are anticipated which require more specific guidelines. In this instance, more detailed requirements are spelled out in the plans and specifications. The following is� a brief itemized description of specification re uirements from the Lake Sartmamish q Interceptors pro�ect which can be considered applicable to the Auburn Interceptor project as well . 1 ) Control of Water: The contractor must furnish all necessary equipment to keep excavations free from water during con- struction. He is obligated to dewater and dispose of the water so as not to cause injury to public or private property or to cause a nuisance or a menace to the public. Before dewatering is started , the contractor must obtain acceptance by METRO's resident engineer on the project for the method, installation and details of the dewatering system he pro- poses to use. Based on previous similar construction projects, it can be expected that de�atering will be accomplished by drilling wells at approximately 100 foot intervals adjacent to t�e section of pipeline awaiting construction. Thirty inch steel casings are sunk at each well to t�n feet below the anticipated depth of the pipeline and then cleaned out, 79 allawing water to rise within the casing. Depending upan the particular graund water condition encauntered, the weils may be pumped by cannecting them to a pump. tf the wetis are pumped, the graund waterievei is putled to betaw the proposed pipe} ine invert etevation. The resuiting water is discharged to nearby existing drainage ditches ar . water courses. The contractor must obtai� all permits and must abtain permission to use existing drainage ditches in order ta i dispose of water during the dewatering operation. Ne is i responsible far all quality cantrols in the disposai of iwater from trenches. i Wetiand areas shoutd generaily be unaffected by the can- , i str�ction process. The contruction period wiil be ampie, � allowing the cantractor to schedule construction during �ii � the summer when most wet areas will have dried up. Annua} i � � wetland areas, such as the relict river meander south of ' �i i ii South 277th 5treet, wiil be impacted, however, if the present �, ii route selected in the preliminary engineering report remains the preferred route. li 2} Remavai of Obstructians: The contractor is instructed to , i remove aii brush, trees, lags, stumps, roats, heavy sad, �i � heavy growth of grass, a11 decayed vegetable matter, �i � fences and structures where the proper completion of the �i �i contruction wark requires their remaval . The remoued , ii matariai must be disposed of in a manner acceptabie to ', i ME7R0's resident engineer. � � 3} Excavation; The contractor is allowed to use any i � method of excavation within the work timits which he � cansiders best. At tacatians where the excavation l� extends belaw static ground water ievel , the contractor is required to take whatever precautions are necessary � to maintain the natural soiis at the bottom af the ` excavation. � At locations where the undisturbed natural soils below the specified depths to be excavated are cansidered by METRO's resident engineer to be inadequate to support the planned structure or pipeline, the contractar will be directed to overexcavata until adequate supporting soils are reached and to refill the excavated space to tha proper elevatian. � 7he contractor must provide and install sheet pi } ing, shoring, sheeting, bracing, lagging, ar other supports where they are necessary to maintain the required excavation or trench section. The contractor must provide and maintain adequate controt af dust during att phases of the work. He is held solely 80 responsible for any damage to crops in the vicinity of the project. 4) Concrete Structures: The contractor is held responsible for the strength and quality of all plain and reinforced structural concrete elements that he builds in the project, with the exception of the 72" to 78" sewers. METRO retains prime responsibility for these structures. METRO independently tests the strength and quality of the concrete being placed in the project, but the responsibility for conformance with the specification's requirements is solely that of the contractor. All forms and reinforce- ment must be approved by METRO's resident engineer prior to placing the concrete. 5) Pipelines: The reinforced concrete sewer pipe used in this type of project is typically of the tongue and groove type with rubber gasket joints. The joints are designed so that the spigot and gasket of one pipe enter the bell or sleeve of the next pipe, compressing the gasket to form a water- tight seal . The gasket is confined in a groove on the spigot so that movement of the pipe or hydrostatic pressure cannot displace the pipe. Prior to laying the pipe appropriate bedding materials are placed. These consist of either a gravel-sand mixture or concrete. The pipe �laying then proceeds upgrade with the spigot ends pointing in the direction of flow. 6) Backfill : A variety of backfill materials and varying degrees of compaction will be utilized throughout the length of the project, depending upon the proposed surface uses or land uses encountered. The materials include a clean gravel-sand mixture; a select granular mater- ial consisting of imported quarry waste, clean natural sand or gravel , select trench excavation, or a mixture of all three; unclassified material free from extraneous material and obtained from excavation or any other source� ' pea gravel ; and crushed rock of varying gradations. All backfill materials must be approved by METRO's resident engi- neer prior to placement. The contractor must place the backfill in two stages. The initial backfill is placed around the pipe after it has been properly laid and inspected. This initial backfill is carried to a depth of 12" above the pipe and compacted. Subsequent backfill is then placed and compacted to the desired finished levels. All excess excavated material remaining after the backfill operation is complete must be disposed of by the con- tractor in a manner acceptable to the inspecting engineer. 7) Acceptance Tests: All completed pipelines are tested for obstructions and leakage. The testing program is mutually determined by METRO's resident engineer and the contractor so as to fit the construction conditions. 81 Each section of pipeline is tested for leakage by closing the lower end of the pipe and the inlet pipe of the upper manhole with stoppers and filling the pipe and manhole with water to a point six feet above the crown of the open pipe in the upper manhole. If ground water is present, the manhole is filled to six feet above the pipeline section's average adjacent ground water level . Testing occurs in this manner for at least six hours while the specified head is maintained by measured additions of water. The allowable leakage must not exceed 0.5 gallons per hour per inch of diameter per 100 feet of pipe being tested. For pipes 48 inches in diameter and larger (all of the proposed project's pipe will be of this size) the contractor must test each indi- vidual pipe joint for leakage with acceptable portable bulkheads or special testing apparatus. � 8) Crossings: The proposed interceptor will cross several streets and roads, SR 167, two railroad rights-of-way and the Green River as noted previously. The street, highway and railroad crossings will be made by jacking, tunneling, or augering the pipe under these improvements. The disruption to transportation systems will be minimal or non-existent. J�cking is generally accomplished by mechanically forcing the pipe section through the soil from an excavated pit. The reinforced concrete sewer pipe may be jacked directly or placed within a steel casing which is used instead for the jacking operation. The leading edge of the jacked pipe may be fitted with a cutting head. Nipples may be introduced for lubricating the outside of the pipe with a Bentonite slurry or other suitable lubricant. The jacking operation may be assisted by using an augering device or by tunneling in advance of placing the pipe. As with all other aspects of the construction process, the contractor is allowed to select the construction methods he prefers providing he receives approval from METRO's resident engineer. The rules of the Division of Safety of the State Department of Labor and Industries with respect to excavation and construction must be strictly observed. The Green River crossing will be accomplished by construct- ing a three-barrel inverted siphon. This structure reduces the single 78 inch diameter pipeline to three smaller diameter pipes which then pass down the channel embankments and beneath the river bottom in an excavated trench. Bedding and backfill in this trench is made up of materials similar to those described previously for the pipeline except that quarry spalls (2 to 8 inch rock weighing at least 150 pounds per cubic foot) are placed over the initial backfill on the river bottom and a filter blanket (select granular material passing a specified seive analysis) 82 overlaid by quarry spalls will cover the initial backfill on the river embankments. 9) Restoration: The contractor is required to rebuild any structures that have been removed during the construction and repair any which have been damaged. Curbs, gutters, driveways, sidewalks, and the surfaces of roads and streets must be reconstructed or repaired to their original condition if they are damaged or otherwise affected by the contractor's operations. All cultivated areas, residential yards, or other surface improvements which are damaged by the construction process must be restored as nearly as possible to their original condition or as required by the terms of the applicable easements or permits. . All waterways, channels, drainage ditches, and similar facilities which are damaged by actions of the contractor must be restored to their original location and condition. All water courses will be maintained as continuously serviceable facilities during the interceptor's construction. Where necessary, this may require the temporary realignment of water courses by the contractor. During the course of the construction the contractor must not allow the site to become littered with trash and waste ' material . On completion of the project, all chambers and conduits must be cleaned out and all temporary structures must be torn down and removed. All wells installed and other pits are typically filled with suitable material and their surfaces restored to original conditions. 10) Typical Cross Sections: Typical cross sections of the completed pipeline are indicated in Figure .l7• 4. Construction Permits, Reviews, and Approvals. Construction of the proposed project will be monitored at two levels. The first level involves the inspection, testing, arid approval of the contractor's work by representatives of METRO. The second level of monitoring is that performed by all of the agencies, including the railroads, which have jurisdiction over some portion of the contruction corridor or some aspect of the construction progress. a. Inspection by METRO Once a contract (or contracts� has been awarded for construc- tion of the Auburn Interceptor, a resident engineer and contruction inspectors (more than one if required) will be assigned to the project by METRO probably on a full-time basis. The responsibilities of the resident engineer and the inspectors are generally to assure that the construc- tion methods and the finished product conform to METRO's 83 CRUSNEO SL/RFAC/NG, WNERE ROAp NESTORAT/ON REQU/REO, SHALL BE T1'PE SEE TyP/CAL SECT/ON N MATEA/AL ..^....,�•i.,, � -� �. �.+{ .;_�j � �.��.�,.,,..�._. - � 1� •`•�� {�', � � UNLESS OTNERW/SE NOTED �-SC/BSEQ[�ENT BACKF/LL SNALL � BE CLASS II/N PAVEO AREAS, CLASS YI /N UNPAVED ROAO OR S/DE SLOPEs ro BE DR/VEWAY AREAS AND CLASSS OETERM/NED BY EL SEWHERE. CONTRAG'TD Fi � F1 _ � ( „ /N/T/AG BVIC/fF/LL SNALL BE /N/7/.9L BACKF/LL i2 --'� CLASS SIL -UNLESS OTHERW/SE SHAL L BE CL ASS SCIZ —J1 � ;' �P NOTE� . � � MiN BEDD/NG SHfILL BE � � , .-�i ` 7YPE A MATEI7/NL � ------- - WNERE NOTEO ON / 1� ' � /ZO�/OO�PS/ CONC. 6ED0/A/G THE PROF/LE --� � �--��I,� llNLESS c7TNER�N/SE NOTEO 1--� �,•. ' — �/ /// �//�i H, OEPTt{ OF EXCAVAT/ON BELOW � / / BE��/NG�� AS SHOWN ON PROF/LE. I- CLNSS Y BAC/fF/LL EXCEPT TYPC �0 �2 aMiN I M MATER/AL SHALL 8E (/dE� ---�-- ---- -�••� TYPICAL UNRESTRICTED TRENCH SECTION TOP OF SLOPES � CRUSNED SURFAC/N6, WHERE I TO BE W/TH/N �REQIJ/RED, SHALL QE TYPE �q��y, N MATERAL � va aiEs '3 \ ROAD RESTORAT/O�l! 1\ �I \ p,� . SEE TYP. SEGT�ON � , � _ � �. .. I „�.,,,w• r. ._,ti.�:-_ � � .._.:.>i.;..�'.;:'� ...,�. � ` I JG"tll � 4� _i =iu�=�l uNLE55 OTHERw/SE NOTEO ��ICi7�_i�r- ;- � _,ii�i�n�� SUBSEQUENT BACKF/LL � _�_��_��~�'- SNALL BE CLASS II EXCEPT a�T�='��- TRENCN EXCAVATED MqTER/AL i u-d�_ui �ir-�ii-�l-�i.r- MAY BE USEO. 6� OC P rVHERE _��'��1�' A f►PL/CA B L E—� =1ii i;T�ii�" S/DE SLOPES ��Dl7 - ' � TRENCH SUPPORTS �'!i='fti�' n�-�2.=n� TO dE OETERM/NED :��K+�� CY CONTRACTOR �� ' it�� 1 1 =S' - --+--- --- ry' /N/T/AL BACKF/L L SHq L L ��_ i/2.�iN. I�BE CGASS � , . r " ;� ':a ' �^ :.". � /20-/000 PS/ CO/VGRETE � � �.•o� �'__J2 .BEOD/NG UNLESS OTHEIaW/SE � •.��•' , '�IF ------ -�NOTEO. �.f . � SEMI- CONFINED TRENCH SECTION typical cross sections fig. l� .�� plans and specifications. The specific responsibilities of the resident engineer are to: ' -Maintain a 1og of construction progress and reports on a daily basis. -Coardinate all survey wc>rk, inspection and "ather" inspection (ather inspectian includes inspection work cantracted ta outside firms) . -Be responsible for the scheduling and quality of con- struction in the field. -Work closety with the project engineer to insure pro- per canstruction techniques and procedures. ,' -Assure that the plans and specificatians are faliowed during canstruction. The specific responsibilities of the METRO inspectors are to: I -Work directl with and und y er the resident engineer. -Report fio the resident engineer anything not built in accardance with the pians and specifications. -Repart inunediately ta the cantractor anything not contructed � in accordance with the plans and specifications. I I -Maintain a daiiy record of canstruction. � The foilowing is a iist of the various inspections and contruction tests to be performed during the contrucfiian of the propased action by the METRO inspectors: -Trench backfill compaction tes�s. -Concrete cylinder tests when cancrete bedding is required (usually contracted ta Pittsburgh Testing Lab} . -lnspection of concrete pipe constructian at the manufactUrer`S � plant (there is a full time plant inspector assigned ta the plant during pipe manufacturing). -Jaint tests for exfiltration. -Inspection of construction area site restoratian. This usually involves a finished grading of the ground surfaces � and seeding as required. I -A final inspection af the overall pipe installation and site restoration. 85 I b. Outside Agency Permits, Review, and Approval . Monitoring of the project by other agencies is generally accomplished by issuance of permits which include conditions , that, in some way, regulate the work to be performed. Permit applications may be undertaken by METRO directly or by the , contractor depending on individual agency requirements. The following is a brief description of the project monitoring ' and approval process of each agency which is expected to be I concerned with the proposed project. 1) City of Kent: A permit must be obtained for use of public rights-of-way within the city. Conditions for approval promulgated by this permit relate to the proper maintenance of traffic movement and all detours and control of dust during construction. The permit is similar to that issued by the King County Department of Public Works. There are no conditions which relate to controls for dewatering contruction trenches. A city representative has indicated that there are very few storm drains located in the proposed sewer route. The city will conduct random inspections of the construction with ' specific concerns related to roadway crossings and constructibn within public rights-of-way. The Green River crossing of the interceptor will occur within the Kent corporate limits and therefore METRO must obtain a Shoreline Management Substantial Develop- ment Permit from Kent pursuant to the State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 . This permit requires a review of the proposed interceptor crossing by the city to determine if it is consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and Kent's Master Program for shorelines which is currently being formulated. The permit will be issued only after a public hearing has been held on the matter. The State Department of Ecology and the State Attorney General 's office must review issuance of the permit, particularly since shorelines of the Green River have been designated to be of statewide significance. 2) City of Auburn: An excavation permit must be obtained for all excavation operations such as sewer line install- ation within the city. Additionally, the city will in- spect all road crossings with special attention being given to the compaction of the trench backfill . All locations where trenching crosses existing water lines will also be inspected. 3) King County: Since the entire length of the Auburn Interceptor is within a State Flood Control Zone, METRO will be required to obtain a State Flood Control Permit. 86 This permit is obtained from the State Department of Ecology but is processed locally by the Hydraulics Division of the King County Department of Public Works. Issuance of the permit will be predicated upon specifying proper procedures for constructin� the Green River crossing and crossings at drainage channels. A King County inspector will periodically review the river crossing construction operations. Compliance with the following basic requirements will be investigated: 1) that a minimum of thiry inches clearance is allowed for under the Green River channel , 2) that there is a minimum of eighteen inches of cover on the river banks, and 3) that there is bank stabilization rip rap installed with a minimum two to one slope for fifteen feet upstream and downstream of any disturbed area. A portion of the proposed interceptor right-of-way occurs within the boundaries of King County Drainage District #1. No permit is required, but the District will wish to review crossings of existing drainage ditches and the ditch restoration procedures. 4) State Department of Ecology: By state law (RCW 90.48. 110) � the Department of Ecology must review and approve all construction plans, specifications, and design calculations of sanitary sewer projects prior to construction. This . review involves a technical review of the design plans and specifications, a technical review of the design's adherence to state design standards, and a general review of sanitary sewer area-wide management plans and programs. The project's adherence to state implementation schedules and enforcement plans, as well as the justification of need for the specific sewer line installation is also reviewed. As part of the construction grant funding contract, the Department of Ecology will make routine construction inspections of the project. These inspections are specifi- cally concerned with erosion control , the contamination of ground water by the dewatering process, and the contamination of streams, rivers, and ditches by oils and grease from construction equipment. The possible pollution of streams and rivers by the water discharged during the testing of the pipeline is also a concern of these inspections. The Department of Ecology has the authority by state law (RCW 90.48) to fine and/or shut down a con- tractor' s operation for violating state water quality laws. 5) State Departments of Fisheries and Game: METRO must ob- tain a hydraulics permit from the Departments of Fisheries and Game prior to construction. The Departments will 87 issue a hydra�lics permit fo}lowing a review af the design for the portion of the sewer to be constructed acrass the Green River {and any other rivers and streams along the route) and a review of the construction techni- ques to be used by the contractor (specificatly related to any excavation within the river banks and the construc- tion of coffer-dams) . The hydraulics permit inciudes two basic sections: i} gen- erai and technical provisions applicahle to any construc- tian affecting State waters and 2} special provisians can- taining conditions promulgated by the permit relating to the specific sewer line construction. One of the condi- tions of the permit is a time limitation on construction within or upon river banks. Usually construction is limited to the period between June 1 and September 1 . The Depart- ments are primariiy concerned with siltation, water qua- iit�, river spawning conditians} and the maintenance of pipelines. The Departments conduct random I�S�@CttOhS af the constructian site and have the authority to issue fines and, #f necessary, to shut down a contractor's operation which is vialating the conditians of the hydraul 'res permit. 6) ' State Department of Natural Resources: Permits from this II department will nat be required. METRO must, however, • obtain an easement fram the Department of Naturai Resources in order to cross the Green River or any other stream transected by the proposed route. They do nat cancern thems�lves with construction methods ar aperations, but they do make an inspection of the easement area fotlowing constructian ta ensure proper restoration by the contractor. 7) State Highway Department. Within the corporate limits of I within count lands the issuance of cities and towns and y , , ; perm+ts for crossing most state highways is a responsibi �Ety af the lacat agencies. Limited access state highways I; are an exception, hawever, for all permits to crass thes� facilities are issued by state highway districts. There- fore, M�TRO must obtain a permit for crossing 5tate Raute ' 167 directly from the responsible district. METRO must fill aut a permit farm and submit construction drawings I and specifications for review and approval by the district. Based on this review and approvat , the State wi11 issue a permit ta crass the right-of-way, including their con- ditians for canstructian. These conditions include re- II quirements for trench backfil ] compaction, site restora- I tio�, maintenance af traffic flow, and safety standards, '� The State will , at random, send an inspectar to the site I of the crossing during canstruction ta assure fihat the � construction and restoration procedures conform ta the con- ditions of the permit. 8$ 8) Puget Sound Air Poilution Control Agency. The contractor for the project must file a "Notice of Construction and Application for Approval" prior to beginning construction. The Agency requires of all applicants that "effective control apparatus and measures shall be installed and operated to restrict odor-bearing gases or particulate matter emitted into the atmosphere to a reasonable mini- mum." Agency regulations further state that "it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or permit particulate matter to be handled, transported, or stored without taking reasonable precautions to prevent the particulate matter from becoming airborne." The Agency has developed guide- lines for dust control which it makes available to appli- cants. 9) The Miiwaukee Road. The tracks extending along the pro� posed interceptor route are jointly owned by the Chicago Milwaukee, St. Paul , and Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroads. The Milwaukee Road, however, handles all , maintenance, administration and permits. METRO must reach an agreement with the railroad company regarding the installation of pipes under existing railroad tracks. METRO must also acquire an easement for any portion of the pipeline which extends onto railroad property. The , � railroad will enter into agreements or grant easements ' only after they have reviewed all construction plans, specifications, and design considerations, and prepared ',I a list of conditions for construction and maintenance I of the METRO pipeline. The railroad will inspect the ' construction procedures, primarily concerned with potential problems relating to their existing communication utilities. � 8g i � I1 . THE ENVIRONMEN7A� IMPACT OF THE PROPO5E0 ACTION , A. INTRODUCTION The proposed action will result in adverse and beneficiai enviran- mental impacts directiy related ta the proposed action and potential irttpacts related to the stimulation of urban growth and devetopmant within tE�e Grean River Sewerage Area. The impacts resulting fran the Auburn lnterceptor, by itself, will primarily affect the inter- , ceptor's corridor and the water qualtty of the Green and Duwamish Rivers. The patential secondary impacts of urban growth will accur if local governmental bodies choose to encourage urban growth in presently undeveloped areas and to intensify existing land uses. '� The physicat eacistence af the Auburn Interceptar does nat, in itself, � ! create urban devetopment; but it does allow urban develapment, partic- , uiarly development dependent upan public sewerage facilities, to accur if the locai governmentai bodies with existing land use control ' powers determine that such land uses are appropriate. ' B. IMPAC7S DIRECTLY RELA7ED TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 1 . Natural Systems , ' A. Atmaspheric Conciitions �' Atm�spheric conditions should not be significantly impacted by the cc+nstruction of the Auburn Interceptor. Dust created during ali phases of the project should be adequately con- trolled by the contractor and "ss nat likely to become a I nuisance. The aperatian af heavy equipment within the ' proposed interceptor right-of-way and the utilizatian af a , large fleet af trucks transporting pipe, spoi � rr�aterial , and imparted backfill material , if required, to and from the Interceptar �-ight-of-way will affect air quality to a slight degree. Air quality impacts can be expected to be maderate, depending upon microclimatolagical conditions, tfi e equipment involved, and the type of fuei used. Off-site air quality impacts wili occur, but they will be ' relatively unimportant when viewed within the context of the regional air pollution prablem. Air pollutian by dust and particulate matter is a com�non accurrence at concrete pipe manufacturing and fabrication plants, which may be located far from the project site. Noise impacts created by canstructian af the Auburn lnter- � ceptar will be significant in and adjacent ta the construction site. Such impacts will be temporary in nature, however, I affecting the nearby areas for anly short periods of time. I Air compressar noise and naise, created by jackhammers, where utilized, will be most noticeable. Jacking pit and j tunnel locations will be opened for four ta six week periods I of time, during which crane, truck, and air compressor noises � 90 will be emitted during the daytime. Noise emitted at night will be minimal , involving only the possible noise associated with the operation of pump motors. At all times, the con- tractor will be required to abide by the applicable local noise control ordinances. b. Geologic and Pedologic Conditions The construction of the proposed pipeline will require excavation ranging from fifteen feet to twenty-five feet betow the ground surface, with a mean of approximately twenty feet. This will entail the removal of the exist- ing surface soils and underlying alluvial deposits. The �I excavated trench material will generally be suitable for backfill on unimproved land depending upon easement agree- ments and the surface uses. Occasionally, this material cannot be utilized as backfill and imported material will be used. Any excavated material requiring temporary stor- age will be stockpiled under controlled conditions within , the construction right-of-way at sites carefully selected '� by the METRO resident engineer, until used as backfill ! material . Waste materiat , including brush, trees , fences , and other surface features to be removed, will be transported to 'landfill disposal sites. No burning of cleared material will occur. Sod, asphalt, and pavement rubble will normal- ly be disposed of in the same manner. The contractor may ! wish to sell some of this material as fill , in which case �', METRO may allow the disposal of this material to occur in ' designated sites. Excess trench material and spoils not �,i utilized as backfitl will be disposed of in a manner accep- I table to the METRO resident engineer. Often this material is spread along the right-of-way and compacted. The entire construction process will insure that a minimum amount of siltation, sedimentation, and other possible adverse water quality impacts created by the excavation, pipe implacement, and backfill operations, will occur. Soil erosion, if any, and its associated adverse water quality effects will be negligible. � The surface soils encountered within the proposed corridor are potentially productive Class II and Class III soils. These soils , which are classified by the U.S. Soil Conser- vation Service as primary agricultural soils with only occasional or slight limitations for the sustained produc- tion of commonly cultivated crops , are a finite regional resource. Due to the proposed right-of-way location, only a very limited amount of currently productive soil may be I sacrificed. METRO policies do not preclude crop production upon their rights-of-way. 91 c. Hydrologic Conditions Construction and operation of the Auburn Interceptor will � terminate the operation of the existing Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant, thereby eliminating an existing and poten- tiat source of pollutants of the Green River. The efflu- ent from this plant is suspected of creating conditions in the Green River which do not meet existing water quality standards during extreme low flow periods. Interception of the Auburn sanitary wastes to METRO's treat- ment plant at Renton will lower the BOD loads upon the Green and Duwamish Rivers between Auburn and Renton by eliminating a present source of nutrients. Dissolved oxy- gen depressions may occur less frequently. The clarity and general aesthetic appearance of the Lower Green River is also likely to improve. The Renton Sewage Treatment Plant provides secondary treat- ment utilizing an activated sludge process. Its effluent is discharged into the Duwamish River. Placed in operation in June, 1965, initial flows to the Renton plant averaged 6.0 mgd and have increased steadily since that time. The average flow during the months of Novem- 4 m d. The rou h A ril 1 1 for exam le was 28. 5 , ber th , 97 , P � 9 9 P �design average flow was 24.0 mgd at that time. Plant per- formance was, however, maintained at a consistently high level with BOD and suspended solids removals exceeding 90 percent. In order to provide adequate treatment during peak flow periods, and because of growth within the Renton plant's tributary area and the expansion of the tributary area, a major enlargement of the plant became necessary. This '� enlargement was just completed, and the Renton plant is now quite capable of adequately treating the existing and � projected waste loads of the Green River Sewerage Area. I The design capacity of the present Renton secondary treat- ment system is 36.0 mgd. Treatment efficiencies for loadings which do not exceed this capacity are 96 percent for BOD and 95 percent for suspended solids. The treatment efficiencies of the present Auburn Lagoon, as noted earlier, reduce BOD and suspended solids by approximately 80 percent. The reliability of the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant is higher than the reliability inherent to lagoon treatment systems, though the City of Auburn deserves recognition for the excellent reliability record of their operation of the Auburn Lagoon. The Renton Sewage Treatment Plant is designed to facilitate further expansion and/or the incor- poration of advanced treatment facilities, if required ' to meet the goals of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. 92 By terminating the operation of the existing Auburn Sewage Treatment System, the proposed action provides the oppor- tunity for existing point sources of pollution within the Auburn areato hook into the Renton division of the METRO wastewater collection and treatment system. The overall quality of t�e Lower Green and Duwamish Rivers is likely to improve due to the higher degree of treatment provided by the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. When point sources, such as the Auburn Packing Plant, join the METRO or City of Auburn's system, the quality of the Lower Green River ' woutd certainly increase. Bacterial loads, in particular, would be decreased substantially. Studies undertaken by METRO's River Basin Coordinating Committee (RIBCO) , utilizing mathematical models , have simulated the expected water quality impacts which would result if the proposed action were implemented. This simu- lation assumes that the waste loadings from land uses will correspond to the Puget Sound Governmental Conference's Interim Regional Development Plan land use projections, that the Auburn Packing Plant will connect to the METRO Sewer System, that the existing 71 mgd diversion of water to Tacoma from the upper Green River will continue, that the Howard Hanson Reservoir levels will be managed care- � fully, and that no changes in water use will occur. This study found that no major water uses would suffer from unacceptable water quality in the year 2000 during a cri- , ticat 1-irr10 year low flow year in the Green River upstream of Renton. In general , the study results shaw that the quality of the Green River would be improved if the wastes from the Au- burn Packing Plant and the Auburn Lagoon were eliminated. The quality of Big Soos Creek and the Black River would decline, however, due to the increased coliform bacteria and nutrient loads in runoff associated with urban develop- ment. The results of the RIBCO analysis , based upon the above assumptions, show that a net increase in wastes dis- charged in the Green River Drainage Basin would occur, but a net improvement in the quality of the Green River would also result. Because the expected urban-runoff wastes will be diluted by the highere streamflows associated with rain- storms in urban areas, these wastes will be transported to the Duwamish Estuary quickly. Wastes will remain in the Green River for only limited amounts of time, according to the preliminary results of the RIBCO analysis. These preliminary results suggest that an increased impact on the quality of the Duwamish Estuary �ould occur as a result of waste loads expected in the year 2000. The wastes from the Green/Duwamish Basin may accumulate and interact in the slow-flushing estuary to a much greater degree than today's smaller steady flow of wastes into 93 the estuary build up and interact. The wastes would also be subjected to a shorter period of treatment by the natural processed of the Green/Duwamish River before reaching the estuary because of the fiaster-flowing rainfall and urban runoff fed river expected in the year 2000. By itself, the proposed action's impact upon the water quality of the Duwamish Estuary may be insignificant, due to the small amounts of wastes treated by the Auburn Lagoon relative to the total wastes treatad by the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. The Renton effluent, whicfi is discharged into the Duwamish River, together with the discharge from Seattle's remaining combined sewers dis- charging into the Duwamish River, may overshadow the effects of upstream discharges into the Green River, as far as estuary water quality is concerned. Every discfiarge, however, must be viewed with regard to its cumulative ef�ect upon the estuary's water quality. Due to th� lower quality treatment provided by such upstream treat- ment facilities as the Auburn Lagoon, (relative to the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant) even small upstream dis- charges may be a factor contributing to upset conditions in tfie estuary. Some METRO biologists and water quality . planners continue to believe, however, that if an updated Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant remained in operation in the year 2000, serving much of the Green River Sewerage Area, its impact upon the estuary would probably be slight. , Questions regarding the effects of upstream actions and resulting changes within the Duwamish E�tuary will be , answered during the coming months as the RIBCO Study perfects its computerized estuary model . Until then, the previous comments regarding the effects of the proposed action and those ofi future urban develapment within th� ' Green River Sewerage Area upon the Duwamish Estuary must be considered speculative. Further analysis of water quality changes within the lower Green River will be made, � utilizing additional and/or revised data. As METRO c�n- tinues its studies of water quality., Water Resources Management, Land Use Allocation, and Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage, Solid Waste Management, and their collec- � tive effects on water quality, much of the data already produced by the computer simulation models may be revised. Water quantity impacts of the proposed action should not be � significant. The existing Auburn Lagoon typically releases 1 .5 to 2.5 million gallons of treated effluent per day into the Green River. Because a portion of the Auburn Sewage Collection System is still combined, and because much of the existing Auburn Sewerage System consists of old and cracked pipes, allowing large quantities of infiltrate to enter the system, storm water affects the amount of waste- 94 water reaching the Auburn Lagoon. During wet conditions the lagoon occasionally discharges 5.0 - 10.0 mgd into the Green River. The diversion of this flow into the • Duwamish River via the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant is not likely to aggravate critical low flow conditions of the Green River because the quantity of wastes discharged by the Auburn Lagoon is quite small in relation to the Green River's most critical low flows. The lowerst flows that typically occur at Auburn, for example, average 150 to 180 cubic feet per second (cfs) , while the largest volumes ' of treated effluent discharged by the Auburn Lagoon during periods of steady heavy rainfall approach 17 cfs. Since low river flows never occur during a period of maximum discharge from the Auburn Lagoon, the proportion of the river flow supplemented by the Aubun Lagoon is quite insignificant. Usually when Green River flows reach critical levels (150 cfs) , the Auburn Lagoon is discharging only 3-4 cfs. When lagoon discharges are greatest (17 cfs) , the Green River normally contains flows of 1000 to 9000 cfs. The probability of the cessation of the Auburn Sewage System's discharge into the Green River adversely affecting low flow conditions in the river is further lessened by the fact that low flow augmentation procedures at Howard Hanson Dam may be able to alleviate any low flow problems possibly created. The proposed separation of storm and sanitary sewers in Auburn will also replace much of the discharge to the Green River lost by connecting the Auburn sewage collection system to the regional system, because the storm discharges will then be rerouted and will continue to flow into the Green River. Impacts of the proposed action upon groundwater quantity and quality are also expected to be minimal . Infiltration into the Auburn Interceptor through cracks and breaks in the pipes and defective pipe joints , connections, and manhole walls should not be excessive. Because the pipeline will � be constructed of rubber gasketed reinforced concrete pipe, ' the Auburn Interceptor should remain practically watertight for at least twenty years. As it ages, however, the con- crete may become somewhat porous. Cracks , primarily due to earthquakes, may also develop allowing some direct infil- tration. Though every effort to minimize infiltration will be undertaken, and relatively little, if any, infil- tration will occur, between 175,000 to 250,000 galtons of infiltrate is likely to enter the Auburn Interceptor daily after the pipe has deteriorated. This will probably not occur for twenty to fifty years after the Auburn Inter- ceptor is placed in service. These quantities of infil- trate fall below allowable limits on infiltration set by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Washington. Utilizing State standards , over 360,000 gallons of infiltrate could leak into the Auburn Interceptor per ' day. 95 � l When the proposed Green River Sewerage System is totalty developed, infiltratian could equal thirty to sixty mil- lions of gallans per day. The modern canstructian methods to be utilized by METRO during the propased actio�s construction and the constructian af the sewerage area's system �ake such large amounts nf infi }tratian unlikety, Nowever, because the greatest quantities of infiltrate enter sewer systems thraugh small collectar and lateral sewers, up to forty percent of the wastewater flowing through the � Auburn Interceptor may ultimately consist of infiltrate. II lnfiltratian within the sewerage area wilt be affected by recent Enviranmental Protectian Agency regulations, and II could be cansiderably lass than the amounts shown above if efforts to cantrol excess infiltrationlinflow are under- taken. Section 201 �g) (3} Q� the Federal Water Pollutian � Contral Act Amendments of 1972 has pravided the impetus � for such efforts by requiring that no construction gr�nts � for waste treatment works after July 1 , 1973 Will be given unless the applicant satisfactorily demonstrates that the sewer coilectian system discharging into the works is not II subject to excessive infiltrationlinflow. The emphasis on infiltrationlinflow occurs because it is often cheaper to rehabilitate a sewer system than to increase a treatment , ( works' capacity to provide the required wastewater treatrnent � for large quantities af infiltration/inflow, The City of ' Auburn, for example, has proposed to undertake a costly I� storm and sanitary sewer separation program to reduce starm ' water inflow to the Auburn sanitary system and METRO System I if the Auburn interceptor is constructed. The Auburn Lagoon, after retirement and disinfectian, roay be utilized as a starm water retentian facility serving the resuitant Auburn storm sewer system. Programs such as this, influenced by the E.P.A. regulations which emphasize the rehabilitatian of ald deteriorated sewers, are lik�ly to reduce thc i�pacts � upon the groundwater resources of the Green River Sewerage Area. II Occasionally, because af the granutar nature of trench � backfill , covered sewer trenches may, themselves, act as large subsurface drains. Due to physical phenomena, under ' saturated conditions and sufficient head, water held in _, fine-textured soils may flow into the porous coarse-textur�d trenches and then, by gravity, flow along fihe pipeline route, passibly draining the fine-textured soils. This is not tikely ta accur as a resuTt af the proposed action, however, because of the fine-grained material excavated from the trench will be uti } ized as backfill periodically, Preventing flaw along the trench. i Most wells within the vicinity of the Auburn Interceptor's route are currently used ta pravide water for livestock and irrigation in areas undergoing a transition from agri- I cultural to industrial land uses , and therefare, can be I viewed as only temporary facilities. Because of the mod- � 96 �� I i . � erate depth of most wells near the proposed pipeline cor- ` ridor and the rel�tively shallow excavation required by the proposed action, impacts upon groundwater levels are not tikely. Dewatering of the soil along the proposed route will be necessary. Past experiences indicate, however, that the lowering of groundwater levels will be a temporary condition and the groundwater will assume its normal level upon the cessation of dewatering. The water removed will be dis- charged under controlled conditions into the existing nearby drainage canals and is not expected to create any significant environmental impact. Pumping, for example, will be stopped, if at any time the water removed contains soil particles. The water resulting from the dewatering process will be retained in a settling basin whenever it is to be discharged into the Green River or drainage canals utilized as spawning channels. Officials of the Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game will supervise such disposal activities. Al1 discharge into drainage canals will be diffused and directed through an outfall pipe. No soil erosion or bank erosion is expected within the open drainage channels. Groundwater quality should not be affected by the construction � or operation of the proposed sewer. Though inspection and testing procedures will almost assuredly prevent the occur- rence of any exfiltrate, the possibility of exfiltration occurring exists , however, if sufficient head is created by the development of the upstream sewerage system. Much greater pressures could then exist within the pipe than outside, forcing raw sewage out through cracks and pipe joints. This is highly unlikely, however. Though METRO has previously been blamed for polluting a groundwater source, no real damage has ever been substantiated. d. Biologic Conditions In an overall sense it is impossible to predict what bio- logic impacts are likely to result as a consequence of re- moving the Auburn Lagoon's present nutrient load from the Green River. Under existing conditions, these nutrients stimulate biologic activity within the lower Green River. -- Occasionally, during critical low flow periods in late sum- mer, when photosynthetic productivity and river temperatures are at their maximum levets, the increased decomposition of dead and dying organisms utilizes too much of the available oxygen within the river ecosystem, and dissolved oxygen levels become depressed. (See Figure g) . The dissolved oxygen levels downstream of the Auburn Lagoon's outfall , though occasionally reaching levels below state Class A water standards, do not reach levels critical for the normal biological activities within the Green River. The maintenance of the important anadromous fisheries of the 97 Green River system, for example, is not threatened by this dissolved oxygen problem possihly associated �ith the Auburn Lagoon's nutrient load. The only major adverse impact on water quality, possibly associated with the Auburn Lagoon's present nutrient load, may, in fact, be aesthetic, for the stimulated biologic activity which occurs within the Green River during the late summer often creates excessive algal growth and nuisance slime conditions. In the Lower Green River this algal growth is quite evident along its stream- bed and shorelines. If the proposed action is implemented, the existing 6iologic activity within the river may possibly ', 6e reduced, since the nutrient load from the Auburn Lagoon I w�ich now enriches the Lower Green River will no longer be I available to support such an abundance of biologic activity. I , The removal of the Auburn La oon s nutrient load from the 9 Green River may, in time, allow additional species of plants I and animals to become established in all segments of the river. Because some of the existing organisms in the Lower Green River are "pollution-requiring" organisms, dependent , on poor or marginal quality water, the proposed action may ' open up new niches within the river ecosystem. These voids ' may be filled with new species of plants and animals, which, I � in turn, may increase ecosystem stability over time. An � increased production of some aquatic and benthic organisms may occur as a direct result of the stabilized diurnal and ', seasonal dissolved oxygen levels resulting from the proposed ' � action. The fisheries resources of the Green River woutd i, also be increased, which would be of value ta both commercial � and recreational fishermen. ' As mentioned previously, it is impossible at this time to �' specify biologic impacts upon the aquatic ecosystem. The interim results of RIBCO's computerized simulation studies show, however, that fish life within the Green River in the year 2000 will not have been adversely or beneficially , affected by the proposed action, the collection of the Auburn Packing Plant wastes, and the continued urban develop- , ment of South King County in accordance with the Puget Sound Governmental Conference's Interim Regional Development Plan. The same checkpoints within the Gr.een River Basin which are presently acceptable in quality for fish life remain so in the year 2000 despite the elimination of all point sources of water pollution. Likewise, the presently unacceptable checkpoints will not have improved in quality with regard to fish life. Within the Duwamish estuary, similar problems regarding the ' predictability of biologic impacts occur. Presently a quite productive system, the estuary may benefit from the cleaner water resulting from the implementation of the Auburn Inter- ceptor. Some biologists believe food organisms wilt res- ' 98 r pond to reduced pollution, therefore increasing the pro- ductivity of the entire estuarine ecosystem. Others contend that without periadic fiushing the estuary wiii became a "biologic desert," due ta the BOD laads that may accumulate in the lawer Duwamish. The Duwamish estuary flushing needs will be determined in the coming months as the RIBCQ Study's estuary madel is campleted. Summer anadramaus fish runs, which are occasionally threatened by the existing low flow conditions downstream from Auburn, are not likely to be affected by the proposed action. Critical tow flow canditions in ghe Green River shoulc! nat be influenced by the eiimination of the lagaan discharge. In the critical 1-in-10 year low flaws, however, the additional input into the Green River provided by the Auburn L.agoon could be of value, even though the lagoon would only contribute 3 ta 4 cfs to the 150 cfs within the Green River. As noted earlier, all phases of the construc- tinn process will be designed and contralled in a manner consistent with the preservatian of water quality and river spawning canditions. The crossing of the Green River, for example, will occur under the inspection of the Washington State Departments , af Fisheries and Game and must meet conditions imposed by their hydraulics permit. Siltatian will be controlled, and water quality and river spawning cond'stions will be maintained. Na significant adverse impacts should occur during the construction of the Auburn Interceptor which wilt affect the river and stream biota. Identifiabie adverse impacts upon biological organisms will be primarily limited ta the interceptar right-c�f-way and access roads within the construction right-of-way. The existing terrestrial ecasystem will be afifected by the re- moval of the soil , plant, and animal habitats from the interceptor corridor. Some resting, nesting, and cover areas, as well as food sources will be eliminated during the pre-construction and construction phases of the Auburn (nterceptor praject. Restoration is required anly where cultivated areas, residential yards, and other surface im- pravements occur. These areas will be restared as nearly as possible to their original condition ar as required by the terms of easements or permits. A review of current METRO constructian requirements indicates that the natural habitats presently within the praposed pipeline corridor wiil not be re-established unless the pro�erty owners specificaliy request such actian in the terms of their easements or permits. 99 Tr�o particularly complex and diverse habitats will be affected if preliminary plans for the Auburn Interceptor are carried out. A fence-line mixed-woodland habitat south of Southeast 212th Street in Kent will 6e removed, affecting many nesting birds and, probably, many small mammals. This area will pro6ably be affected in the future, however, as ', it is a proposed Kent city street (72nd Avenue South) . The second valuable habitat to be impacted occurs immedi- ' ately south of South 277th Street. It consists of a relict meander of the Green or Wf�ite River, which is now heavily vegetated but still wet and marshy. The preliminary con- , struction plan for the Auburn Interceptor proposes an , alignment through an annual wetland portion of this twenty . '�,, acre area. Many species of animals may leave the area due � to the encroachment of the interceptor right-of-way into the existing rather natural conditions. Some of these animals may have no suitable alternative habitats to utilize and therefore may be eliminated from at least the Auburn-Kent vicinity. This significant natural wetland area is presently owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad, which plans to eventually develop the area as a commercial/ industrial site. ' In light of a recent (MarcF� 20, 1973) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy statement, plans for routing the proposed interceptor through this natural wetland area may have to be modified. This statement established EPA pol- icy to "preserve the wetland ecosystems and to protect them from destruction through waste water or non-point source discharges and their treatment or control ." An additional biologic impact will be created by the re- tirement of the Auburn Lagoon. Currently utilized by large numbers of migratory and resident waterfowl as a feeding and resting site, the draining of its waters woutd decrease the available surface water area within the Green River Valley by thirty-eight acres. Utilizing the lagoon as a backup flushing reservoir or storm water storage facility would retain this valuable waterfowl habitat. The possible spread of pathogenic organisms by the waterfowl using the lagoon will be eliminated by the retirement of the use of the Auburn Lagoon as an effluent stabilization and oxidation pond. The noise and other disturbances associated with construc- tion operations will also probably impact the birds and mammals of the Green River Valley to some undetermined extent. Noise will increase significantly within the construction ' area over ambient levels. 100 2. Man-Made Systems Since the construction of the Auburn Interceptor will occur primarily within existing public rights-of-way or adjacent to existing utility corridors, direct impacts upon existing human settlements, structures , or activity areas will be minimized. Construction of the proposed sewer may, however, cause occasional temporary disruptions of public utilities and transportation systems. Since METRO plans to jack the _ interceptor pipes under the major arterials and railroads, closure of these streets and railways during the construc- tion of crossings will not be necessary. When the required excavation extends within existing street and highway rights- of-way, METRO will retain an opan lane for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. There will , of course, be an occasion- al closure of streets for equipment loading and unloading. All traffic control procedures will be coordinated with local officials. Temporary noise impacts from construction operations will affect nearby residential areas wit�in populated areas , particularly in Kent, along Naden and Lincoln Avenues. Along the entire proposed route, precautions will be taken to protect citizens from the dangers associated � with construction equipment and excavations. The jacking pits and tunnels, many of which may be quite large, will be_ adequate.ly barr.i�aded by the cont.ractor, as will atl construction areas that are not being actively worked. At night all such areas will remain well barricaded. Only one residential unit, presently inhabited, lies within the proposed right-of-way. If this proposed right-of-way, remains the selected route, this home, located south of South 285th Street, adjacent to the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul , and Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, in King County, will have to be vacated and destroyed. During construction the visual quality of the Green River Valley landscape within and adjacent to the pipeline corridor will be disrupted. Due to the already unnatural character of most of the corridor, and the short period of time that construction activities will remain at any one particular location, the overall visual impacts should not be significant. 101 C. SECONDARY IMPACTS STIMULATED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION. The most significant impacts likely to result from the proposed action will be those affecting the use of the Green Rtver Sewerage Area's land resources. The existence of adequate wastewater treatment systems, including the presence of the Auburn Interceptor,may influence local governmental planning and policy decisions in such a way as to encourage growth in presently undeveloped a�eas or to intensify exist- ing land uses. It must be stressed that the significant secondary impacts created by the canstruction of the Auburn Interceptor will be the result of local governmental planning and policy decisions. The physical existence of the Auburn Interceptor, in itself, will not create urban development; but it will allow urban development to , occur if the iocal governmental bodies with existing land .use ' pianning powers determine that such development is appropriate. The local comprehensive land use plans created by these governmental bodies generally suggest that such development is desired. According to the EPA`s Nationa) land Use Task �orce Sfudy of 1973� the effect on urban growth and development of sewerage services, • particularly those funded by EPA construction grants, has never been properly examined and is not currently understood. However, available evidence contained in EPA studies of the relattonships between environ- mental protection programs and land use demonstrates that sewerage systems tend to encourage growth in their vicinity because of the ease and low cost of hooking up to such facilities. Often the resultant development is contrary to the wishes of many local residents as well as regional land use goals. EPA admits that it does not fully understand the growth and develop- ment impact that interceptor sewers and regional treatment plants can have on their service areas. The only study primarily concerned with this issue, EPA's Report on Interceptor Sewers, notes: ' , "Very little investigative work has been done of inter- ceptors, and virtually none of the effects of interceptors on growth stimulation. The state of developmental research has been, for the most part, restricted to the area of I � increrr�ntal investment. In these cases, the population ' growth was assumed to be independent of the interceptor development." An unpublished EPA study of construction grant program policies in Region VI did find, however, that interceptor sewers, in particular, often support and encourage unplanned growth and development. A lack of planning at the local level and the sporadic development of unincorporated areas by private developers were found, though, to be the "priming actions" from which land use problems originated. A more detailed example of the relationships between wastewater I collection and treatment systems and urban growth and development has been documented by the State of Virginia's Population Resources Bureau. The Bureau, after studying the rapid growth of Fairfax County (adjacent to Washington D.C.) over the last two decades, 102 reported that sewers played a primary role in the County's develop- ment. Not only was the location of different land uses affected, but the densities of each use were also determined by wastewater manage- ment plans, not land use plans. This report concluded that sewerage, not planning, dominates and controls the growth patterns in Fairfax County. The efforts of both the formal Fairfax County planning machinery and those who called for regulation of development were usually ignored. Planning staff inembers complained that the Division of Sanitary Engineering laid down sewers to carry out their goals and to fulfill their plans without coordinating their efforts with the land use plans and planners. One planning staff inember complained that "They (The Division of Sanitary Engineering) don' t even talk to us. The engineers and (County) supervisors just figure 'here's the next area to be developed, so let's sewer it' ". A County Supervisor summarized the Fairfax County developmental process by remarking that, "The key to development is the sewer". This Fairfax County case study forcefully documents the significant land use impacts and developmental powers of sewerage services in areas where planning is fragmented and land use control powers are dispersed. In areas of high urban densities and/or severely limited septic tank capacities, sewers and wastewater treatment plants are necessary to protect the environment and the public health. The effects of waste- water �ollection and treatment systems, however, can extend beyond cleaner waterways and uncontaminated groundwater tables. The tradi- tional single-purpose manner by which such systems are designed, the common methods of financing sewer systems, the existing property assessment procedures, the policies of present Federal and State water pollution control agencies which emphasize regional sewer systems, the presence of many unresolved land use questions, and the lack of land use controls can make sewers one of the significant stimuli to uncontrolled urban growth. The existence or feasibility of sewer and water services is frequently a primary criterion by which planning commissions and other land use-determining bodies decide whether or not an area should be rezoned for development or subdivision should be permitted. In fact, it is often most advantageous for developers to first ascertain what sewer and water agency plans exist before selecting and/or purchasing development sites. Only then do these individuals or groups approach the planning commission or land use planning agency for approvals. In cases where the provision of sewer or water facilities is assured, developers can be fairly certain that the planning commission will take favorable action. In essence, land use decisions can be made indirectly by those who regulate, design, and/or construct wastewater disposal or water supply systems. In the Seattle metropolitan area, wastewater disposal systems have not been, historically, a primary development-inducing factor. It appears that in King County other development-generating conditions have predominated. Sanitary sewer service has typically responded to rather than precede, the "leapfrog" development experienced by �03 much of the County. Actions by private industries, improved trans- portation facilities, and the provision of �ater suppty systems appear to have been the most important factors influencing the Seattle area's present land use pattern. In the Lower Green River Valley, for example, decisions made by private industry approximately ten years ago stimulated its trans- formation from a productive agricultural area to an industrial area. The Boeing Company's 1965-66 decisions to locate three additional major employment centers in the Seattle metropolitan region, two of them within the Lower Green River Valley at Kent and Auburn, originated the present developmental pressures upon the valley. Serving the wastewater collection and treatment needs of the first Boeing plant in the valley (at Kent) spurred the initial involvement of Kent with METRO. Kent was also attracted to joining METRO for other reasons, including the necessity for Kent to expand its system and the desire for an industrial tax base which the METRO facilities could help attract. Kent also found it advantageous to hook up to METRO because of the 1967-68 economic depression. This down-turn provided U.S. Economic Development Agency funds for sewer construction which Kent could and did receive due to hooking up with METRO. The METRO system serving Kent has influenced all aspects of land use in the a�ea, particularly North Kent. Industries within Kent have also been affected. Prior to joining the METRO system, Kent had charged $3.50/month for sewage collection and treatment. The standard METRO charge of $2.75/month plus a reduced city fee of $2.50/month raised the charge to $5.25/month for residential customers. Indus- trial water-users were charged the same rate per residential customer equivalents, resulting in immediate decreases in the use of water, on which the sewage charges are based. Industries utilizing large quantities of water were most affected. Canneries, which were faced with additional problems related to the transformation of the valley from an agricultural to industrial area, were particularly affected by the higher sewage collection and treatment rates. Al1 canneries have left the Kent area since 1967. The availability of sewer facilities also directly influenced long- term land use planning by "committing" the sewered areas of Kent to future development. Regional plans and policies support the devetop- ment of areas with existing public facilities. Development has, therefore, been focused in existing utility and service areas, such as the North Kent-Tukwila area. The present situation in Auburn is significantly different from the situation in Kent in 1967, when Kent decided to hook up with METRO's regional system. Whereas the METRO facilities serving Kent responded to prior urban development, the proposed action is primari�ly a response to anticipated future urban development. The Auburn Interceptor is not a response to but rather a facility effectuating the expansion of urban growth. Its construction and the regionalization of the 104 present Auburn system are a response to an anticipated future need, which could also be fulfilled by a num6er of other alternative waste water collection and treatment strategies, if and when the antic- ipated growth occurs. The existing Auburn Sewerage Treatment Plan cannot accommodate much additional growth in the Auburn area. The Auburn Interceptor's construction will eliminate this primary constraint upon the growth of the Auburn area. Land use changes and their related environmental impacts can be expected to occur as a direct result of the lifting of the Washington State Department of Ecology's current ban on the extension of Auburn's sewage collection facilities. Planned trunk sewers and lateral and collector sewers can then be constructed in areas not currently serviced. An intensification of land uses would be expected along the routes of these improvements because existing local land use plans propose more intensive land uses than those presently in existence. An additional major secondary effect witl occur in the near future when METRO's West Soos Trunk is constructed, if existing land use controls prevail on the Black Diamond Plateau. The area which is proposed to be served by the West Soos trunk currently utilizes septic tank treatment and disposal systems. In places, the assimilative c�aracteristics of I the land have been overburdened, and ground and surface water pollution has occurred. This has forced King County and Kent to impose restrictions I and a partial moratorium on the issuance of additional septic tank permits. Urban growth has been seriously affected as a result. The construction of the West Soos Trunk, which is contingent upon the Auburn Inter- � ceptor, will enable the Washington State Division of Health Services � and the Seattle-King County Health District to lift their restrictions I allowing development to continue upon the Black Diamond Plateau, if the local agencies, with existing planning jurisdiction of the � areas involved, desire such development to occur. � Plans for three other interceptor sewers authorized by METRO' s second stage construction program, including the Dolloff Lake, Lake Geneva, and East Green River Valley Interceptors, can be implemented after the construction of the Auburn Interceptor. These sewers will allow additional urban development to occur if local government land use ' decisions favor such development. The resultant growth will change , the character of the Green River Sewerage Area and affect all aspects � of its environment, given the existing local land use plans and ptanning � framework. �� The short section of the West Valley Interceptor to be constructed in association with the Auburn Interceptor will directly affect a small portion of the Green River Valley, as well as indirectly affect all aspects of the Auburn area's environment, by stimulating the urban development of the valley floor to the west of Auburn. The construction of a proposed major shopping center in this area, at the terminus of the section of the West Valley Interceptor proposed to be constructed in association with the Auburn Interceptor, is likely to occur after ' these actions are implemented. The implementation of the plans for � 105 this facility has, in part, been delayed due to the lack of sewerage service to its site. The impact of this facility on the present 'downtown' of Auburn is difificult to predict. Some city officials believe that most Auburn residents already shop at regional shopping centers. Ot�er Auburn residents believe thE proposed s�opping center will harm the present economic viability of Auburn's city center. The construction of a major shopping center is certain to affect air quality, water quality, and land use patterns in its vicinity, however. These potential impacts can be viewed as likely consequences of the proposed action. The proposed agreement, extending the METRO sewage disposal system to Auburn, (still subject to ratification by the Metropolitan Council) and the Cities of Auburn, Algona, and Pacific) also calls for the addition of several other sewer lines to METRO's Comprehensive Plan. These proposed lines would extend sewer service to Black Diamond, Enumclaw, and Lake Sawyer, reaching areas far beyond those served by the West Soos Trunk. These sewers will , particularly in the Black Diamond and Lake Sawyer areas, solve an existing health problem related to improperly sited, maintained, and/or undersized septic tank treatment systems. These sewers will also allow the Black Diamond and Enumclaw Plateaus to develop at urban densities, if King County, and the towns involved desire such growth to occur. The affects of this potential growth could seriously degrade the quality of the existing resources in the area. Development, in a i manner typical to development elsewhere in the Seattle Metropolitan area could also create severe hazards to ublic health or safety , P (e.g. development upon fault zones, landslide prone geologic form- � ations, etc.) . Benefits which will result from the proposed action and the additional '�, � facilities which are associated with it include the water quality � improvements mentioned in previous sections and such temporary effects as increased employment opportunities during their construc- tion. Another benefit is the fact that after the completion of these facilities, the cities of Auburn, Algona, Pacific, Kent, and Black Diamond, and King and Pierce Counties will be given the oppor- tunity to control their own patterns and rates of growth. Present State and County restrictions on septic tank use and sewer extensions I do not allow these governmental bodies a choice as to how growth and ' development occurs. This choice should be viewed as a benefit of the proposed action, even though the fulfillment of the plans of these local agencies is likely to adversely impact and decrease the total range of beneficial uses of the sewerage area environment. It must be noted that the 370,000 people projected to inhabit the Green River Sewerage Area by 2030 most certainly will affect the � quality of the environment wherever they live. Sewers will probably ' be required to serve these people under any reasonable land use plan directing their use of the tand resource. The tradeoffs, costs, and benefits of urbanizing the Green River Sewerage Area versus distrib- i uting its anticipated residents elsewhere (possibly to areas more � capable of absorbing their impacts) have not be calculated, and, I in fact, may be impossible to determine. 106 As an aid in assessing the secondary impact of the Auburn Interceptor and METRO's proposed Green River Sewerage Area system on the environ- ment, particularly the land resources of the sewerage area, a com- puterized analysis of the sewerage area was, however, conducted. This study evaluated the suitability of the Green River Sewerage Area for various land uses and intensities of use and related these suitabilities to three identifiable "alternative futures". These � "futures" include the PSGC's tnterim Regional Development Plan, a composite of the local comprehensive land use plans, and the existing land use of the area. The IRDP represents controlled and directed � growth in accordance with the goals of the region. The local land use plans supposedly represent the desires of the sewerage area residents and the expected future conditions. These plans are the � existing basis of the sewerage area's development. The continuation of the existing land use into the future represents a "no growth" alternative, and assumes that the existing restraints on development will remain in existence. The goal of this study was to determine � which of these "futures" is most consistent with the inherent suitability of the sewerage area's land resource base to support urban development. This "future" would therefore minimize environ- � mental impacts and 6e the most reasonable "plan" to direct future growth. If METRO, for example, desired to minimize secondary adverse impacts upon the environment, while serving the wastewater disposal � needs of the sewerage area's residents, it would, perhaps, be desir- able to plan the location and program the use o� its facilities in accordance with the least damaging or hazardous "future". � The study process began with an intensive data gathering phase utiliz- ing a team of experienced geologists, zoologists, biologists, botanists, � and soil scientists. Water and air quality specialists were consulted throughout this phase. The surficial geology, environmental geology, topography, surface water hydrology, ground water hydrology, soils, plant communities, and wildlife habitats of the 93,270 acre study � area were thoroughly inventoried and analyzed. This data was stored in ten acre grid cells, which form the basic mapping unit utilized in the computer analysis. The quality of the air and water resources � of the sewerage area Was also carefully analyzed and related to existing land uses and proposed land use changes, but Was not mapped. The physical , chemical and biological factors which affect the suit- ability of a site for various land uses were then determined. Five or six critical criteria affecting the land uses analyzed were then selected. An integration phase followed this selection of the land use criteria and determined the intrinsic suitability of the Green River Sewerage Area's environment for individual land uses and land use categories. Four basic land use suitability maps displaying the suitability of the sewerage area environment for forestry, agriculture, residential/recreational , and commercial/industrial land uses resulted (Figures 19, 20, 21 , and 22) . A map defining fragile areas within the study area was also produced (See Figure 18) . These fragile areas, which should be regulated for the health and safety of society, include steep slopes, landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, riparian habitats, peat bogs and swamps, and stream zones. Information con- tained in the slope, environmental and surficial geology, surface water hydrology, soils, ptant communities, and wildlife habitats inventories was utilized to determine fragile areas. l07 The determination of areas suitable for forestry, as shown by Figure 19, was based upon information resulting from the slope, soils, fra- gile areas, and plant cortimunities studies. The soils inventory, for example provided information regarding the productivity of timber, erosion hazards, and equipment limitations. To be reatistic, only those areas with existing suitable plant communities were considered as areas which could support a viable forestry industry. Large por- tions of the valley soils, for example, could potentially produce timber, but the present land uses preclude such action. The suitability of the study area for the production of pasture, row, hay,_ and small grain crops was based on soils, slope, vegetative, and habitat considerations. Specifically, the productivity, depth, pH, and erosion hazards of the soils, the frequency and duration of flooding and ponding, the slope characteristics, and suitable (meadows, fields, open and vacant areas) vegetation or habitat types determined the suitabilities of the study area for the specified crops. In analyzing the suitability of the study area for residential/recrea- tional uses, it became apparent that the intensity of development affected the required site characteristics. Therefore urban and suburban residential areas were differentiated. Urban residential areas are defined as �oderate to high density areas requiring sanitary sewers. Suburban residential areas are low density in nature (less than five dwelling units per acre) and include neighborhood commer- cial areas. In Class I suburban residential/recreational areas, septic tank wastewater treatment and disposal systems are acceptable. In Class II areas sanitary sewers are req�ired. The suitability of the study area for these uses was determined, by combining information from the slope, soils, fragile areas, environmental geology, groundwater hydrology, and surface water hydrology studies, as wely as special stability and geologic hazards studies. Commercial/industrial suitabilities were based upon the same studies as those utilized in determining residential/recreational suitabil- ities. Some of the specific criteria utilized included slope condi- tions, foundation stabilities, load bearing and shearing strength characteristics, groundwater recharge and discharge areas, and the depth to the seasonal high water table and/or impervious layers. Sim- ilar to the residential/recreational category, the commerciaJ/indus- trial uses are broken down into two subcategories. Cortmercial/light industrial uses include business centers, regional shopping centers, and industry devoid of nuisance factors, hazards, or exceptional pub- lic service demands. Heavy industry consists of large scale indus- try, with heavy buildings and public service demands. It concentrates noise and pollution factors ,influencing surrounding areas. The final phase of the land use suitability analysis was the creation of a land use suitability composite map, combining the four basic land use suitability maps. This composite map represents a "suit- able land use plan" for the Green River Sewerage Area, based upon the inherent suitabilities, capacities, and hazards of the components of the Green River Sewerage Area environment, and is displayed as Figure 23• 108 FRAGILE AREAS W Fragile Areas (Steep slopes, landslide hazard areas, erosian hazard areas, riparian habitats, peat bogs and swamps, and stream �ones) . * Major Water Bodies � � � L� — — —— � � „ ._. _.. . � � �. �. c� U �� ; c. � . � ., �-; v � . ., . � � . .� YrrMY�✓I�rN�+1�rrM1��1��rMMMY�r1+rrMr✓rF�rl� ^ 4u4u�vNNr�NNNNNNr��'r��"`rr�i+rMOOJuOeonOo�py�p�p.py�p�p.p,paOsaai.sOVOVVVVV�IVVVVP?P?O�awPO�?Y�MM�uMMMMNIIfIlIII/IY4N/YWIf/Y4UNN � �rrH�'r� {w Nro.D i V PJ�f IwNroyO V PN�JNr0�0 V P N C4N"Oy0 V PM�'41 WOy�V P Jlf Nryr�O.pO V J�Nf YlW�OyO V P M�411M�OJ0 V�TJ�YMNYO�pi V?Mf NMVr0�0a V PJf f�NrO�yv V p�N�iN"O�Oi VPMIYN✓O�yO V�Nf I�NM O N _ i�i �yoo y j '�rav • �1�i�. •�i• ta.�_t._�:i• �• _ • � .�• ��• . ♦Aq i ��y 1 �.�i. �. .�i �_11t�. i.l'.6�.4�. �.�.fi�_ l.�• Puu i. i=� i ii=L�i . i ii �i i• i=i i Li i �i �p _ • � ��=i=ii• P.sO �� 1� voe • •��• .__• •_��I�• •_�• •t=.��ii.�!�� •iiiL==• �. �no •�t�. •��==t=lZ�: •: •_�• •L�i�.. •��ilZi=�=it<��tZfZZi��:�� •=il= VOe 1 �IA •• 'en o t :z•.c==z:.. .s.. :: ==izz. csccc:=. .c s r,� ��.u.�� y z:. •z.: :i.:.s.. ::.z...:s:sc. .z=. .��rl:ss::':s.: � $ •..:....:..••.•:::::::�zz.. •a.. .....s.z.s=ic��.__. •._..i=t.. . cis.•.... ss r.�o 0 •�. •��.��Z��.L.• •st�!ltZY!=lZii�'�i=!�L�.t�• �.iiw!!�a��.�.1�.�_.• N�+a MiArNC I'�0 LZi.ii.LZi� •:• .��it�. �� iiZ�ILiiii=.Z.tZ=•. •!�!�• .I.��it� liiii!! ro A 1.y /4\ 1 .rro L=ilii2ZLZi• iLL.isiLZil.iL.• �:� .�. :_��LLL Itii. CiLt• t=��tL•• •i�• LL �ro A90SA2 1 • Ui..•o ii=ZitlSi�iZ=tilZLLSiilZLLZ��__��ZL��tlLLLl2i�ii!=lLZ��_��_��• JM�O AfMO1qLl �� Prn ii��ZL�ZL=LSSLirLiLiiiLLiLL�LZiILLSLLii��i=�=L��i=•i��_!��ZLZLi:C• O�YO ►Nr�NO AA �iJ1 /i• •lZYZ ISi� ISi�i ZLi L. iZiLi iLL Z .L. !.. S • L ! ! .Z. • ' rn 2r�0/' �l AN I' .O.+c� •L�i1�iYii�a:iaa� ��i� iif��i�.��1f� •Li�• •..��i��i�i��t�=fi��a�� • iLtf/� •JMN• �1 •Ltiiiiitiliili.. •S1S!=t.i.• . .ZZ.i=�• •Li..�Z!�..�.l�• •ti��ti��._. !� �Orrf N]e Orw NS A ..J� ii�: •ILiLiiLiZ2Z�• •_• •=LZL��L��=:LL�:��ti�Li�• •t�_��L�• •iLlL!=�L! ONe> C/ ZAnti ti •tttttt��__�• •!�• •t==�=Z�• •• •=t=�Zt�• •==ii=�• •L=• •LZ "NO SN� OT �A1 1 � .=tt.• .t. .CLi.I.• •L.• YLLL.Y= MNo qON�A• IO M t�vu =__� ii�• .�� . ..�==LLZLi. •i�� ._�• •=i�ii� IN� NAIA��1� �1 � 'i L..��C i�• •i i�_' �Mv�+ •L.• •i.�ii�• , N� LLiiil� t.• •Z��..��.��.� PNu NOr L ON N �, uN� tiiiii. �y�� •i�• t=!• •��.• � �i.� •L�•itii=i� LLii��•••••• .�No SA.� A M; i ii111i i •i��• �ZI=1�L��1��Z=iii ti��.�• �Nu Cl�.l� �9 - 1 I .i�• • .=i. RiYiifiii� Z. •�LiLaC. .LZIC• •IiY=Li�iiiY.ii=� r� �NN C N •L• •iS�.�L� •�L=i• �i�tlti��=l=t�• N Io /�1 N N ti ��.. .i. . .:. .. ....::.. ...... c..sc'.'c::. ..c:c...:=�•�� u.o � n �w Nw •• •�• ��• .� �.�_ • :��• •t:t.[_• •t= i i Y� •Z i�• i i�Y��Z� • i=• ••• ••�iia• ��_•�.Y�Ci •ii• •L iii•••.=�il[i►iYt• iii�.�• •�ii. ii�• ��..r�• Nuo ~ O � n Pw • .Lii...LLIIi. .�.=IZLLIL•Z• •�Z=.i...Z.�S=...ZSIZZILiZii�L!!• •i� •�!• J�u�o m < 1 .A z�• •• •iiiYi•i>i..iZi.• .iLa....=iLLLLiSYiL..iiSCiyYYiLYi...ii�• •�aC.• , �tiu O A O /i vw.a �I�� .i'L..i.LS1i.i.. ii. tLit.LiiiLiii>ILYi�.. 'S. •Siii.• •Li•. Juo G1 i .O.Ju • •ILY•..• ..LiL.• ..Z�iiii�• 'Zii=.iiLii�..S=....•Zi�Zi=.�. •�Z.. •• •• oa+u N A O •• Z...i=.Y• .►Y• •Zi�i•I1[. •ZYi. ..i.��==Z. Z•a[t. •�_• • • i'o y l�l r�f� •• •i��L=• •Y• •YL�Zii� Y• •�i��iiL . •.i•• •��_ �L�• • •�� _�• r�p.a �_� �Z• Z• •Zi�i.L12• �Z. .ZL��ii• •i��L• •�i� •!C •i=��• • NtJ L f�l •Y�• •=Z�• •Z.��ZZYZ�• •_�• •ZiYLii •=t�=iti�• •=i� •_��• •• •__� Mf0 O O A e C o � �. •i�• .•• ._.. •_• •__. •.=t�.�=L I t�• .t�• •��L L. •=i��i i i i•• •�Z i• •_• •_�• • {-pai �q 2 O�{'.�i •��..•LZ•��ZY•• �iY.��iil.=;Zi�. .LLZ.' •Zii.. !!.• • •i=. .• •i� •!: Nfo O � �sasa.. :taa... ::: :t••••�s.:: :. :ai:+: �:::��.s weo � o s •• •• �L • • .Z. .Z• •tt..Z. •:t�• .i.. •��t�• r�e t H T ii��i=• •LY• •L� •ZLZ=�• Z=ii• • tLZ. •Zi• l;iT •• •Tt• •it��Z�itl�• •ti�• •�ZLtttl�Tt�• •TiY• SiiifttL• t• •��t• •Ztt�• •�ttt��fttli:• T � q • T Llla� �SiLtj T`� •i• •�!L!!!C• tL=��LC !�• N = D •• C. �L• L •L ♦ •t :i �ii��. SC�� +N 7 iLa •t> •Y11 iYaiYY� i�• Y •IIC�• •C�tYit= NV1u i� 'Cn • Li1.,t'' •ZiLii:. i• Z Yi>"ZL,•i• •� LCIZ• L• •tCiYZi==��i�� i�� • fJ0 r •'tZ •Ii>'��!��Z r Li ZL�� LYS>LLLLLI •�Zii •LL�� •��Ii �� • •==t>yI1LLY� •LSLLiLiI��i�LZ• •ZlCiititilSiL�CZ=fL• • •� •=LTYL=i�Yi�L=�i�• •__�• MMu fll O�so •��• •liLiLLZi. LLL�• .LZL..=L.• •i�ii�• •iii��LZi�Li.• •i•��• •�tiCi�I�• •• •_• PJ1ra t=t y=.• •==Z�•tir• • I=��=Ii�• •I�• •_��• •��• •�==I��Z�• •_�• •i �J�J / oJ10 •�• •• 'Z1SLitIiL1. .iiilLSL• .ti.�LLL• . ..L.Z. •ti. •Z. i• iiiiiLZ .L• .IZ.�iL..•!_. •_. .ON fA�l •�� •• ZLs• •�YS.i�Z=i• .i2ZiL• • as� •:. :c::�c>zc:ss, .rcz:.:.:x:s. c:xa. :cs:z:::cc:c:z' .:. oo.o iil a. L. •L I;t. 'Yi• 'S1Y• •iii\i CY�:'�L• • N.J�V N •ZliY !. ZYZ •YfiLZ• •Zia»�1 �. La •��•�• • ` � ^ ii ii •iZiiita iiL• • ZZ;. • .YiitiiY• •• •iZ�• .i�• .. •i 4�TV - __ • •SZi��if'SYi� •L. • IZIT�.Z�.fl' if li��i�.�ii�• •Itt�• •��• •• �• •�• •! f�Tn V n�a •��_; . Zt�[.�LLZ1SiZ�YL •i{�: .i��iil� CiSa'•�IC1�i!!=rtttZ�.• •>Y�• ::�: •• •��• •Y �T.i ' v�J • ..LLi �Y�� •ii. "a . SL.:�Li. ..Zi�i tLiZYii.:�i..�� .Li.ZI�• .Li�. :� •�• •��.• •�:��• vJ�u iiY.i • •�• •Z.LLiCi.. LL• •i.ti. L• Li�Cii..• •�IS•• ; .iii.��: •�: •LL��:�• •��• ?O oo�oo L•ii.��=i��IZeiL. •_• .=ii��• •_':�• • • •�.:•• •_:: •iZL�• •��• •: Pe i=i.• .Cii2.• ._.• ir•�.tlZ� •=L�Lii�• •Z� •!• •��• OVo t=• Y• •_• •___• iI� •iY�• =i��• ii�• • •��.�� v� i. •Z� •i��<ii. •�. •iii• •<ZiZ� •�ii ii��• •N��i• �+Vo NVo . ._.LIL. .L• •LL.• •iiZi� •�C��_�iii� •��ii�• . NVO .:zcz==it.. .�. .ccc. 'z�•�•=s' . •�.• •�.. �.�,o •••• •s =ss '_' " 'zc:.: •s:'s: . •. •. iw's NV.] • • __�i�• •Z��• •=C�•��•��• =!Z •�• •:��!�• NVO Pv �i�L� •iii=��• .LLL==t• •=i=ZLi . • •�• •_• •VO ��o :i� %sisssiss= =s' � ':s:=::=� •cz.:�� . s. • vvo : • • � :: .. � .i rvo .ss. :_:. � �evn pv0 � •__• •t• • _�• i�• •t�• •�L:_�• O�l�! •_��z=.• •i�• t�• •• •C=• •C• •_• =t.• r>�1 Nso •1.ii=• •• ••��• �Y. •_• •__��_!• •_��• ►�_�• Na0 ._..rt. •�• . .i�!�i�• �i�• • Nio ts .2• ._. •i• •L�i• fa0 �� No/s J�.0 �=Z..�Lij=.• .ii L�� =i i�� P��J •Z• •=i(i��• •Z�• •Y>i�• •Z��_�• •�• •• Vr0 •==t.• •i•• •t�• •_��C�• •__• • uJ0 o.Jo .L�• ��• � iia�• �t = 0�0 «,�O •=iiZ�•ZL��L• •�.• •_�• • M.Oo N.CiO Z•�•�L!••�i=ZLS•�y�• •• •�ti• uLJ >LLLCL I=• _• •�� •. Y1�0� ND�♦ ��. �• :• �• •_�• N.O� sz:: ��zi:::sz: .z:ii: ��:: •::z.: u�Lu LiL.. •�[.. •i.• .i�ii.• O�b�i .1.4.-� •. .ii• •• .tt.... .lL�..lZ...�• oJe a.Go � - ��• • •�• •=tL=l��ZC��===Z�.��• .• •• ua.� �� •��::�.• •.••• �. •f:. ••::t• •��tf.. M.nO .n. ......�:��• •i t •• t: O.ar No�+ � • :��_��=Z=• ��_�!�• ��• •l:i: •s�� M •�• •• •t=L�!ilS��i�• •Z• utQarl ■ •itL• •LLi== ==Z=�iii==tZ�• •_• rOM NON P�r� •iI• •L=Z��i=L• •i=!• • � •1�LZ=I�_�Z• •lZZLtli•�!!t� • '��' •tLti=• •it i�i!i •_�._• O�OM Ji��+ � •�__• •�• •ZZ� •_ • �O r o.-» • =s�� •�. �i.t�� 'M•,+ •LL• � Nr • •�.• •=LZ� •�• •�i! •��• N�'M Cr.� •LT..�_�• ~� JwM ' rr•zir...:: i: .. , i.zzL='.•••• '� ss:'s:::z:• �r••.� s:... .:=szs ' ....... .......�.v.. �..:.. 4uwr wsa�.w we�+�Vmu�u~��00000emeo�p�,�.p�y�y.Y,C�p,paaasoaaso>vvVvv�VvrvO�O�OW�T'O�O�P?NMM�MMMrMMIIII��I�l�I�YYVYYYY�MM� rNr 1� �Os V{wM�W��M�WwMV wrtis.11u v�TNf.Myr.a.n.�vA.A�4Mi+O.e�w��I�/w��+�JM�rT�V IM�F+Y�11r�V/�rI�MwM�WwM�YM��rA�Y'�V Wr�M1��MMIfYNr�NAY/1rIMM� »�._�� « ...�.ti�_ ' -. .. � . . � . 1 { �� ^ •. ^ �� {� V �� U � L� . / �� i • FORESTRY SUITABILITY Unsuitable for Cortwnercial Timber Management . Unproductive Areas 2 Slightly Productive Areas 3 Moderately Productive Areas 4 Highly Productive Areas Suitable for Comnercial Timber Management 5 Moderately Productive Areas 6 Highly Productive Areas � Major Water Bodies � � GRIOSLM �ar 1 FOOFiT?Y sutr�4t�it� COOOCtCO7C7CCt:'rrp-rpp--n^7•7�n��r,�.7�n��Zr,G)ppi^']C�79i^'7�.C"OC:C7C[�'v7C0":79'.�i:::RG7'.`"""'gtll}S}111211121111111 _ FCOCO'1G7?13111113112??22c2?227�.'•3SJT334��0�:�4�5555i55i5566�55656S577I7771�779'37EiEl7l4919ed4� �yi.:� 90G,1121131t1y _ 127�56 N 9912J�567e9^127�56�i�712S+56799C12Jo5"v789�123�56773C12J�567tl9�1iS�567j9.:2S�i6779.12T�D6 l�.12I.567e9"123�56JS9 ; � � - � ��.. � . S , �.�7........ y �.5.55.......2 � � 5.7.555....fS � .. S 5553.555...52. ; - ,. S2 2..2. 1� ...535 t2?2.5 ' __ �� 1 ....55.222..So 3� . .. ..55.22:�5.. 5552 i� • 5.....2 Si.2 5555525.. , lj - ..543....555: 2'SSSS...SSSS 1� .�2....2?25. 5Si55i....SS445S �.SS.�....522t.i�S5555.••..5555��5 17 ....2.SS2. .. .55..••••.555. 4S � ^ 1� r.. ...22724.4..o.�SSS••••..55.•• S 1• q .5...2225�55. i. 555•••••..Sj i5555 9 �G SS?��.. • . ...:• � .5 ..22225i5.55.�555••:=: .S:SSSSS.S �� 1 SS��..... ..�.. 55..2.22.53..5...Y44• �i.�55555.55 2 S��.S. . ..�. � . 5552. ...S.SSiSi• • Si..2..... �� 5........ .........��.�....5.•.555......2255.25555:...:.. ...55..6�5.5 , . S. .?��..255.55�• •�S•• SSS.SS.555 S S 5.��.. . ..Si.....�.�..555. .�.. S.•••�••••.SSSSSSSS SSi.5S5 26 g �, , . 5.... S 2.. S5. .o. SSSS•• ••'S SSSSSSS.S. 55555 6 Z� ,�, . . . . ..... .�5...5.. ..S.S...S4S.. 5�4 .SSS.S••••SSiS5555. 552�.+.5 � Za .�..........................�5......5'...2...55�...25.�0.55555�'S',55i55S5.5S..t45.4.. �� Z9 5..�............. .�55.�0.5..55.522254.....�.��.�.S5S5••SSSi555..�...•OS.S.� 9 JO 5..�.•......................io��i�.5.5....5.2555....S.S...OS55�•SSSSSiSi2.S..•..�5..:5 � 7� ZS..�.�......................�Sc1SSS.S.i55..5.5555.4...2...S..iS.�S555SSSS2....•�.�SS.SSS i � .S.S�SS......................�S.�S.S...S....22..55..7.......5..55..�5.5.555S2...5.'.S�SSS2Sii � ..5..�......................0�.9.�5..535�i5�'5.5i5�5...�52.�SS55....�.�555.245sS�iS5S�522455 � � •..• • •. •O.S.�....5755555.25Z5.i..5...�.5......5.5545.5SS..SS.SSSS?�SSiS_�5.. �6 y "3 S6 ��.��••••�•��•••�� 5..�....S..S.S..�S...�...S.�S5.555..5..5S.SSSSSSS..SSSia2i.5��... `� 71 ..�.........................5.5.5............. 5....2.45.2.5...5..25555.55552.Si.5.....4..0.... � ': �e ....53�55.....................4.2.5.............SS....�.eS5..5...5552...5.SSSS52...555iS5.��...... ]� ...y...�5..................r..5.5.5...........25..55...4...4.�...225..355.5555552.S...SSiS��...... 39 ^ 60 ..5....:5.....................i................655.2....r..4.....5......5.5555554........ir....... •0 ,� ' 41 ..5..�.�..........................S.i.S.................5...4....5..5..�..5555.2................... •1 ' ►2 . 5...44..........................55......5...•..2.2.......2�.......5.....55522.................... �2 � �S ..55..3:�....................... . 5 ....2.....SS..iS......4..5....55S5J..55............2.........� �] ^ � �♦ ..�.....5......................�i..5.i...........5...........r...5...5Si5572............. ...2.....•SS �4 �, + 06 ..S4.S..................3....S.S5...525..5.......5......2�5..55...SSST2?..z.2222�....222...2....�'�SS �6 � . x �7 � ..55....................4............55.................2................22........ . . .• .. ' �E ..55....r...............r...........257T..2..................5...........2.........�iiSi5555�..�.••... �S C ♦9 ..SSr�...5...............�...5................... ...........5.....................555555i5S.Sr.••... ♦9 � 60 . 5.��.•��..................D..S..........2.......��..........5............ .. ...SSS5.555....5�•.... SO S1 ..«S�4•05.3................�..�.................• �...... . ........SSi.S...SSS.....•'..5.6��t.. 1 • S2 ..5�.��7.J..............i.5�.505................• ......2....SSS....��.........gSSS....••.. .�...... 2 `' S7 ..Si..J................i.S�tSr.......52.............. ..2.......... ..2......5555.••.....�2......... 7 S� �. S77�O....................�r.5....2..55.......5i.•.••5...2....................555.....55555........... S� �� •...5554«....................443...552..........5..��..................• .............SSSSS.Si...S..... �S • .. .55,53�..................... �Si7.5.5................. .. 5555 25....5. .;�5 6 � .�...SS�......................i.oi;....2.....5....?5.......................�....2222...§5555..2..........�55 5) Se ..i.�...44�.......... ..44i•.........55...??.5..5....2....•....•.•.... ....2......•..2..........6SS5 78 59 ..S..os.....................�4i...25..�.5ii3...S5...S...........t2.....55555..........+...2..........5555 S9 ` � 6! • .�4��t....................'�:...?.2...55.5?...?5...5..........2.�....55555.........................SSSSS E1 . �..�.. ..4��4.. ..r....3...23..2i55.25.�05�.........2......SS55..........................S55Sr 6 6I .........�4......................�i3.............Si.5555�4..2......o�....�5555..............2...........55..2 6� • 67 . ....�.......5..............�................i.5..550..?........... ......22......................�.... 63 6Y ..5�......................i...............5....2i.........5•.5..45................ . 5....... 6� � ' 6S .55. �t��. . . .oi . .r.5.. .SS . �555.. .�.. 5 ...::.�. ::� .45....�. ES • 66 .55.554. '. .. ..... .SSSS..�i55..l.5. .SSi�. ... .554.......54555..� . .5555... -• .�:.. E� y' . .i. .5:...........��5....0�.......5...5555i.......5�.......Si.S5..�4....55555... ..�•i��.'..�SY.22.�� 6 •��.5 � .S. �...55... ..SS555.��5. ..55555 SSi. . ..�••. .�.....�5S 6d �' 69 •••••• •.5.55'�.0..�.... .... ..��+i•. .5..�� .5..2_o....s�.. .�5�.55555.�65.5 •555 SSSS...•.� ... ...r5 �4 �0 SSSS5554i...55.�. ..•••.••••.••.J......5..�•• • .4.�..45�..5555. .�..555..SSSiiS..•••..•".•••.• .55555 55 � � .�. .�5. .5 SS . ..SS..555555555.. �SS 7} ' 72 .�..55i5. .�."� .. ..� ....5*. .555�. ...651.� ..o. . .�5 55.2.. .. 555555i5.. ��. g . 77 ..5555� �o��. . � ��.�. SSSi5�.55. �1.�. . ' 5.50. 5 .SSi55555. .SS��r•. . ..•�5555659 7� r4 .55. .S'�� ..�Seyyy� ,55,5�. � .555.. .55.�•..5555.. 5555. .5y5.255 7� 7S .�..5 .5+.�.5.. ... . ... . 5555. ..S.C4.4... . . . .. .�5.��.•SSS...S�i. ��. . .55..25 �g6 -. 76 .2�..r�.�i. . .. .�711 .3: .S�«......... .�. . .5 �.555...55.. �� 5` •Z 77 f7 � .ta..55�« . . . . .. ... . ..�. . .55..�.555..... .. . .....5.. .5 � 7e .•5..55 .5��5... .. .. .�Y�555.5� ...55.. ..... .. . . . .$5 i5. .5....SSS�� 33 7E 79 •.5....5..5...4..................�5555.57...7.5.�.........................5i55S555.5440................5i..5�. �S3] 79 !0 .00.... ... . . 5.55555.�055. . .........55. !SS..3]3 ei �... e1 .5.S.SJ��. ..5. . ...iSS:S.��S.54�.��4.�� .... . . . ..5. .�5..4557�..... ... .... 7J3 !2 . �744• .. ...... .... . ..$$. .4..Y. 6J r�. ... ......r. r�..... .�. .....�.........� . .r.�� ...�oS 5. ... �2. . .. �S�i3 sl !o ��5.5.5� . ... . .. . . .46�J44 . . . . . ...2. . � .22. 5 555.. ...' �2.Zt?� ..�'13353 65 !S �.55.....55�........................�..444�............ 55...2........ ........555i5S....�. .. .��. , .. . .. . . � � .. ...9......................5.........4..........5555...2..................5455......5�.5..55.2222?....l3'S5 d6 !7 S�i.5.�.5i.��2................................�e.....�.5.5555....2....................55......5�....f5552[rr2•...3:55 •7 ee SS.S56 5�5�2. . . .. . . ... .�. . .......555. .255. . ......� � . � .�.• .i5 .S.�S.••..4 7S !s .55.55��. � � .4. .� l . .55..55 ?55.� � .�. .�..SS'. S5. 23 09 y� i5• .. Sy�... ' . ..5. ......�....�... . .�.t555 S5� 55 .552.55....4S�i555 . .... ... ...'ii55��S5�SS� 9G 91 S. . .55«.. .5.. ..i. . .. .. .�.4.4 5 ��S 5 .55 55. 5��44�5..5. .�. •S',�z25Si5'.45 q51 q2 S• • .5>57y�.•• • • • ••••••• •c••• ••••y•••• • •�4�4�555�S..S�SS.S SSSi55 •5S5'.592555.57 53 � ... . .. . .. . . .... . ... . .. •V4rV444�J54.. r55.5 555 9) 5..��. •�..�.�•�•'...........�......i..............�1444..2�55.5 555 � ... ..5555. 90 94 5..5�0............. ' 5 9S •..5..5 55.�................ ...............0............J])t4555555iS ....SS 96 96 .5 5 5�.. . iF.. . ........ . . .. .....3��5 5555 ' 97 97 ...SS� SS;44. .. .... .e. ........ .J�. �r��. ....734�55555 a 5�'4l. .�444.4 ....3V�4�4 � � 1^0 55.��.�..... .. ..�. ...SS�SSiiS�� .. ��.4. ..�..J 1"u0 171 55i'-�. .�. .. ...... .SSSSS+ii 5�.... .... .... 10[ 1C2 ...74. .....5..... ....... :44��4�4.555. ..........0. ..... 2......5..:..............555555..........S.L46• }3 }��JJ �f�y .... >444...........��55555.. � iQs .��4�...�.f�L..�....5$4504.�..�.......4�4$5�..4$5......� G4 � 1^.6 .5..�.............. . 5�So.............573�IS..loS....... � 1C7 .SO�...............i�55°5�5..........555555�5.............. 11!0 S$�t..........$....4�>54�45.:......t..555S.�i.............. !`� � 109 ' i5:4......... . .i4ii�l.��i.v.. ... 5.555..5. ........ . .. 310 ' 110 .55.........5.� .4�455��.5i5.4'�..55.35.5.5.J........5.5.. 111 ' 112 5••••••••••• •�•�Si��.ii5.i5......555..'.7.......�5.5:. 1 ' S�......... .4a555544.5i5.555�....55i..5........�555. ' 113 �4S,55M45555.Si5�..�J.55.�i.o.......�5.. 110 4�+55554455i5.555��5.5•SS4Si5io�......r5 13� ' 44rSi55�55+iS.55550545•.555'+SSi7�..... 4h4ii55�i55...55.•�5.�.�iiii555........ ��55545555i5.55".5'4.�5i5.....5..... .5555.5....�.•��.5..5.55i..�.... Sid 11E 5525.5.5,�5• . 5555555..57�.. 119 St] 4.5��.4�.� �.55... .. . $L. 1�2 J .55.5•.5 Si4, 122 •�. .5. .�S.Sa 1 127 ... ..1. 12� ��,j 12� .. 'S� 125 125 ��y Ij 126 �z� ..5�...� f ig 19 �2� 127 •5.55...J 126 � tze •s..ss....r ■ ize 13� �..555...5 131Z ' 132 ��.SSS.� _ 173 " i�� ...5555� . • C0007700:970"�^r7:]�"JC•� C1^':^;COQ[^iC."]COiCC7C::dC77771".C�C.C'��u'CCC]CO':070�C�7C.i�)C:7:.'�G�:O'l:ill:lttllll:illt.' '� Q0000)0^'11111117:1222'_222'_2ifS'7�3!!J�.�.r��ii5595�555E55�54Fbo577�/7777773�94d'dii9:3i379'i999_•.._;'IC.'t11T1t2311 ' 123�5R7�9^,i�'.��n1�g:123�i67t3112?.55715'.1L3�`,57d�1'12S�So797�12Ja567i911230557d9.121�:oTiY..2=�:67i9.ia'+SS77i".1�_r',67o9 ^ i AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY Suitability Classes 1 Highly Suitable for Pasture and Grazing. 2 Moderately Suitable for Pasture and Grazing. 3 Highly Suitable for Mixed Hay Production. 4 Highly Suitable for Mixed Hay, Small Grains, , and Row Crops. ' 5 Moderately to Highly Suitable for Mixed Hay and Highly to Moderately Suitable for Row C rops. ! 6 Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay and Row Crops. . Marginally Suitable or Unsuitable for Agri- cultural Land Uses. %; Major Water Bodies. ' ; i '� ' i h ' . _ .' <w- �, c . r � �� 64t55 FcT0EFL55^f2:=.fl5`�CcSfhN[9_ a2T0.B[%1fZ1LL:[.5 f2T�SPL9,�.2IJi�[9;�.2t;�eLy5�f2.;.ia[4E�f2i56eLi.�i2SG�a[951i2i Sltilli:Ti[�;C'["_]io.bEE3iib�Y4B�7BJd'rl(lLllLlll95e6"�i499n55ai555i"5'ro1�•�'r��o9pfSf)fiff:?��Z2Z227d1Tiilillll;]JC[fL90 I ilTtLitSiilZilliii::)C?DiJJ:Jlf�O[ODDJ7�JJOJ07(CCW.90:SOC7�JC]707�'^7J4)]B]B6CtiC:.)^7:7','7L??S[LCUOfC:D'u:�G�CL77JGC[CCa� , ••y••� �L1 9 TCT •9•••992'• �.. ' 952992Z. TST II ..yS...99.• �1 - I [2T Oz •�t� '9999"92' 6ZT ' '992"2'• YZS i • '995"9.• /2i .y.y� y(j ' �2T �•2999• • 1Il ' - [2i '•9.'9�• ..'.. fi.l � I t2T �••z•� •• • 1'ei , �, •• •22'2222•••�•�•:•::z••• ?•Z1 ; .... � .. y •Z•••zz•••••••z•� �•••• f•••• 611 i YTT • •••yy•••2•Z�•••��.•••2Z2••••••2 YTl LSS ......22995......�..��..2.......... �SS I ^ 1T7 .'?....?Z........�....�...z............. yli � ' .z............. SiS CZIS ..........�.��. .Z......Z............. hll TST .• ..t..?........Z........Z.... . ........ fll , 9.....�.... ..�............t ... 2l1 DTT 9t'9'993��'...?�3.....�'..:9..Z............i ......:.....5.5. J7T i 60I 92559599•• 9••••••• 55•c••••••••••••l bCl YOT SSSS559>•• z••••••zy••Z••z•••••••••�t•••••••••••••• YLS 90T 295995.....�.�.� .... .�..z... z......... ................5 LLl 955...y.. . . ....... .t.....z.......................... 9LS ...... ................... 2299.......... .z.............. ...... S SlS fzOT 222Z9................z................ ...........5' �LT fOT ....�22.......................................T.........:� LGt '229Z...........z................. .T......... Z i ...z....Q293........z..............t.��.......�1........... OOt ��...�....Z9�.......................t.�,�........j......5.5.. CLl yb ��...9y:�.................� ....1w ........1..�....5' bb L(, ... . ..��............�..........� �?........... ..�Z�......�'.. . ... 06 Li ,Z, . . .2. .ITLI... ........ .....qyl.. .. . .T. .. �S� . .��• ��' . •�: �.tt...li1... ......29Y. .�.. .y.. .• 6 ♦6 .�.•� ••• •••z2'T1•2'SS09••••9••9Yb5 9•••• •••••• •�,1••••• •• • �b I 26 ... . .. . .. .. ... ... ....�. ..11�'1'...�9ai?5Z2...�•i:......:�.......��.. ..� LE � � Ii .. .. ...... . ...... . .. �... . � ..�.'.o• •65i9..i22. . ... ..�1,n�" ........ . zt - 06 .. .... .. .. . . .. .. . Zz��z� ...2z� .?�z.Z...... Y •999ebc'� ....... . ��e OS1I'. . ib �I 6Y ••z• •z2• •• • •••• •y• ... . 'S522'.Z� z� z �..... 'hA••54va92•�• .....��1�t'ritt' ..�5" �S uE j iY ?��... . . . �Z�. ... '2922...t••2• •222Z22Z' 'aqhl' •y�2'22� '�ea0elTd•• •2••2• 6i , LY ' •�1•�• • j • �2 'S5' 'S£2222Z9•2' 'OZ710�•• •2. . .... •�M019hI. ..�'• pi ` �� • . . '9• '9929TS9• 'SS.. 2 Z .1•:: .2..2. . . ...1SS1 ��• 2�' LY SY . . . . . . .... . . �229�. . 92993i' . .. �?.................5. ... . ...SS10 �•• ..... 9Y ei . . ... . . . .. . 'ZZ � '9Z94 99• . �6 . ... ...... ....�z� . ......:��Y e•• 5� III LQ . .. .. ... .t.t�t.... .z.�9'Z29S39... .z?....................... . . .........:',1•�' ..�� ... °F � . 2Y . . .. . .zt. . .....99592....Z ............ ... .... . ... ��.... �Z�� f� r � i9 ...... . ... .. . .��. ..ZYz.. 22992...z. . .......... . .?... .. ..�t1"�� '222" 2i I DY .�.. . .��. . . . . z.2. z...92225222 . .... ..... ...... . . .��..�. .Z�.� �� ,. •S+e�aee�•t• J� �'� YL ...::. .. ... .. . "•• ' '222• 22Zz2'.........�.z.��'-2Z.:.........i• ••teea�eee' ....�..... . 6� u LL ?z. ..... .... .. . ... ..... .� •... ... .....�2'�2•i• •ii��0��•1'• ....... . . Ol z� '9999�• •2• •2• •T• •STT1��11'�1•• • LL S! ... ._.. ..... ..�.t. . . ��. �..y.....z2��9�994'9''3:.. ��....�...... .....�1TS11��1•�1'.. ...�..2'1•2 9L � '��. 1L .. .z. .... ..... :��... .• . . . �t�z..... . .. ......�I14b'r�� h' . . . .. . �2 Sl I .. ...�. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . - �� •.. . 2' •�' ... . . ..• �22Z' '2':59� .. . • �z�.•. .. ... .........•�S11hY� 11��...... . �� I 1L :�� '22. Z..:. 2 .99. . . 6 . . .�T11M. .�^.. . f'l L •Z' '2222 2• ••2• •9• •2••9• .2�22�2• •l•• •�R•eq•1e11•• 2L C Y7 • • .�... ..• � . .22?�i?? . . . •?�?�Z• ...�22..i.. . 222�2'� ......Z:�.:...::�..e•1�t.�.z.�...::�.. . tI • •• 22'33•':Z?2 iT• •s2'�'.t• �••9•ae•• •"siZ' J! � yy . .2.. �:.... ....Z .... .. .. ... ...... Cz �..Z;..n'; '......... �.��.....�1•t1.. . � . . . b9 . �Z ..... �:.....22 . . ... '2Z...... .;z.. .L2_ZZ�T2...... . '1 ti'.... �°�� .....�12' . . �5 ... . . . . .. . . . ... - ••••�:� • ••••••• ••z••2 •2 Z'22Z• • •�•t�•• •11'1�• •yz•• •• • I.9 9 22....z......•�. ♦..z� ...................z..........222.......i55...............��•ae.......5........ 95 S9 "2222t•••••••••••zZ••••••••••••••••••••••zZ•••zy•z•••22t••••z5•••5Z2••••••••h1h1••e011e11•e4•••••••••••••••• 55 � C9 2222�Z2�22t;222222?•••• ••• •••••�s••••2••Z22222'2'�'S22� 'S22•••. .� .�...��9••��et�a�a•e•'.... � .. �� +S �� ' ' ,22222'.. 22Z' 2•2t2"222t2 2Z222�z�222'22 . �Si. 'S222' ..........�1a1e• .0�1e�' ..... •Z� f9 2 •222��'+2£' Iz' •1o�a•• ��e•• ••011i• •T•1� 29 I 2 .Z• •S• •21' 'O�e�•' ��e••11T1• SS � bs . � ..Z..�...,.�22 . .Z?�........�999'2�'9922.2�:... ..�..�..5�.�....�222' '�e�e...:.��9 ••leei'. . . .. . OS • • •222• •9922• •••• • • ••• •2Z••••1�9eeh' '91'r1•1•40eS•'•••••••• • 65 ... . . ... . YtSs ••••••ZZ2••••Z�:•:•'•••••••••••222zzZ2=•••••99992Z•••••••••••••••••••••�22227•••••0111'11�k��"�•1�1S1•••••••��" YS 9i ••�2ZI22.....................�.......99�822.Z.................... Z2.z.....��s��a�...,�..��i.......�.... LS .. £• ................. �. ...... � " ••9992......... 2 • tea��e•.1...�...��.............. 95 I �L22 2......................999..........$..2222'22••••............. . ......e•e�1��a��..�....�.............. 55 L �...�.........•.•.....�..939••...•.•.•.2..£2'2 Z' ••�............•........��.�.....�..�....�.�............ �5 €� .:z....t.�..•..:......y.?y........Z?...2'?2�ZZ..::��...z�.�.......................��...�e7.�..�......... zL , � t .. .... ..��.........SS.S.........22Z..t..2Zit.....��...�..�.....................�ee�••�e�....�........ TS OL ..z.�..j............ . ....922Z............t.....s�....t.s........z...............�..e��...�........ GS i♦ ••2•.......................2•9222...........Tz....SS......52.......s...............�..,�.t�........... be � �± '2•: '... .. .222�.99.y�.y..Z.� .......T.z.....� ....5..........��.� ...� �e•�•a�0...� Y1 . . . .... .... . . .. .. ... �♦ Z .. . �2� � '2Z'22�'T99255' 'S252i'2' ... .. . ..�t•0•Oeae.... . t� ., S♦ •Z2'•Z�2?'29• '2T22•' f • 2 •2 3925••�•t�.�••s•• �Z• •• •••h•��'• 90 Y ?1 � .�. ... .. �2•2• 'SZ'2352�• •Sa2 '25'2' S•'. . ....��•• �•1••• SR : '?Z222'9 •2 •2• • •'2' 2'I'52222t 'i' i22222255•• •S•• •••1�•e•.• 11 � €� '• Z33 ..ZZ.....�..........t..z..2'22'r.222'•?2'•2'2Z5'25' ....5.......�...,�.....��•Sa. ^.. . � l'1 ; ••22 92•••• 9•9•• ••••2•222'2"22'2• '22z252' •22.i2"'2Z•• •5•••• • • 1•1•• •T1i•M••••••• • 21 - � p` •...249.:.... �9�.�?� .Z..222' •T?•22.�?.z.55?z...it22....55•..5... ... ��..�e•eltei'..°�•�... .• SO ; 6 '2 9•••••••• •2• •Z•• z�•••Z• - '2't• •ae eeslet' G� yj[ •9?9'y••a•• ••22••• ••2•Z22••••ZZ• �.2�I�55• ••��2��"525•. •t• •�e1ee 11�9bee•••• 6[ 9C' 3�'S'?f.rt��.� .. .�. .�� . • .. •• 'Z'y'. . •�S•�•1�10�T�T711�1'�....... Ql _ .7�{•• •z•• ••• •S• S•• •�1S•i�00�4�Th��9h��••• LC " Lf 29.. . .Z?� .t� � .. 'S2T••...�55' .?��..... ... ..'lie�e� 1�e1�One"... . . y[ �� . . . �22'�'1 i•22222�.. .2L�Z�� . .� .. .... .... �511011�•011199�15• . 5( . .�T•.£' '2' 'SZz22Z2 '2 i52'S5' •Il'1011�1�11e0019•h•• 1i z '12222'9' ' 'Z52Z• 2•• •• •••• •�S•Sl•�1�1aa��1�1T9•�•• Tf • • •2i2Z•••t•2 •22•••22215•5• •• • •eT• t•1�1eei111ebeI1•0" 2L Y� '.'2•"'`••22?2'...... .2z•.. 2ii. �..... .....�.......:��.. . it11e••��9�"1'Z�... jf •z$�Z�IZ:•••�z• •Z•••Z 122• •2••22Z•• •T91�9.ii1•••a��ei•1�z� pj � . . ..�2'IS 2'. .2••2 .. . '��I1ee7hee••111• 09 2 62 t 2 2'• ••2 •• . �S' T2L'. ..z2...�2'2'...�..�111�1TS1111�91'• �72... 92 •_ . ....z ... . �2� �2i ..5. .2. . ..�;10��1111119�•1•'07 L2 i2. . .z•..� . ......��: . .Z..Z��......�z�:ZZ�.... �2' '1�•1'1111109•1101�01•• 9Z �� • • •z•a2 Z "' ZS' .. •22��•• •11'�1�7'• S2 � . �22��iT��2��::��.... .. .. T 2 �Z� � 22'.... �T 1 ��s•• 12 �� 22�2��t?:' .• •Z•••ZTT•••z� .. .?z� ..�22 •�ee9'• f2 �Z� i�z Z�• zz••22' '2 '��•• 2'< � .�. ... • �.�. .. .....2...�2 2?�'2z• 'e1�... � 0� �� . •Z.• �Z..�.�.�...�. �� i ii " .::.....:..:. .. :::::: :.:s s1 �� .z"::::: :z:......::... r�'i zz........... �t •Z....•• ..••.. �i '2"•••••••SS' S .........SS. 6 (y ... . ... 0 fi � ..... � .. L ......... . 1 . ... 9 C .... S Z . . 1 i ... L I 6tLSL�C21069tg5�f2LQiF[95`I2T�5Q�f95•t21O5i�95'rf2SOSiL95�f2SP6PL959t2t�67L551f2TC69L95�f2TCaY[55�f2T06OL�59�ZS�SOL95�f2i TSTSSTItIlODD[D'u0i";ic5666iii50YPiPii P�![LL[L�l11944K9559955i555aS55eee�^�9+��iLfLLIFtCft?Z2ZZZ2ZZli1[1S1S1I��CiIC[OC ifillSlSfiII1STISS:U t37?J"_:])D�(DCCOCi0Q000CL:COLDGOG9:(750U057IC])]07C09_7CCLC=0:J00'GC677�[BCSGi0JQE0CL'4[7:�OUlC[DO � �1J�B71I'15 ieaniin�te�o I RESIDENTIAL SUITABtLITY � Su'stability Classes � 1 Highly Suitable far Urban Residential and � Class I Suburban Residential Land Uses. � 2 Highly Suitable for Urban Residential and � Class tl Suburban Residentiai Land Uses. 3 Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential and Ciass 1 Suburban Residential Land Uses. 4 Moderateiy Suitable for Urban Residential and Class li Suburban Residential �and Uses. . Marginally 5uitable or Unsu�table for Residential Land Uses. I II � Major Water Bodies I � � Urban Residential = Maderate to high density residential areas and neighborhoad comnercial areas. Urban re�idential j areas require sanitary sewer systems. Suburban Residential = Low density single family. residential areas. Class i Suburban Residential areas do not require senitary sewer systems; septic tank systems are acceptabte. Ctass II Suburban Residenfiial areas require sanitary sewer systems; septic tanks are unacceptable. � � � � � ;, !t �� U u u u .� C' C ( ( < C C ; � 0 0 � '� D � O c� C� C+ (� �i b w1YM1YNOHNewNIJM�O�OPo.�NwIJY1.OwOP•a.+N+�l�11�pi.OPOwNnlJMDAeP,�wNn.�N�pwap�uwiynaNO�ePca.+NnJN0�e0�awN�IfN•O�VT� NM,�NpwOT�.1NnlN.0��1P�.�INi'IJN.O�OP iwNr�1,1N.p�.�.p��wN� 'IAwlMwwwww'INMV NNN111NNIIFI/1^117'IAFN�IrIPIJ J J J,»»>Jy�nNNNNYfNMN�OO�O.O�OiO�O�pOWwwl�I�h�hl�AA OOO AO Lo V up{I�p�y�V�P1I�PPPP.a'f a•a J�aO a��c�ti.�.�w.�.�N.,A.�ryNNN�V NryNNN�f�Mnf 'IMNwNw.�wwwtiw.�q.�wH.��1w .�.1�1.,w�HH�1.�wN1�y ��IO� � � •aJ!• .�M� .JJ!f t. . .��+N J• .t. .,t �++M J�.f 1 f t• •J. J �i l��i.f�J•�f• .�.x1 JJJ .�lJiJ♦•.1J• •! w.�M JJJ.f�.�M.1 iJ„�iJJ.�i3J.t�1��!!J � .1 f.fi!•r�f�nnJ.TAf��.�:J f!tJ.f>J1J fa r•l.t.fJ� �� ajifiJisr.n�Mnas�saisjlaii:sJ�...jnr�.�njsss A, .�j� nJ H/1.Jd!• ��w��1J!lff.iMJ^1�. n ♦Ja�.� \\ ~`�� F1M�Y1�0�1'1• •� .�!1J!• �N��• •,��!fJ.�! InMMMI11nY1qwnw�n,�.tM• MA.��/�fn�lF Nnf• nM• •J)tJ��f.f! ��l Mw1�•�liititlnwl�l�nJfiJ•�1��• •rnJ;JJ�.•Jn ' � , ti . n�.... �fn�sn�..nnnnn.na�sa�r•�n.rw: �nr rr,r.:nna. �a.r�a.�n ,�.y'ry snnnn.`v^!^^?wn-i:^�M�nnnen.r�n.nw'i.':..n �..nnn.•.^�sn.�.t�ann ' JJ'.�FI ��tnlMnnq�.wf• '9�1R1 � � F!J •♦ • n�'1�'i'hh^fn�ln+1lnr�nl.f ♦'1��:��r�n�� JJJH >a rn a.�•��• : I...�sw.n�inn��.•R��ronn��♦ •�•.nr�.��.r:wi wnn r annnnn snn ■_ u�TT . � +!�'IF�rI~�.w��ti• �►� MliY�rlR• MN^�l��1��MF'w1�Iw�MM�1n1�nr�Mnr.ntii+lOSY1 �A �.�r�l~.�MY�'9n'IM��!J^�rIP��.• MnM��MfM{nM��+��IMMMti�n� •in 1S_fn�l^I � �.TJ •� •�n1:.•��J�Mnn.. w�wnn��.�MM'1 J��n�n�n�9rin��JJ�>�'In c ON »�1w.�H'I�fnMH�'1�'fiO •-��JJJJn�lhrl��1n'I�A��1 WMMJ�H/1. �'l1�MM�'In��l.. pP� J�t.�w.��IM�nnnlwM�IJ�!l1�iJMr'1+��nvfw��w�H• ti�l��f��'IMn • M/��IF�'1• JAw.�wl.�.a.��n�h.IJJ��!ilJi^IMw��lels'1'lFI�IM�IM111in11�jiWM1r'1FIM'!Hi'11'I•'Inr1f«IH�• �Ty JJJ.1iwr.�.�wHAIl�iJl� t.�la�hH^'I+�IMnH�IMn+InnMMe Mfn..MI�MnMMn.....• Ty .tJ�Ji�ld��+tiH.IJ,�JO�JJ.f.jJ�l�'IMM^f�1Mw1F1�n�1nM1lMM�!!�• IMnM . a3tJ I »�.�• „ ,�.1 • t>M.�N�.�Mh !if ! •1�i� .f ��v��r�.�,a ,3 3L$ a..: 3�..isSi�s.,...�.,...,-,'.�^�i...a3.�.�nM�.�a;1;:.:e.,..... '�w� aJsa..-sJss.....r.nn.Mf.�sasa,�.tMn�..n•.pnnnnnnet,�,�qe.nrn.M�Jta-�s fsJ-fn...+.� �1 J !J�Jl.�w.1�wr�M!f�1J! l�fM�1�w1M�ww.�M�n�tilJ J �! • .��lHlJ .f�Jn�+.�.�.� �e,, �,�, 3.i;�,,.,,.,.,...,..,.,.�„«�„3,��... .,�,.,�.�,..,,3,3 ..�,;.. �3,..,.,....... ^�^ i�1JJiJJQJJ�JJJww�+.�h�wf�YY1�1J.�.fJiMw��hnyy.Mq,»iJ.��iJl,�.�J,�JJ�r�lJ'IM�.�wM 'jmM .f}J�.�JJJi�.1 f.tilNw.�y.��M�� .s.�.1J��ti��Mrl.��.1^`J.f.t�.�1 J!>1 JJ.f!J!f��tM+'fM�.aJ fi�►.1JiJ.10�►�1JJ.IJJJ.�ti�+.1�M• ►.�N.�w�ti.i��'IIqHA.��MJJ.Ii.I�.1.�.f�J�.tiJJ�M'fI1�MI�IMq.�1 �RON JJJsflsOSOJ �iJia+�M.�-�.�. ��w�nNti .�.�w.�JJnnnn.�.�lJJ.ftS#.fs��Js�^1�+�f.��nn..+n rrOw1 .filin�-tA�:• Ji.��A�l.�w�1• •.+N�/~.1.�.��iOJ�1MM.+.�.aHq��#Q�14�1�t.f?J��nMn'1♦ .��J�t .�.�aJMJ�• •JJJ.IFI�i J��1.��•.�.�.�NwN.��.1.�.��1J.�-iJ�iA�nele,�'1�J� 1-��,�J1J1�„„MI�.H.��J.tJ mwP lfOJJO f.f�..!!O!!.f�sJ..+.�.�.�.�.1.�N.�.��.1.a.�.t>s�.fw-1.+.�w��J�4lJJ fJ fs!. ...a.�r�n!-f♦ tJ.1��ilJ��ildJli»JJ!.•��• .�.�+I�N.�w.��1.MJ.fJJ.�.�w.�MJJJJ1J�fJJfl.f.fJnll.✓1n.�nnJJJJ uPA `Ti M�J JNfJ i�lO fi�JJ fA�~ .1 Nti��IanH.�tJJH.��IiJ.fJnhM!��MNM��h�1�1��nwl_t'J.fJ aia.t3.ssji3a �r� ae�s�aosann.::.. . ...�.+.•nnn��-trosss.snn....�.....an.�.,.nna sai '�wV iJJ.I�J�JJJiJ!N��!!?J.1iJJJJ�'1�rMn�1tiN�.r�• �YfYNM'1M�N�.t��.nNNNnM�.�.Inw��h.J! i O M J�1d1.►��JJ.fiJ.�fsIJJJa!»JJM r�.w1�.�.�n.arnMr.•.a .�w�r AJ.1JJJiJJ 1NNNnq�.• .n.� A 6�n ./J�e dJJ1��AIliJlJJlJ!l�i.1JFl J�� .M�+f�M'�I�IPfw.1��^.wti.�HJ.1IJJ�J.IJJ.fNNNn tNA��.�.�.�� N ��" iJ��.1.1J�1�.1J�q.1JJ.�Ji�J1Js!�..1J.�!• M�+IHrfH��!'1.�f fi�t.».ffJSJJNNNMMN.��• •.1�lJJJ.t Yw.�i .�i f JJiiMi��jfJJ�iiJa�.i��J>.�lijn n.nnnnn.�aw.�..�.J»�i��fl�.f�JNN�M..+A.~i�.~i.~iN�sa>1,�f fi.ala. c�OO� !lidJhtiM��♦,�,�J �1JiiJ.t. J.�SJJliiJOJ� •.1Ji.ti�.�l��JNNN�� JJiJJJIJ.f.�• r•Dw ii>MInY��JJ�iJ.fJ ..i�!>JJJl1JJJliJ� e� .~i.l• J •iJ�• • . ..fJ.flfJ• �.0,. flnn w��:�JJi.�.fJJ.�JJ.fJS.lfstJf!^ �/ .�w.��.�JJJa.fltJNN• ~ ~n..iJ..S'_t. faNNN n^��1��• •�• •�.».f.t.J.tJ.�J-�JiflAJJJ. . 'f"Inn�l.. H�J.t.tl. • .NlaJ• M ��`�`� n~ ♦��NN��d�.�.�.�J�JiJJ��JlfJJJ.1JJ.fJJ.�ti~ +1�1^f• /„1�.NJ1..JJJ. •J •,� W W ��J N�1�1�:��1�NN��N�NJ,�lJaJaJ. .�iJliiJaJiJ-��+��•��n��M� .NNl.�J. �N• � J J •NNN• ♦�NNNN��NJ_1-1J.�lJJ,1lJ. •JJ.1JlJJiJ.�.�vl• n~�• N.f.i)J. JJN. N>1 NN m Q � J V �NNNNNNNNNNNN��N).tlJ.flJJJJJ!�,:JJJ!!lJ.1.�'n• rn^�yNn.wM✓IMI�~~••~�•~~•~~• NNNNilJ• N J!N• F � � ��M J.flNNwilJlNNNNNNNJn,1JJJi!t!.• .l!)Jrl'^n. .�.1.�.y.� ..�J,�flti�.�.f!l.�.�.��• NN�v!!J l• n,NN'v. • • � d + F J�IJNJJlN��fNN�NlJJlJJJ>�SJ�.J. ..• .JJ'"M�.r�1.�JiJ�ti�i fJNNNNNiJJJJ.+.�.�-�• �JNNNJJiJ. . •-�• r�NN�• •�`0.� JJ:NJJNNlJN• l�JJ��i �JiJ• • • JJJJJJJJJJNNNNJJiJ>J.�H.�.�.�• .�JJJJ• •�•�•• •^N NJ J H � � �� NT J.1 JJJJJN�J�'1✓Ir1�JJJNlM��!w NN-t..Jn+�.��N�fl1• •�1lJJNN.NJ.f_1JJw.�.�.�.ywti• y.�JJ.f• JJ�~NN ._1Nn^�wn�NNJ1�-1JJ�� N W J J �.�^^ JJNNNl�.��./.��fJNn• niNJ.�..Nl.s^r��.��iNNlJ��JJJJ.lNNN!!t''In.�.yN.�ti.�.�.• .�.�JJJJJ. .JnirvN^. �_f_1N.f�n�ti�• � � O •l.1NNNJJ!�lNJNJJ. .NNI!�..JJ.lJ��.�N.�NNNl��• .fJ!�JIVN!. M~ J.fJJ. .JN• •.f JJ�1�1 f�1M• > ! O O U �ni .fJ!lNNJ!l..JJJlJJ. .iJ.f-11^.+-�JNNNniJ��• ..f.f.fJ.ff.1J_1Mn��.+�. .�.d.1. w. �Jl1J. .l.sn�n�.t.f�• ••• J I I ♦�NN .INJ!�.JNNJs• • •��JNNNN.1�"ItiJNNNNN��>SJ�.t• � .�N.�• •.�.f• nIJ_1N.fl.fl�l• V lL1 O r� f ^ln.f !J_�.1!��!NN 1,T��MA�.��!lrN�!lJN.� nr N�rrl� Nwi�f��.��N::��n• • . ... • .a.f!.............NN.......s_f_tw.��1h��• c+N�'1 JJJlJJNN• NNJ • N .y JJ��.IyNNNJnN��_tNNNNN��.�.f.1JJNNN�NN •.J!~.MN.��.,�N.�.�.�..��. ..J!..IJJ.fN.f_slJJ!• W � H 2 ZJ O+ N oJ1N •��• NNNJJJ�N��JJJJJJ.�JJNNNf.fJNN�lNJJNNNNJiNJJNNNNNNNN�NNiJJJ•iJJNN.t��.��1.��.�.�.��.��.�.�.�..�JJ.�.,.�n.J!lJJ.tJlJ�• O = = Q� +� _ � '^� NNNNJ�i,�:NJJ��.�3�flNNNNNJ�lNNNNN,t��iINJ�y !.lNNlJlNNN.��,�.fl.fNNJJ.fJNJJJ�.!J...��.�.�w.� .�N...��...�..J f.J f l!Jl.t f tJll�♦ ''N~ !f J NNNN....��.t I��N.�J.fNNNJ f.�J J!f f!J'IMi• U O Cl :f „J�- ��I .JT NNJJ��J��..�JJNNN.VI��NNJNNN.w�NN�vl.fJlJr�NN��J�..NN�.VNN��N.IJNNNJNtiJ!!i....�rw��..�....N....�.�•,•••..�.y��J.f t'ri�.��J�J �� Q. f � M� d Z M T ti u J n NN.t J��.�J.I J�JNNNN.��J�1��NNN�.J J�J NN!.��,��J f��J NNNN��JJlNN.JJ i i J J��.�.NMY�n��.�.�h��.�.��.N��J...�l f J�/J��, � uUl VJA NNlJ�!JJ!!JJJlJ�J1Jf.�lJf��JMr.��NNN.J!��JlJ.NN�.NJ!.JJNNNN�N��NN��.1.NJJJJ��.NMf�n��.��.yr.�w�.�..��.,y.y..��nlJl.s�• •�!• A J =LI ZH 41 h0 �� JN NiJJ�JJJJiNNNN-:1JJl��JJJ�JJOlnNNNl1�?JNY�JlNN~�N�.NN�^.JA.JNNNVN!��lNJJ!�.��NNF�n.�.�.••�•��~`�••••�••r.��^.n.N�n.�,��_t• •�n!,� -1��Ji��• �= y ,C 1��G1 YI,A p' r��. H ��t! .�lNNJ�NN�lyfJ.J1NNNNtJ • •J.1 �.1JJP1lN-t!��.lNNN.J.N.N�.�.JN..>.f!lN�NN,�•�.�NNNNNJ��ANNNNH��.H.�.�.��.N��..n.�.+.�r-..nMl.l.f.f��J��J♦ � �J wN Ntr R' 2Cl WW OJN JJJi��NNNO��JNN� JJJJ�JlJJ.'flJ.t�lNni�lJ�JNlNNN�NNNS�J��i.�lNNNNNNNJJ�JlJiJ.f��.�.��.w.�.~i.�i.,�.�.ni....nnw��.ti.�!_fJJJ!tlJNf�� Z WY Wti WUI � � LiZ Jt/1 �-+1ti JJO��JlJJJ JJ.tJ�1�J.t.JJ.fi!�lNJ.flN�N1��n�..NN�nJJJ�NN. .�JJJ�_1NNNNNNn.NN• JJ1fJJ.�. J;!j.1J.fNJ• a z O� Q1 JJu JlJJiJf JiJ��JJJJiJJJJ�.tNJJJNNNNNNVNN�N.�J�iJ• •»J.1�JNNJJlJiJJ• •Jii_1NiJ• f O� O�- � 1�� L YO onP JJJ,� JJJiN.I�iJJfi�t�JJJJJJNNNNNNN��NN�1��J• •�,��lNN.• •J• •�iJJJJJ• • NJJJiJfJJJNJ• 2 N7 �nW TR )IY 1J� l U TQ� n - !J t.�.1-1NJ!��lf.��.��iNNNn�Nn�NNnINJ J. •�,�♦ ,��.��.f.�• •.• N WW O QfD .1J lD �rM M JJ.f.f ti-iJJ ..!!Jli.1l_�N��N�.�.NMin�NN.1JJ�.JJ!. .�J• • •.! .�.f.�• JN• ��J\ n�p .fJJJ.tJ,�J�JJJJ�f.fiJNNNIJN.�.�NNN!.��i• •!�• ~~.J.t.f .�..fJJJ l fVM Q'+ Tp' pf 1 IYI �rU �+IM !! .1 OJJ •�J��.�lJNN.1NNNNNNNN��,»• � •.tJJ.f-f.fJJ 1JJ.f.l.f.f � VI K� Kfp F. 2 NUN oMM JJ�iJ�J.�!• •JJ.1N�NNNJ.�Nli+lYl��irlM• �N• J J ZN ,T �y� ] OW T4K JlJJ��JJJ��J.�JlJJJ.1JJlJJ.��Jnh• S.fNNN.f,flJ�JJSlJJJ nl wN � Jl.fJ1JJ JlJJJJ ^,^ r^ �-U� 1�• t�l ., _�J�iO• •JJ• •NNNiJ. •iJ�n''1• .f.1lf ♦.fl.1lJ �: �� R� � ,�.. ^V,` . '�'.' ::.i:':...:�r^• '.;3;' 7 R' t7N NO •t_� •J fJ! J OIY �� 111~ �U �9 N` Jti '+�yh 1 •JJ �N• lJ� OJ JN JVI � J~Z M nN.O N W� rrtl id 4t � Vt ��r� i�� . .�..• J IUQ1 W� F�J ►J f LN JI� fJNnl • M J7 JN �+U tJ M M02 oNN •�• mN RI > > N W6 C�N.�1 = Q `H NN NM y �-NN �� f�r H O O J 2 fn • 1] ]N �IL >1� 10 M W 1 1 �10 •f• �N J J F M .� •.�•N�.�• � NIA �IN WW WW �. .�� •J •'J.t.. • Q ►J fJ .r Z �nr�w ONM ' ♦ �......��..�• W TJ TJ fffl OT . •,�� • • � � JJ NNJ.fN��NNNJ •,�,�!• �:. Q JU J W W .1 • • •��..��:• :• U n'Y p't NK O QNN o��+1 � ��I��JN� .fNNN.1N.1JJ.1!-1J!�..f.�• •�N� •. •.��• _ = YI► W�- W � •I�H N •�• •• • •��.• .��• •��,�JNJJNNNNJJ>NNNNNJ�JJ��JJJ.�1NNNNN�I..N�.N�..NNJ MK 111V �1� O� xN N ff� Ow�l •�• •��•�• •��•��•��»JNM.�iJ.fNNNlJlJ.�JJ.IJ�JJ�Jl.1JN�SNNNNNNNNNI�INNNJl.1NN O O O� O� Oe W JJ �� •��-�� •��-�'��JJNNNNNJNN�NNN>.!)J!JlJ.�!.�J.f.fN�1NN JiJNNN�vNNNNNNN =r =� FN LN J= K TV{J nalfT �� •�»>��'NN�f�J�JJNIVNN�,�NN�NNNJ J!N!.lJ.1J��.1J.1NNI�in�Nf NNNNNNNNNN •�w��.• •��JJ��.NNNNJ.I.�JJlNIWVN�JNVNNNN,�.IJJN��1!�N.IJNNNNNN � ••��M��,�Jl.►��J!��.� •��!J fNNN.f.f,�.»��NNN�JNNNNNNNJ��• •�JJlMNN.1�.��NNNN '� W � • Y • N II = 7 VOA J��itJ:JJJJ�Jf��lJ��J.�lJJSiJJJNNNiJiJS�.1NNNN�NNN�NNI��NJ'fM�+/M/1�'IMM�NNN��NNN � W N N M .t •• 71 10 0O� • �1!��• •• •�J-1�JJJJfJJJJJ!!i`�.tJ.tNNN��.�J!�JNNNNJNNN��♦ •JJNNNI�INNNNNNNNNNNNNN• � 7 �V♦ »JJJJ-t J JJJJJJJ J_flJ.flJJJlJJfNNN,f�J�1`�hIJNNNNJNNN• JJi NNlrl''1''•.MN.1N '� J N O.aM lJ�AJIJ��IJJ�IJJiJJJJJJ�JJNNN.��J�MIJJJNN NNNN�.�JJJ NNNN��J = caON -�J.1Jl�►JJiNNNJ.�JJJJJ JJlNNN�,�JnJ NNNN�AJ �tlJi»JJNJJ�JJJJ JNNNN.�J? .� = 4u.� J JJ.�J i N � NN'1.1N�pAOpON11/IjN�DA00�uANn�N�OAOPr1NN�'IJN�OAOPONN�1?N�1�OPo.�N�'IJN�Owep�O.�NM.1N�pAOPCI.INMIlN�O�OP a.�N�IAN�pA�Op�a+.�Nn,�N�O�OPnNNMJN�OAnO�.�.aNMJN.O�OP'O.�N�.fN�Dr�op�c•NNr � NtiNtiNM�ti'I'INNNNNNNN1yN'IFIM�PI�YfMF�VIJJJJJJJJJJY111�11�Y1NNU�NNY��O�O�O�O�p�p�p�p�p�pw�wPAI�APAAO000000000PPTPPTO�PPTc'.au000cauo��H.+rti.n.� ryNN✓fw�'+fH V . .�.�.yN.a .1.�.1.�.�.�.�w.�w.�.�.�.�.�.�.a.q.+.�.1w.,titi . \ �� L1.1 \ � � � . � \ l 7 I •�I 'e � � � 0 Y� V \ .�..� ,,. �. ..,...M __ _ 1 ' _ ' .' r. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUITABILITY Suitability Classes 1 Highly Suitable for Commercial , Light Industrial , and Heavy Industrial Land Uses. 2 Highly Suitable for Commercial and Light Industrial Areas; Moderately Suitable for Heavy Industry. 3 Moderately Suitable for Commercial , Light Industrial , and Heavy Industrial Land Uses. 4 Moderately Suitable for Cortmercial and Light Industrial Areas; Unsuitable tor Heavy Industry. . Marginally Suitable or Unsuitable for Comnercial , Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial Land Uses. � Major Water Bodies . .. . . . .. ,. . . ..._ . . _ - _. � _ i _ _ .,... . ... .._ I � -' � . . ' � .) . J iJ v �J •`H"I+1+rM1+r1+�+1�I�1+H�+Y�Mr1�MI�M�+NNrNrI+rYr�r � wivr o,p u vav�t uiuro��rrr rr�rr�rooe0000000,p�p�pyyy�p,p,p,pOoao 0o vaov V vv V V V v V V V PO�O�POPPPPOu�J�NJ�V1Nu�N�11Mf If f 11'I!!lf�Yuu4MYYYY�YNNNNNNNNNrrrrr�rrrrr w �O J��VI f 4Nr O.Oi vP V�f 4Nru�p v VPJIP t+Nh�o.pa vPNtuNro�p>V PN!4Nre.p.�V PNluN1�V.O.a vPJlt4Nro�pO V PYII'YNY��00 VTMP41Nre�pi Vpy��'yNreyv VPNIUNNe�yr V PN�YNI� Q N. p `{� I N�� ! lffVM41�w! i i y-�prfMl�lffl�I NOu t !t�4Y4�.1 ftOtP u Pf� f��tCtYfIY«f�tPf�` i ► �� f.��1�NY1441 llCt�(J444 YY«f«!{t�Y�wt'fC«!!{'!�rC=�ilt��C�'��I.lf! ` �4A � a o �u� �IMyu�yl�PN4 < <•�i�uuut41N�w4 f ! C41J�r •y t f��i��i i i i��p� � 4..»��w.��€. ..�w....,.�.Sf.-....w�€f. f�€f��f€€:'.f:SF�, . .. A � u�•uuu.eost�eteeu�..tuw uuu.uuuuo.oe�seuuuoe.es��e�s..e��..es.oeoee��e.• .e �uo � � G`G41��l4WUOPP��pY�It.�4tiuUf�lyuul�lli�C!'u1w(r{�rf�• •s�• •lf�• •�f�• � 00 { Iq �. uCtIJ.ft��• l�fluuu:..� ��uluwuwtftCf�yWi�w.• •�f�• ��J D 44U4i11�.iW4144 l441NwM4C�• CC�CtVC�• •t�• �� G44WMWMMfP! 4C41Cil��fi'Pti'CCf��luutN L+u�'MuyluNC��i'�P�• 2 "�� t.IC�t41U44Y4141W4Gfw4Ni��iC�f�'�f'C!i'l�tJ't`�Jfyl�.lutla�f441!!��• � fNI..• u40�P.!��t«l4U4�.14��4�~uuff'�.ICi�'�• •��• Nr0 C l' .s..oo�tsa«�.. ru.'e.�. �r- -yi � o .. �e�..suuu. .<reo�. � _ i�.� •e roreeer• `^ .ai �:�, : a.~.. ' r s .O�+u ft�.. �� . f 1 A IP.. ONn I H fl N �� NNO � � �v •�p{`• o = PNO >yI� 1,] P`r. �mun zc� C ` .iN.a .f��i�t• • •TN� OJO N r ..• • •ff:Pt��=. •�C<P• • �NU pO�+/�1 A Cf iPt..�.....�.. .P• Pr .PfIl.��t. �I �� r�N � y �!!i�l�{�Pt1'fCi�N• •tc��fP• ��!{`i •fPM� • •• •�«I rN(1 f osoocs�orsoes«o.. ..r.....�.. ..s«�•..reuuu.�....s�....r..�♦ .-u.Ji e.«or�.. .�.. .. ...s�.....e.. ..�«...��e�re�se�s�<...«e...r.i u�ao �rw. .. - o��.........u.. . .....oeo`�o.:�::� .. ..oeo�'�.�iuuuuuuua. . sr � z «<ro......... .: ��..e�e• .. ::: .:.��. u �or�r..��. .«�� s..�u n � o !�P C�• •• • •.��• .• p�• •�• •�.��.• �4(r!f�• !f• ♦f�f t f� • CCi {'f�Cl��y!��.'CP��•NNfPV.� .��• �{�C�• .�• •��.�• �`• •{�u4�uti.wtCMu.AlCP��ttff�Otff�fft �TuO 2C1'+OONCE N ~ .f`i'C!i`i'f.• Pf�. •N��YNv�V v. N��. •�{'��• •.�.�• • CCf�:Cit.w.aywr4uV.rNV1C�'�POP{'!•�ffPY�flC! v.�u ��12C�IZJ PN�'CCCCt'i�Pt�..�f{�t<��N•NNiJNNN�!.• . •fC��PCffOi<.• t{`4uwtiww.wu4uwCft�ttl..lCN�{�iftPf uru �1 :]S U1 A •��...-sa�oocceo.rvrvs. •r�a�es�s....`.. . w„�s.. ...e..�...0,.,,1.. uu�sross.seeoo�etreos♦ es�s o..0 ocr vz .. .�`r�vr.��NNNNNN�. .�ouooeo...r s�.eu�e:si-e�s...os�re.. ��uuc«s�r�u�.tectee000..see o«<si< <.� n�n;n.+cve •��•�-a�-ii-eoeo.�..w�o s��••titi�vivrv'• e�to<v..u�..u,.......�. o....uu. sss:��.uu.u.,,.uu ste�wr.rrse�.rs.�roer . a �u. ee�o.rv .e<s.. . .eor�oo.eo�.+�.+,�+u,.+�..�.+o..s........�..�„„ru•�u4:ue•i�wuus. s��r�sr.o�se ue ruuu:::tiie r�vro uea�✓��z.z. � ' •i• C.�{'t�'CCl4��NN J�VNf�itf�• NNNN�• •pfi'4ui�t�u •��.!!.�p�• i'a'o •��<��• •CP�ivtV�vNNC�cCC��• NNN�• •• •tuuu4C.C. •�pulw�'�tCti��.+Cy.��4� ��t1w441��iiiCOlcO�'�!fP YY41I�u4MW��w1�PfPI IwpO A2�N��'1ti 1 •CC!'��`.. .{�{�u.. P."f�• N In4uuy •C�1+ u��.fP4lCPf<�ti'�• • �►YI�V4fliItilM lIMU!`f t1'o NO 1�12 e 2 J•i'� fi'u�• {'{-i'y�r.C C��vN� ��• •{'��p.• 4=: llr�4 C u.r..ti�.4 ti'�4 •{�Cu+uu:C`fC• p:�Cf�'rCUV414/Ct<t'i• u .c�� wi-s-erro..1uerv.. •si•c y s�swosco.:i-o..,:s-..suru.i-.t.."�utou,..us. s.ei�. oos�s�vou�rrrses's�.roew� ai., ..��<:nn�a � ••� .os�,....«ecu.e.•. es.rou.. .oe•u �o...�eer�re�.. ..s�o.�-ouu z��.+ ze z ' .�ti.. r�.e .<..� ��.. us.s�r�.. . .�vuu Tr'fT1'YwrN .n �:er. : ••••a�.w,.�v .rv� �'u�....o�ea� ..rr. uu. .�.uw�� ..H��w.�.sr...uuu •• • .eeuu .ero ma.w.. ffi'<�.J'CC4�va'ui�C�`�C�• .��• •CCOfPffls'C��l4U41i'�• u4C��u��y4 4`t,yi4lObtfutr4utwflfV441NYPCflP�• ��lM�• m� ��'CCtf�i:!�'f.t!'.• •NNN�V •f:��PC,fu.• f�w4P.• ��fCt.l~ r�10 tiC11AO�aT < C f�VN�Nfi'.P •��•� •• •` u4`fu4`y u!�4tyy4iw�CfffN:�Pff�i'f�• •ff��wV�• � 4C��.�{��41+�Iw CN• wi��4!� i'CPtiu�w�• rpptff�• •flfulru�• C�CfCUCi r�� t. �i�. .• ��N.. � ••.�� •��:.�.�yw u.rus�tlC:• y��• •ulCu�w4ti��.:fPNNN�.��u�w�. CC.�i'�' NJ�o sn1�.(�It) N •P..Ci'.N�•NMVN�• .�p��. •!t<�.u Pruu •Nufl4utf�N� •NN�• ff41Jt��ft<�'P � Z«.YhN •f'{'tff uci'ff�• • •C�'�N�• NNN�. •{��t�t�P• u4ti~uNPi'uu4Yt�• • •tf41MP��1'i'u� fNo 1i�-�t�.N2 2 if.• .• •t�fl�N�� NNN�• NN •. .ttt!►{�tflt�� 44(J4yNNP{'{'PPl�• •r�«�• •!l�MVf{`��• N�I��a rA L��Jl O •' "u�`.. •+C��. .��<li�CPNN.�NNIW��NNNJNN..I4��.�PW./��<C�� • •Cu:w • ry{�tfPP.• •4N •�{`PN�41f�PCf1.1441!`• V�u <eNJ PI C 4C.�• •�.t{�Ct'tNNN��NN�.�NNNNNNNtli'I`fuW4•�f�'f��`CUN:��N�fflifw• Iwu4 •tui��{'I`�PPCtw4tltP tiCNSPZ N ♦`ut`•. CCUC.• u4•tPt�• •t��:fClCNNNN•• NN NNNN��!i'4•41w�lfP�. •• i'u• •• •tl�• �w4P.�t�41��tPflff�4��Pf�ft o Nr�.-��a2ti 1 C�f•..�•.Gu 'J4uuuu.. •{��• .{�tt.NNNN.• •NrWyNN��ift'lu4iuU.tt`lO�t�ts'CI'�...�.�• •. y...�f0.fOtrlP.wC.4u«�rCl� oNo CO� �am A • u .fes'Puu�.1.• �vNN��i.i�N f<f!� C�a��.. ••• y .i�tCfiCSPN.u Ci�l�wi�{'r �Tu AZO A w •t�'+ uuCC.• •{-pCClru+..�I'Cl�� N V�~ NNNNNNNCfi• C�lffft.��C��i�O�i�lt�lC�.IuuNyl4rC�tMIw1I�'fC NY�c 002 UZ r l�•• • • .l W<!�• •Ci�lfN:n�wut!!t�• �yryNNNNN�• •plNNCfi`a'C�. rt<i'!!f«P!��f!Cl�fi'lftOM��twNu4�r411n414�wu4� ' •�.C�. uPl�• tC .�N4twlClfC�.�NNiy�N ��NN� .tt�!<C��tNrCt�rflt�'/��fPli'!�'Oli't!4��U4uN��ulwu. !?O Z�:l �C�I N • •�.. i� .P!C!�r N � .tNN<flCfCt'Ct'�'f�• pIfPP�'P4Nu4��44��!{'N • r C�• •��C f�.('!�.au��t f C PN •N�•..NN.�t��..�.�.. �. • .!i'C• �lC4�C. <f• r�� .<lfC��vN��f`i'CtfPN��IfClfifflfPt{`f�rt{'l�NN��MN��f['f y�.T�l �J� Oti� N ' .�.s. u4..1ci' •Pfl��` •��.NNN�NfP�• �.lP!•��• V�JN�vNrVn1N��PlCrPf f ft fCl��f{`t.�• •��1��•)<f fY v.T.7 Z�+t O 00 "� •{�lCCfC�..�NNNN��Nll••r ✓��Ci'P.�C�• ryNN�VNNf�i'ff'«ftlPCli'ftt�• •�!�P��C!{'Cf a.ru G1Ns K2 •!i'!!Pf['tff�N N�Nif�• �.{��!I`I'f0��• NNNNNNfi'��ftlPflPClfCf�• �CPfPf fi��f�ti'ftC �r0 NmJ �nOr H •PlOCPCCC!!�NNN�NlN��rrC�rCi'i'i��NNNtfp�C�• f«�'ffffftf��Cftfa-ttf lfCC�I`CtlNNNNN�N��f►rr��fti�CfPOr«• •«lfOCl��f�.!=�fPf!{'2't��ltt:-'f1! rV0 N nl�l 1" N��NNNOtli�i'�.•�f��'{�ti'f!��f�P• «!lPtCY��f{'• {-fr NVO ti Ir�< Cvo fCifC........ .rt`tri+rfllC�s�'lifl.NN�.•�NPf1`I'lrf�'t��fI`s..ftPtfi'f�{'ftlPl'f��i'P!P��f! uV0 !q yp ~ 4N�NNN��Ni+�l�+F��+CI'�'Clf1'lfl�NNNN��NNO�fIf'I'tf• f�.ese«tr��e�es�Psee��er��f/` i'VO 2 t f`u NPlNNNN��t• fr�+r�lOCtlPP��NNNNNfN��NIPNNONNI'f��!lttflPti'Pi�PtPf�ffl�I'ff!�{' NVO O O {` t�.i�PPl�.��plwMr��.��.�• �pfN�'tN•�..��ryry1ytt��Pt�fPffPPPf�. Vfs�ttti�.ciP�'i'I' V vra P��pt�t'CC�• •it��tf0�PPlrWNNNN��:f fP�`fr!!P• �r•fPt1'i'{'��i'!CO YVrf = � Pft�I'tP�rer.�P�N�i��y�p�fl.INlvlrfltflNNN1w N�.IN�1M�• N��I�f fP{�Cf'Pfltu{-pP�p�f�-p{� Vp � .Ova� iC�flPHCf�I'tI'fPlIrII{`fCtl'Cf'NNNNCrlI`I'�• •NNN4NNNNN��ry�ltfff'Pti'«'P��f'lff��fPf .�Vff r r.CIPNN��s�t�l�PPlfPPfi�Ot.rwwu�vr�rer,wu.a.iyluuNNNNN.• •«r��rltCt��..{�y.tf'I'�ff f�t�NN��!Pf• tflf��Ii'lCC�f NNNN�`frt�`NNNN�N4NNNNN��NIW tP��If�{'� •��.PtCI�1' uy . s�r.�w..eevr.isrr.••�oe�•.rerwvruerreoHNw.+.�uu'v. roiu..1uiu,w•�rl�ec. ••e�..*tePe wio "'�`�'o �N�f0��t/'��Pl�w��flfCCi'C!`I'n1NfC�'CffNNNNIWV4lt�N��NNiWOfI`tfl��sr.��iC1'P C��a P�{'tt!'�tPP�sertr�e�e.��tet�iw NlPi't�NNNNN4NllP�P�NNN�111'I`I'pf!`�f��pr�tll�♦ ua4 f�� fN�OJ't<��e�rter��rrs�-er�eerv. i�PC��NNfPCNNPPf�F�N�WVNN�'Pft�'��fPfC• ! y�,yA CNN��{'Cf�• rllf'I'�PlplfPPClfNNN{'P��NCtff`ftf'tP�f.fNNNN�lti'•f Ifti'�C�f PJii " NNM t�tC�It��.pr�pfltPl�tl�1`Yfll.��«�{�CCtu�f�I'I.NNNNlflrili�l�Pi!! v.�0 QLLo NNNt{'�C«`��i!��OPf Ctl`tP�!t'(�I�C{'t�PCI'fl�ff'!'ft�lP�NryI�1Ip�I�'p��`!��f Ou0 NNNI'ff'i'CPIf��ttCl'�PPfPffC!!P�l1'fPNfCCf11'f«f`f��'f�NN�V«IP��flp� ��y� NNN«r{�P�Iri'�«fI�I't't'«'1'ft�'I►�C�N�JI�{'iP�l�tC1'�f•��N1IMVOP!•fl�P{` �p " NNlIPlO•�..t..�p/�ti�PtlCI'tIlt.lfNNefa�i�P��ftf{`ifN��.NlrlflFP�'I �.y0 N _ •Ni'f;�.I�`�.�...r!.!i'OlCf!ltlfPfPf`f'tI'P«�«f1'fIWVNN��t1'P�' N.00 .eeee�re..�r..�ovor�«oa�s�ro�ss�ev r«�s�iv��w�ro.wu..�v� u�oo �L� �iroroi«os�s��-r�s.roore� reersro�««��t�ss. •NNIVNNN�♦ `�'�� :i'eeere�..ere..eres. .�e.g►�.ePeet�e�er��.s��tflNNNN/W• t.oa �T�,� � ...s��orar��Pa.ree�rre.e�e�re•.o�o�oore.o�.eeeov�e�w�1u.wu� wmo �'�!��• eM�!!!l�PNNNVN P.00 r�ree�eo�ssreea�rrrr.•��rso.. ��e _� �es...r. •rr�oet«r�r•es•��«oee...�..��..er....eo�e.��Nwr�� ee. erereeorreee�e�-e:.�•��•eo�«.rere�e�e�..��.�..�eii .o,no � �ssosaos��oro�ee.sos��.�r.�es�«��'�-s�ev�.. •��..es♦ Yy� eor.«��rve««. •st...s...s..eesrs�e�.v�oeo.. ••..«. �oo�o�sesrr��orre�...�ere•�eerere�eee��ee�.�.r�v�• �„ '�"�' t�ire�s«�-«�e...�....�e�ss.�«�►��isr�o�e��.a�f�• uc... • e�o�ee�eeseo...r....�.��s��.. rs�reros�ererr.�r� s�...e�ss�...��o��r.... ..�ies-�e�oos�oae�v♦ eor v�� . �!{`��pfrl��t1'��fftP/�fNNNf��PPf�Pfi�'fI'�'f POr tOf!'f��f�• •�t�O�rffCff�'��• •f!��rro�re VQM ��t�rr��• .rr�ette��..r..i��s...�er.en.•e of+.� . � o�t�rr. .��s�ses�er�e�.�e• re�. ��`c.e.. �� r.�rece.. �•eo.e�e�r�re...�o�.r r�e �i�•v...e�t�a��erre�rrrsarr.�e.•-.��'rrs' r.rr •(�{`fIlrPPft.�. f{' •{'.�r.C{'! � µ�Y !!� •!!f'CPtf�C{'P !C!'f s�...�r.s�se�a� o�♦ wr ►�� li�i P �� i�'� .l�fPYt � f. •p «'�' •f!ll�.• .n�.. •r��..�•�.�• ,�iwr ►rww r rr r�rr r��rr�rrrwrHrrr rrrr rrrw�+rr 414 truNNNNNNNNNNrYrri+rrl�V rO0o0000O00�p�O�p�O.Y�p�yy�p,pOi.�(�aJl�V�1J V V V V V V V V 11 VPT�1P??P?PPMNNNNMNNNNI'I/I rI f I��(aNY4/M4414YIMIWNNryN1y11�1y1�NMIM�MMY�NMM Niur�u.�1•�vJ��S!�wNr�a.1��v,w�wl��wryrp.Auw.w�Y�IMr�1i•11�l�11t�Mtwl W+o.111�V I11�11f INYr V.I�J W J1��NJ�r�11u��1�Jl��qW JM��Mw�wI�W W��aN�VJM��yM+W uNM�'�MM��MM�VPMl�IwM�Y.IM�WIM��WrA111�V4rI1IN1+ • • r� A I� •• f• I\ i\ .� � 1 1 /1 !\ /9 /1 i t .1 .1 ) :1 ' i � I LAND USE SUITABILITY COMPOSiTE ' I � L.and Use 5uitability Classes � � i ! A Highly Suitable for Urban Residential and � � C1ass 1 and Class It Suburban Residential I ; Land Uses. B Nighly Suitable far Commercial and Light i Industrial Areas; Moderately ta Fiighly I Suitable for Heavy Industry, ' C Highly Productive Forest Areas, But Unsuitable � for Co�nercEal Timber Management. � D Highty Suitable far Pasture and Grazing. � E ModeraCely to Highly Suitable far Mixed � Hay, Small Grains, and Raw Craps. i F Fragile Areas (Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazard I Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, Riparian Habitats, i Peat Bags and Swamps, and Stream Zones; Areas To Be Reguiated Far Tha Heaith and Safety of Society}. G Highly Suitable for Urban ResYdential , Glass I � and Class 11 Suburban Residential , Comnercial, � and Light Industrial Areas; Maderately to I Highly Suitable far Heavy Industry. � H Highly Suitable far Urban Residentia�i , Class I � and Ciass I1 Suburban Residential , and Forest � Land Uses. Unsuitable far Comnercial Timber i Management Nowever. I i Fragile Areas That Are Highly Suitable far Forest Production. Commercial Timber Manage- � ment is Unacceptable, 7hough. � J Fragile Areas that Are Highly Suitabte for � Pasture and Grazing. I K Fragile Areas That Are Highly to Moderatety i Suitable far Mixed Hay, Small Grains, and Row i Crop Prociuction. I � A11 Other Gambinations af Highly 5uitable Land Uses. � M Maderately Suitable for Urban Residential and � Class I Suburban Residential Land Uses. i N Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential and I Class II Suburban Residential Land Uses. 0 Maderateiy Suitable for Commercial and Light Industrial Areas; Moderately to unsuitable far Heavy Industry. P Moderately Productive Farest Areas. Q Moderately Suitable for Pasture and Grazing, R Maderately Suitable for Mixed Hay and Row Crops. I S Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , � Class II Suburban Residential , Commercial , � Light Industrial , and Forest Areas. Mqderateiy � Suitabie to Unsuitabie for Heavy fndustry. I T Moderateiy Suitahie for Cornmerciat , light i Industr�al , and Farest Land Uses, Moderately Suitabie to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry. � � � I U Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , Class I Suburban Residential , Commercial , and Light Industrial Land Uses. Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry. V Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , CTass It Suburban Residential , Commercial , and Light Indus- trial Land Uses. Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry. W Moderately Suitabie for Pasture and Grazing, Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Res- idential , Commercial and Light Industrial Land Uses. Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry. X Moderately Suitable for Pasture and Grazing, Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Residential , and Forest Land Uses. Y Highly Suitable for Urban Residential , Ctass I and Class II Suburban Residential Uses, and HighTy Suitable to Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay, Small Grains, and Row Crops. 2 Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay and Row Crops and Forest Production. = Al1 Other Combinations of Moderately Suitable �and Uses. , . Areas Unsuitable for Any Intensive Land Use. * Majqr Water Bodies. � � � - r � c�tioicn ys� i r11+NLI SJIf�BI- 4i:lS tE�I5E0 �iCiN '. .��Ji.�.iiG �Y�ii��+��OYJJ�JAiJO�JOQI�O.i��OJ^�:'7:):'i:.:7]]:':?C7)0'70)JC.^'�0^-C991700'1]n4"9�•^'^7Ltt�kl��ttSL!!t!!l!t y a L i;�;3'll' 1111t12?2�222�22717337l3fS��:�:�444�SSii555�5i55-oSPi555777771T7 7�i75771��OqO�qa999a+nq �7�1t 11�!1} 123��a 79]1��:557)d�12S�5i399)t?7�i57�Y7122�56799:1?S�i67j3�t?��?>>d9012S�56Tl9Q1tT�567l90t2��5S7�i^SS70Sbt�q SZ��R )� � ' � VVVVV 2 , , ! VVFVVV � � VVFF.I�4G�0:� S � 5 VS�l4V0►43f]F 6 , � �5FF�SSSJ�3lFS � S SS�FFSSSVVdSiV R • q Vt/�FSFFiJ�f71 • 1u VYY45FSFf�FF=S � � 1• 11 ��11$$CGeiGAiC .� �vv55�«�t5•1 vSii� �� is SVVVVfii 1�S.i iSSiSc6:1J VVVVSCFy31:fSi^ SiS]8U:1Vi55i 1� . r T��4�C�.YJJFfFS� S�1AS�WJUUSS5555 =� ��I4C�.JJS�FFYS.'.i$i�de••'JUiS$SVVVS � ��lyF«SSFVV•�UVv$53]••••USSSV••'SS 1 19 I=F �►4.=FC_,Mlrp:4=GSi0••�sU'JSSF�•VSM 1� 19 ">_'FJF=i JJ JSJJ'Acr.dsafSnav�A_a•••••UJS�VSSSSS � 1 2Y ii'IIF:�i NyVVM MSVVV]°r�SiiYCG�C.iG•�••••wSSS5SS5YS �� 21 iall==[:F VlYMNVYNM SSVV.'l�FJSiV':S:S��i`�M��U�JS«SSSi1SS Z 22 jj(•a__�� AyNVVMNVY]YJ SSS�VYAiJJ]y/SA]]1i:•'•�'�'�SSFJFNNWHM � 2] - a"•46�e:r a.�JJJJJJJ00aaJ�JiSSaaIJF�;:S5J.1i��l•••••••��i15SJJCCSMS i .. zy j==�i:i,s_ J<VVhJVVVVYMNiJFFJMlSe�A' IJU.i110]••�•'S��VSSSJSSNSSS � 25 iVIIc=:cCC' ••<<'FVfy$SVVJ:IV.M.VG655'JGi=CVlJ703•••1•��•YSSSSSSSSNSSSWSSS � S 26 i�I�=?E'E-<.Ec'=«<':EE...= AF-lyaSOJMJJiN.J►1:ia:i%L+'aiSSa"�""SVSSSSSSSMSUUSS�SS 26 2l JI`J_�=F�F�:RE«�C«<ic;)..°QISV/VS4VVVJSVSV.Y�:i:1UJ�i:CaV31]GG••s•$SSSSSSS4VSSF�_�AS •7 2• V(=A:a�F�F_-(cC'c])5��__..�_f'$VVMYNVS.'/'A9.V..�-:JHJ-S�;;USSSiC•'SSSSSSSSi�iSYF�rS�+'�i1 z� 29 SY°IA'12°PF_s?F.«U<:i0ca.._'1S'fiIVSVViidS.L eC::VJJ'a^'�l'JSiAS••SSSSS">SA7ncrp•r5rfc: 29 SG iJl;aNc°)2cce�.'cJJJ<c0:7..-[CI[ISI%SlSauAJS'a.�3:•:;�-S�;q,a;S50••SSSSSSSS)uSFi�w=SSNY�S 70 jl jiyiIA�:•JC�'_FFi�<)J�F.....<Iil=i$$FSVSiSVVS'1SSSiVIFF•;,J'IJjIMSS��SSSSSSSS:aa�i••V�SSwSSS 7 3Z ViVS[ii=F=J«<�Cc•-4=<}c J..]t[iF(SVSVFVSVUUV.UU:iJvcJJ�':]'P15�'aSS•',°�SwSJgSS]wuNSF•Vi�55S5SS 7 73 VJVi�JI'_°_DcsaRK«(<_zc�J 7•JnIlJ(FSJJJFJlJSUFF�6SiSGI%rCF,(�SfJS$��FN'�AJSSSNfSS5SFS5CSSF5S5 ] � 3� JJVi��Ii=[J?c?scc«<_ca•]]•'•IIYi•ISVVSF>S6iF3FS3iIYI��Y7-rISSVSA��NMNJSiiMFSSN SJNSCS�FSSS 3� ]i VV-i�V�'=J)?2icK<c.a�;�4�7J•�•[IYi�^V�JaSFSSaSLT.=.SA9�FiyA.CJ:VA�Au��SJSSSSMSSt�S�'ASSSSFSSSS CSGN JS S6 VJF9ypF:FD='c�:KN�2_ynicE)].�_II'�iJVCVVV�iFM4�EYY05117IJ=��,;iS'lSSSA�•�15SMSSSSSSS'AMYaSSSatMSY�4fi ' � . 37 J��I��F�c;4;5�cR<�=nEc°E1.7<•=i:fJSJJJJJY«JV.►C:d,l/J--�Cil.9)JAdiA'1F�SSS'ASSSSfUSS754N'I:IVS'A4�'.�:G � 3d V��OiFI7?i-cc}cJ-J:cs:-.:J<�QIV.4iVJVVYYGFNOV.6L�17JYjJ;1l�:$'laMSSSFf4N5MSSSSSfUAMiS5S5�NCr.'4;,0 �S 79 04V'JJJI�F(<�acE<_c=c:�...]I°=�'/a�a046IMY4-iJ'a.1V1GiY�J;F=��f^F%u,.Sa�FSSYSSSSSS.Nj:;�SSS M,!r.��r,UV 79 ' Yu J��V�JJI�•..��[J<�[_��....J`1=17J1J�SOYYaJ�GFaO'a:Si�.TYl=I�G['AccCJiFJMN'aFSASSSSSSC:::".i��S':::�'111�1 •9 �1 VVJ'aVVJFL"cEiF-]cESc.cc.....F•1VI�VOYCpA44..Va=�JN•:_:V�ur�e�:cc�'�t��SVVSUNLUYSSSSN.;:qqr',q,qr,qc,��Ur�yUU ♦1 Y2 �JJiJJ+IlcF':7...=.�._:....� U//JVSA44�6d7SY?J•?+...aYA.:N=cp'M1A4��'a$'dN'AFMSSS..G.:f,;5;.f.�a:4AN'IU�U •2 �7 VY)iVV'it".F=)..�'��:..._iF:-1V�YS0144AYA.t:�Y==i"�]SM+AAGi[NV�YVVwSSSSF�USSLriii�.aCFF�.��f,Y11�lU�U� �7 04 �JJ'�JJ°=�?:��:..'._:....._!!��°'$lY4G4�YY19A9°iYJiv%aiVe.�ea�JINJ'A$lJASSSSS�.UfiiFiieeeCN�)UFq;4fMNNMA��S « _ �i NV'IJOJ�VFPEFc'rFF(=cc....."VYV""SJTSAADa�7iY�VV.YYlYw�?7G.:V-JIiVdSwVVVVSiM�FUUF..«O:iU7UVU7r.i'�U7MMV.�SS \S �u NdN�Jii�iP..FSE_K=FF=.....�fJJJ'FJiwB�,�.4YA50K=4�1�06Y=ir;fFF;i�lNSSJJJSSSFiUU�,f,GGGFJJJJFFUUf,�,qM�t�•iSS •6 � yJ V��iiFVJG�<_:rE==«......IJJ��FJ�46G.A04YI.Y4YFYY/O�YY=iG)FVaAYN1�VVNV«NVUU...GfiG+�1VVUUUCSSSl1�1U«U'�V�1 �7 „ ys IIiiF�!IF'<::FK�:.'•.....I%JJJf-OqA6G,C-f�'fF4F�IC,C4�31=�)�JlJJSJJJJJFfUUi!',fFGGfiFFMAYSSSSSSSS�l1UI�••M��V ♦� �9 ��SiIIVVfo=_�,:,F<_y....FIIJJS°�0'/04Af�FFCYiFY1/'/'/'/f4lVFJU'1VV5`JVVVVF�Y4i:FG�G�FUUUU�SSSSSSSCeS[�••<<1U •9 � SJ V'lJ�i�[I•Sf=<eE:y:R"PF„F�FIJUiFVMYYFWFe,Y�w�I:V•YOl16�JWVVSYVVVVFFNpuG=GGGGGUG,tSSSYS5SV4�JSi•��uU , b0 il �JV"$I�•I�=�cE�:�e=-4F„�=:-I W IF�JFiJ4FFGYGFF.:C�•.fA3AAFJI;;JMJJMiAUUUscFs4arerrr,sssvvvvv••v�s7iSLI�� S} . 52 VVVY�J>['�If==ci"'..�:F....�°"IJSISFfVYJ4FFYVVicJYW`YIVJAFcd;,�SSSFeUW,�.G;,:GGSSSSSVV••••y`eJViU7vqC7 S ;3 04YJJJJ4�FiF:�4F<..:..F..:y�P=�IIiIFfFfV=FSF,V'ld�y'/VA'••VJV'JF�ar,VycFA'AUUU!1F�.�Giirf.SSSSV�`VVV%Nf,FUVU`1UNIIV'1 S� 5y ►Oqq��q4Fi'Ic%eF...g..4ff--.iT=EIfSFFVV.VFqpFFFL:'/6S4•••••S�aF�AF�iuVUUU�lUFG6GFGGf,G^SSJJVVJSSSSSVUUU7UN�PP1'J S♦ SS ►�A�tCAeC'iI=?�F__.}..EEc�z��4iE[IFJFFSL.JF6JJF,�OL$JJ""MNI'A=FF�„(,UUU;SFG�iFGfif,��GUUUUVVyVS5��S5USSUUUSNV7== SS i7 YJ9V'�YJiSlFJ=:E.�K...EE_°EEt-'_�°=IISSNF07SVVA4lCF144.�SVYV.Vl,J7�FGSf,G�GFFFGGS�.f.fffFiFFUU1SSSSSIUFIUU4MqN711UfPC S� C is VV��'JYJIIIFJJ_[i.<=.�_[:_[=: �O=Ft(S]�F�AJJJO�Gi=iL..JS1/S;:UJf%A��.iuGFFvUN'A'AANNNN�f�FfG�1�1UV'J�IUF�JAN�JU'JIIJ�It1�iS5 S� S9 JJlJJJJJiJJ'-Jsc�.°�'q'4 '""°=°IIS�AF_GVV?443:=}�.iiVJ/i::U�FV'1:,'f.F:FeN4UOSSSSSUU«IIU4f.�tUU011q�Nt1r19�IqUi19rS5�5 S9 6u VJJJJJV[ILIIJs:�.�.:;EE....."E?F[Ia'1NF- V..4Ev1.��-.S../i'. aF�a;�;r,'ScFf.::.�1$SS[SOWJIIMVq�/S�IUO'dMJCcrpp�q.;nM�SCKt Rn � bl 11Y�JVV�III)JL:.fR�:�E:....-'_:E:FFI'aNVVFiAV.FF'(_).1A�.$:��5��::IFNY:(.«Gf.i'UUiSS$U�1U�1'JU�IAM'ANNN4��U'IU�1�1'711�JM«C�"f. S� b2 AAJ•JJJl'II[JJE:...%'["c_....:,E_�FISfVJ.FJOJ4cc.cF,ldri=5]C:�U;CA,IGG;fr,riUf,SiSSUUG;;U�IVAMUNN�.UVU�J�IN4!isiM�SG�c. R. i7 AAJJJ46]JFI=....r��cE__. '`:cfFiFfVJF64V.V'"Vcscq�vl]';'a-c•.�',�«='IN=;;=Ma:S.,M..G;G7HH7W4ANNAMV7UU94viF1/Oe 63 6� A4G►A+Q1J�'IF.:..��see"'....E;cFFFVVF:F4�Q.V'/�=rc�caav.dl=�cF:IfeFS4N5•7:CSGG;f,G:S4�.UU0�lUW1Y�N11'IUVU7NV4C?Oeyrri SO � 6i i��C0ai:6/ItII•._:'_=[._�_�."c':FISd4J�F,1'11CJGr�;;GS�'+^.a]31-��M�FFNNGSSSN4�I�.CG..SV:I�U:P1'IUMM'IV'll�l)�1�1')t)�S=�iMMIIU �SS 5u '14�i1�A3:YiiJIJ[�=-�'EE'c'oc°D�'�.Ii��nJF�OYVYC::'F«a^a/�1I^:�:I"v°SCiSS`I.SUGG;V'iSSU�UV:fAUU•�l•••UF7Ure�e4Plllv= �6 b7 4G4°••1�Y'/V.i[�°S1=E.....°iEJ:E'I�J40VFSVFOS:SSS_Aa�'d+'�];F=FUf.N�S:%1"J�I^CUUUUSSSiSUAu�)OU'lU••••U•�1��'�[err�r 6� 59 A1laC�:!.:S+iiiV4l.='_:�.••••••'��,I�IF165A]F�Fdr$�7�.U:��a+i.;;F;;'IS;ASS5554F:'SVCV•SSC4v55S5 PiUrFCp��:o nt�u��V�S 44 7J Si:46i6::��li�JC'_:' ' '� ..:E':f,.F�Ja3SdFJJ'�r=:=].�=:;_�:;:`�I�C•�aii��lFUCJVSi'Nst5;5`.^.S�i!1U�UrU•••Il�ltt•r,rr��5 •� 71 �G4G4i3F:?1'eY-.c?=Pc =E. . -=SMIFy34iANFAAI..=CfV°:;",ca�;%�[SNFiSM$SVFUUVSSNNSSSSLSSSSW�4U��ulU�f,�USCS 11 _ •� �j F:-••�f1.i]:'1`IJ[C��="sp•.'=....c=7SFFJJa4.i8•i'7A.++%��cFc;Li'/'�:cr./ACFSSMSiFFUVM4NNGSCSSSSSV11F�1�1UN��1'lll�i�/^C"SSSSc . 72 � 73 VJJ'"�a44A+l�:P,I'aa""=E:)£.....'FifIFV0a1aSi4VSi�vI�°!:";4'1`I::FFr'Acy•cSHi[FAdSVYSSCSti[SIIUiSSNrIU••�FUO�A'H;CCSC�S• �7 7� A!•=A4�6.'JlS:II°cc°ccE"7°_.......fFFF1iCCC`IVVSSaAI:�G;�:;;:::G=�;.GSSSN�=i$iV••VViS;SceCFeS;S�y1)�•rrei�MCS[V''Si 7♦ 75 A-�JiiJ/l11III'}��c"cEc77c.......FIFFFSS"SJJ.:iA^I°C:';;;5�;;�cr"4G49G:.i�ISJ•'•ViS��UUStIJU'1�15u�UNCCU�IUNSSVVct 1S 7o dJJ'aJF�•�/"IlI��q�;ccE_J]`.... FSFFF=FG.SV.:iIil°C":;;;:::'i�F�;;�.f.;.GG�SVV��V'��FUqSS11�1�U11V'Pl'IdFetlUn�VV� �6 77 JJ�rV:�/iO4ill"cF.:'E_J]j....JF�fIN'iiVS..V..i=GFFCFr�:::::ccFiF[ccG,,:..F$SYV�Vi55FI1�IcCfUFFta11�1�)II:)cc�1�15'IVV`/C f7 7! YViFViS'/AJilII�{-2:Ei:c]J...J F=IINSSiO4.....J>F«Fi=«F�=«FNFFFFfNNA7UFF$$VW VSS�WIU�F�V��VU�IUF'7U�7USAAJJSSSe�Vee 7� 79 ��F44Ji.1J4FI(IF?EE�G:C7....JOiFI55$i4G.A79..�ejc:Fc:F:c:i'c�cy'a'aFFFNF'lUFfS$SSSSSSFS�:C�FU11'1V1N�17�0eet�ieCSM�tSSV•'ree 79 ' i� oJ==»S�Vi[I-]F�E3cF,:=7.......fFIUVVVJ4G0.SIilFFI:5::22�°F:F�,aa'�f,F,LFcc4wSMSSSSS�C�SC�V�17U��O�ID+1`IFOtl��KS4v^.StyV�°� 70 il OJ''Sa'd4i%III=Fc..�c....a......FSS65iJ4a�a7'J:=-II;:"�':%�'1�7U7Ff,f.AAFFf,-FFUS..00.:iUCStCCUO��lU�P1UUU�Fni�CVyvVV'/4�rrCe �1 !2 JJF�'JJAVVIif('" .Ec......... .FfJNSSUUUUUU.�III67oG:°%GSJ�+JUVJfS.,GFCFFFFUUUMeV�FU�;S�UVU�WJUOUO1PiFUWPIVVYNV'N 4rcc �f e3 4JV'idSJii[Ia':=.. ... ... .FIVVFIFUUUU�°=:;7i;=F:;:YU7UJJ'cFFFFF�Ff,FUUUpUU�n^.SHC�qOU�111P'lOUqUei�I�F..VVVVVS�S� �7 � a4 4JJ�iaJlJiil'[ecc.. � ... .FfII[�ITFFFF::,:;�«5;:3'PIUUUF;;G.;i�,WNFfUUV�J�SNCS9r��'IUU�AI.'PIU�PIU�ect. !V%e¢cre4 �4 � tl5 OJii%JJJliSI<•'__) ...J7....�...FJFFIFFLIIIF:�'"G�F;;i�=1..UFUFi:i,iFf.'UU'J'1FFHFFS5S54511C�1i1�111�1'll)SU'JIIIICee�c}.�r��/ereSF 75 ' tl6 �JOiFFFF%:FV=_F__)]...99... J....FOF7FFF�iFFI;��FF';;;=1i1AfFU�,9;,F,.UU�1N;cFVU�IucSSSu«unnSr,75VUS5u«a.-rcvVv«<[S �6 e7 OCJ4�=FiII["F=yc°P]]E..OJJ7J0]FfiF=FF- �- K�ISi«=i2a$A51'16IYfcF.JJGF�.FCFr.r,GFUU�1t1�1�1Si1)U��1��t15��1�1�1�)CSCSec��r•y�nre�� 7 d9 �OJ4R";ISCiIFJ<c.:_�• • JO7..]'UF:F..EEEE=E«::�F�FNn�A�1Y.IG4YY41)GSS,fFiIUUU'JU.F�lU�1F�M1111�1'IFIJIJ�UC'1�1�1'JSSMN��I�e.�..� Sere �� ' 09 �S+]iiAScLIIJJacE4ic....09....'FfFGGIF=.EE�EF�I�GGf'Adau1 ui5JA55J�S5M=G:IFUUUUFf,FUFC,;,,,iN�(!1Fl1qUUU'ISS5719UU':�?i��«« �9 90 �J4C_VYVvSIIJKI'cs°cE.....�....JnFwGGFF�(fE=..��ISIiiSdSS2e:S°�;:F�SSN=YYCSSiS«�•�:4:r„qf,qeeF�IJU�lUUS5S94'UCSSr�C q^, 91 4J�0•l4445'lJKJcP_=......7t7,J�FNGGGG:�:FFE,aO=[GIJ?ai'1[Cid'aSFF�SFSSNN $f.�LCLSUUSUf.f„f.r,[f U'111�SSS2�SS^.�e�S qt " 92 aJ40�C4iFi[IFF.:.::........J..°aFN;Gf,f,';:L E.:FiPFi�lIflS`.;SSSF�SSS:AS SSSSSS �SSS[Si«St�S 9� �} -F6•�Y445FilFi=:ea......7)�.7C7FFG;G.G:�:Si«°c_1«.IIIIISf(�S[Y«SSSt+S SSS SUSS�S�StSNS 9 �� •J��4i4.ASIIFF=:c_... .......7']FGGfiG::��GFI��:J7�=�7]f==«?[LVVFSSSNS i5S UUUUUUSSSS� 4� y5 •\��Ali 4iCIFF=iJ:.•. . .�'1FGG=GGiGG„f,(�_�.,Fi=�^,Ft«Gi[IS:SCSSSS UVUMSC 1S �' •Ji�4a 41'aIFF'FJ'.......,,.ii..�OFFGGU-cFFi�1;i-.F..F�:F]�77-FIICNSSSS , Ob � 97 !�•�� SG.1!lFF=FJ...........'..�OFGfFF�FFFFr,�,r�FFIII:°F°=�F�F[ISSSSS q� 9B ViIlff=�J..............4'fFfF1606AFFF�^_..SCIi�'ecccrceiilll 9� yy SY4I IFF_FJF.........:)..�A=FF4tTTfTTFFFc_....»�iI[cF:r_c<KG 99 1Jo CdVF1[FF•-FJ:.......'°.O.��CFO�T�TiTTTv:rcc_...°?,1°:lF�S��•( t77 _. ' »1 ' A.1dF�[FG==FJ'.......:'.0:'I�FF�TTTf�T�T=T:_F-...»ai.•� � l�l lyj �3iFI%FF'?FJ':.......01F-FFF6FIIIIIIL=�T1-<:r_,.Y��a�Iccq. IOJ l�j 4dAGIJFF==F)=- ...°C•'�IV-FfFUUfJWU%TtiT�fi�-FVA,aa�S�IfI `j lpy q'IAFjfFFFFFrF>FF...A°aiC'.FUUUFUI,f,'A'�tt�*rrr:ac�aaaea•.a��e 19� 1�5 Y04FIFFF•-F?='F...4AOiiC4�;IFUUFUJ,GGUFF';;iTO«;]a�1]�Au 17S la6 � �]AA[�FF::..... .F-4JiG:�FFUUFJ:GGG'GS%°IFT:l�I]a.;.qC? . S la7 f6�f•FFO.......OF=F"iiSlCSFfFG,�;GGU]7LSi$ITcc;,cFGA�ao>ay 107 � 1Jtl 4i^I=-FO......iFJ7_::iSC:C�FFFGG;iGFF�l.�jAI�FF=FF�»��E!10� !hq J lu9 43�I'i.0._...JFO J::J3iC::$fSFfGiSFFOrS55-GSF-CFc.FSa�a�3�a 11� V4A==...:...fF �:::ii�::F$$SAC:�'J04�FS:iii�r�Feei�acSo0�0 ' 1S01 111 4VGc�,:_pF4' JJ"'i�C::FSSSMS'UUUUYFSli;?4rcccai.c�S�aoap 112 � ii3 S2Ff.-07.F= JI'SiSS'.CFSSSNSSi:UIIVF..iV,occcFiF<FI551� . PI[�ai5::$SSSN;iS^.FUf,F�iiJ.�7I�f%FC.cLS°F 111 115 IIIFiSS;"SSSiuSiS"IS=S•ii^,;'iiTT«=�F�FS 11� J IlliiiS"SSSSSMS:SSCSCS•'�ii�Si;i�I��=�°F J llu Ii[iSiS;55S�vASiJ•C5.'1C�^.i5"S:;'a%:FCF:r 117 Iii;i^iiSS55A55••Ji•CJ:iS]a.l]t,;LpQ�F tt� Aj$iiFSNi1NV�V��Ji=a�ai1]S:Se::e 11� lld i$FpY4ADGC5• ��SSSS;SS.aorc�G 1�9 O 121 IFSiiiIlV♦ •FSiN'aA'AVA•al'1�I6 S.Q J•V' J�ISSUi•U�'1SS[F 1?1 122 �::4• •��:U•O:ja4[ ' 1'2 121 V` '�-� 1�7 Q 12r •y=• •.• •]S�ic: �4 125 =� � S 126 •?;7�FF 126 �Z� ..�S,��FL f;g. 23 , � 129 •SNaGM?v, i2� . •SN?4So»:[ ijw � 1SJ �E?1Soi.1Ff '131 AAI]'aapFF 1T� � 133 •�aa�io�G[ • 1� •Vf�oP�,t[ Sl. � .. -.']_:.'7.LulG]17+J:dG:JJ]'1).'7CCJ'C.J�CG]JJ::::_:.:'::::'::]�)C77'7199]]^OQ70907�'7"9'r^�nn�nrr±itlllt:tltttittlt111 G�++.J,i.ltlil::ltl22?'_222222353J3SIS3J��a:oo��=:>i�°ii5;5ii5i550.3R:,5ir77777i771q9��i�1�'l�o6ion�iq�^7�r"^��tlttl!!l:ti O 1?SriS)i3i123.ii7if�12Sr5�711:1I1.557diu12S�557i�::?1.i�71{:1'.?.-,F7i�21?'�5671�G123�5579971'_'45b7qq71?+ye5•�.t^�;*.ca-+l 1 i, � o � 0 a . i � G With the composite map complete, the intrinsic suitabilities for land use that it displays were compared with both the actual conditions of the Sewerage Area's existing land use characteristics (Figure 24) and those conditions that are expected to occur in the future as detailed in a composite map of locai comprehensive plans (Flgure �5) and the Puget Sound Governmental Conference's Land Use Element of the Interim Regional Development Plan (Figure 26 ), The existing land use � of the Sewerage Area was carefully mapped from recent (Spring, 1973) aerial photos. To determine which of the "alternative futures" was the most compatible with the "suitable land use plan" developed by the study team, com- posite maps were created, combining the "alternative land use futures" with the intrinsic land use suitability map. Figures 27, 28, and 29 dis- play these composite maps. An actual compatabilities analysis was then accomplished by producing Figures 3a, 31 , and 32 . A higher degree of compatibility was found to qccur between the In- terim Regional Development Plan and the intrinsic iand use suitabi- lity map created during this study than, for exampie, that exhibited in a comparison of the local comprehensive iar�d use pians and the suitability map. Though not without its own significant impacts, the IRDP, if implemented, would produce the least adverse environmental impact. No implementing mechanism exists, however to enforce the IRDP. It can therefore best be regarded as a guide,, direction development in a manner that minimizes the adverse effects upon tf�e environment and the hazards imposed by development upon the residents of the sewerage area. The existing land uses, which are likely to intensify if pre- sent trends continue, are only slightly less compat'i'ble than the local comprehensive plans. Over 40,000 acres of the sewerage area are currently being used in a manner inconsistent with the area's naturat suitabilities, capabilities, and hazards. Over 38,000 acres of the sewerage area would be used in a manner ir►consistent with the environmental features of the area if the land was used as proposed by the local comprehensive plans. If the goa}s and policies of the Interim Regional Development Plan, were foilowed, Tess than 24,000 acres of the sewerage area's land resources woutd be in a manner incompatible with the land use suitability map created by the study team. Because the IRDP is prima�ily a policy document, �thich interprets the graphic plan utilized in the computer study, the area that Hrould be inconsistent with the study team's land use suitability map is likely to 6e considerably less than 24,000 acres. Most of the inconsistent area is already irreversi6ly developed, particutarly north of Kent. Conclusions from the computer analysis suggest that the provision of sanitary sewer service, in order to best minimize loRg-term and short- term environmental impacts, should be consistent with the Interim Regional Development Plan's Sewerage E)ement, which is, in turn, based upon the Interim Regional Plan's Land Use Element. The constru- ction of tf�e proposed Auburn Interceptor is consistent with the Interim Sewerage Plan, as is the construction of most of the tributary inter- ceptors which will be built after the Auburn Interceptor is constructed. The construction of the West Valley Interceptor is Rot; however, con- sistent with the IRDP. 122 EXISTING LAND USE Land Uses A Wooded Land; Forest Areas B Agriculture C Open and Vacant Land D Low Density Residential and Cortxnercial Areas (Suburban Land) E High Density Residential and Commercial Areas (Urban Land) F Industrial G Major Transportation Corridors (Freeways and railroads) H Transmission Line Utility Corridors J Recreationat (Parks and golf courses) I Major Water Bodies LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS (Composite of the Auburn, Kent, Algona, Pacific, Black Diamond, Ren'ton, King County and Pierce County �and Use Plans) land Uses A Rural Residential and Residential�Agricultural (Up to 2 d.u./net acre) B Low Density Single Family Residential (Up to 8 d.u./net acre) C Medium to High D�nsity Mu1ti-Family Residential (to over 36 d.u./net acre) D Commercial and Business Areas E Industrial Parks and Industry F Public and Quasi-Public (Parks and Institutional areas) G Open Spece, Agriculture, or Forest Areas H Agriculture J Medium Density Residential (6 to 10 d.u./net acre) I Major Water Bpdies ' d.u. = dwelling units _ i . ,i r • �� r r 1 c. �l . � . ) , > •-�i .i U : � , � � �. ' AMIJNMI�MVMNI�IMWI��I�•.�MMV1lN�II��MWMN'1JN�11PVO�J��V'�IM�I�4V'.sw��JY�WwtlO•cNVn�JNWwnW��wNw�f/�LM1�M'iwNHJr.�K�w�•O�uMM1��aN.phVPiwM1�11�.OH�IIM»rv1nfU�.uw�.T�•r�v'fl�n.nwu0�•��1Nw1 . � MMw�MAwNNNwINNNM�lO1M11111N��IM�M��INrM1'MIiJ1IIJI�fIJY��Mu�111Y�W�11�W�IhIrWWV1W�uYWMwI�hl�hPwHn��VV4vO�y�IVYYNY�IFY�PY•{1WNN�.Jaac�t��)JOc�.i�+�1ww�.y�+NwN�V�v��NN�vNN�VNn��nM1 , � , . MwNNM�INwNN�w�IHwHHwM.�w.�wwM�wwwwwwy�l � � wMP � � , �t.�9��f�AK�t>Y41 �J� N� i � . � �I 1J�ta��lV�t1�1A 1..Wttl w• '� � . �+�Mtfaa�i�.M ' ' Hw � � �� Jl,y��+��uiw N.1.1 � � � 1 � 1��1� ±yVVu•y1wWVWr�d4 � N-�Y! N��M ' � , � • \IV��U�l� �4VaY��tlA�UW4�W:V�Jw'•1.i�e � � • ' 1 � A��Iw��l1��11�aY��lY11:1'JI�UUW�•11tlW\O�es�Y� ,V w�r � � . I � ft'�ar�l.�al'lae'�rte�l�tw��'wK;�fi�e��Y'4.1�.��!��<1� ~ .�VO' ' � ' ' , 5�•+ ntI.14•]S�t�<w�l4n<.i�{dy�_�tec4u�'�rt4<11�t.��t♦ � w0 rt�! � ' �=4�l�tl�l�dit!L<�trrt4fQt•1tllfRtVY1Y.1Kf�i<t�d�KM� ��r �hM ' ' RRt=L1��Ct{J�.1A1�!l191+1lU1^l^t'Vw�tO�I�/�xJ4�1Ar�'J[�i�A�O .K w w�M � � � �yL1ClU'•J�lU'1lLidt�7l�f�VO��t��rO�YYYUY��fJC��a�4SO ■ .«..p ��.� • t��fJNL�a.�O4�J�S�nrOaan.aadan�-�•tu'.��ra��YNeew��t4 � ��\6f1:'��i W a�V�il�\O��s��1�..r�rY��tlY�a�t��t�� a�l��wV�f C� Sew4�u4i�t�Y�aa��U4�s�<4�d��tdas�4��R� waN �p YVNV�w�Ufjtr�qy��V�aoa�l4ti�c��J�.YIVY�u.aYaw�ey�.��ta�aMYr . .«��.�i ' , ' , �o�uu.w.��«�w�oaan�avf.�acuD:i�•.•..•••�•..�•�uaes•an.na...aa.��r�� ■� ��w.�w......ur��...ua a....av.u��.u..�......-..i.aa��a...�..n..n�.....o.�ra �..: w�T �t�u��unounua��n�aa�a..�wua�.+.b+�+.-�..+we.+a�a..�a�ua�s+a+�+�a ' � `.`. w•e � uouu�r�a�u.xrua��a�oa��a��o�o-r..au-...n��w��up.•..�a�aa�� +'. ..�0•A VL1L1V1'�lV��iY1.)t4A�YLLOI]�<G�1!`K�VaQ�+�+C1CtlOG��t40��Y�L6G+.Jw Vw�a4 . �,Q�w � •� � ' �W\'�U'UybV�lYfJ�e�fV4UVYUt[1lZCi�V�tttJ�+�fN1/)�u.�11vV�VC��Y�'��d'��i�l uO�N ' 7�IAV�iV�.�� t�O•t�tNnf.�r�r}nf��lnw^1ST'[�.f•t .i��fOlwA�f.�n.1lliM.If�Mw�f.�.�ti.r.i�td , W �! .t � � . r�VUVN�wtYY�YVf��r��Jf.��)rf4GMr1ta�4�J�1•�7Htl�AqO•lyya�ltiNLlt/a�a�1�i��1 � .^f �.TM i �tf�Vl7�ll)�1l'V�{�'�AdC7�+11�][:'i�Q[!�faS.+deTne.+fR•JIe7�!iJ�iV�ffJ7Ntl.Z.�aRqu •.^.r�r tl�•N lSfO�t�YU�Il1ed4��MO�+�OdOQf<�L1I�YQS��fy��fA}1�1�::l�dK.[2�T�i�Yyd�f s N �P� � � � ra A• f .�w'fw..n 7�aaa�.�2:^� :aaraa�.t U .t.�.tTaanrw�aa -.. ��.=Zjrl��i'��{xP��3wav�rc� .�a.•_�L a�� •.aa��n�.��aawi..r..atia..� - m+�o� � a..'��a�a��es; trnea�awon��rroowoYa+a.ey...+�a.+ 4��f�R�wt�Ilf�1<t�( ..�p. �^ ��a�tiwww�i�� ra.��far�r.t�n� iaii*��1t1Ti�t�Q�Q�sa�a�.�wx�vaaar.r$ .rew � �u��'uuur�oup � i oaa�q�w.� a ♦� aw�.fis��a� � �aa��xaa��ie eor �, �uuo�+u��uao�a.o��urx.t2s��<�wr�cnot��aa�s�+aaarina��ata�a�+<�� e.nr ' . �uuna�-fawnar�aqs.law o��a==q��aa��o�i-x�n+�vat��-iR�taaq�-�awt.��s�.�wC� '�: n�M , �rrC+ob+.nc.�uoruu�ROp�r�u��a�os=.�waauuont+l.�a��.�a�.a�rcra:�o��saa.ata�ua ',�F t..r.aw+uunc�m�a.�t�uue�uuf.�wy.��ee�nr�.rn-rrMnal�fa.�.��rn•.n.-.....n.n•,u•rt.Tw.�..wn�K eN W11�pUUU�+wr�flyA1�tOA��•jUWJ'trJf�l100Sf10KQ�7f!]�� C•I<1��+MI�p(]n(14tYAf�q�Mde e�y ��•w• � GJ�1�1�UtJ�0+�4YV�NJ�t�4L4:JJG�YWyrI�IlYOLtO�ltOSO�i�C��V�+��J10�+�+1]d�1�W�tV�y�l:tlia�se .. l��\� I1��Yf�OwW1I)iN�O 14C��O�O��V94f.'fV(�11U!1V�O4IL1��1eeu R•nt:Yi7Gt�Yd��wd�tya��qa taw'M rc•ouVa�ocw��wwa��ywC.fOf�y VU'�1�fCO�sOOaf�Sw�02:OC�G17r�o02�t�a aad�aar.��a�q�s�� .�wp. � �A�p qKUt%)��1Z[IUOf�C�f�lwO�Iw�N1i��t��!]IrC�OYf��I d.}tf1 'fI?}�1<aRl4�tnaI]f.1Q�_�l`4r4�+�'�l��t�tlt � ^AA ��Y�1lN�Ytl�OU['C t��Y��44C'��Jlrtrn(�ry�,�t:{.O�f��1f[��a0aa1=�Rt�lUGnflCOtll^•lrCY��O�l� � tI.J � rt O��a��<��F2�=2za��a�.�cmGm��p�afooc�ea��+ia+CS�rC�<�xr��2c+roo ��]24Qat�uaf r A•G -AN �fOOr�e1�NH��7U04fwZOSiiRe py7aVal,tf OOW7Q��4qY070C1•�J'UllRSSaZ�IC�R��07t��1�isuLH� �w^ ��+w��UUO�rr��UfO<��2�1�I�ii=aty�tl�J�I+C�Y'O^l��aYO�COa��:tl�<nYY=Iatw�t�rGCV'�W�YOn u�n ��O�Yd19UO��Y1w�rUn�tfftlaVt�2S221H�0U�WOG7«l^C�f2tIVaC4�R2tJi�tr<a�f]tQ�UUf]<Uf1V1f�1I y N =:CC1aw��w�t�I�tf�t�UU{d�4��<4p 0=ff�0{�2fjp O{�WOO�CL�700leaasa�lVS�WCSCQ�fnt`a4�Ct�01t�Vt`r1f�If�� .�'.� Yh�1 1 y��Y{lwd�V�af��Ul:L��YG�/�i7 �4�ff.�L1Jp<ViVVN�wV�tOULY4��w1YU�+C100]�l<l'4MNdt•llOa-YkCOYe<��t eil�rs :�4IwwVUFwrMwof��CiVf�i�CTp1�1 lAle�y71 �pU4Y�=�OfV�pp UCII�C4 LCi�a�aSl9vaaatlUU<a��qa��ea1a a�f0' �V��tM+�+ �'��'��+V�14�rbVVvamTO��yO�vO "U�aVtiV11212t�1�UUU�a��',1�a�a�at.Va�araaa�aaqaOU� uiT ��1,��+Hf•�w�wH�+aaaFa�:a�U�4nGUCJC��1n�4rOU�a[�0��V^�32ZLi�(1oltOna<TTilaaVn2�id��l�nHaa�aoWa�a.�m��+ re��n�_n., aaaaa �L+� QC•Va�UUC1r.l["fO�t�YI"M�anSltIl�UiT22iVf.`L+.'��to�nTa�V�til�+R•aZ.�a.�.tCw!laqnr�urjrlaqurCr�UtJ n•11 . Y.�O ' �4�tiH�M+w�YlYU(`MVIJIHI�TI.`tlL1UC'12I21C1A41]dU3ilISU�^Cf�dM�l)l'U'l'J'l�]lU•l�!]oyC.tir414q��fl4�tl��a�10•IHU4V fIT�TC'f�r.te rQ�n�T.l�r'M1� CW �JN HUuwwr�a�f�l�ta��aC�C'�UU�Q�Yu11T2�4C�f.�(]wOC�I��:�92111�VCLUI'•�aa�ay�V,)LL•��]I��+a�yu`.�a.tn.t.aa.�C��G�+�+qqp��LL'p.�1�•IYYJH�u a6u�Rf.hr .1! a�l)I�UUU��YYYNw�qOa•/w�YUyVU��I�Ut�11t•[1l�Ol'UCUUllI'�JUf�U�11C.U�-�lJl)�:n�Va�Y�ullanY�a1CR•O�r�-ayEn��tuJ��•i��•�HqYu��11�uY�O�a��n.�Vn�ew p�C�:�wwpLp �O4�Ae�ldt��w�wrqnp��vf`UUp2flACCdOGVVIZVL1f`f��tYl^�1YTf�a.i��l��(�f�t.lt.l.11"I��.1l�nZti��TIZoaVCl.-eeR•�^TeHtio�l•tC•f^�n�n�r;��awn�la�.oa�tiQ tlr'l1•TQR�aPn•O�� e+.C� VV1uwa�J�`O.fd)1�a.�w(�I'•��C�nqrJ].f�YQfapf'(�fOYHCUn[�(]t•U'l�.�p4�q�[•f�tC'da4V•�l'.t�allertY�altlfuqa4�•f.'��•�+•�4�+eWn�•�['TT��aurr.p.�«..feneOT�� w��t'J19u •�N y� •aqw�tnV�l7�•.�Y�4VC�CV�1Y�t�La).�w'�tiUGUulla�aat��'.�C�c�+n�uluu•vaa�.C�cG�t'C�)7�L'aU4Ala.faa4laauaw6n�.+�dC��•u��u�:iu•C:wc��+�+up�oov�QUGir��ctaWwa.¢• H V�Ou . I:OYtr�taY�Yq{�Y�UO�Y�GUU 21�lmWOO�l1ZtJ��OU0G40UV�4uVIp.�qpUC�IJLVGO�1vUYVa�ViZdVlYiZaW6fG�+<e�p�.p��p1p�0YYYQr+wr.rqc.yq<4Y¢G.O�+u.9m¢`GY�� N� . Y� a�e�u�va�nooa�aaoonaroc�oo�'ivamo•rzzoou0000e•..�-.e�uanaaau��aroeoc+eua��ua>aaaaaaasaaaaza.nna..n..a,nmo�e•uaan....�aaaaeceeaeaa,¢i.......mmm«.. yNC ONr t0(•UU�N�f)fJ�]P'��fRCO17RIITlUI�p{1S2��rncine�ne�.+.�e�nnea�esu��+�*aamaaa»�a�aaavaaavxaaaezcee...+nn�nmeeaa..<.,.avaar��re.ae.... wUr'. �Y�n ru.r. wnno��w�nnn�'r��a�.nTx2x2mtzsrszic+o �+aoac��+�«+ticnv<..nnc...awi-��a�ooaaa�i•ai+a.aea.(alrczza..axxr..-nn•-+-+cc..na.�a�-.-eaeaar.raaaue.. �.v�n w�r.nnoocc+m.wezcsaov�ouzcc�nmoc�n�-�i+�r�oco..�-�noo�aa..<cr.ore.c..cuuaaa�vu.•aaaRa<nvca.zaara..:rr.zreaca..a.....daa�aanaa.,..., �`M � eUaa�aao�uw.mctyxrwutUa.uzialzrTlr000'11r+ma.y�oo.��«+o�e<a�a7aapaxaa.�ruuna']�,.�.pevaa�aaa�a.��x�oa.wanOoaxa.«+.....�.caae.netn.aew....., �N�J t`��•a.��ITc STTTT�^�r^a�`r)t•r1t••�Ut,•�nrt1l]'�„�r+nCIT��M�r�.Mnt�n'tewanf�wn.'nSaweea•�•aaaar�.ai.wnw�[e�rt.�.�wnt•e�TTu-�w�r�..��rr.�fwn < •)rtn.r�rr�m.�wn..�-.�+ n �(�tx•Uy��T[�2IIJUUC)t'ft»��l'�I�CC+Cp[1d•t.�C1CO000UOWL'�.Of.][ICOGC[laC1rJCC�taaSC�C�aaa�"��.`�t�[�+�'a�aeeaa<.raaaaC�w�vp.��C�'J<�+aYZaca�(at+U�tanat'�aqeY4�w r��ylNJ�fll[iO��l{.IWOU�L�OZ2�rR�l/GC04CtdpYC'CLUGOWGCUOCOCI.00dOOC'Nfd[�2G(.LGLIeYYI�OC V��a�ata<UCU{J��+QOISUL'��UY��[IqY�U(i�/dCnemanqYw��+�r �^��1 [i� �Z [1 fl ly 4C1UUdA VlMll�`E�TpClf1 OA C ^1 y,W�JTTC^f�QVw -1��CC•M1'a•iq�tiVJ ddQaaC`�u1CTTRu�^ad�-.a.1�<Oi�'Q�a�<waec�<4ar1�+ti r.wcat�+'sa��'c+�'�a�ia�rt4� dr3w.�.iaawaa�f;�uua,a�ms�o�h$n.Snsfio€ �rnanr� vua�.a aonaca<..u�u�,i�=i.�aaa�aa...um� i•....u�a<n.�i•+ua.ae...,..a.�e..«., �.rm WY�Y,4VSl�VrOQZT221al.WY.YYO�wa�4.i�VCIUCtVYC.fICfO•flma�<��uroovnr�,ca�r,naua�a��n...acu.�•:uc.�a..aur.w�+aa�.-..�c•naa�.a��uuuaa.a..azaadrt�••••aa.�a.�.. ur �J� WW�02UCO�l2I�lWOWC1UW��Ot�a�VLMJ��YLIUOUVUGHT�OmR�TTOCGUfUGf]OVW!1L�CaGCarSR'�•��pl,pCr`em�a�na��•wwnCCnGu�44�+��+ZVdaa<•faal?G�aa.�a�[�rr, �,�� ♦JA WIJWWL1iii�00[�[IOOL�flfllQ�Of�a'��'�w•lqC!�1Ur,C•[�NTf.�f1.�[II_U:!'TfpC.[��R'VVVa(.•VCr'�S�R'('Tf�C'f:nf�r4:y�aqQ.�t?�+LCcr.CNva44a�'VV]e�TaaapC'�Sa�faeqr+.� �rr�pH �n l+-�M� W :�=101?�1(1f�QC�00RCUUVCR�CVOu�sCYiC1pT1�'.,TCulY�O�f1Ct0<TC[1f.Cf�f'ftt`f`�<rtf CceTf�^CncC'.f^r��'i^4wQ<4Yr�f(^�•�^!'w4y11y4a��rCn�nLaA�r`CI^�i�1TQQad�+H Hw.OPu �.f.0 OJN W� 4000U0(1Yp00� Cf�OaY(1�mOC:LpCG<CC�[`CCf^<ci',C�L•6+<C�o(i•GnGQprtaoe�rC�^�C�aa4�.�Wa�+'�Y«acZ�i�r'..Ca<CRI<tnY�rr�('�(�0��+ ��J�f� t�!J ooir�oneoonc.opewre �+uce+oa�ococo�aoemce�rmmpoec-oemnroonc+cuecrcncenxnorearanrea�cceaa....m�.-a��W�i�..a�-aau..aaiz�ac�cacaax�...�.+oono�+ •� O.I^� C+�1p2[1OI.lOf1pp OC��pp C Ul`CVOa00af�f.fV�nU[1C�H�1!OC�O[�UP[+C�CC�O<aaaaaaPl'+C�anT C�P�aCI(:7Cf.�T��nOdarw��VLdWILL•WY�4w.�q()ea�dqra.�n>R��fSn��+ti(�r(1�+ �Jfu [1f�1f1L�Vl)UPI]p f l.1�T611�Y�[laU'�C�00�1�11�nfit.'f•O'11•I1�0�!(�O��O�LL�If�T��n.�UUdYaL�!'u.i4I.1G��C�LUCCf(,aCftf^C)a[�G�a�.r�.l.•�-.S�.�i�Y�.14W�aa4qepa�fYZ.�Rd4YaaZdoeaC�+ `.��n C20�lUtl�Cl17 VCf�ltll`IY��Y�N•�rHudl��CnCl�Sry1�1�[faACY'M1.�1��r`�wVt�l�w�rfCf^1"!`�P'f`�r]ll'C'tr/'CffC��`P�I�r��+�'rqi`y1�.4:��uf.�ne.!fwaOY]��nKar�l.�loa�C�+ YUOOnYI� • WOIIC�VUY•t•WWWV�['OY�tYi��IWV"J��YC�I�Y�r•��W ?Ut�TnYVVf�I)O�U'Jfl�iuVf`tllt ¢Ua<(�Uu[�all(JUUrr�Vi�•�•.lJl^t'.Y.'��w��lw�fa�qa�al-a ��0` YI�pG OOL�W�)VYL��uWWY�uiWU�WWWY�YWLIU(Ju[�UCIWWWUUUUUO¢�JUUQ�:1V1:00tiY1bG'.UO�aYy�JJVCIJ�YV�VUY�[)tllUw�u4Y�+naaaaYYVV4IZZi221t2�a�a� �U Cl4Y l'('1a''o��(�a��ll��1�'4�I,liil��l,n�"SC OR,J44lt•�,�"[fi�aa4�c�'d�rqan7.nrs��U,ti�HR.�C�cr�y y��nf�l�t't1f�C�l`C^l�l��-V4aL,.�nepnR04.r.��t�iSY . L•�dnaa�'e�.Io!„)U= Y.O Cl[:W411JWWY'r�G�a•IW��YrWV'W��Sw4(��QIUWJV�at<Y�RYQYrarF+�+�+r'��l'IU�+G:JU�O�+�+WL WWY�U�,�+atRLQaUY W4�Ut�WY��+U�Y\�QYQ�tClVdCl:tlel N�[ r�M O(tUY11UY14�4�Yi<f�lO�fWW4'fWW1�4�W4 w�41t�t<a�4d�fYur��.nrrrC^'Crr�r�f��erCOL'�+��+4��4,WwW�J�IafUU�fV41��4�44 WWYn+a��fa<a�a��ffCUQa ^�J Y04��W W W W�Olf�t�V UW t4 W W W4�WtaYtWtY{�t�J�wf�ySlQ wYO�4ym�r�..rr��rUV�w W W�u WY�Y�W WUW�lUV UV W W Wy+WY��u�uwd��V Yl��Q V t�aY� pW��t`��a�ff?�.�UV oU�•34 Y�W4 Wo WW��t�tUliU�+O�E C C Q�Y�mCQ�1f0•L`C'��Y•W4U'W�.w.��u1�,y.�uy.u�..Y�Y w•Y'Wu�YIW W'4Y.WI.u,�+�aY��ptYa�Y{�aaQ •tiN OO��tf�f11�l4tCe��1<WW4M��UWW��UUUtJ��1�"CTC•�'()fTTUI`R7WY LL'1�4.y W4WLL'4��4��4�W1'4iWY'44�Y WWW�YWWWI�•Wl+�+��dCQf�Y��fOff G1;��1��t1� �•InANOQI�.�e1.WI41JY'4i1��1U1�lYQN�+�+r�r�rRTnnrl�{�r/�w�+nPr��•��.•U'1.•��14•��W4��'��'�.i��^�.i1��,��YYru�41Yu�Y,W1��4CW�+IwwedSQaQ�Yw4t lVltU'lwl�t`l�\'VLNJCW��wu'1�/lI�IYrY�Y11Y�a�?TTf��n�RT�rCCtf`Cff�r'1^f`f`f'Y.YY 44'��r��'��.�I�•��l^ �4'wnCwr.waaneaaR�Aea i�N� . LLLLUY4YC�Ct��•t��Jl'YY�i��W��Vr�Wu•4•��a�+�r�rn•7��1��.�'(�I�M1I•vt�lrl�It'[��C��i�tJ<'t't..y��u'��.�.•��.�r•��il�1u�'Uwu�WY�i�uYruif�l.V�Hae�ayaa��qa LL V V V I�L Cl`011W W W��IW U�W W WY�Y�Y Yf W��+L1��CICmmU000U1J1`u(.1SC'AI�LLUJI`L'C`t`�V W Y�1u4�W I�l�WYtW�4l;UY�yi4.y Y:Y�W WCf DI�U�'V a tdf��(,��V �M�` � l`Vl`I!l'l�l'C+1)l'4��1Y':�IY'•u'W4�aA4�M�4�411.�/.)Y41r1`f�1�[�U^f1l�l�l,UC:U21��+wrl<)C`l'C'l•t4�Y4i�l�W�`t`�""��l+t•t'Ut'1�'l'l'l'1�JLl'Cnt'C�ul�ut�l�!'h�lll'IU � - Aw�M l`VI`Ul�l�l'�Vlll^llllWVl'tllU'VWUL1tlU'l�l'K�WI^l>LI�VVI��]UVllU'2UL�?l^t^UUt^V�JI:UVV�•l)I�tJVt^l^�'J�`l�l�l�Ul1UU441�4LLUf.lO�+t w�C n'N � llVllu 1.:L��VUUI^u 1�i44W1.�WW4WV��Ofr.m(�f�E61E�1.6iC�CfDG�IQ:CC.6:Uf.�GGV�.II.�+��1.wLul'4LL4h4V�LLLLLL4441�Y1�UlOO�+Q r.Y� N.J Vt1{JUI�uVtJWVUU'l WY Y�Y+LL•WWYNYU��IlwrV'1�1��1V1��tlVLLI%UUZI�I•�`UUJ�•Vl>Ul.l^JU1��lJU�%41�Y1�4 Y 41�4LL441i4YYUUUUY�+� N.f uNM {]l1V V ll17L VllL V'4lLLl�l'.!l!l'l•Ulll'�YV�+fI:uLY!(11�4UUf T7SQ�1�C 2^�G CCCGCmI`UL IJUC OC UU V L'ZV W 1��1�G VY4l�VU�f�dOO�tCU�U Nw yST1.lU{JVlW44�%UVL V V�f V Vl)�W�YLLU(,1C1U1a1�fJVOQ QQTCC�ITl1mPCC'L-TUV Vlt'COGYMV'U6C'iJULL1�41�LLY{�Ui��R��00f1000� ^�N uruuuuueoo�+u�+ouuuuucuu�000ca�euuo^c:o�ar¢couawcocuv�^�+eoocuuuoc�uoouu w uao �.rcuuuuuurs�x�uonov��e..m....m¢cououommramcncca.oxu.:ooccr.+cuou�aa,wccauunoaworcn000r.wcoaoocow N �� 1�ITmf'IJtJVVUT0�1M1/OG�Y•4�T1�1THIOTO'TTTTTTTrpYLLCQ�dCO�Taf�L`=��Q�VUCIvaR�nTPIIltfUa�tJWC1pf�00A001�OG10000GUpODUU � !'w� � • OE•1DUYlK`VI�TCO`V M1'U��'y W TE��I�y i�•NTO�II�E`6 6�LLU L'Il�tnm W f C.b1,IV{,1I��<V V44�CIOC TN W C�V UUUUOC GICOOC C6lLJOOtJU0U00Q�CR1 `.�N Re`��+�+�WCCCC�fO�nUCPf'w�T�'R't"TQY.�^IPQ�Y4O'^�TOmmdmCCt_US�OaaarwQ�aaat_t�FUt`t%`t)[+�O[�COG[�G+C�OCOGC�OOGE m � O 'H�O LNO��+�+C'IJ��OfnOiClplJCO01�+QM�rC.OtQ'pp(0Tm0'QOf'I�C��f"6UfY0I<VVlYCV4<taVlJI�U�UUUOCO00CCOOC�GC�CO000t-LL'Om ��0 z MI�O�R• WR1fQlmaTmU t.CwT6NVC�Tn�p�OCI•t)nT�C�iaa�Rrt•�aa�i o+aaaQa�a.�a<i�cacaaaa«aaaaaa�aou00000mo i �J rf`��tVJTO•f.•O�OWfwY•un....mcwT�••�nu+a•ra�•c>..�•aa�a....ocogcc��o.awnaaaua��awa.a�aww�ra..�a��aaaaa� � rma:a��-R+.r oo..emeuumemTme..,..t•uma�..mtw.w.�..a�anuatac•oe•saooa+a<xarcncc ourK.ni+aa..aa�.a........eeooc aar.a� c:w ea�ra�me+ries��e+-T�eemme•+�cwc�w....ns..w��..•��..�u.aeca�u�.�a�oza.ec.K.u<w�.ur....<s.��..�.aaa�ea��i. ONA RT(I�TRI�TTI:�T TVUT[�RCI�+�+H�r�w(JA(�M�w�.n�+�+H��tefqy(]ffW4'��C1V��'«eI�lfan��tPft'0�101'4«Ca�'�� tt��C00�1t<Ca< CNI+ 11'TTI��C�(Dd1T0`��T�r�F�llr�UeI�L�VUC�''[`wU��I1�w1�fl)ufOW4M�Y:4WY'Re��Zt�4Cf(�(11f�U'�I�f(�OwRf�f YfpGf�I��f< •a�� rp�0�T1CR f.'�'CrfyU�n�'l`�+C1VU��e��JW[�I�CCIl:U1��f��a�f�C'�W WY��'Y'��1��4�aaC+O]GGOaC�f��L�VUUOCaLiL Oe coP Oe�n y'/r�1IC�TP'!Vl)ywUlLW�11�'�faC�OfI�V()y�!�pC�t�000�YiY�YJ1.'4'WI��Y.•�Cf CG`S':C1�ffCO�aOa�`LGO�+��l`POY N sM�. yy'qf��1��77��1WyWW4II 'fyK��WWO0000CGMYH�W1iWY1�WWW�00GOOS�OC��OG�<OOa�•OCC�+OO<t � w�`N yl ttW�ff��w��IrO��W W WYI��'1W<�ttl`t/1YW W�r"OOCO�W W WY�WOOe<VUL'�+C SeOp�f�O�GG�I�OC[�CC��l `os �•cM WWY'�N'�!�yW Wyy�WWppp�tJl7l�WLLIJY�1�'Y�y�J WY,U{,IY�WWW��^C�+CtttW49YY11�0�1�RV�+�+Ct42 OOOtlVfa00C< uy� R Op� ,. V17VWWW{iVll1]�ri1�717�•tri1Ltl�tlyyy�t,l(JW�1WOOrOe1.1<WWWW t��UrOt� OVVt�t�+00 c+oJ � a.a^n , uaf�luuuu��a��V{�Wa� �ftl�.OawOo�� uuuVuuu ocn _ • e�N WOGWWpOCO00NUWW U'�!U'U'WU'�l 1! ' c�oN s ..o.. ocuuuw ro.. O �MJY�Me��wly�l�y�0A0?p.�N/IIM�Obl�O'ONNhJIPOA00�aNNFlJ1/��Oh�Po.�1yF�.W��lPc.Min�M�0l�ere�+�1M+�JM�01�oPo.��unJN�OI�eO�eatiN�JM�Owef^c�.�NnJN�D�a�Pe.��u/nJN�pl.ePo�Ni^JN.pACO�e.+n�n M�NNM.�wwNMNNNNMNNNNIWIVIrlNMYM1w�Y1/�J�IJ I/II��IMM WIW W�11�Y��MrOi10rO��O�O�CAPPMI.A rAAO�00plOOeOPO`PPPPPPPPti04000oC YC.�.��1.,�1.�w�+'I�NNNNNNNNNN/1'f/�n r � • . N�1'INNMAtiw�/NNwM�MMwHNNNAtiNNHN.�N.�tiw.�w d � I . I � i � � I I � � . � � . I � /� � , ' ;) ;1 :) () 7 � �7 h C� �'! 4 � � Q � � � n - -- � . ..... ..�...........�.� .. � •� - - -� - ._ � -... ., .K THE INTERIM REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN Land Uses A Op�n and Rural Areas (Up to 2 d.u./gross acre) B Low Density Residential 2 - d.u./ ross acre � 5 g ) C High Density Residential (over 10 d.u./gross acre) D Commercial (Business centers and extensive commerce) E Industrial F Public and Quasi-public (Parks and recreation and institutional areas) H Urban Open Space/Agriculture J Medium Density Residential (5-10 d.u./gross acre) K Forest Reserves � '� Major Water Bodies d.u. � dwelling units � _ I . __._ � �` c4tost+� »�R i � COrfREMEnSIVE P��NS �EVISEC y►n �nEerECT� � . OJ9]]9CGf090i'COCOOOOGCpp 06CCOOOJG9GOOGOOOGOCOO�LQGJt014C470t41�aJQu30003Jr�t�„p'.GJ1G0004'GGOGJ60C11111SZii1Uii1113�i � 6Gl}�gppy111111121T22222�222233333333234i�Aiikhc+.5555555555fi66ib6bbbbfT7'777T7771Ml8si8d�069459994544L'6Gor�..rilili112111 ` I;S�S6�l50123�St7I9p123�Si7p90123046I09J123�567l9d123a567o40123o561a9J12S4567�50123�S67tl9G123�547l54123�Se7�94123tiSe/tl9 � ?9D � ! 2 EE5a1i I � 2P29t B � •- S 84"48!r7t�cap 9 ' 6 BP9tPC"_4EF,DiC ' �' l PE2.BF.PBELAAPL 399E8nb�sa:scC E^!':BFFPtapE?L 1 !0 d�8BP.0�aAc'•cE � 1• ' � 1Y � .p�+Ev£aaaaEEtBf 1� ' 1z OP-P4�6[EEfPh EGCGG 1 ;3 82E0?�38FLi�7�8 UGGGGGGGG 1 iti 9Q8CtAtE4EEk5°8 EGGL,GUGGGG3B 1� � 5 BE�+EgRt0EkECatEF [LLG �' GG �Gc''G 1x tb >g961sC8cCCJ9E�'9EGGUf.,��IG�G9]aB6N �# jt 880fl8tiAQ4EJB?C88GGGGISIIGG'G3334d? I I 1e J2F B�BQEGECEE9^EE9EGGG+GIIIIGSGGII�BN �� 19 ��OJJEC 9 C• r Q�':apULg?EftlC4GG,G#�I1t GGL�GS'!:b ZO ?4+�8JJEf 85:83 E°@n"eFfb�t�f'c:it[GGG G aIIIiGo GGife' �, 2 3A�0„JJEf POBBa�9JB EP.9i99»41LBt66GG6GGSIIIII�G�4GGo4Bd9 tl • 2� 9��I.JJEF G�B9�/9C0C8@B EEE2E02��88894GG>GIIIIISIIGGGG6Bcge Z �3 �i�f81AAf. E fF9 2C4 3 ACtEp EEgf A1A2ig@GG'bLG pI2iI jG Gp (c e 4 ��11iA�G EE�9?D�99?�e��d�BPBb"E88�FA�=i�IhGG�4�G4�III[�[y;�GG�G8=26�2�0 � I 25 �U�IC011RG eEEEP.nBu?J7"699�FEPP.'F8�@F�L3C68GCGIIIGI!lIGGGGGGG9i0?8e9?47 5 26 +1AlttitsLttGE£EpEEEEEEEEC@£EEEp£EEEfEEgj'�34^�+I8�9i:i8e803tF8BEU4��aE[6GGGGGtII2TItIIiSGC;;bGGBQ•19oEF99838 . 2Zi tl ��O�GiffEEEE �FtE£EEEEEf��91��ic4�J38'P^ElNFcFGs4LatGG4±�GiIG�oe4G33e�d=��cc3cei$ - 2• ' I �g 4a4Gltt�;,GrtFFEEE�ffEg££fEE£EGf;dP.fll3;di30PfEt�56D28iAitGG�GGS+GGLI6G,G3d36i@d82IEe@°898 � 29 I ' ]0 s��,G�tG° EEE'F�E'E[EgEfEEEEEEc 8999989w8B?EBEBPEBBBB�II��188Q99GG4GIG,G03d9etl80bTIIE�8d36B 7Y f , 'i 71 0�9GGI�f,i�Fff f�E£5E€ gEgE{ECa''�9pPPd^98RptEP.�EBgg¢�A��cJ2 ;$=GGGIGGoGa�i6CF� Q!gji ggg 9C"g y� ; 32 �,AjGG�iGF_tEE�E E�Tcfg EE££ECG6'1`�Pn9ie'Od$EvE t88ENlltst�E�dfi"GGGGGG�GBddc.�`2cGetE@@�BB�BE 3 ' ' � la C�OIGG�AGEEFFE E_EEEEc EEEfEEGB°i4D�o9^097t1@ " fP8B9GAAa69']apn'B"J7Btl9d94Btl0@B?B$8L•ac'�3D90@ 3 S4 L�)^.,G�f�EFi�'E�fF�E EC EEEEEEGOO�;1N�)0�7tl]OStiB8kE0EPtA��a3^.E63}��'^JdOCl6E)d88EE•23cEQldl@tcE@ . 3� ,� 35 C�l�1G{��f,cf.FE�'E�L��fE EEOCtPGG.a31E:�dF@EP.Bfl£6f{{@pgtga+tQcEEP1�bE[C'38,18EEfE'!E'f EB2Et}�EE� E£+� 3� 76 t�13.��G`EkFE�EEEEEEE EJDGFJi.9a07f!r,gDi9dJPCE"c28E6C961L93899]9d'J3a?BddiB96E2U°2Ee�Eyie=eECs..980 u 36 !i 17 OJ1?G4�CGEs"F(EEEEEaEEfggg WOEEC00^Ha949?9099BfP.^EEQE2G�6spttE8E8?39"8E?H4493E2E'�Edfc8E33EEEEEEd39�� 3� ' 7 O�J09GGl�sgEE�EE£E°i� pppg OGgE6$d3b8339p468R $$8EP0 EEiS6tA►6@pe2�3d92833333bB°8_�42_$283g88E88��8aat 7M i ' �; J� 0�9C0!tteGEEE�EEEE"� ��`�COGGEC09�.�7?9�P.a88a�eer�FB�C/9�CaA�BPd Bgaeae�an;�sRa�e„eeP�F�Bid�.BtEE°e3di�� 39 ' ♦G a'199?GCIGG6E�F.EEf£iEC CpcGE89494�YGpOC9638l�P.p f8E?ldE7?EA1b��J0!�08@29�9098�fddE'r. 8@0i886283094i�t 40 } i! BD:l40aGCGGGGGGCCLG+)OEf E6CGEz89^=ADP939"?82?E"c?EAB88G?BEHOE�tq3d39?BTM9930968E8I84F29d8d£BNEflEBdM1i�lt♦ ♦i �� 2 9G:9)726G�4GG„CCCGOOFEHEOGGCCB93B�°•l7EACBF.BBP,RIP9cCL9B'.B)POaDld0dd8B:tlOBaed88d5EEcot3i82EE4[G3A�u• •2 , I � �2 GC-l".^BCt�4GGGGC0000�C0pOO�[�E4CB��%!°'�nCOOqrE£Pp�CCEeeA6£i3Eaa8d8d^�2H3:El889E8u?E:E?BcciScEEeo3a��i4 43 y 44 CGi98EE£G�t1GGpG �6D�D005�OfBEGCt^f•'i9U9°ingiiB8P8�8i8]8at?fle18A4p38ddd8.933d�383�9i882c92d2£�Ec tddd=d�a6i �� { 47 �81�a8EeCG8�4E,G�EENG€E�EE�8E8�da°6 GOOCCE88P.EOEEBECE�fibaRi 88 8Q33C�8a?988¢9i84�EEE88 y�t+fiLk4t9�Ktn�ILiA 45 g @BBEdE388EatooE3$NH»@Ijt4 4� t �e aaee�(GG41��[G�ANGEEEE=.CEB�?9BJC�70�pCE33''2[9i0A9?DU02BAP880lO0BPHEBdD978Bu�Ne90E84ddd8tlBE228fiN►npIIsa� �e �9 �99846GU�►UEf�iGGGEEE�;CE89C�6,G8;CCCCE�88^.°BBEPENBBLNop$8338l9BO�B99D098EJgdadNB43QtlBEo6d8MNN1;iI�A► � i9 � , � #0 3 3a8A(�GIaaiataaiE'_6GgE=_:ia@p@��3fiY"SECCCCFEt'?E!'8L•ff4d?EgatCF32�� 8fE<' TIIB6dEl:EcEe$Ei2BEiEEc368:@HIBi�+l+t 54 • g� 9��999pfOI�1��M��r"EiEEEEE 4��<�d1B�JDCGOCEERdEB6E?1'EEeB^6p9JBr7�eaa��B8007Eg3g�eeaa��pPBE�y dIIpe9��uBI�e �S S B'�799ElEGG41�OAC14•�EEEEE�CG�4Ad8i��)3CE9[}9FP11£B�l'9H�IBE996�g)33d601s9)9883"2?9@CE'23i98I2SII8tSt2�E?88f11♦ S� s aaaaeEEG�A1;11dAi EEEE£�.{E�A8dfi3Pgad88g8B£ABf88EEZd1Itd�aia.SBb.BH3.IIdR88d�kdi8¢'afeE33ePIIEEUBUEd p�faL�4A 5� ' �. S4 7 9�PelfP��111�►14� EEEHEEGGEo0.�aiT°�2E�NB@LC6!!EP^EECEIII IE�R4B8EP.989B90UBa U?00B1'88dd6tlb@5E69aE8eBdd3?SaEE_ S4 • 55 �9� 'lBQE9AAR�lOG4� E�f��C°£161AAAOA9tl•iJ3°P082@OEnB"fC8HI2�I098�tin�960E7Ha00�8��fG?CC'�0efl3�2C4�eBb3EdEEGE�31�EEc 55 � 46 84i9N8trq4AdlAhAA1,5.t t E=E�jAAlil1139�?8a6flCCEciEPOn�1e!'IbP.P9lC1P.6H140f38E�1Rti�tSfl1A Abc�Ei°3)?[ueHr9Uf3edEk�tc838EctcE S6 � t S7 BY991EEE'114A0�A�MMEEE&'t0�A016Ap044AA�f-U!PIG6P.PAFGGcF.CbbPP8111i00AG{;�p�+ECJ80PJC8i•Ec88oEaJt�kkatEJpCEeCEeFtlbb�kF•E: 9� ' SS 9►[I'iEf°EIAAAA101MEtEClA�MI��A4NA4d�9:11��!'11PPPOEt'I�L10FOt8PpIP�i.Fbt�U018EPtd3uu:8&LsvB�'�tbcd:.•_d.=..�°cG�i.t[,i:EEEcE 5• t� 44 6'394Nnf�n:�naetAaatEtEEF4sadrru+aHH�;.an�iE•t��dt3FC�ENO�PFis°tc'0�82618tcF8tF3Rnd3A??9d4uc89?299cc!'EE.a9 ° C��09ncEEcEt�E S9 � yp gqn��g[gqpp��JpOG4J��A�OA��NHHMMf�i7EPdH"PC^�iBpEBF98EC622P�BGFiFFqRF?9•166tin:dtlEcbnJdBh�EECEd6J�B�EceOdBiEEE2_f� 64 I � 61 399E8'.890P�4��AAa�4A�iAAEMHMHNA�4?Q69@QEEC?fC6=ctb9eESEE^C��fFCFfe63lp°HtCu2�EEBfl6iEcE�@c�CcEeE°B�Sfi'ca£t"tE�c b3 52 349Ee 88R�a;lIAAAdLi11�1EfEM�Nt+kG+tb9E8'3C'8E8?f20EEE83eEl'F$BflAFFFfF80EH8�8e82&qEE8e938E@E2°d33E_85n`?9�3E"sEEE�E,f 62 ' I 1 (1 63 9g9B@E097!I�U�4af EEgESEEEMHNNMG04aAA3q�AB08E�@E2EDBE299Fi?BOF�fFifF9d9?8@?BE8dEE9?33R?EEEditlBEB e�@899EEE'E_g `3 64 �H98EKE9Q4A�IA4DE EggEEgEEOC9GDdP�0aR9982EC^E90�0tG^EE82flsUeFFiFFC?fl8JO6o28�2Ec£92ndtce 8E88dc^�FdEU383Et�F.nE 6� ! fi5 410fEfE�9t�aAflAiE�EEEE<fPE0C4i�6'Pa3EP.�'GP?E^ECBf8F8'BFC�t::@�+r�8°BB:?8��F2ktEEeEe8E9i�ad��c�7uc2EEecdia]EEfEtE 65 1 6R 923EFfE�10Fp�P�n40cEEEEEC=E�r,ccG"v�9�Hun9��pdiPlitduiU'EO'0�0.t�10�f0?�BJOAPcE:c202�Ea?Z8B2EE�4JIII2fEc2^7Aate:CdE 66 � 67 1a2k9n�n�flnc844GEE•"EE%EtEO"9tyi'FF1d�P311��PC'!�'Pni96�tlFBp12�0�t?�!4i16^�829�RieEd�93�@9E23E�8E°'sdUill2IE66dG)£tiE 6i I S6 390D'_FK.{��3¢T86EAsbG:fGGGiGf.[pCGt•GGFF=Ffl?AdC9RGFP9c8Fdb24S8?:C540i•d608?9i3d894c8�3[do8d93b38£tt"..BEIYSe;E2:a�E=_f� 66 �"""-- 69 l7"7cE:'dPF?'83AA4�EEEEEEEEGJJ.dfFFFGc;:3CcECeF�-eEEc@Ccic1'EwB:dnJu8cou30d?2c638�I29c33qeEiEF83d:?ii:cu3n3cii.it ' 64 70 R�9$E0E^1dP19Q8,1d E:EEEfFFO^89f�ffF8�393?E�PPpi9aeCe8Ec98'B°09L086C�?�BddB8d28?8292dtl29888£880R8_dlti83o37ddiE" 7p 72 31892EE89RF89G9GE EE EFFfOC99�Fii8Cd:9 °P4@=EE88Egt�E88E6L'p0:.8R9 �99A88E" E°BE"dt"� 6ca ii tEEEd2Hd9G�iE£ 7 ' 72 999Ad88pH4B9RE9GE FEfi�q'�EFFED�F�FFCF490?d�PdP9EPG00[4a:�g@QtE�°4d0B�_:+BP026cg��EE6'ee��C`BtEt�DBEIIIz"eBPP�:e2C 396Y � 7� I " 7'S 69LI7EE£E89F??gG[EE_EEE£EFfcOCOCG adA6dv�ft8^P?£E£E@E4►EEbcC?91EAFG8_3Z?3H.1@EE�o eECE3]BEEfEs6ttuEeZItiC3csccc6�Gbb$ 7� 70 3iI98E°Q?RP.ittGEE¢tE°EL6i'fEflC3Cn13adA8?93C283c�1429EA'33r830?f�i?449CB99�'i�J04ctl38IIE$_y33�l�E�ElJOBeBIti50�Eit3t7:.UJCBp �4 I ' ' 7q 9q[98r_9�1!7FFFf.�EE[EE�EEEiFE0�01^174.1An'eJnCBPnEO^@^CA3EEBiFaE�it4lBC9^C9dU8ECdJ3ilIttd33&"�EE&5Ub0EBg5i8d354oEE0.]C6 75 75 300CE£P97?fGGGE£°4EE'EEEEEC?D:" {9.1aA�c8EPE8"ECOtetA_#�8?E•cHIgA4R6;<^.Cdoafi8Eei0dIIEEbiBCE�i�8e�7F2EE'ESIiOuc°aCG 76 T7� 4d'eEE?ae?FFBG;CE�EE�EEtEE00PdC�ABua3B1i3tl�PR'EBcF:4sanpdadAia0.6d888'idD36H£f1:BBIItluEebc& EedQ988E8�e$dd98EEE�7L � T7 1'"1 7h 899EE9BA°9pC6G0EEEEgEEEEECiEE`iB�1454GJB902B6P°CBoAG4PdAp0.tAAiGA9892°0�79BBEBeE6EI9BB3 5ti�gEBdB=E=EE893�8E5EfJCeBl9B8B 7! � 1 7� 9EE{�qA2ApP.6GEf�°EEEEEEECO�F64R�nR?88d8fP.P9E�911616LLAapA9dBU3�693d8A858ESd968c8$�8�96 E08b888Q8nEid3o0ctD00L6�EB6B 79 8 89Q2P9�tE9�GGGEcEFEEE=EKC$960'JJC148889?PfFiPipABt3 pFg�EB90C.08BE'9?03 2EEE�eeeae 9�EBEEEd98E�eEc8BdB8dE�9�UGy :,aes •a 111 98E°09qE^pfG9EEEFF,E.EEC[ti�FFO�`OAHE940tlOFFFcsAaAapEEE03BFU]d3a00idf)dl)�95Bi98Ed80'Jdi:?EEEE•JIBe�ED"cE89(td3GDJfOG98J00B !i ' 02 D°Qa!f�l�nqpyGc£EE°EEEESGGGU�'t.�BRaE�3H98FFKFPFFfBPH8EC6EE89+2�i}�E+:ii83fSEEcE=4BEe983'EEEEE25I888ELEd8l8JdbJfFOGD8u4bQ 8 � 83 SP8f83R^PPfB,-.EE�E�ECCOpCOGG3Ct3;T.Ie3AD6aAfiiFfidtfiiJi8t338Etf.SBDddd98dE93�0EUdQQg2o3fi69dCEEEFr��cutQcI��:EE�LU�iCOQfOGb�dLB� ! S5 92E�E��PPCfC70EcfECCCAGLOCGC89B30A4a4?fF1AALA�dE6EE30dEC6i24ZBUd2da38B026dB8et3dd3d3$6He9308ec8@@EEitEBCCGBBb8�888 8S ' S6 g8E4F.889PR8GCUoOG��fEECCCOC�c00cCCCcC4c0tad8EdA6+il�tiAL86@B�+BBS0898d8"tI8I6B99eB8ga88E8daH8886838dQEEbEEE888cde8uES8EEEEEQ�.6d�ddI86@ed E8 ! ' '89 99A8�EE39BPGEE�E�f£EEE�ECC�i�GGBd9UGsaAdadGEG�aef�2�F87EE8?2P8B�@a8�R86E�838@6E�B 8@88@�£�E�EE�E£�EEtsEE��888gld�8� 84 � � 90 3pB88 93BAf.f.EE�EECFEEFFEEF800C0'10590�ODG�IAGGG6E9B38cF.AatC6b11B969008dBBeEBl8NBE988�8BtlggEeEEEEEEtEEEEElifE6d9s 94 I " 91 �988P�9991!GOgEEE°EEEEFFEECFtl30C9E'9aCPpCfeAf,iGgGGai4saAsa.cd�'j8gpB86g EE dg8E88888B38EEE £ggEgE�EE£EE`sd86 41 ' 42 386Bx'8�3FPROp��tE�EfFF£EGa9G�ti�CC3_89d9@tAGCGGGGGGGtGAbaxAk��I�8Qb98E 8�U8B8 . E€EfEEE�EEEf�E 92 ' 93 9IBI2289BBPOJJBEE°E'eEFi�tgCL9G3JOCC9g0d0d988AFGGGGGGGGGGG�GGpiA4njBg@8998 EBd EEEEEEEEEtEe 97 96 IBBEBEe�REF��99E'EFEEEFFEEC82�Fj3pGf,Kdb��Ca(GCCCCGCC�La�GG�[,yGGGGG4AA�14i��H 8�� EEEE�EF��E�E �5 p (� et E ¢ I 9� 89688 B9P81.,99EE:EEEFFEEEC9F6&dd87?B9�8GU6GtGCGGFGGGFU"GGG�GG'e04iA+► 4r 91S 3tIF8AJ9$E £Efgii£CCErCCC^PBic8E8L198R.�CGLFi'v�GGGC8AG,GEGGGGSG 90 �� 99 'flCP��1IPE�EEEgFFECCE�kCCC�IFFFiEd�NPBP,B_EGCFfd�EE6�E�GGG�;'GG 6 99 � I I 10� '7HP£OCC8g9EEEfFfEE[EE3f813dFF�1?23S88CE6GG0 l:.i'cB�H.a,GGLGG� i9� 161 ESit3PHaCA9iFtfEFifEfEEE�39838UFF�3999E8P.9£F,0[G�GBEE9CEi'.H.:Gt4GG 3a} 10 BnRN44088cf�EEfiFEEEE"CGC78Ct@D?89PB6AE998DG.CCE5F0lBCAG11 iQ3 � SO EPBF�� ORB9EEEEfF CC GGG'CL6E2888CCP.KfPfFC{GG6G66E6898h�ti 104 @i9Et4 CCiFEEEgFF C 0B8U�L348FiFFEBgiFfFF82d8 ce3aec.aaa 3G9 lOS CBAOOOCJJiFEEEG.GE�C�d00QC77qFFFiBBQgFFFFCE3B�ca:eea�es 1�6 E99�OOJJJffGGGJ�JCCGW BGBPGOfBPffF68FCtFFFff,C8itC9CGLGGLCC ! 36T n ld� B�flf�O i3 CJJ�JJc:GCC98GP1?�GBFFiGpffAf88E�LRCG4 £{;;�I!88�388 . 10� 899POC�C[��CJJJJCCOCB�GGBi78J9ddd9P6CBECBOr�FGBG4�GBPBOL_'W�3d8 fOd � 1Q9 E98P.BCCCDOOJJJOQ CG498G�BBE�}ttcG999te@BE09f8{'GUioGG6H3ia99+38 tdg � 210 8P8d CCJOOJJ00 CGGG90PBtAf9608GD988BfEEd8E8G iGLGEai86888 <� lit APD�CCJJJJJD OGEEBFbB0P89P,BBPGBBEPEBBE8F9P�FFFGf,G3d3d88 ill 112 ��b�RA��AE♦ bR06AAl�A�aAdilS4ltli8f�A��AdOiAdAAAi1a►t . 112 , 113 d0{tAAA8688AAAa0.A6iAAAAMPAAl�ARAADdCASAAp4 »3 114 IAOi44ACA644aA.10A6044LIAAAAAiAAq�FAA'1AA,A 11h 115 RDOOAAAqAAASA4AAADiAAiIAlAap6ALA�AtL;6A 115 � 115 A�L6ApG4�0AAliA4►pZ00R8pAAFdAA66A18AG46A 116 ' 117 pl�AA4GA�4A4d4RII�TI0AA0oLAippACppqiA 117 � ilb �AdAAdAAdtIIA�tIITiaA�6ieA0idAiiAb9d 228 �i 1i pi►44d8A11�tI iARP014A11A36AS;1 119 20 � �4AGGaA��T IPRA�AA4104GG0.AA 124 121 Ii2xI0I 1I�6AAAI�aaAABA , fz1� �; i22 IIAIAi IIaIpIIIiIanaaa � 122 � 123 IIAa �Ii2I 1�04nLa i24 �f 125 jI G6AAdA 125 12� , IIAAAdA4A T'��,5 129 • eAA0G6AA 12E �AA4A4AAA4A s tijq CIh66�8AAAA 13L � •132 aad�a4aaa 13 jEAAai4i4� 13 133 IAAAAAA�A i3 0007000Ct00060060004�9060040G60J�OGOGOq46066DG0000GGGJ'6003t000StJ7000G9GU60C0lOGCOGOGOOOOCG�OqOCOC11111111111131lf1111 0p]Oq7CCG11111111112222222�iid33J73113]44444�444455555555556665656666777/77777JtlB3E8098Etl959 99393� YY`JGbYCGY(11SSI�SS1 3Z3456704Q2234567d40t23456 8961234567&981234567!9U32JM56TD40323�567d9aI23Z5678Yfii23456Td541�23456J8 L123�5tis7a9u123ti56784 O - O , O leis='ai: .Y�'Iac. ckaY_�<<: �kLi,�i�I_Eb[S�`:u:'lf.� 'f� .IL1�_'L.. "oF[S'_'li:'��:54'L"•C(kt�c«f[T'/FLcr.LCl�Ff/cc•f2T Q .. .l:.i� �� _Ctl�llctttbFrFtbaeteL[La[./a(Ly-��' , v� '__ °S�•��'•-••.•�:fi Lf�if[�iii22�2i2T T:S7�S.T• •�"••^ .�: ........�. ,�.� .� ��.c..t_ i 1i:...�..i11:...:I:.........:o...._'.t�L.:Jo:._[:....e._ ._:IC!(:._.:'[�_i�:9]'C:..,"7C...:C:... ��[C:�7 , . . .."^['. L Lai C:::tHhtl. ffT , ai T::ca�tiM.• 7fT lat cc:.:�rn�.p rfi . � ��S .-...�FHr�.H7 osl ��, rn�r,y�.ffNC� E21 Y�l �� ' F�.1��.wMHk• 67T atl � rh�lhhH�• 92S C. Sci �n�.f:HH �(1 n��MhM •h �zT `.cl NrMHh• . LE. ?� cj �rcvv.. ••N•. F�EE• f7T C Gcl �CVLT:�•NHHN• FLFfi• TZT Scl ��TCCiP•MrMMhH• EL�LE•. t' � r�fFr.�.CiGE�NHMNM• •661�C(�ELEB h1T C biI tiMFr�.ticubEFMNMNMH .EtEItkFFEEE �St r.n�.tvECtbGHHHH....CECE(Et?fiEEHHH 6Si til ��o7Lce4�HF��H.L6..EEG[ESGEFHrettf qTi yii ��r�,..�..cEt,Llltiti�.h�CtbCC6E�lE:I,IE[tTctff yll «ti�:f�F�.H�E�fCCtEFCbfnC•tFf:E�EekFE70tCffF ^S1 � 11i �r�.��rr,��.r..lt6FllL6EL�lCLFLEIIIE�VtCCFN •1S ��..�h��H�NH��HFFrLEl1�1;�lEEECf�CSE[E6Cttf�f fT7 �jf ' nfn�.nfl-�.hMhN�.Mn�ELt�eLb�FEEELf�EEF�C�tftiM �FFMhLMMOltl zTT C S11 Fn�H...t��.ti�:HN�.HHbFFLklFtbkEF[�tfEEFlC9t�f�� FFYFYMMMd[Otl Ttl 4T1 n.«..nnrnNH�nNNHnECFLkcL"cNFN�.�«fFEFEBc:f�ff MFFFFIF�Ctiv4iC OfT bi•{ ti-.-.H��.�tiF��NN��'�tFul:o�„rNfrr.�Nc(�fkutlflf� ni.FfF�(FEF�C09tlT 6DT •Oti hn�-FNFFhnMrNHFNrN({,[�1nHF�r�,��'ii-[(l•�Fh4�Fr.FhFFFF({tCrFC00C FCT r {�1 ��hh4FV�hFM1�MF1+1�1�M[{:LF[��I+h1��.f�InLCEM�Fr�hFMhF1-YhhhkMF4tlCCV !CS �,/ yLi ��rr�HHrHN1,�,FNHhN�+HtiNLLtF�H��HtEN��ff.��4FFfrhFLECVCPCV 5^t �j'yj nr1�1/�hMnHF�ihIiN1•FHh�1�L(CrFMrFMhFFMF1f1�t��tif��tcr•rcvorrr ��T 9(r1 rhNF.h1�1+Mh11HMHMF4MMF�r.NEl;CffMMYNMfMMhFFi FEFENFFM�MN�[�VCOVVO ��T (Qj nrrnnFHMFMrM„MhM�NMhHnL(1-Fnrwh�4/�fnFr�(�:=:�fM'�NNFMNNO@CV� t�T Zy1 ��MI.FH4hN1.Nr+f�1.HhMNFHFhNHFFYfw�.N/.FnF((��i_=:FNNMFFHHMy('tl�j Z�T j�i h��rrFr�l�hFM1�Hr�MM/1HhtiMFYhhHFFn4h✓nNFh��I�(�:.3-FFMMhFNMNqOV�� . ^�T �V1 �rn�.�,H��hrMFFhMFM11MhFHV+nrhliFFH1�IhMNF(('ffff�::i?fF�MfFNYHl97d! CT _ ' to Hr�.....��r��,�tiHn��-.HH��FCtiN�.r�tnfN.�..r�nN[F�FeTe?E:-? --htirFNHHCtl7C 6R � � Yb r1.FF�-rnhhfl��.M1.FNhMwl.bltihtinMFFhr/FHMLCCLc__::�-�.'_fff4N4HyCYC 65 �(� h1�NhFr�rr1�h11�Mhnr+fhMhhNF��FFHMNnFMH1�FN4fC6Lti::�_��:�f�YF4MMN0VC5: EfEE(' oE yb tiLMw�n�F1�M/h1,1+w�HFFHMMVHtLI�NEI�LEtiftiNMkfFC=:��._____/�Ff�MM4VCl' CC-EEC'E E ye 9G►irN �:V9L��.�r�,r�.��.HHtiNHfnnl«�(E[EC��aMFE�Effff�:??SFFMFhw�.H�70 EIEFff• 56 ,_, 46 C�iCYGGLLtO N79 OVVtlC��Fhr�1��1.MMMI.MNMHMHMF1.hL�LEIC{.CMnN(,FUCf(ff�_?=�MMtiFfMMMVOCf6CULEPf ' �b lb V:GLPY77LLlt 004 7CSCCC��MI�FFFNHMM/+MfMM„MMhM{ILLIlGlM4ti[�kAE(((f=_??:I�fNFFHkFF7VCE(��E�� f ib :'t:.:i{:LG:T YL9dV9 7[G9Ctt:iMfFMYFM1�4hFHHNHhti1.1�E(;ltlC•FFNMEFFFffffs�3?4fHkf4NHHCtlCfFE�ffE 76 Sb 7Gt7i::Y�7iL��V 7YY91'iVCP00C9P�VVV Vt9YClil:CL:YhhMhM11MMMhMhhhhl�F.FCFMMMr/N(��P��_f�FFHhMHHNV�VCbf.FiEfC[f 76 � Yb ::i�:.:�Li"riii:ii{iiLLiG09C:tiCSt0V7:iv44tG70CVi:C:V:ISMMHhMMhhMNNNnMtiN11MFNr�F�f.IMf�('�f��=:?74FMFFVMMI.yOLICEEf£EE �b � 6� Yi�i�LrG'.�:::[JLit::LttYil7iD9VCi70iCV9ti0L9VCCIITC➢tlCG:7:9LCN/.NhNMHMMNhhMMrNhFFwMFMMM((I'ff('ff_:?aFN/.FFFMNV�FCVFFFECEIE Ef Y� VGY.�..•::L::tL�.:::9C4VCLOtDPiOiCVVt�GOtCi9iT9CP0➢CC:LtST➢MFFVOOCOVFHMMFhHMMhMFfwHMffffffff�:??FNFMFFMMMMFOfPEffFP Yi . LY V:Li�aa�.:...,t9t.L::t7�9�iDcit009Q7iL19YVSOLCiC9:VCt.�:iCtCMhVCrYVOVh1.M1�NMHMNr�HFl.nr�wffffC[(Cr:3?FHFFMFNNMHVTEf.[EEEE LB � 4Y iLi��i�.��:i::{L�Gt:i:IIY:iiiGVi9i�IIi0C0iVC090477Gi0iC:��00C4C5COVVVYdHMFMNMMHNfNMh�NNI'ff�CCLCt�3�=fF�'FFNN4HpYCECCEE 9Q SY V:�:aaccYPL..TGVit::ttlCti�9cittC0V490YitV0i9VOt0VTci�StlVCC90CCVVOdOMNHhNMMFfFMfhF�fffff(((C_:?�:NFFFFHwM4N7EFfCfE 56 9� litlil.:L:C:LCiLti:::L:t9::�c70v4➢GYIIV9C9090Y07PCC09C::c00CVOl'VOV7CCHfMMMHNMHhfNMYMMMff��C(CC::33='FhfFNNNFHMf�kEff �p a• L�:::l::::L:::Dti:t�::OGP.L:YSi:7➢CLVi009C00Vt907CiLSC:':0'JCC9�iiaSCNHHNMr�MfhhhfMl.F�NMffff(CCC_.3�=hfMhFNYMFNHHFFFEE Lb � . c� iLii::'.i.:L:.C�GCL::tLLI�iL:iCT006Cf:iCicV749V9::9CS:::OC[:0ldldNhNNh1�M/�hFHHhMNMtiYriHF(I'f((CC:INN1MMh/�Hl:F4-1�F'MEFEEE zF iY i.YY.::T:�t:.L:LYtl:OV:Y.:T99SLC[CSC000➢C0409t4SP70C::'VCCClCl1!lMMHNMHntiMHHNELCEMMMtifff[�[(:h�NMFFhFFMMFtCNMfIFEE �B �i Liv�it::..:::::tG::::01:::iL4iC9i[Ciiti0tlCOLS70i90:::CCCC40MHMhNNN4NMNN»j�tFFCFC�+MMfff[(([�FMYFVFM4FNMpCOtNFffff 6 --� E� 'r�.��t'r:ii:�:YCiL:LY9T:it�::artoaacvmaavracovatovcc:-:CGFhhhnhhMYNhhM(;��(('�(kE(�'ChMF('�('(�(�_FMN�►FFNFNhCCCr�EEFCC F� � �[ LL:ii4:1:7:.::0�JTi:LYLil:i9i9�670�CYi0750MhMnNrMNl.hn��tnrhFl.MMNNNMMMtiI:L•ff(fl'(EI:e1C��NMFffff((zIMHfNFFF4tiHh4bbCC�EECE BL ' �l :L::I77G::Cii4Cl:9S9V107PC0�i00YSiMMFr!nhhn�.��rnMF4HhNhHNh1�NCE��ffffF.�LCEMNNMM('(((('(sV'MHFHMFFF4/�NMFCfC1EECE LL YL i'.:i ."r�:i��Ctl��eC�f7C^.ccrs..evesn9atvotvr�..�tir+Futt7�N�+�+��BtEtfrfff'[E[�F��uHNfEE[C�Cf�MMFI'/'FN�MHHF1.[��EIIPCEF �1/ �! '.:�Ii.:'i::�lsal��ci..otiLLiiGSL��9CII975Ci7LC9C��LTTCV7MtihntnFnOPOVC1+Fi�tihHHMfbkCC:CfIMffF144FwMNM[(�[(�FE(�EE �( � , J 1a Lt:i::�l.i'+'.�.��CU�i�e��'+i1kF.�YCCL��C9COC:COG{Oi'v��nrr-lVLIiCNM��NdF/+h04i7ChCCM1.��1riMF6kCC(C��MMFFhH1'4HI.FI.I.CfL'fEEE�Cf ( a �t1:'::t..TL9:��ru�..LcuttL:V:9:CL909LL:7�t9Ci0CiTrrhM[OCtCOhhNOCNMMP'+TCCFFSMwF.IMHF6CCCClf��NHffFMF4NY.fCF�E�(E[fE�l-ff C( 4L �c:::�v:.tt::l..•«b�euoittfiLCCSCCi9V0YSYi7c:PYt:-��.n:GCLtl�VMMtlYtiMn�G07V1�CLi�MMMMFH�CLC��fFNHFYMMM�MMLFEPb[�4C(CE[E 2L � 1 ia 77t:.:YOGI..�.�e«e�:YCYLOQ9PV77V09iCtiCOVt9C�nn�t7Vi0TOCCC7hMHhnrhMhC9tlh�aN4FNhCCC�fFMHFFMYNFNCfp[fC�GI[GEFP6 Tt � [ ::�L:O:IL.+ulct:c:GYI99V0iD7i:�99V:Yi:74CS:��yhL:C7CTCCCYMN�nrFhM��T7CLtiFMtiFNf[ff��FN4�MMM�FHVffYfPEI(fFFFE Dl 6L :t.::Cv:u..�1....�..e::c::teTC.�7V:7:S:::O:t:::•�,��.:7e7lS:�tCHMhb�r.��,tC:ct�,.:ti�.F�b��-��FNI,FMF� H�N7s:itflCCCFCC 65 Y`1 r:...':L:L�.��kc�LT4tL9C0f0049C:S�:77499C:�.r4M�CPCOCV'�'VOL'MI�hMhFMHVC:CT�NMFFMFVtr�FIwHFFFNMFMhtCtll'E'FIFFEFEE 09 � l51 \:i:.t:�llct��«��lLi9fP7i:VVY:TLiC�PCit7C^.^4��F;;I.MM��y�yp{.IMI.NI•I�N6T:�tFH�.HFr�F4FFFINMFF4MFFNMNSPCI�E�EEE Lo0 S'� L'.::::L7L:a��u�Y�b:�'iLLCiC.�CY7TCCCCC7Yi0::��^rh�O:rA•.M:i:CH'MH1�hhMrlC:l':nrr1NFFMFIr�rFtiHN��:YM�FMMN7CPkECLEfEF 9 S11 :LJTL:iLii��.u��i.��u�.�'iiY:7LPt9CVV9:iC:IIIC��.�r�rhM:C4�M1�My0VYHNMMNNMI.tt'i'.'SM4NM4MFIH1�I�FFNNFI.fMh�Nl.htlCOC�O(FEFEE $9 4Y :.:LL:Ii:il::iVL�:it:7:09Si�0iP{'iCP7C�SCiTNhf��nNl'CTl'hMh�IVi0CHM1�F1�hMh/�VCCif��ihFMf�h1�h�I�HMFF�4MLNMHMVPIO{FFIEE �9 � �9 i::i�i9LCL1::LLLO:iLCVVLCVC:CitC9TOV9OTMhwMMhh.�r.n�',101�M1�FYtCOHMHhh1.tiFFtCCiMwMMNN1�hFF4H{HHFMFMfINMF4prLCFf:EEEE �9 . 2S l.]L�:t:YL9TttC�:iC:YI:VCtT7ClPC7CC:CihntiMi�Mr��.Yt:C�M1�MCF7i1�HMNFM�MV�T[::M✓NHFNFF�fFffHN�M4MF4NMMMMOECCCEEEf 29 ZS [:t::':iC:�i::LVLC:G7LCTltl:iT[VtC90Y0CC�'MFMNM::i�M:t:CMN1.M5CCPtitihFl�hMMV.i':�!1'�MHMXFhFF1.FYMHFhNMF1�M11NMMPFfI'F[FEf l9 I � •Y :��i.:l�1YC�:CGLL:T7LLtlTVV4YVYV7iYCCSMrVOi�_:I��VCI•Cfti�tiLlFL(��FEL'CCICLf.C��FI-FHF�4f1-I.FMHhN1�MMFHMNMMNEG��FEE�E �9 OS �L:L:::Y4ilC:;1GLl�1Cit9T1LC�CdY4Y9LCYtCI:��.�1�•�-IILL��H1�Ml�LI�L�ff(ICF:ELLLL��C:I:MF.IFIfFFfhNYFFFI%FIWNI�MMMbPEFCECCEE �f� ♦i 1:i:.:�L1Lt::�GLiC:T6TYL9TOCOt0itt0�Ott9iL>.�_1��F11.lhhMH�Ei•G�f(fLLFELECti(.��E�rtir�F��FE•wNFVFNFF�tiNtiww((([fE..fF p$ af :i::tLCL�G:fli7ii�lGLiL�tYOi�iLCS99fiiSCs�__tMFr�l61-MHF(F1'k�f�ffi'IFEICI�(LL�E(FFMFFfF1�FFMH4MFFYFMNYFHMM(kEF�E�EE LE ' Sf �iL:.i7Y'v[.::GL7::7YTYIi6L�0�ffffbk6llltitkEFL��IFnnF�.h[EFLtVO►f�C�EEEFbILCE6lFebFFM1.FMMfF4NN�M►FFhMMFMMFHFEEGE�EEQ 95 . � Ss :.t:oa:tis::9coc:9oavcvsYt[f�fP�EeblluLELc6�l��M....vVVo6blbeEoElL�Et�ftil•[•FHrFrtitirrNwFffMF�NVH�wHwEEFfECEPE 55 � �s : :�4ctiSSVLO:C:c69TY9L.offffpb6kEt6b�b�ELt�titir�.�.�....VvdtrEbE�EcEECEEE63GEENF►►ftiFlNNfMFhFFNHNNNw��NFF[ffEEE 'r5 ks .cut�t::i[�vt:7i•�:a997tffffbEbbbab��eLEctMHHtHHkE..�Y00lEFELEbE'ttE6EE6f•[EEFfrti�.hhMMMfFhMFNMNFFMN/+CFFFE[EE f5 fL i"VY:::Cit:it...v9tts�tfffft6�ktiti�tithl.t�lthtir�.{,iFLE.•6EFEtG�EbECEEEkEoEE6GCt��wtiti�NfM1�FFFMMHFMNMM(,EEEFEBf ZS L ct�t:7t�s:..:�cobtecvoft'f�«�btiti�ncob�c�et��F�bh�b•tcEbetbtbbEEE[eE�6�EbEf��Fra M�FFMFMMMV'FHM�VLECfE6E TS 1 � �y 06L:.ctYLiLiOtitDitOLffffEkuktitir�wEEua�LckEhhbtEbbtL66bl�hFEE LEIEIFew(E6EtMfE�F NFF4FfFMH1.tiM�b1.EkEFEFE �5 6• G:...tctct:::�OtCttitffffkEkl��Mtt6cl•c[EFtr.nfh[[�ELEttEEt6LLE�tFEEEEp+�tifGE([EFcf�3iffMNFMhNNMMFMI.FEEff 6� i• f�t..nnL7C:i9cC¢9tCLt9019iiCti99�t0ihr��•n�.HftiHhFnbLCl6CbF�Ck�'6LEEC�lE36MQOklEFE; ��ffFFFNMNMhMMMMCfEEfi Q� � [1 +i•.aniiiCaS�itCi�C1VtV�Ct00CCOCiCKNnrhwHhNMtiMMyEEh@l6CELFkEIEEBFE66fFffffffz`i -f�VFFMMMfMNMM4[[ECfM I� �� i� ::S.nNnitt[9SCC99YCLiY9999TtCtPSCVFhn�whNll�rhMMMk�bBEtEkEEcEFEEFEC6EffNff(ff��?��ff�F►MMHFI�MFMFFECECMFM 9� y7 CLrnnnDt:pCLYiiI'�.cras9vTtro90atevhN�r�.nHrHHrHNNEEE7EEeEEEEEEEEEEEd6fffrffff==33�ffffFNNtiHwHNtiFfCEEfNNN S� f 1• ilLtnni:LiLLhFFtiiY\61C6iO�97TMAM1�nF��h�tifY.wh�1NhNLlEE(tC�Ektetcif►ccerrrrc lkC(�C(CCCCCOCOdddMAhFffFffMM �� ' �1 L:cnn:t:t:Pti�NwOf/TC9CtCiOTLNFFMhfnrnwMFFFFMFFhECECE(.tbEEEEEEEE:^.OffffE�tC[C:pCCfCCCGCO!!ilMFI.EFFfMFM f� t1 tLtin::i7::titi..M07lSLiYT97TLL1�hhhhMnrHM1.h�HMMMFMtiPSt6EEkE6PlEEECD�UfffflklFCf�OtC[CCCGCC�.ildf�NE[(FfNH 2� i� cttiticLLLY�AAtiM�Q�pCGCC�TSCCKNMF/fYhrhhhfFM1hN/�EC'liC'FEC'�ELC�Gf'E{.EE•CGcrrrrtEE([C�GCCCCfCOCCddliFtiFflECMHN �t1 � Y♦ Fti��iLcii0s�0:C0iV7Ctt400ttMrHHwfti�nHH��MtiMNEIEC�CEEC�G6LLELEG6f[36fffflEtf.i.=iffff-�_�FNff�FfEfEfMM �� 6� rnnN;�CtCQiSSC7CvtY9009tECNRhNnn�.�hnhr��.�tiV�6LkFtLF�E6Cl•EEElEEEnEffffEGlf.::�izffff�?_=FN�.tihfFFfEiNM 6f � �( MNhh[:�LLtlLC4VTi00i4S9IILiSMhhMMfF��hNfFMMhMFEfEEL�EkkLFkECFEEEEEP��r1��('(fjj_�:l'�l'(�D:=FMMNMMNFfEFtiM R[ ti rti�co:vctaTseo�C0atlTtttnnr.tinnr..�t�Fn�.nH�.nEEEEkErk�CcCEFE[EEe6ffHFfEEE�:??_ffff>?33FrwHNFti�PQFHH L[ � 9L hhY�i:iGLGY9C9CSC�CCi11TIMMhhFFh��hnh�nFNNwMhFNY[E11EI.CEGLFYCEIEE�fMflEFE�i � s�'-FhMFM�MFNEF4M 9f ` , ' SL Nr�e taeeeOvostrvv�e�wtiwtiwntiMHn.�w�...FtiHNnHrHwti66bEEE6GEEEE�ty6��NrFEEE�_;�"-`-`-�`'`==e;4tiNkFFEEM SL � � •• iiLLYiOCiiiCOVCnN1.rMMFNMh��rl�f.fnMNM/.MMMMI�EEC1;tEEFE[FELE'e6fCNFFEkI_:anii 3L.3=3=33nf1�MfMEfEN �[ �j LL� L56Vi0TY�OC�C1NwMhMMNhn�F�rtiwfMMYMMMMYFFEEFLEEFELMhMfECP(►NN�EEC��3.i�p��_�i��_�ShYFVMMEEN [C � � �L ttCC4iCCt.�tinhiCLTPihhNH.hrHwFFpt9NHMNr�iNF6ebCEEFFEEFHEtiEEfMFFfFC�S�:�S?�F�Sz:�j+wNMVfMYMEfM i[ ' " C ctotOria.�rwc9tconf.+�.r...ti.�nCtttr�tiNnE6E6bEbEtE6F4��Eti�wrfr�Ez_`!�?g_:3'-`3=?�F�tiNHrhNFfE "f b[ yCi0�79�MMM9CT[MFFMMr��wF/�FF�p6ThtiM.�FbtL�LELIFEbEEGMwMFMFFM��i:�_r_=��'3?_fMMMMFMFFMEQ 61 is CC90iiTCiCDSMf6M�MMnh��fr�t:llC��GldtVkkltELetFtFlE(EF�FFt��_s��-��9=r%--rMM641.FMME OZ ' l2 09Ccc0itcctititi��htinr.....ti�:ttCEkaaac7FC6k6[EFtEECEEFErrwtif"a�F:_i;cn:'-.`•_??'-fwNMFFwtFHE [2 � 9"e vavt:Cv7cc�ntinnn..�.........cEkEbB>>:eECLEtE�ELFEEEC"cBE�w�t.:f?i?3:_.n3:3?;aHNtwrrw�.Ef 92 ' SZ 90CYLCi�iMMMwwHn��••��.•N:tllbC!ldCtC666LklGLCCEEL6ECFHrEs�F ♦NHtiNFrFrEE SZ ♦� C/�hN99LOhM�MMwN��"h4��ECE:ba1;Gd_'.:L!fbfLEE((��1'M►E�� , - MMMYF'�FI.E 1Z � � (i ' ' ' ' ' FhY.90it'7MNhr+�.�..�.�hrfCklCEFIl�Ld�l7El6�fEk[fffff�MFEt MMMMLMFYf iZ 22 - w7tY►�tnnnn.�....nnr�2EEEEkEniidlalEEE f6EfffffFNfE M4NNf4FNE 22 � j� Ct9i0ik«�.��...•.�M�[LIEIICG!!�1l��lE E��ff('FM MMMMM4FME �2 4 � CCYttt��'�.....�n�crl6vCl'oi�94CCEEEE e[E[8 rH�f��vf 6I Ytatt:��M....��:6l�FFEa_oC�iLeCl•E EF Y��wFyM 6 LS P4SC��nnn«•...F�iL..ILf»>]4fitlC'cEb MNh Pj L LCti.bLhNrf.��.nr;CFlll:lF�OyLPLf"LE 4 . y� tCk�Lknnrn..nwf�Ll•E�ilCeECViVIELEE dt S kbttkMh�r.MwHCtt llkttCt900EEhEFE ;T 1i ttht;::tit:Ll FtbrLtC►YttE6lE ii • t[.:ifSbC CLtlLiTStkCEEt f? �j{ tFtEC �ELCiSCCkCbECE �t ir1 CtFSIOCE[FEEE6• CS � b ' EEttsckt66Et6 6 • EtCcbkt�EEbECB6 � 9 6E[EEEkCkEEfEE S EikEEEEEEEEf S � • 6CLEEb � � E[EfCe t � tYus'.as:�e��9Seii:Ce�t1r51i�i:tit95�L2t7GiLSS1CZ::@YaSS!iciC6fr[9SOf2S'6i[95�f�t"kf(95!f77:kke55•[ii•Ei!°S�f2:•Ef�55�f2T 1iii�iSlili I: tclCtctctt�k�YkLk�k� lL�L[!LtSSS4ycc�cSS5S5555«S?��•�%••"�ifFt'i5'fSff�'"2ii['ZSl{T1:11:1��-r•^� i:tii:::::tiItifi�i.i�L�I.G.:ioGC.:�LL�.:��YJaJ�v.JC::::::C:G.:.G::S°fC.C.:.CCC:E:C)0€:]([0..�(D^rf�[rf)"'-7;C:.^fr'rr"rr� D311M • • `. .i( , i�� . 3dFJ lICS y 'I t �ru ul5oIr9 COMPOSITE OF THE EXISTING LAND USES AND THE LAND USE SUITABILITY COMPOSITE A Highly Suitable for Urban Residential and Class I and Class II Suburban Residential Land Uses; Existing Land Uses are Residental and Commercial or Recreational . C Highly Productive Forest Areas, But Unsuitable for Commercial Timber Management; Presently Wooded Land. D Highly Suitable for Pasture and Grazing; Existing Uses are Agriculture or Open and Vacant Land. E Moderately to Highly Suitable for Mixed Hay, Small Grains and Row Crops; Presently Utilized f�r Agriculture. F Fragile Areas (Steep Slopes, Landslide and Erosion Hazard Areas, Riparian Habitats, Peat BoQs, Swamps, and Stream Zones) ; Currently Wooded or Open and Vacant Land. G Highly Suitable for Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Residential , Commercial , and Light Industrial Areas; Moderately to Highly Suitable for Heavy Industry; Existing Land Uses Include Residential , Commercial , Industrial , , Recreational Uses, and Transportafiion Corridors. H Highly Suitable for Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Residential��and� Forest Land Uses (Unsuitable for Commercial Timber Management, However) ; Presently Urban, Suburban, or Wooded Land. . I Fragile Areas That are Highly Suitable for Forest Production (Commercial Timber Management is Unacceptable, Though) ; Currently Wooded or Open and Vacant Land. J Fragile Areas That Are Highly Suitable for Pasture and Grazing; Present Land Uses Are Agriculture or Open and Vacant Land. K Fragile Areas That Are Highly to Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay, Small Grains, and Row Crop Production; Existing Uses Are Agriculture or Open and Vacant Land. L Highly Suitable For Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Residential Uses, and Highly Suitable to Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay, Small 6rains, and Row Crops; Presently Utilized for Agricultural , Residential , or Commercial Purposes. M Moderately Suitable For Urban Residential and Class I Suburban Residential Land Uses; Existing Land Uses are Residential or Recreational . N Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential and Class II Suburban Residential Land Uses; Existing Land Uses are Residential or Recreational . 0 Moderately Suitable for Commercial and Light Industrial Areas; Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; Used as Industrial Areas or Major Transportation Corridors. r--- - _ _ ._ _.--„ I P Moderately Productive Farest Areas; Existing Wooded Lartd. ! Q Moderately Suitable far Pasture and Grazing; Currently Agricultural or Open and Vacant Land. R Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay and Row Crops; Agriculture is the Existing Land Use. S Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , Class il Suburban Residential , Camnercial,light industrial , and Forest Areas; Moderateiy Suitable ta Unsuitable far Neavy industry; Existing l.and Uses are Residential , Forest, Commerc#al , tndus- tr#al , Major Transportation Corridars, and Recreational , T Moderately Suitable for Commercial , Light Industrial , and Forest Land Uses; Moderately j SuitabTe to Unsuitable for Heavy tndustry; i Presentty Wooded, Industrial , Transpartation � Corridors, or Recreational . U Maderately Suitable far Urban Residential , Class t I Suburben Residential , Corrunercial and Light tndus- , trial �and uses; Moderately Suitable to Unsuit- I able for Heavy Industry; Residenti�l , Commercial,, � Industrial, Transportation, or Recreational Land � Uses Prevaii Today. � V Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , Class 11 Suburban Residential , Commercial , and � ' Light tndustrial Land Uses; Maderately Suitable ', ta Unsuitabie far Heavy (ndustry; Existing I.ancl� � Uses are Residential , Commercial , lndustrial , � Transportation, or Recreatianal . � W Moderately Suitable for Pasture and Grazing, jJ�ban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Resi- dential , Commercial , and Light Industrial Lanct '' Uses; Mtoderately Suitable to Unsuitabte for Neavy Industry; Currently Agriculture, Open and Vacant, , Residential , Commercial , fndustrial or Recreationa? ,, land or Majar 3rartspartation Carridars. X F4aderately to Highly Suitable far Mtxed Hay, Sma11 Grains, and Row Crops; Presently Qpen and Vacant i l.and. I Y Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay and Row Crops; � Currently Open and Vacant Land. 2 Moderateiy Suitable for Urban Residential , � Class li Suburban Residential , Commercial , Light Industrial , and Forest Areas; Current}y a Transmissian t.ine Utiiity Carridor. I 1 Highly Suitahle for Pasture and Grazing; An Existing Transmission Line Utility Corridor. I 2 Maderately Suitable for Pasture and Grazing; I Presently Utilized as a Transmission Line Utiiity Corridor. + Areas Unsuitable for Any intensive Land Use; Presentiy Agricultural or Open and Vacant Land. - Areas Unsuitable for Any Intensive Land Use; Existing Land Uses lnclude Residential , Carr�nercial , Industrial , ar Recreatianal Uses or Major Trans- portatian Corridars. . Other Combinations = Not Compared ' * Major Water Badies . Y 4 t7 �� V (J 0 ,.Ci • C.1 O �� f) • . .� � � � � ♦ . �7 , . � � i 1 '`_..1 � .MIMaf{4.OI�OIN�f�INMJ1f��OI�OPOwNMJN�Oh�00�rJ�MIMtN�DAOy�OaNAJYlilwtlT��.INM4N�0"•eO�.�NNMJJ1VpA�AP�'�NMJIM�ON.�pO��wNM.�N�ph�OP.a«N^lJN�OwtlO'��wNi'IJY�J1/�444"V.�NMI.MY'��Oho,T.��N*NJ�n37w�OT.�tiSJ"� . �r NAMMMwt�lMM�fNNNN14NNNNMM'Il7M{M/MMI�lMJJJdJJ?�.1Z11�NNIf�NYFN11tNVt�ti�D�OW�O�O�O�N�ROAI�AAl�hAA1�A0101fOEf3OO�0�?O'PaPPPPS.O{MMNNMw.�An1�IMw.�A.1�1.+1.1 Nr�.MiHnwCHw.�iwr�w.�iN ti1T ir1�a4.4�'�1'1�t e14.� .,O r4u.�4'i^4��4.4la.� .ttilw .f � 4t�4t�'n.� � •,O v��n �A� . .��.iao�n -1! ,� a � yj'J^s.7.'i .l.t.�»Y3»li.1Nfi A1N � 'A'/1V1U��LL�111 f'�LLM.1�•�.'1•.�•�»�:vS�M�.nrwf� � a'v rH . ^.�.�i^.�LL ��•)1�h 1'1:�'/!�:ly}ti'��yy1.�.�• �1 1 ..y:...n�n•�� ta�1e�..'^:�..•. �t�M :eeCl R.'�^'nVF"A4.��4.li�y�.,��j•nrn,�'i y t..r+�.4u��4,..r^JIir11.1N � � �4 il�y, 1.1NL.n.. •• � fA .�232�<f':�LLk«y�.��J.i i•:N i s��'LL4 I ♦ N•.�!/� � «O :» u.�it}.NM n n s -'� . �U.•2.+.1.A r .t��:�Kf..hak.t�i�{a4{�' •I� •3U44• �w..f^tnA.�Nn3 `� '�MN�� _ •.ir• •�JLL�.� u44 .VN1I�N��nNJ1• {�y�� ~.�i _N C�NVY�Y•�� ,�7�� S� .]'L:4. � a• in'nV�Jt a T ' ,naw.�y�4.... .�.`....7.� ..7.• • .7LL �.. .. J�.N. •.� •♦ U ♦��Mwr��r�1�.• .>�7.��r�:M• � .Y.LL •�• NN�. A ne1�T ��4.1�211� • •�NN��4• 7t.•♦ ♦ �� •.��j..�• .1]N• _ n�M T�7i'f_,��a1t¢.4�.trNiR:4 sI�4.4it4LL s�'!•�4 ��y=7• : •'»♦ .ULW•� � ��.h. �l^� �! .�..�K• '7 ��:ci�S� * �+� �'��• � C,� VI ut�.11'/�SJ':Y3 �Y U.}.SNNN'tJJ• •'Y.�1']�7��J�.%I �.1��•}JJ LLLL :Jf�•ti si+i�3.]��. if ee>y4't nf:�. . ��s Z�4 u4.• � '�1. _ •� .1�•�.�t ^t •�,j N!3.t7 e ��t1i�Ty s /!N:'SN�• : s.<�•.� y,Nllt♦ . ��JJ�.I s. .wM Vlt�.0�.)..• •.NNn�i}�>yt1J�J17• .2 w •... n�6.•y y •••�••rN.�V'a.LL >+. .�iwH N��Sr.1U�4.{�.• •�•/1.'iN'if'4�T. »VI��• •'1�.4,�w,�U LL1�411� ��:�.� l3NNNNM�N�UL.E�'��11MNt�>t s}»,!}��S• ~�wl��'��.'1N a nn�lt�J't�.i�LL • ��,� c,J�.J ✓IN�IVIN4.• IN.�4'4•LL�'ANJI�»�?»�..�2: ..W'NNN.A n��...•�t�f45��i�Jr��M1Vi'Ji••.y + r'ri NrnJ1iALL16'/1.NN.• .�',�.�in�.:�1 a>.r :�J." r.y�,n�il'/Il�a •�J'.1�7./1•IMv��f�rl• . ..J.� ��.tl SUl)��NY.LLNNSVIUI•U' �••�W•NNN�f:.1N�• •LL�SJ7+�'W••��N✓1_tyl.4V4��>CfI�NUIt'f(A�•tf�)' ` fA t a�iti4�el�^-w•1�'ISe1)i ai.��Lt'.��sN�N•�tt+!•�R A�Ni,ilLL'S�l�e4 ♦Y's�h�A'1�.t�en.�+��i . ♦• en•R 1tL�♦ �+P •t • N lJ'nV''t•�• • }• ♦�L1r��•�11�• LL•�'aJ�..l r��J1� ••n��1�•.��n•�1��1J1J1V.1��.�1�1��LL. t.� :H•/IU.l2'�l•JI�)lJ�kNNVI . .y'-f.,i. •NNri�� Yi�i.t7N n�n,^l,.•Ar�INt'I�n•1'�Y/1�.�:h1�.4'/1��LL•1•� ry r,� 41� 4NIIIM�W VIV! �t�w.V�j. ?[• ..! •Y.�7...�. y.��^•��N.n.}ti .V�n� r� a a�t .NNr�W.�t»'A-fN ' t?.. •�aN. K•a A�t'� •J.��• •:). . �SC• s#'�t+n 4• .V' e -'�iY �.N Z•n�/1• •'S��4.U1N�I�1A��rJ1�49 414VVI�V�4�f t4l• In�• U''�,�4♦ • •M�7}r/�•J1• .< M��l4�IN � �JVIN�UI. •�rJlNil��y,.n��1 V�!.1�.J •�.J'�.�l��1�4.��tVvi�1�.v' �M��• •N M1... •.�.�NJ� �ne'J V1_R�Hl1 Nlys ♦aM1tA2+N�IAVlNt K11s.: ��„.*[i�:�Lt•i✓trPf�i a� 4.•�• �}�rnin�r .�.U'iUt9 E�N�N.t -A T \T '� 7'1N e :n.�..� '�i' ul' �n s . NV (A 1�.. �S�sY»Y�'At4•+1...��=.�. + �. . .�� A �� ^�XI7�nNL+.N.fNtS'/IN%INNN�/IN,n�nN•W�.4J' �.l�1 •: Y.Nt�./��•'1 w.vl+V�•�NHaLL� �'�44• •NUNt�1N rn• •nln4i'1��1�'11�Ih2.<tt1�.LLNNNI�LY'/1N:/�1�1��14Y •1 V• •;�jt� :�J��•• �y,LL �.. . •LL f• .N�'A�A'A .,,�� O �qenr7t�+tM1tM+�i/11/�fn. IMM •.NUterN��tt/1 i •�• ♦• � tal}7: •71��V�! `�ta,.LLLLti�l�t'M�e��}�4LL� � �Y*Leyn •A �n :.N�.1N.f.YNN41NV1N�NNL4N��.�3��+4�• : `.�}V�^ •y,• • ;y�'..• ;>..N.l::�:V♦ �� .• � ^��y�n^VIN�M V'�rAr�r��1�•AVIV.VINNN'J�N��.NI1LL• •�:'1J1 �l'la.4LL• . ^�,y^�.��A�i�.^�.�w�i��LL�• LL�]J 1:.��f U1i)4�r..'11.11,1.�r��..�'� ./�y�+�in s• �•,YJJ'1_ll^tru•t:�`��•� �� r/� .• �1�ii4�'� � :fu1�1N h �\N tMA>�uNNf 1 NeefV�Nifii�tANl^TZe/}�N�4..TtVf�Sk+iA•LL�•7_l_l��V• . •S'Y.Aer.Uf:'f��.,�`a.�f4'f�.+.LLLL s.LL .�i.�tST�..�hti! �M . IJ wN NN�ANNN�n+��♦ •�y�NNNN.T\• N•rS:t 'lf�A4�N�4'•�S��•�• •Y.• •U'^U��1Y�tiV��ViVl�1`4.V1:• • ^'J1Nt^.:nNNViNN�+ �� y� , r�.� N1/��n.n��.<• • •Nr1NNIMtn3<SNN••Y�.rin�n. �>•y,N•�•��• •��• n��I�Y� � •y,• ' rn.n�ntn nrn�n'J'�r�.••�a. . V�� r�pm ��1NN• •t t��`y✓1NNt�1M5tT�4..�f,A>�.�LSi± »• L'f . .!� •Y..l.: •• �4LLLL�NN��•�rht^��+YY �-4u+-a v f.z: � ..pq a w• 1 •Nf V�Ni?N.t�LL�SN+.S 7 :Y�S.N sµ.I:�tJ• t�i�if}V•S�. 44.� •�4+•� N4LLN�Vi`+YW IQY . �.. •�• ��+�LLLL.T.VI•N M..}}>'S• • .�IA.• .U�• •e 1�'�t*JIN�•{;4.• • 44��j�n�nfA.W�l^�Awr�� Y'• JIY' , r. �� K-^ ^C n •, • • .. .�I� .'C1� �.?!'.S �• -�I:��71i.• : ��'J� •�. r. : y • - .r/�r�r.l.��`. «. •�;�. • (�..Q T'(1 i.. A 1�{/� • i N t' �t+ #��VINNSl,1 e2LL�t4'P�fNV NNN� _ •LL �4�L y44LL�4.w. �LL rJJ�r{.A+-}��+t+`�'LL �3�a1'.!1' .V'J144 � �.f 1� ♦�t • .NVIN' NJl�?^w . t>}y .J��•^ �� aY.�.4 .k.1 • •J. _nN.-�u4.Y�t�4�Y�S<.M••wV�"14�.+4LL�e'Y.ta yK'Y .M1K �nrn �'�1 4. •I ��•t}N1NiI1�N •6 C}? �• ��4.T1 .• LL1�. • •U�.?J l.iU•� •4 Vtr�iLL.G1LLy �Ir�NTY♦ • �e ��.LLr-�wLLi •.3. ♦.ur� � `•�N �111N+ �NNS fnwi3< 4 �1 i(J�^^Nt'1 }J�44�LLSJJ�.)J��. ��IJU•iJU ��.• 1..•1.. i.�4`.+ti.Gl4 .22 ♦ 'dy,4LL LU.LLLLQNr4 •',?Uf6• � �+ �I+Nvi.tM1NU1. .1•v�t�NV vtNVf++tSLt� •tJ?44 : • •i�•*•��•t'• .2}�V�^t`i� ' �. . ^��... ....i�t� �� j+' NNN WIII��.�}y�..�.l^ .�1>.VLL 1 1 4 }7•4��7N!>}a.�n4}^.�U. •1/� �V�>�U. �I�V1. u •6'• 4. •G�.S.•KQ'SS�• Y,Y 4^ • •N••:� Oi»•� .0.�al... .inna�� I1i33� '.l� .4��rt• •♦ .��•- .,. �•.N�r• i•Yf� �SSI[• 4LLLL�l�..•. I��•.♦ V! .Mo aJa�...y�v+N >St�+UU�J. .Y.�.1.i••aLL'�• +i .771 U..,aJSSt-�.i�� a W .N..N• WO:U:.c =: til�l�.n�..t2• .f.w 4+itF��r.'a�i:'� Vt>JT ,�� wS'��x't�?�t�fQ��S��♦ .'/��R.nnV1�-t "� .• •4 LLLLLL�. •a2�Yny •. O'T.MLL��u �4 = y,� nA N1�.1��1�v1U1C:�N LLl%1�')14• J� J�/IJ'��J• �'t��»N'./i• •4..LLu.4� w-r1�� uWhn.�4.• at�4�.t�n�r�. r.y� ul 1 •LL4.1.~ U+J ,SNL=Y. KI.+VN. �1]L�^ �1LL4 N~ ♦..JJS;�2i�.%4�ai1�♦ >4i�hy t.. �N�•`�a. LL,i t`:LL U•4ti4/n, • �t�f.��r r`LLL s�J�^ llt�l>t� • 'N • <'t' `Oi�� l^S>:�,Yy`^'f�aTct4.1y .J�tIJ,�L•� I�JS�r.�4.JIN `'1�.4 �O• �LL •+�e+•�•. Y r�'•' � NN a u.LLl�'�2.�C •�• •7e.> •4rtir-rLLNVf4 VI�IIN:A'.'Yti�l• nt�� ,� �N wYla.�.4LL• .t}�N4•1� 'c?SNMJU'. �Q7 •J..�Ji1�4^f �> 4^A • �„� �� .-��.:• • ^? �4�• u>f s�it�N�32Y+. �N*. �J. �C.LL1r�«�.irn6 j�� s�i4• ��J1�u4'�]tt�iLL v+N..a'�U�J'J�♦ �J� q •1�4Y4 ��Y.•� '+nN4I4• ♦f .�1�1�• ♦Strt,•J�III��r.S •LL.�K• . _}J• 1• r •. .Uli�l�• >� y� �INNLLNNN�U��2,1 J}}NNt>�1 1 .�4�•• aSn7�X��M11�JYLLLL • ?�d . .Y ,�� J• �y>�':Q�..4w. V LL�•1^'�'ty�r4� 'Ny�t�i+� a}• - J.Ci .felNh.1V.NL4��4.�t+(»NVf�>>i� • •NN:4N+IaV�2QttNtbf�}��LLJ�.1•i •�«��a �>aJ-+rn �Tf� r� .Y •u �Jun.LL��Ju.. •. �>l• >" •U'� .4'W1�In � +t.aq .y1• LLs.N• r. • . >;a.�1::r��J✓• •• .}�.�l7Cc'TIa4 xt�ta .1'f. v4.u.� •�W�",.•LL l`l]1:V4.. •uu`*t,�♦ .�In sJ yT��...�a.:.:>.�aa++t.i a l iil:r �S»N`N. 2. 4• •Ny' �ai.�»�aM• .I.yU�'+.��`l� • • .r4l�iN .�+� aT�' a �:iM »}.R�11LL�JJ4sIN}YC4 ��>'1V1�IIiTUl7}VIIA�.•.V4,•l:�t7JJ3 �V♦ •JI••��•LL u4 •<a• : • .. .... J •-•tN >}��LL4Y 4JJ> •• .N 't:r�St St.�y,�rnLLtA•JJ- �.yTJTaY.<• �..� .y,LL� •j' �M1' 4{4i.�:�/.<i�/`»,u`• •w••�••�V�'�= .a1i4�4• •t n!�irni NNIIiC}�N• �1 .N}� <'S>Si7S}.�V1lnN�^✓IYY>2• _�• •+{ �}>T,�t�1�.4�LL � ••'•••••�•�s " .� _ >N �y.lvF>.}rn�Y»4 �f:.» xr.IJ• •1 e• . ..Y��+��yL �-..�..1�.i24�'�1�.� . _ �,�f��• � •44��Nhr'��a��Y. .�• r�� .�S �. J}�'sv'fillt.�S..=w�y..�>�.:��i�.�iN�.yiEy.�' �y N:PV'FS�Y��4�'11lu. �-rL�re.✓.�....i.�r4«.(.1. •I��N� �jU.4 •44 • �4�a��SANV:tn��V�t'+sVf.. � >}:y�NVI jT . . . ¢ Q Q � • . .. n i • 1 � a 4�`'•�. r LL. �:...n.f��! � y2�G }i�l el� �•N 1}yi?*�?�lY 4.a�q �[+Y• •N.+ ."""'^""'^ ,.Nµ.I 1�`�1��• 1 �1 1 14yt�•%4+1�.1�• �U LL ��N41�VNVt.'1V!I+1�4' � � n.yt �Y�'T>S�1HN��•�YNIAMRaNNdN.OYa�y.r'+N4�+�•�^"H�LLy� s 1 f t I 1 +y 'Y�C�t�x.)�nM.NfJ1 ,ll ^�V y��.y. .-Y�aJ�JY.�• • � t • ��i� v��r��riRe ^n��4��nw��. - �iln4• w;1 � ' � 1� � �1 1 I1• 1;x Inr/�Ii�N�i1�n'nil�n nU".n�nil�^tM1 .�,: > ��.�r�-w�t�11��.+'irr��w nu..Oy »�• � r� .1 � � � i • n..�N 'A..'1 r � 23�YLLYx4«+ws��rrn+v�a:af�a*>Sa1.11�� 'f��+ I� %i f fR � !11 t(t 1��, �t• • •t� �� ,•♦ • l:4?UI�f.Nw4t� ++�t^N s,. . ., .x...x�.�...u>z�.»»->.-n.M _ � ��. �� . �� .o. ; .n�i i i�i �� .: :._>��a.�w........,.. i .�.A�� W r . uq. .z�� -•»>o.. .: .�t i ��i . � � „' �s �� ir� •,.. .:a�..�...:.� . .�� ,.r � � -ro•.�� .o.{'.��.�i:i��i� � .� .�. �uuu.....ti�...., ��',�. �� ;i�A •�x v.♦: O.+i:t�i/�ii4.��e i R i e x x�xx♦ f i�.'x�.x;.� . c'fi^act..�.x. ;;�/♦ e!� ; t+�1�++, • ••• • ..�.n .� . {� �� r�� . �� -�� . �r��ri�i�� r�� -,tiu, n�ln ' .n��#1N'MI. 1 1 1�;�l 1/� •Wx1�I��11�1Y'WU�W�JIJWI�i• ♦4r��i��l:,.l.. 1 1�I �;�;1 1 1 1�1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1•4.f 1 � x fhl�x XX%%x.h 1 f�1 1�1 1♦ •1 . �• .1 1�O• 1 }��'1 1 1 f 1 1 I 1 LLLL� �- ��.M ♦%�a�. v�e •.��.tt .tt�l�� •�♦ ♦f v •a:W..f�a��JwWlw. T '�YW• n+[ II�II�a �LL4.uI;11 •.4 � � ' >kC�1�7YYSX��K�ri.XA111�ff� • •I��Ilrtf • 4. x11 ♦h6N441 td• �vw �• • •r.1 �.• .y.v *t`t • �� yYi�,. "l�(KY.4\%'% �1.� Y+. '11 •1 e+u .11 •;1111 .1 _ Y.YI.Y�lY�fYYf Ix .t • • �f I��YYYI ♦W411�4 rW .}+ u� XhXAY r�1�11. •LLM. �1 I f�tf� �� W t. Ka�'LYte+wl�I •�: �WW�♦ ♦LL �rr-�x •• •r��.J '. • •1'r}Y 1�4 �}1� M. N L�YYY4.xwyatK4lYa�XY. •Y. JY�y.''•Y♦ •�1 = •� • ..�64x M` wY"+"}Y. : ♦K♦ WL��.•••HYf4�YY`L�/Wl%1�♦ •W��l • •r • ��J��.Wa .♦ �� ,� ♦. QtiK. JYY�a.YXWtuVY44t1YN t�s •�{�4•4"L-WI.14tL,'1MU Ya•+1�`�wyrw�:.t'.U�;t. �+h`+�++.�4M�l7•�• _ . . S �' wJ� ♦WW41t4�K%WY��4�WW�0��iJ}41Y:��y�� 77�f7�4r�r�• j� `� � wr . � N .�d �.�4.1��.�V}ti.�W4 LL�.y��:.i4y.• �Iwrr� Y H��'.'Y7��+ �nV.wny�4�-S'N ~`�N�I.y�� 4a41Nw-.�.ur.�r= �H• • Y4.M1�M.'+ ` . ..... .... 4�. ...�. .iY. .)Y r. . ' r+ r. �r-��+ .N 4t .�N 4 Y.W4�4 L�Yi :4�Y9CtiC�W�.�WY��C• •Muo+4�+��a�++4w ~ �S. • wY45N�SV'�y�Vtt.��l�MaNr.��N,, � ea`�at„+U� A. - 1�� uil�It��W�• :tl'1�. �Y• a.�r�HM �4r.41rtr ✓+.�+Ya�. �V♦ '++ tn.�.tJ[v r ; . O . �. ��.. � � :y�Y.l�•Y��'4�W �Y•�^ • Y. 4 �iyi.u� � •Fw-r44Y �.�'�.� �....vG. '�Y.�M l�4'�ar/1 y'nyNLLti 11� v��f�<a •�� s ,'4�WK:•4 •%N�+4 .r44NY• • w>� ti�.Y. a..�4�LL�}.�:• . •}.�. c�ciff •��r4�W4�4'WW• SN�-try4.I�r�>i�Hr�>W.Y.wY,+tft>Y<• 5}?�SG�w.>� Ua4K.• L L..>�Y.6• a 1 . a4� .� J N.wrw�Y4r..... N}4..4 .}ay4..»NNNN.r»c<ay>:•��4}oace. .�tc+•.y�aS��7�.^�•.bR�iM�a• M r��0 '�Nrn� •ur�1\4N�r �b • �ryl*y �}?`�M1�n�11�'.'1��1�e,..��♦ .>.T<Ae+.�aiYa�4.t�; MVQ• • .aY�VQCe141.�± -.�f` V�NNrn�/��, •.T.Nt1�n~ � +S��r � y. �w'.�f^.r.s .�4.�ns. .4� a�n•n^�-�4 ♦. ,1 r+ e-� tnV�S7>ti w •�:�»y'UNtn�},�` • > �4Iti �'!'�an .r.�4 .�� er♦ �4s• 4 ^N 1/�"T• •• ��.'�} � . .. ..-. f '�.,M N>i»Sa>.ol>}• .�2 ~�• }. .2 L C. .�Nw,sN�fwOC�.�t..Nifn.Zi�+.�iN..+MNNN�NNMNI�M1M�11��IMrnr�irrr�il.l�OSJ_flJJVY`NNNII�11�11�11�Y��D�f:�f�9��0��('�G�D�('wwAwwAwl�h�.00�T�r�al'e��'O`PPtl'^TQ'CPi^re�.�ret-r+ne+.�n.P.r�w�.+.;wL.yN�.+r.aRiN�n�n��t�1�•M'=^Mw ' u � �- t- �, C: [� t� C> t� tt Ct O O C� 4 Gt O t} o t7 0 O O C} fl U O C} f3 r3 n O �} Q O fl O q 4 t4 O 4 . -- ---- --- � i COMPOSITE 01= THE LOCAL C4MPREHENSIUE tAND USE PLANS AND THE LAND USE SUITABILITY COMP051TE A Highly Suitable for Urban Residential and Class I and Class 11 Suburban Residential land Uses; Camp�-ehensive Plans encourage Residential ar Recreational and fnstitutional uses. C Highly Productive Forest Areas, but Unsuitable for Commercial Timber Managernent; Open Space, I Agriculture, or Farest Areas are recommended I by the Comprehensive Pians. D Highly Suitable for Pasture and Grazing; Open j Space, forest Areas, ar Agricuiture are the Prapased Land Uses. E Maderately to Nighly Suitable for Mixed Hay, i Small Grains, and Row Crops; the Comprehensive Plans encourage Agriculture. � F Fragile Areas (5teep Slopes, Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, Riparian Habitats, I Peat Bogs and Swamps, and Stream zones) ; Comprehensive Plans suggest Open Space, Agricuiturai , or Forest i.and Uses. G Highly Suitabte far Urban Residential , Class 1 , and Class i ! Suburban Resiclential , Gomrr�erciai , and L'sght lndustrial Areas; Maderately to I Highly Suitable for Heavy Industry; Comprehen- sive Plan Policies recommend Residential , Commerciat , Industrial , Recreational , ar fnstitutional Uses. H Highiy Suitabie for Urban Residential , Ciass 1 and Class 11 Suburban Residentiai , and Forest Land ttses (Unsuitabie far Cc�mmercial Timber Managemertt, hawever) ; Propased Land Uses are ' Residential , Recreatianal, Institutianal , ar Open 5pace, Agriculture, or Forest Areas. I Fragile Areas that are Highly Suitable for Forest Production tCommercial 7imber Manage- ment is unacceptable, thaugh); Comprehensive Plans encourage Open Space, Agricultural , ar forest Uses. J Fragile Areas that are Htghiy Suitable for Pasture and Graaing; C�nprehensive Plans suggest Open Space, Farest or Agricultural Land Uses. K Fragile Areas that are Highly to Moderately Suitabie for Mixed Nay, Smail Grains, and Row Crop Productian; the Camprehensive Pians recammend Open Space, Forest, or Agricultural Land Uses. L Highly Suitabie for Urban Residentiai , Class { and Class 11 Suburban Residential Uses, and Highly Suitable to Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay, Smali Grains, and Row Craps; I Comprehensive Plan Policies encourage Residen- , tial or A ricultural Land Uses. 9 I M Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential and Class I Suburban Residentiai Land Uses; Compre- hensive Plans Suggest Residential or Institutional and Recreational Uses. N Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential and Class II Suburban Residential Land Uses; Compre- hensive Plans Recommend Residential or Institu- tional and Recreational Uses. 0 Moderately Suitable for Cort�nercial and Light Industrial Areas, Moderately Suitable to Unsuit- able for Heavy Industry; the Comprehensive Plans encourage Commercial or Industrial Land Uses. P Moderately Productive Forest Areas; Comprehensive Plans suggest Open Space, Agriculture, or Forest Areas. Q Moderately Suitable for Pasture and Grazing; the Comprehensive Plans recommend Open Space, Forest, ' or Agricultural Land Uses. R Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay and Row Crops; Agriculture is the Proposed Land Use. S Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , ' Class II Suburban Residential , Commercial , Light Industrial , and Forest Areas; Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; the Comprehensive Plans encourage Residential , Commercial , Industrial , Recreational , Institutional , Open Space, Agri- ' cultuPal , or Forest Land Uses. T Moderately Suitable for Commercial , Light Indus- trial , and Forest Land Uses; Moderately Suitable � to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; Commercial , Industrial , Recreational , Institutional , Open Space, Agricultural , or Forest Land Uses are proposed by the Comprehensive Plans. U Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , Class I Suburban Residential , Commercial , and Light Industri.al Land Uses; Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; the Comprehensive Plans recorronend Residential , Commercial , Indus- trial , or Recreational Land Uses. V Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , Class 11 Suburban Residential , Commercial , and Light Indus- trial Land Uses; Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; The Comprehensive Plans suggest Residential , Commercial , Industrial , Institutional , or Recreational Land Uses. W Moderately Suitab�e for Pasture and Grazing, Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Resi- dential , Commercial , and Light Industrial Land Uses; Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Indus- try; Comprehensive Plans encourage Residential , Commercial , Industrial , Institutional , Recreationat ,. or Open Space, Forest, and Agricultural Land Uses. X Fragile Areas; the Comprehensive Plans recommend Agricultural Land Uses. Y Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay and Row Crops; Recommended Land Uses are Open Space, Agricultural and Forest Uses. Z Moderately to Highly Suitable for Mixed Hay, • Small Grains, and Row Crops; Agricultural ,Open Space, and Forest Areas are proposed by the Comprehensive Plans. + Areas. Unsuitable for any Intensive Land Use; The Comprehensive Plans recommend Open Space, Agriculture, or Forest Uses. - Areas Unsuitable for any Intensive Land Use; The Comprehensive Plans recommend Residential , Commercial , Industrial , Institutional , or Recreational Land Uses. . Other Combinations. = Not Compared. * Major Water Bodies � 3 G r�t / �� c:tus[r �z� i �" f fCtianS:T'- J� T.+E �:S„ SUITA��ILITv vpP 4!:C _."i�En�652:' P.6tJ `.._. � �[•11l V_t;i�N E '.�lll9?C.l:.":r7•;^:^.�'..:;:_'::.', r ;.".::C:C'..:._::.i , :'..1J:,:•_.1:..".:.L l.:e�i.�l_.._...._.J.::lli:li:t:lt:.i:::t � ' `J)71:J0�:!:]'111112.7"'t?cL'.•:'>j75i3--.+.��:�:5i;.5»ii5�b5�i5n5557�1i�777771li1ii47E�9)lii/ii H......1)..1i112:::11 12S.i97d41:2'�557d9:1?!�Sb7dB::%:.i67di.:'5�55799.i�S�So�??.:27�5o7ti122;�5o7iro712Jr>E7S�_SLS;:67i•A:2:.i3+3�1:i3.+io:s4 . C 2 Y'il/1 Z J lYil'i� S C � Y1.YJ7 • ♦ 5 V/..C�ld6l6d . • 5 6 JS.00'J06.fi10. 6 _ 7 VS..\SSSVSfV.S 7 � � SaA ii5�'ifS.v s g ��1�a.S...�..n 9 SC vLieS.S.....=5 14 11 vaVvSS.....w5. 11 .. 2 RYYiS....3:�. JiSSf � 12 1J SV:Y`I...�]a5a. »:S.G.a. 1J 1� VVVUS..Y6al�$$. -SiS.....Si�S 1� � 15 L�GPC. -�VV...i. S • .SSSi�$ 1S v 16 ► A4 -JVS. v;. 55. _ .,��. 16 17 iASIY: .S> LfY�Lt15� ��/ •ii 17 � 1� .. SAA-- . -h r34w:.S�. .S>s'•v;.. 16 � 19 S..U... VV VYVV:1...��1.O�Cr�....s••.i..ii..� .;i 1R �0 iS. . . . •n'!'!V'^ aS"IY. . 55S•':n1C.S • •�� _�-:«5. 2 zl SS....... VVYNI./'/A SS4V-'J...S]Yr:.S.hi'i�"•�..i..'.S�a.� 23 22 ' i.•. .. wJ7.J�wNVJ.VU $$S.AVN....V�:ti.....• sirJrA1�MA 22 2� 5.•�6...� M�V�V'I'/YV4.aSV•VSSS��/�! . _SSU• ... •rii..: iaS . 2] -r .��V�ryyV7C'J..'A��i..�M. .JMG.. U.• ••••'�•LiS.iSaani [� ?S S'J.� .....F - -.V '/"��`1V.;IV-.-ViljSVGu .JYI'. . i' •.'_'>)iSiASSiwiia 2S 27 V�.%. . K '' ' .u. VY'� /J�. SN-YOLISJ:� .iN.SS. •• i icS;.��.iS:iU�iSi) 26 � . �• ...... - ..iV/Y_!1^!/$ViV-l��SaU..> .'.1.$ . •SSi� ��i ». : A$ Z� 3! 'J. M .«. . .... . �V`IMY'.1: -Jk.�V--:S 'l�..il .SS:S.� 'i�5; a�.wSSI. i� �� 26 �9 '�J IAN..«... - ... .... - �IS>. .'li'l:iS.S-.-a4VCV. .::GC.0 i�. •'iS�`a;S...H.. . :.So 29 ' l� S/Y[MN�......-..........--.[....5..��J-edaVSu-G�a�i...i�+L-a.3i."5�355a5S..i..�.3.i�d.S 36 7! SSY.IA..F............'•'="'. S..'SS..�SiS'1V5'JiSiiJ....-U,:4>nA55.•'SiS>;.�.a�w.�•l.aSni�. 31 32 Vi/iISS.'..............-.--..i�..�V-V.7�vu::V-Uu4>V�......:IYSX•�iS.FCSdS.";;,.a►.a.•vS.a�SSSS 32 � SJ VVVif...F..............'..-..I.V,.SVVV./1VSU...�iS34.... -.SVVSS;..AA4..;i.�.SiSy.Si.;S.SS� ' JS . 7e Y'I•ti.F.:..... . .. . S .� ._J7:.i:G:.i.:eil:..�:0...5SUSd..�is4..:;�d.S;aSi.vS.i..SSS 3� � )5 �IJ.i....c..... .. - .. . -'I�iv 'i��r:>.�S.15c1•o-Stt...L�.-.vS�.+.+� .S.i�.�ai�.Mwi�Ai�ii.S�i� .Si�ii 35 I6 V/.i....F.........��r.....-.-(.VilV.VJ•/'.�.A:�41L�.1JLy..:li-.S�V>i>.l.a..�i.�aSi> iwd»iS$.��1�$.�..� J6 77 �f11I�... .......... - ...5'iel'SV/4l'/...'Jl�i.98YYJ....la-t.$Jr.iiN,.i.i�'i�iii.U�i:li.l.�w.i�$nN.",ria 37 1� Y.'I7iF2..�.. . . . ..G.. '•S11'/•'JI�.JCI-'Oa:.Uu�. :A..S:.:dii•, ii.�.uHw3555uSw .,bv-"U J! . ) / /Y. .. . - '.4:1�L• 1i.'Jw-tv;4�.'�7. c. . .�--"'d�� SoS.ii-Ai 3SSS..G.;iJU 39 _ ' �� Y1:'!VV I�.�� ..1. �__ _ .�Si/0. '_�_�/:C.a.A '� -ll'l=. ..'A�...S.'J�A',A.irviSS'� ;.,4�.�'..ciJJU ♦G �i l��liJ�IJFIZ7�`�0....-..----- =':Sl��a=�--J�=..�A]A'/.dlJ:.....F.a.i4/iaa.U�S�SSA-o6 w:el,ib�.vf_.�JIUu ♦1 ' 4� YVliJ'J.II..J`^�"•'•'•""'.- +'/:1�5:14_:�.d'=.•:A-J-wL.!';/:_...'AVti'V4V.i.a:•J..."� "l.,.G',i.�:,G'i:. '-..��JJ.0 ♦2 .. '1 4] UVi3J'/.I�.-=.'C�-'•""•^"..'.J':JLSA1..1i,d-l`':�.1$?.A'�/t.1'.:...NV��Iu'iw.S�5..U$Sii�'ibii.n....-i,GnU�1J.U. ♦3 .. ! 44 VY..'/YV.r�..iT��'•-��-.N'/...�41a-1:LLN.F._:l�Jil'!I'G�Yra::.. ti'lnjJ'Jaiil�5.'J�.........1UU..iG.�'AA'Ad.jS ♦y �T �S M47YlVVVfF'F7FiFF....'-"�.YJ:.�SJLSA3I:.;L.VV:IlJLaO=.G�U...$YiSA�/'I•/Jii�..UJ.--...4UnJuU.G•:nU'1wd...i5 OS 06 YP•I//Si.Si"`KE�CFF�c""-..lJJ.f..M44-A-:laS.._A�1lAGL=�iG....SVAS;V7li51.. '�J.-�Guo..... u'J�.-.:nJx'•.S: �o �. �7 !J'liS.........Z.._�'--'-'.1J'� ......-a.�N-IML.LYVS4LL=�G..VNAIu'.7V`/J'�..'A'lU:l--•iI,GGUiUUUU$.`�SiUV.R%U'•.1:J �7 ., OB V15SF�.F•....K..�r------..JJI.. . �A..iL.4.115•464�1?...V4VY�:V�/`/V..VJi....�ia. ANASi�SSi».....'•••'J �0 49 YV'iII.......-r F\•""'...JJS.F.l74e.A...I..tILVJLILd:Y..Uu�/VS/Y'/YV..inoG.>s'o.UUUU.ISSSSi�SSx...•'.bJ �9 37 I1143.II'.......--.F�..--....� '.V'd/l.U�..-L.a.44•7�1:aC4..VU/'/:,/VJJU...:Ib:.G..GGJti5i3�SVS.��h..5.•.•.J 5� �. ' S1 '//`I..S..�.......... ..�-F�...'JJ..•IV. J1..=LO..a�e••n;cae...�-,v.:��v�.N�1J�...Aaili��a�VJ\�...�s•J.SJ.....� S1 �. 52 V1!/J`/$.:�........--..."" ....J.S.;..J:/S..YJV..VlV••V4V"�'..N�i.:jZ,.>111J�;.-G.iG'.•��Si.�SY.� •" ..U.U'1nJlU 52 � �. 43 41V1/VV4FF......."""•""......i.....7..5.-VVa.VYhG•••1,/VU..eGdJ..1�U.:J�.S-:G...GSi;SV••dVV9M..UUC�.•l.R:uU 5] j4 G1ldaAp_.�� '.ff�......$..'//�I.e?.�.d.VaSA��$:iH..X.. 'AJI.�.:'JU.iGI:.��'yi$iaYVVV•I'>SS$aJUL:�I'JAI.JUJ S� i5 f.17ii0A1..... ."•"....�.... .V�.;6-V.GVV.-.J4.VV••�•N:.U'A....G;,VUJ..�.�,y.�GGG;GI'JUU'IYJS::�liJSiV':'J:SiU/.= SS C S6 eJ]1�9016.... . . -.--`......... �..].S.VAVV..�9�V'l..Y.VYUJ7.J..'iiiGi:i.. .�GGi6:+�J�l.4VJ��.SJ. UJU'.a4.AA..i 56 i7 //Il�VVVii......�%.--'........... . �A...`V'Al40.LA4-�'JVY-VUv1V..iti�^`,.:.. i�-'.vG....�JUUSii�,U'I.UJ..n.�/.:n•�J.i� S7 • 5� VJ'r�VVV.........��.-............. ..S....'aVVV�1�di.6G--V.VVS��GIU...:G...G�.�..(JnnA'Iwna'/... C(�ftll�ViJ:1.U'an.'J��.�U:/.i.i SS 59 V1/VVVV'/i7V..... • " "'- .S.H.-SV':SaAA4..A-,SYV:S4,U..�.�GG�......A'JJ.:Sii'i�..LUb,.IUW.o..at.�}..Y'_�dU.)i,i 59 � 5' 4'JIVVVV.........' ' • "�•:- _' .�.a..-V--A4L0-4..-5"VS;G,u.A�';5 ....JS a'. 'vU'_.1nUL'.UJJ�.:.. 7'i1.UJw.S»ii 6C 51 OJ/VV'/9........ "- 'a�`:..oW..l-SA6.-S. S.��GN.1.t�,��..;�.'JJ;;SSJU�utJ7N•�i+�nti'.t..UW.::U1�A.S�i6. 61 ' 52 Ad.../7/�t......--......"' ____"..S.Vf-.9�VA.....a..i:aG.. �U-.dd�......;,SU.i:ii:JJ;GLJV).i�JwN.-UJUu...,.n�.a.a�..- 62 5l 'A'AVVV14::... "' ......-- i2.....7V.tAb-h-'1.5.�11a4.i..l..�d.._".n=;:.c'w„GGd--�iLUbC�JU':�.4.i.i�in,,.dJL•d:...JU. 63 � 64 AlAC.. 'V�".. -- ........ -- .... /' .].14-VYa=l.i.nnl'��=...a...S�.�..'I�..S�..ii'vi�'1�lUl.YJ'i:...u1JU'JJ.,n{,_J.A... 6� 55 7lOC...�1St'.....'..........--......��:G�..N.l]V:_N..S.r1.W\AG=.Gi1.. .li1....��.lU:.�i•Gi�JU.I'UUUJ..:��UJVUJL'�J.:.:..A�JU 65 36 »44R1Atl`:S'/J....................S'�:.:.V...LII=;A....a.u':1C..i;.J;1�.5.'..S'i-.U,3GUi:i��.UUn:lN=1-.•••L'.C�.S..UWdc 56 57 144...�d!.^.a7-i.'..:..""'. .. '..1v.5V.4t14S=.an.b W:....11.`t.S..:..::'1..rJ�Ua�3,�U.C..�J;iU.••�•.•.:.� .J. 67 � S8 11I�.V�'/1.I.CV�.�$�-."Z��--7�).�...J:...`i.M..N,i:ln4...1'.l'�.S.i�..i.:'.=A.:�`..�:..5/...:�iaaN�i�:lUl::iU��.... ...U..� 6Z S9 •11a4iis:'•.-;`.Ja..;...""-'-...-....'i1:;r...•dli9.-U..1�:°1.G.,G.i.nS:.;.:'..�.5.•S.i�..i•�..',:�.u....t•••_�.i.•.+..Y.a 69 7^, 1'1AA661G'.d.LJ$7..-....'+•"".... '-../:.CG...AL'c'.-.aGG=1:.i.....�.d•1.;.i�.U.l'lSi�d4;S5i�SUuu.U.y•••�JJ.:..b.� 7G _ 1 L 71 �i.1d�GL. :l.N9F- .." " .Se. J:S:atl aAwA' U. .Gf,;u. 'd. �l.UJ.iSw./i.,S1o'$a>U. wU. U;: 71 . .. 7t A.: _••I•!. I. ..... . "' .S..Y :G.41�1.M'.IALAC... - .'!'.I � ; .UJn.�dAi�..$�:;.iJU.'.�:1••••t.',1.;'J.:. 'Si� 72 I3 V/. .�0:3!:ff...I.......... "' ..1� =dti5.'/� 'ril.. �•.�:�.1j .N.'I• �'.�:. .'.I.rSVI:i� :.V'J.: .11��•.uJ..�:l.ia>SSSS 7.4 �� 1•.4a.ac :�a.!.......... ------ ... .n�>>->�.i... . " = ..i••�a. ��. 'i.� 7r _ � 7S d •VLSV1.�.0 I.. ... .... '"""' .. .i�>.,VV- itl. . SL,'� . S,�' ' .5�1• •J„i.UJ,SUwL,l�rl'�.16•'�.��i/�.i� 75 � ' 7h A/ .N': .ITI ... . '�"' . � . -$/`.i..... .f,�C� . .., .(' �Jl��l» '1'. .J...1!'l� .'. Jni :'!. 76 77 J'!. '1. :L.1l. ... .... """ ��S�i�;-.�/"i. .......-.� . ... -_ � . •,la:>.Ul...�..'JJ:i.�1..l,JS.:'i.Ji 7) 7X JVS.i';/:'.�ISI.....r.....�'��.�_. �'.i.7G'�"'15..............A..... ��J...�LI�Yi_..�I�l'li...Ul'J)'JU.'�.U.UJ:w-1vV.$»YV.. 7d � .= ..i n..n 79 G4.11i'CUE.[[......... '""".A...,�:;:1-N..-J�... ......':..�.la. ..;.J'�..;i�5;ii>.�.�..VU�JJVJJ.'...:.�..;�./•!:5'V•'... 79 .. �^ 4V..5:`"VS(IF'.......... """ ds:1V44R-A.i....'�G�G........;�Id�.;9...3diASiS�S.....S.UI,'1��7JUUU�.JC.b�i/Vi1o'JY... SC 91 AU..S�;.fS.[I... '"" "" .S;a�i`1.1.1A.1UU.. .,;�G..CU'aU:IJ.��;.In..�_..'J�--..-i.U.>•..Ul..l.l'JUJ,:.:..U..�J/iYV.:I... e2 92 lU .a+•. `: T: - "' "" .Va:::lUI111UU. .C,'G .l�':UY�'JJ/. G ......1'JI.AAU..J.�S.JJ�.�.1�U1J..'J.I:;iJJr:J'J�:il. 02 11 9�1V.$•; �SI. .. """' "-"" . ....uU'1'J. f��..'.G�.11J'Jl.i. . . . .'1'.'1'I'J. ..1J�"J ;ll;,l. .J..--�lYtV/..5. OS � 14 OU'J.i.�!`.V�..... .� " """"" ........... .�.,,,. :JJ:1':1.-..,.C:..'�'lJJ..'.'1..U.5A5^; JUU.JI.��II:'�1.... -�'.'r.:..i. d4 . - ' . . .,'.. � , �; GUS..Y7`YiiI......"^CU"""".............GGGG..LG;G?CGU.J.G:;GS...,J�1��..M.."`iS..U.IlU7��JUi1�J_'.J......�Y'i(..;:. y5 N5 4UA�.... .Fa....... "p�""'•_"'. . ... .f,,...i�.';='4a0...J.��L';..�,'J1Uw:...u'JU.;��Si1..U��i1;.L'_`.'.:�:,V:.....:i'....)i �6 � 37 44'1l.=. -0. .�fF.= FI.G. �: S:SLSCLI. , :.�:, . i•f.J'J�luJU;,�,JU.�JUi.U:I�... �. .a5 tl7 1P ]4Ua=.'�+'..`iF.. _ -"••--.fU.'%- .=7FF.G.�G.Mdw�dLP1Al_.U.i.G..dU�l'J/7b.uJ'l..dJUVi/.1.b.J.LJ'�J.ii:A�U�.v•�..i..5 ee 99 3'G 5`.:-=..i....... '_"0'""r' . i.�. - ..?FF. ;G. I�.i��4i:Ab`:;Vn,�..S�.+" .JU1'J.G.U� ,bJU..�I.J�J'�U7u..i`>e.uli - .n.. tl9 9� L144-V1!,-J•�1. .... ""'f""'J..�, .I...��F=� . ti'.S .w55. ', .5�.._ .S,' . ::: SGG.....7Jt/'!_1. •U�i� 9- . '!� ila4. 3__`I. . �� .T. -. .l. .1F FI. A�F'..� �i..iS.i • �UJ�V�.ats'.a��.. JUIi.»i .)aa»... 91 .. 9. A14.•i•I.' """ '��.�: '�_";,t-Z•Z'F<<ii[i `S . . �.5�'�. �. �S i.:»:..ii' 92 • l3 .4••�na:.........""" .J..�.;, :3L...ZZ'.F .:f;II2I..i.J..`;.a. �5�� SulS1.:.S>Se;� 93 �� • 4•G:115�:........"'""'""•'...f.;,�.';':,f,��..FLZ1:�F=.J�i==fF...l�'.SiS�: :'.i UU'J�u'1:a�aA 9� 95 •A444ai ��........------------. " "��:�GGoG�FLJ7F'FF7;Fv,FfFF(,>SS�:SS> U1G+.S 95 .....-o.,o � 96 •Ja4A3 ]lG.......�'""""..--..FF�;'i'l�...�U'..�f/-.FFf�7'7^�F..�,;i�S� 96 i7 Ja.AA S6f.......'-"""^'•"4..5.....FGFS'1-..F.IiI.F%:PFFFF!.SS;Si 97 - ' �9AG].F..."'I[S:FI..FF<F=III(I 9E � 39 SL"........""""'..--.C5...1.........'•"".. ..Gf2�s:�<= 99 � �. lOt 4.1.1......."""" .A...1..........'i.""'..X...F?_•f1< IU1 171 A7].f.. .... """ ' .. a...... .3...F -- NC- FFcfFF � 1)2 S:l.. .. ... """.G.. ..4........_ .FF'"'UrC'�IH...l- 142 L73 A4G[.V.... ...""' 4.=..�. .UJ.JUUU.flTIf..F=_VG-CAt.S 104 `� I)� A:�... . .. -� 1i .USU.'i7L��wU..TTT. ' 4:C�•�'a.�� j.J� L.' .... .i� - :.1� .9. v�:.'JUGf.GJ. . .G,FIG.a�A.�14 Iu5 1'15 4]1i. ��- � ..4:'.C.F..:1J.U�,:siG'uS..I�..E 0..-f.-4A. lY6 � �.. 177 L: ... '_�"�..... '�G. . "�U3••-',I :iF C.1. A SJ) 11N '! .. ""' ..5. � �G. .A�a'd�f.�FF�.� ..[.3. 1CN 1]9 A]....'•""' ., .C�.��... `. .�f,..a.i�i.i�F..FFF.�.....n1 1.9 tir, �]:..--'•'^t.^ .C:;.SS... 'S'�.CAC5t..5�i;s.h..r-iA..i.'.l4 l!l .:o . '" L11 41...--°..G. �" .'S',d.i.0 WL.SGS;..... FFF.Sti..� ' 111 v 112 ....-... .. .C. '�•• .i �WSi .UUU.A4SU- � .......�S;l 112 L13 ... � .iti'-vJ ..U. .ii �t,......... 11S G lto .� 3iS..S�.i'�.. ��.53 'iS.CS. ......... 11' 1l5 ;>i ..5..•+. .S, •� 115 116 .. iSS .SS 'd;]'�' i�1.�.5`�` : ...c. IIE 117 .. :i.:" i'�'� •�. .V. �F1.v.41� .�.. 117 J t19 �wiSiS:'..Id"�V• .'Ji'w��:.'�.'..s .... 11E Lt9 SS.4lt�i.1.S•• '.r, �'L+d.. lt9 So" ..5.��..'/• •.iSHi.l�:�«:b!..F� 3.': lil • •�•7• .�1�`U:,'l'.�L�.. 121 1�-, •'�S• •.' .�'d!. 3_2 v 12] y• ` .�. 123 i�y �•yy .•• •�:lA'�. 1?� - 225 iib �• �.��... �;�■ �� 126 � 1?7 '.50.... 127 ., .1�■ •jN.aN... 326 1-`f • N.GS..... 1?4 Q i;., SA.tS..;.. 1J. J •tiwEad.... 131 .L.... 13: " lfi ••V......1. ' , 133 � � „�,.. - . ]' : . - ' .:i:i�. � -.i: .... . . l .. .. .. ..:..._la:t:tltl _.:11 � O �.):�?�7J. ' :'L'�l_'' �"' , "_•, y� . �_ ��_ �r �.....-,. .I�i'., 'i;t��i��e,� iil��, . �iff. ._._�, ..._�_7 •1 �,. 145. �/+ '1�'�SF759. ��, �1+i, ,/ e_ �717:1;f�< 'ii.t ,>>>.1=3�. l�a.. Gi. :d.. �1.�5 Q' .. � �. I� i COMPOSITE OF THE INTERIM REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN (IRLUP) AND THE LAND USE SUITABILITY COMPOSITE A Highly Suitable for Urban Residential and Class I and Class II Suburban Residential Land Uses; The IRLUP Recortmends Residential Recreational , or Institutional Land Uses. C Highly Productive Forest Areas, Unsuitable For Commercial Timber Management; The IRLUP Encourages Forest Reserves. ' D Highly Suitable For Pasture and Grazing; The IRLUP Policy Supports Open and Rural or Urban Open Space/Agriculture Land Uses. E Moderately to Highly Suitable for Mixed Hay, Small Grains and Row Crops; The IRLUP Encourages Urban Open Space/Agriculture. F Fragile Areas (Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, Riparian Habitats, Peat Bogs and Swamps, and Stream Zones) ; IRLUP Policy Suggests Urban Open Space/Agriculture or Forest Reserves. G Highly Suitable for Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Residential , Cortxnercial , �- , and Light Industrial Areas; Moderately to Highly Suitable for Heavy Industry; the IRLUP Recommends Residential , Commercial , Industrial , institutional , or Recreational Land Uses. H Highly Suitable for Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Residential , and Forest Land Uses (Not Suitable for Commercial Timber Management, However); The IRLUP Encourages Residential , Recreational , institutional , or Forest Reserves. I Fragile Areas That Are Highly Suitable for Forest Production (Commercial Timber Manage- ment Is Unacceptable, Though); The IRLUP Recommends Forest Reserves. J Fragile Areas That Are Highly Suitable for Pasture and Grazing; the IRLUP Recommends Urban Open Space/Agriculture. K Fragile Areas That Are Highly To Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay, Small Grains, and Row Crops; IRLUP Policy Encourages Urban Open Space/Agriculture. L Highly Suitable for Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Residential Uses, and Highly Suitable to Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay, Small Grains, and Row Crops; The IRLUP Suggests Residential or Urban Open Space/Agriculture Uses. M Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential and Class I Suburban Residential Land Uses; The IRLUP Policy Suggests Residential , Institution- al , or Recreational Uses. N Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential and Class 11 Suburban Residential Land Uses; The IRLUP Recommends Residential , Recreational , or Institutionai Land Uses. 0 Moderately Suitable for Commercial and Light Industrial Areas; Moderately Suitabie to Unsuit- able for Heavy Industry; IRLUP Policy Encourages Commercial or Industrial Land Uses. P Moderately Productive Forest Areas; The IRLUP Proposes Forest Reserves. Q Moderately Suitable for Pasture and Grazing; The IRLUP Suggests Open and Rural or Urban Open Space/Agriculture Land Uses. R Moderately Suitable for Mixed Hay and Row Crops; The IRLUP Proposes Urban Open Space/Agriculture. S Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , Class II Suburban Residential , Commercial , Light Industrial , and Forest Areas; Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; IRLUP Policy Recommends Residential , Commercial , Industrial , Institutional , Recreational or Forest Reserve Land Uses. T Moderately Suitable for Commercial ,Light Indus- trial , and Forest Land Uses. Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; the IRLUP Proposes Commercial , Industrial , institutional , , Recreational , or Forest Areas. ' U Moder�tely Suitable for Urban Residential , Class I � Suburban Residential , Commercial , and Light Industrial Land Uses; Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; The IRLUP Recommends Residential , Corr�iercial , Industrial , Institutional , or Recreational Land Uses. V Moderately Suitable for Pasture and Grazing, Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Residential , Commercial , and Light Industrial Land Uses; Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; IRLUP Policy Encourages Residential , Commercial , Industrial , Institutional , or Recreational Land Uses. W Moderately Suitable for Pasture and Grazing, Urban Residential , Class 1 and Class II Suburban Residential , Commercial , and Light Industrial Land Uses; Moderately Suitable to Unsuita�le for Heavy Industry; The IRLUP Advises Residential, Commercial , Industrial , Institutional , Recreational , or Urban Open Space/Agriculture Land Uses. X Moderately Suitable for Urban Residential , Class II Suburban Residential , Commercial , Light Industrial , and Forest Areas. Moderately Suitable to Unsuit- able for Heavy Industry. The IRLUP Encourages Urban Open Space/Agriculture. Y Moderately Suitable for Commercial , Light Indus- trial , and Forest Land Uses; Moderately Suitable to Unsuitable for Heavy Industry; IRLUP Policy Suggests Urban Open Space/Agriculture. Z Fragile Areas That Are Highly Suitable for Forest Production (Commercial Timber Manage- ment is Unaccepta6le, though) ; The IRLUP recommends Urban Open Space/Agriculture. 1 Moderately Productive Forest Areas; the IRLUP encourages Urban Open Space/Agriculture. 1 2 Highly Suitable for Urban Residential , Class I and Class II Suburban Residential , and Forest Land Uses (Unsuitable for Commercial Timber Management, however) ; IRLUP Policy proposes � Urban Open Space/Agriculture. 3 Highly Suitable for Urban Residential and Class 1 and Ciass II Suburban Residential i � Land Uses; the IRLUP suggests Institutional and Recreational Uses. + Areas Unsuitable for any Intensive Land Use; The IRLUP recommends Open and Rural Areas or Urban Open Space/Agriculture Land Uses. - Areas Unsuitable for any Intensive Land Use; IRLUP Policy Encourages Residential , Comner- cial , Industrial , Insitutional , or Recre- ational Uses. . Other Combinations. = Not Compared. - * Major Water Bodies �� ' ' �i V w W tl U U �) r. . . . . , � . , , ) i f��y/�\ �INMIN�AM�i�NV'IIN�/I��OwINMIJNiHANO��NqJN�OHOy�O'IN'1JN�OH�PO.ONMINWI�OT:�NIVrIJN.pI.OTti.�N�'I.fY��O1�l�Ta�.nN�IfN�OwCJ�s.'�y+�JN�OAbTa.�Nn.INVneV� �rryV1�y1�QtiOPO+NnfN�pAOY+a�.NV17 � -'" � AMHMAM�I .IW/�qA17►�Y//�I�qY/»J��,»�NN�yn�NN„�^��WW�p�I1�YWWAAAw�.1�AA1�Atl0oY00Y004POWV�00�O�WWVp�VJ�JUupJN.�tiwww.�.��yHHryNNNNNNN�wyr7�N�Irr� •_\ ww.�'IHw�l�l.��1�1w.a1M M�IMwIw.Y.�w�IwA�I.�wl.�.��l.r � �I.O� M�IO • •• •NiIN• � O '. •NNNNN.. r O N�� NN �r�ri iiirviN��V.N � -��D �.�'� HNN NaNs�s.».�.y� w�M ' NNN��..�� NWNN�NVINNli>a!>��11�N � w�.tr NNNNN��j2 N/�%�NIII1IIMs�iifs>!ss»��NNNN � N 1T _ NNNNVN��2�7��NNNN»S>ii»��NNNNyy1 H� 11�.��NNNN�i27•.7J.NNNNVI��NNT>��.��NInNi= ~ ~� »'�1�77 ��_��»3IiNN�i7NJ• •.NO�NNNN�VI �� P M�N • • . .. T y� 7»>fii=Y3tt1�1��.�.i�llX2J�J7�• •»��Nii'/1�N/IH! LL .�cD wO.I �J7�Jii1=iWIS�J�.�i�jiNNN�JJ�7��J"„J"��NNV�VINNVMA�� T �� NMN�l;��J�JJ7lJ�JJ1Ji��7�JJ�J?��JJ7JJJJJJJ�JJVIylyly�� ~G� M 1.� .VWI.��• •�„J�J�iJJ»JJ��7♦ •JJJJJ»J�J��NN� f� �J.�•Y��• •.�,�NJ�fJ�J:liJJJJ��5JJ��JJJJ�Nv�J:)JyJN» OOK� •��_�• �Y��J»NN7J= 'yl»��J�7�7J7JJJ��JJJJ»W17 •�O'� i• : •�i LL�N�NN.�J��JJ�:i��J��iJ�J»>7»J�a1...»> '�U �.� • :�• •�==7.7N�.�.NN�7J0��i»��7�•»JN/��J77J�J�J�NNJ7� ��w M• •.a?72�i12»��>�iNNH�JJiO�2»>��JJ7�N».»»:J�71�J..• �+T�O uPJ •�llt�U'afUZ==J2�.N>�»NNNN�72ZOIt7�»�•�7VIY.J�.J�J.��777»J. �� N hJa.lLlUtf1.!�J��NN��>NNNN»J=2�=f�J�7J��NN7J»>J�JJ»>J7�. �m� N'/It.��]�t�tllV=�7NNNN>��YIII�NN7J�i=�727�J»'�J.��7�.»JJJJ?��••. ��; . y�Ny�N2s��r�.��uVUVNNNNu1>�!�f>N�t7lu727�77i�7�7N�J.NN�.�..>J�.�J7�t]• , ��N � NN�^NN��Nin�7•��A'�Sfi�»i��1JSt3J3��N�N/1NA n��JJ�7�NJIJI/1'I��J�1.ul� �� NNNN��NINNtf��LL��NNN7!»>77�'»��7»7=NNNNNV'�»J7..NNI��NN��7�tll �,�,�, ��VIN�.r/�(ntNN •�� • NNbINI�rA� �:�t1�a1» JSiAN(nlnNr��• N��N�nN�n�x��L)t^ �� I.INNl11i2�NNNNNiNV��LL=��N�NNNNN�� 1JS�1J��A+i12NNNN��NN� •]-� =�/iN��VUV nT^ �,�� . 11N7 M/1 tNNN�NN2Nt7lfU'U'_�_�7=:)NNN1nN�U' ��»t]t!U'�NNNINNNNNNIANNUIN��N�A»�t�u'� �o� J�J NY1N��ZI/11/1��NNNNNI^VV'U'l��7��,1"NNN�,l��»JU'1l^7NNN41)l�Vl%INNNN�AVI�/�N��•/�»J��J�A at}INIIIYIIII��NNiiil2NUtt'JU' �_�7i��lJUIlafU'�1�2�77c]�a:NNNNNiNNN»»>NN��J7.7»>�7 oOJ '�� S�tNN��II�f�N�N3Nf=1!U'�l19�O�{,!�»J�lUy'�1V1l=t�7�Ji�9•_f�M/INNNSSN>��N1/�7�77•��J.al� .aMl 2MZt17�N•i�• �NNNiII��l�tlU' ��U't! •�av�tf�7U'V'SNN»17V� �• N2x> �Owl ��NN�N •�1�JINiN� YIN�U't!��.�V'UVU'JV�U'WViNY1NJ11.i1�JV��>IIiNi`.'��»>N2�»> .�7V'uNNN ��'� N=�N7VIN�LL4LL�(NftN�NIAV17��!��U'V'VJ'�9<•�U' �'Wy�=�/11/�NU��1U'lft 7�NSNSN»>N�'INN�»��t,91�7'IN HA �N '�'P NN=��41=lV41�t2NNNNNNNNN�a!�11917N��{!«!U't9��ZNNNNU'U'�,ft,l'»»>fSNNNNNIA=•/1».�=tf'»N�yMll 'A�; � NiNNN NI�NtM+N1ii 1 tT<LLINiYNNNNNNNN»��iV�:+YU''4u9�lU'VIJ�J��iNj�i��Vijj�i �i��;VWVd��jjj��j�N�N �„ NUINNNN�ftxltKf�xaCtl02Y2NNNNNNN��,�U'y'l!• • •��>�V)71��d�2��.1�14,YL1' •�7�• �»>�7�.y� y� A� f�>NNN1�==f:rtt�wl/11MnNvxxtllt=22��»U' �t��»�!��fl�U'�`�fU22»>!!NN�1lf��.il��ItUV'tl22J or�N MM Na��flNrtMa��NMY%HNNNVfxi�txx=K4N1xVS��Jt2�.�j�•��•�iil NNt�NN4�.�'IVIZNNV]�Y=U�'u.��lll7V' �llJ2WIINfA c�J �A� NN!�4�tff♦•stflf�Hs1xfcN�11af1fe<4=�Zs[>NN��LLLL .�7��l1.�9��2x�+rASV1N'A3N�rnit��.Z. V�Vt�U'U'�9l�lfilNMf[ _ �^M NNNLM�Ix •/{ fa+�a�ftxit�el7M1�LL2tJ[a�s�y�N�• 223»�lVLI��LL• <ti• NV�NNN�NUL�LL4.l'JSU' •v�U�! NVINYNNInNNxN '?�w NNt[%x�=.�S:�KMY�tt�XStiM�f4yZ�R�y�}N?a�� S»tfU��LU4LL11�1flNNNYT• >`+U'uLL4 �iU' �U'i]U' �NNVINYWINi�XwN4 � NNX� •��• •�%�I M%fIYlULLI�R� t t• )}N�tl1��l'r�]V�� LLLLt til�� )V�N41 tl V�tl�U� yW1Y1V1ia�tNYY ,IYb y��1��I(�(�LLLLIVt2M�4. �• • 7`�Nti�l)V\�1'I�f�111�YIlY.Z21�1�.tx=ifl1Yl�Y.if��UUI]��7��NN�1�X2%NYWLL IC.�♦ 6�1w •!� »��1��1��1�ILUSN�(K�f�V��>��N. •• 1��tt\.«LLK l iANN7�4LLy LLLLIU' ��'J��VNNN 4 •XSIN Y4LL�N N�=Jb�4 ' I�t��04 .�Cn '��M =��♦ •.��• .• .�.i3x2t37122�ZNi�»i�+��..S�i2231��.J�NN1�1�1�U44��J»J�.JNN�...xHN4.W4LL.ti2 QK. �lix NrK��1. �o�[ 0 �� V��• ♦ • •y� rla%K�{IAitLL1�2]M1ssX3YNVIY�J�241�1�1�41�u4LL�llLL��H�441��I�NLLLLU��7�J��JJZ��V/VNNN44LL w��LLN42�f� �p p S%x4LLW 44QLLQ •• �J�.� �'� •• •:�.�•�.�N':�• •M„xxKY��• 441�• •ZS��}>l.�24LL��YYS�LL:�• ��wr•y• Y •��JJ�6J4>�N HM14LLY��YILLLL43i�011ux�axHt�Y�11�.4u ULL[�rtR'wiN• c�� Rq• •N• � • vT i 1(%%M�[ 43iNry f• � ZY4i��7�J'l�1< 4LL1�LL:V •�LL ��1t17�t�f�fAVIV1�x��NLLLL41�KY1�NK20♦ �pNLLNN1�LL�4444• I�LL4LLp'fK%�IYry .JLLW NNN��• �(vN��A��IrA��< •R .s41��y�.t.;VI�VU�IQI •7i1U' ��LL4• �2"l�wnd�nNirw1l�u[��4r.�uti• •W 01�4ULLLLY Y4LLNN.1�t�q� • �bLL ��N �+ "� NNVIaNNN��fiQ4�dNNN.ixw�[N.��V,.NLLLL1��r.�N •.�14...a3• ��V • dvn�.y>!llU��.WW�uVV��1�iaa.�l3xaVUW^N�4tiLL�11• ♦r.0� .4LL4�1�LL4�LL.�NnK. •u.��xu i.> ♦�DJ NNN�IIINY�I�N�17.1N»>1i��y�1 ��WLLYu1��1�4'l7�2�RS�>NJINN�dYYd241N.t11��1��]J'1�11��LL�.�;�l'll�x{INNNn1114f.1��NLL�• �y.4LL1�ULL444LLLLN.��NS2�CLLO(3L�i• •, �� NINN21112��IJ7:IN2��q2��LLI��1111�I�IIISZ1�4001��T>�• •�• •� ��Zslll�i�l^�'L1ulU�4uN• IVU�]S:�SXNMIIIiY04Np}S3�. •Y4LLLLLLLLLL4NLLk�S�744 MII��MNN��• yN0` Y V�� IOfN��1N��._�• d��y �JJ��LLN�t=S�4�LL>�y7>��i��.��JJ�iT22�lU�yUU�)U'4LL4�1.�nM.VUU'N22XShNLL44LLLL0 KN��.,v4�LL�41��h iylte=<QQ�• ♦�• ��` �N��q�>sN�y��JStiOYJ NII4�N�1�l2=S2��II��f7��• •�f[��.JIC�C�LL�da�'ullU'UULL��4�l�U'M�I�UI=23)t1�NO�JLLNN(IO�Y��. LL1�4u 4�V4NKNSaNSJ7• uy.r^. H �� •�N»a�»s 1 1 F��NN.M001�J411�ti�l�SZS.�Il�aaaf>��• .��%xrs�X2S2�..q.�N�..�1�4 .J'ttV�.V.SS%SrWOOLLtiNM��1�1�4 . 444LLI�wixNaaaNs�• r-N,p �iWN •fiN��lZ�NN��'IVlYIMr171JLL7LLLLLLN�iJJJJk�LI�IJ4�t�t��»NINI�..��i��4LLLLNyLL1�LL�l��VV��V�SXIVLLNLLILLLIW��I�LLLLLLI�LLLLIaLLLL�%y1N4NVlZ%�• .�NV O V�� N>ZI I=N�1��=�N MhVI'll!~2�CTIr J��Q 1 i I�ZYdJaJ��»NN�ttf�O�•�I�N�V12�(1iQ4NNNILLi4N1�iN�uUU��N'LLLLI�LL♦LL'��LLLL4��LLNHfyf KO��VII.�NV'JI�t3XKx• ^I�r _ �aYW •�.a�aauw�l�nnn>sra�]�111��J�Jlt�>�t�>f111TQ�ft�24»qY�SVQiY�JJ��NSC�I��ZJ<��LL4LLYLLNN�UU' ��LLYOGV4��4LLLLTT>N�t=�VV]��NNNZx2%��• �NN � OII�.1 fiy� •��tf !N�• t>> NN ��y1>NNI f�14r/�� :J>ij 1>�\>)TYff 1 t�1��INl�f��tll��llJ SSZ.• NLLLLy4.• • NrW��OO�N�LL4LL4>TNI�Xx• N NNxX�%Yx��• ��'� ��tr��• ��>Tf3��ff�YNNNdK��4>N � N f��Y • N�tY�LL1��=J��Sx��33Xxxy�Nj�%N I�LLLLNNNn14LL4WuiW4LL• LL�»ti4xYNYVaNN�• ZX�• d ��JP 1<»�� q122V<t��QtrNa<�1 JYff�21t1�1�7.)4J22��Of I •�t<JJ4��.ZJJ�fKxO�1 N�NI�LLY LLNLL44�V41W1�41 •41�aT1>Nx�YN/IN4��• •��• Nc S u�4 f��)��w111li1nN�tt.��I INJ��JJ<1 1=_�2JJ111��Z r»��>f�r4LL1��J�(J3.12Z»�I�1 • NLLLLLLI��LL�WLL�l)N�LL1�II�T>N4�YCN��NN��• ♦ u» _ �� NN�Nllllll=��Z�>!>NN3>7��S�J�fd�(I>2��IIII�II�Jf��1»�)��w�l4LL• •JI��LLISOC�»>1 •t •��I�NLLY�UW��y1W��J�LLLLYTI�i►Nr�d •JJ��t��• •�f• �-1d f�NNN�NN�Nffff»NNNi I I>71�I�N I •N<J�1>t. NIFI�'.S�JJJ>� •`ialN 1�• J�<LL14aSN2>(�;1 Tf��NU LL1�r4�J41��.VULL4„YTNIy��]�.lfJ'JNNrAN� •�w» r��.p > uJJ1 �>VWI W1f>!>�1frNNNN>�22N IN>Tf7Y�aS=�.IIIJJ. aJJ�I R��C 1>71 •��O�NV YLL. N.N 1 1 1 C. LLWWWWI� •�>.4. JSVVtJ1�LLYJ�. •�>��»>�• �JN � OJ� fl�f�M�f)r>ltfftf2 • •IN!�S=)JNfN3��II�f1f 1!• I t��N<��!>7Y��i41�•��r�f�N•NQQ9��N1�4WYIWY.Y W 11t��1��YT}N71]t�lT�y �J��.N��1 N��N• r�» M e1.M� !Y!!�f• JJ`fNllft f>Y•y�f��lN»NN.�Qw�>.2 JJ!��• q�.>N�2N�Y:1�4..>�1a.• ..K.�daY..��I�LLI��W�tia�tV tl�1 1�.»sN.ttUtf• �7VINNN��> •>� J r .1N i»i��<JJ�T' iJ >VINY�Y�y12Y1 �N NJJJ712JiffY�Y4t��>I •I �. >��>OVYRQQ�NN.NNN>VIxLLNNG�4WLL4�f VUUULL.)ffN• y• •NN4INNNN�f7� �JN •�NNN» 5=7=2 �>��y1y1X •N�»JtQ��qJ��a�� >Ia�• •��7��>QaQeC�tQf•.yINN�a%.N4LL4�441>l'VUt1�4�>TTN4••LL• .NNII�NNII�N>aN� m JJO �liifi>N »i��i�7iN>)�N�N<7»JJQ<YJY<Y It�� •>N��22»�)Yo7>L�!>�LLI�. w1��N�.l'tfU�1 N�i��aaN�I�LL.�4 Z22222252<i• ~ F ^�'�P� l�i� )»>4�Y�i�NNn�»»»�Jt��Y�I f�>��.!��1��i��74��LL�1�1�LL4f2N�NjM��LL1111��Nll1��M�44• LL �LLI�W xNNY1NN>V12tN `nU� a�^ »>J?.�N�Il�1� ti»�Y7�Iwwrnnw��fellw>S��. NN•�«'�rl�hvvN4N1�N1�NYNvv�.. 1a1�1�LL�44��.��Y.4441�•4��LLLL�tw�AV1•wri1��1N.NSJ. ; �� !si»N�Nk N�nNlN>�»aannh naa�fJZ�N��>NN Nti'44NI�.NY 42<1�4LL..LLLLNY444��LL41«ST��4LL4�� LLI�LL�LL1�LL4 N�NNNI�NVNO• T ==»7�>ZNNN�N•.�NN�41nNNtiVliae��N��YLL1�LLLL�W�ti44%Y• ♦LLIIILL4��a�1�4.1�1�4YLL4Y.• •��VLLLLNLL%IA/1• .y�NNN1A• �� N O�N »»��•%MnN��»>tr>JJJJJYf�1��NN��.N1�41�U��414�WLLI�LL�WWOY��a44��I I�:• •S�• •�LL4• ••NNNNN O�' � •��• NtiNx�{Yi�1.�n>ae»�• N»��N 1�LLWWW YWwWa.�OWULLLLLL��OCJ��I 1�;I •�>�� ;j�� •.Qt�� NNN I •�M�1 •��1[LLl(%>�N./1��• y»»NN4��N�J�.WWYYJ1�i1JW4iWWWiY.�W�Wi�iYi�1 I�� I I I� � �1 •I�1�1�11 I �1 •�y��.N• .�NNVINN�x V �'�V •��,�ZNNVNIfVNNN1�If(NfffT>ry��»71�..�W4Y4WIWUW�yW1YI.�.�WWW��I�� LLl[KffYaeNNNNNNNNItfc � ul�,n u ��'� i!>��IW NUy�NNI�INY��Qf>.�.1> >�4LL441�NIIY��IYX��YnU��1.��I 1 1 1��I I'1 I 1 1 ,1 1 1 � .�1 1 1 I 1 1��>�%XXNNNSNNI/�N2 unN _ ^w� _• •�:::V��:II • !=�i'Si��LLLL.1.NU1�414n.IW��a��Y��I;11�1I/;1 •�I�11��11 • 1 ;111;1 •�I .:• �N• NN � �� ••=21 • � •N�LLLLLL�Wr11WrW��IW��♦ ' •��♦ ♦• • �:...• �II �IVOV�.�.�• I1� 1�11 • .y��.��N• W �� i��'�'�•_>�• �1��LLYNlWW��WY�W��• •IIi�0001 •III.IIIIIII�II� Ni4W� . hMNNw�N � ��b � •1��• ��111111%�I��pW1Jy�Y1��WWY�WW��4rWY�000n��111111111111 ;111�1111�11�4010'fl1�NIV1y N^ 1W��WUIW�JuIWYIW�1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1�I�I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1�t��1� •�• •• nn�� r iw .... r��r ...r��1��r ��r .�� i�� otim � • • • •�1 11 1 I 1��IrY��LLWWiW WWWWWWWW�YIUWWWWWWWiVy�WWWWYl�1 1'��1 I I I�I I I�I 1 11 I 1 II�LL�IT4Y �Nj O ON� •� • •��:��1 •1 I��1 IrWW��WWWWI�WWWW�LL4LLI�LLLLWWWW'LWW��I I •�OWI�IW�11 �I 1 I;1♦ ♦41�1��.}I�1� uNn u�� •III�IIIYWW��W�WI�N4.Y4WWWWy�W1�WWWWWWW��WWWWWWWW��11 I�WN4LL�1��LL W �JNA •� • •1 •�� • �YW��WYIW�4I��YYI�WWWW�WWGIWI�LLW4LL�WWI�,WWWWWLLY�WWWWJWI�LL��417�111�w��W• � ��T •• ��• •�� 11 •�W�LL14��YYWLL1��.YWrLL��Wyry�W4Wy.Y1�LLI�WWWW4WWWW.�4AJW771�71�1i1�1�1�y��• � N u�M �� •� • 111 �rWW��LLh��1�1��LLNffNN�YWIWWWWrN0LL4LLY1�4�y1�JWWYN11i1�4ULLLLrLL1L41�1�LL1��11 • ��P •�Y41�LLWWWI�Y�1�I��WWYWW��I�NX�• rNwN.��TINN4M��JWY4I�YWOOLLLL1�1�4LLLLLL1�4VlV• ♦11 1�: � �� ••�� 1 :��:��1 1 14YWY�WWIY4LLLLWYIW4IJ4hJ��N��1��NN vN NNNNNr.1NNNLLl7YY4Y41�LLLL4LL4LL44• 1.��• � •• •1 I ILL�I�LLOWWWWwWY�W4iYNY7��1�H..xf�N2��NNNNN�NNLLtiN%4LLY�771�I�yLLLL1�1�1�LL41�1�� ILLLL p.y�p 0 v� � • •��• 1��4WWWYIYLLI�LLI�li1� '7777'1LL Nw�X��NN�_��NN��<NI�NKXKI�NNNn1N1�NNN�NNNN J f1�• :�y�:�• o�N - 1�lfWYM141W��YIWWW1�InAnFILLYWWLLYLLLLWWLL4�7LL�w.�NN NNRNJJ2f��»N�?(• 1�NK• � utiJ Y O�r1 LL1�I�LL4LLYYIWI�WJYN1��WWYIY�MIVIti'I41YYY�M�h\N�MV1�LLNhMN�>fNJO2J<t��2��fV f��.NV1N�NeJC�e��t��a��tJN �'� WWWWWW�WWWLLLLyIff��IyWWY�1AMIq��1LLNNNLLNM�INN�N�2»1J22N=ftf»=»NNS3f[�>�NNI��f.u1q��JJJat<i<f��t� orN '�� N1�WWWWY1WY11�1��Lpp Y\U�'1')�Y1W�i i •��h1LNLL1f�7��>f�fttift�ff4��N)x2222>��SN>QVMtd NNN�«f.Ifff<fJ O'�� '1�1YY1Y�WW4ILLLLW\V4LLLL►V1��a.�.�y�yW�LL MINYI�LLffN�N�2�I�f� ft�fff>��NfNNtV1�/1�NII�ZJf�V�N ffefJfJft �� ILNLL.��y11yWWYylyllyWy�y�V`V.�1yly�yNNLL1�f��yN��<fftfi»>sffY<��fff�ffN>=7S��NN�<N»��<af ��e Oa 1�M�/LL�WLIWWW��.xNNr1�1�N�.1�NMV r• �NN>ffflf!».f�1�.>f4<�<�42�.�. •»N�ffN 1 .��f<ft A OY1� XILNM�I�N��=f:2ft�b �M.0�l��i>NNNHN��lf�<»>!��lt��f�ft<N<��Nt>7�J�J7��J�6f��f<f na0 MwN41�H1IJ1�laMwMIV1��M�fff�!>HNNNf�>T�<��f>!�>f«��atf��• �»s�<�«f�a�a7«at�ai• �e�, • �OJ NNNNN»N�4 N�M�tNNVI!>�2s>f»i»i!2»�f�)��771=�t�f>�ai.�• »> s�N»'.��t � o� NN>!!l�1fZ lfi111NNN�»li�f»7�s<!�»>i==te <tet�f>i= tJ�t��> oJ _ �� NNNN>i!�= • •st• >f><f�i»J> f�<t�!2 oW t[��• • Tf�<f>f7 ! n _ •��• G+N N o�..� « �IN')JNOI�OP�wINMJlI�rhlPeNNP1.Ir1OI�iV��A11/7�MOI�OPO�MN�IJY1�pI�OPe�INVIJN�OAOPpti.VV1.IN�OweP4�.lIyF1.11P�pI�OTO�MVMJN�DwCO�eN1�MJN�OhoPo.�NMJNaI��O'ONN1A-1N�DAQPeNNnJN�p�.oCp'rNM r �IM�I'INM�IH�M/NNNNNNN1yN1 p�111A'IA171�11��AI+�J�,�♦�J��Nr11PMNIMNll�r1�0l�OO�O�p�0�00�01�I�I�PAI�I�AAA00o0O000OOP0'P7`TPTPPp�OpOpOo00pc�1�1wAH.�NN�1'INNNNNNNNNNh hMl� �•!• • M�I�IAN�IMM�M��1HN'1.IMHNN�I.��INN.d�1HN'IN.INNH ^ ' n ^ ^ �� ( ' !♦ (` ( - ' !) „ ( • , ' � . , l) Cl <) . � �', !) �: (� � ' ' n ry O l'� Ca O O , " COMPATIBILITY COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING LAND USE AND THE __ LAND USE SUITABILITY COMPOSITE A Highly Compatible B Compatible C Compatible (With minor land use controls imposed) . Incompatible (Not the optimal land use according to the suitability composite) y Compatibility Not Compared * Major Water Bodies '\ GdI�iYN Y�P � - �� COMP4ilfc �F ♦i� 4I:X SUIf�BT�2fY MGP �Nq £%2STYNi IANC USE � „J ' ' itV44 YSQSIOX - I i�3+ii�03�it3i3673�d12�45�T73�12E�i67�9Q1216467l992tD�5�7�30iSJO5h7�40�2J4467S90123�561�491ZT�S67a4712t�S6i�9t1»«b774 I I 3 88�998 ' � � I as.a.s i I BBA��.A�A�� s I 7 b+44•.4�4��;4 T �,. 4►+�C89B1.{8 �� ..9c999�9�. . 4 BA��.C4.A.i1, q I ly01 84�se,si.�aa=. s .... , 12 b��99C.�.►�B . � 4 99C.��..�8. �994 � I 13 6989.A1.1..99A 2893.4.., .... 1� .�9BB�.S�� e9. 998.....'99S 1 � 15 .44X4, 3k,`�9p 9 ... ...999g89 �s I 16 �t �r�99..i.8b#R4..."..9994...9 I 17 ��8...89.83999399..�•••.9999•••9g � ....'. , i6 A. �46.-.t4..��A4.9.9i."'••..4i.••9A. e� I 9 3.. A. 88 .994 4.....�t.. 4."•a�..9�.94989 . �i 33 .��4. b3989 3,99.��.C99�..;.9.�•••'•99R49979 9 2z ..... , zi 334�.A4�, 839999489 B@99...�4C999899.�4.�••+�..944399�99 i zz glA�.�RA. 898339.84.g 9498 9l4.$9H33.....saa�.sas$3..l8q449 23 9�� 4��. 933839889499�.•�9939�89�..0.999.... ••••�•••�98�A�CB.9 � �J � ......��. , � 3.4s4A��. .. . .398 89. A�99U�334.G.4.9..,.;..+M••w9••399949A N99 � • �6 a3j4�4AAt�. .t:�..98998�33.9.4i.8^.Ai..3d....•••,•�•s.48993999.C89.499 s '.. 26 83�.4►��.��.�.G��I,�.� 98.93.8��8...�..CB.�..69993.•*••��•9 9898999.C..999 �6 ' 7 3 �.A�.,i..A4Aa44l4.^,�4�.,3l8�3i0A3993354.....C4... 4A.,9....•••�8�944999.998.�= ;� � " 8 �.��....�4�jq�4�l.�,.'..•'6413383a3.3...,....�...1�4��.9393.+'6H94R69334939..�9�,83 - � - , �9 ��.�..CA ��..�41��.C.CC...�43�.A.938939.9..�...?.a4.91.,a.94..'"9899899......•.89.=� � ' J d�8� 4��4..9z�l�.C�..,..31 M�Sb.84949489.4 .CiGB..e.9l99.'•999446.9 99..•9-�949�6 � d3 t. ��.�A��..Y 4t�;At. ..434•989 68a339.B..aR3..t�8.q9g43.g4.+8398994.�43..+'9.N4gg94 �� . . �� 8i.g �34.C�►�A�C.�4U.G 4��.+�8.13.8�.Dd�99.....89�w.�8C...8d999.��99.4.90CH9.9►•9904999q9 .. 3 3d.3� A..CiG'Gi�a4aa:.Ci..,.Ci�...d944�..93.at�.3....1�...A9.693.��893A94�.t9999AN9�99a949 3r 9..3.4�:.AAAxA�a'4#a;.'�.�.i4li.1i.8836Ai4i�4.i...�61.....�4i9.8..�994Afla9 89q9aqa44f4814RC i !S •.9+A.AA4�4I�6��..•.0 G..a��C93j.099aBUd,9..�..BA..A.. re.9 999�.9.9B94.N99.99q99q994Rar9 �4�q � s � ^ ��. ' 36 �« 44 l4aA�a44.... C...�4sa.389.333A34,.1.....H4.4.ff,�.A93�49@.63..93.4489434..99a993C.99l,u �� I � J7 B.d��iRt�A��AAA�r�C'.�.�.....0O3.49899933...8,.A..l38.....A8.3,....9..898C.BR49..9444999..r,4.4.4lA JS 8.��9.�. .�4CN�l:IC$F..4.. .��l9..B93903G..pA..A►►4...4...M..9.9.p9q....9.9?99A1.q09999�C.4l.OE049 J� I 39 4. 8i.��.�4Alx�t.Ga�.Cl....41.r.i4A4�d9AA?..i4.....�4.:1=.Aa.rA9..94.�89.9R9q94.99...48C9A.4.86.. j4 40 3.-3i�3i3....Nf�3,.�.......9v3...3i1A...9i.y9A9. .88.�8A..3S..A..899.d9.8994494,.........a..d.94 �3 41 88.$333��.....�CC....�.. ..0930Pi..GA4.N�..-9�9...9.9�8...�0.9 94.9..q��..04989.�.0..A�..�1..0..,.. �1 � �2 d..333�itg A�IA.........s....3339333AR�A�34.4'_4•,3i�s863.4=.41.�54994..9.,9.A9..4f.f,....U6..99..f. 4t , M3 ...839 AiC .C�4A�.�..........i3999�9.A.�.�9dAi�.•...° �899.9..i9.S8989R89A. 89A�l.....�..t.....A.,B.d y` 4� ... 33�.�.�.��.�.......�9�3.134444�4�q3d39-a�..4��999.9,.�8. Bq.BN9C9;1..��.�4��.q.4,... qn999�09 ( Y9 333�9�.�.A....tA.......4ii4.e93.84A6.,41..9?��4d.A=l�q9...948C98...q8laA..4..A4C494R.9�...�44tR..9t Y6 8a ad93.3.....R1.....�.....A184.1....A..u��...=.8i.6!_�A..1.994C.....99.�.......A.....4. .6�."•9B �6 h7 gd9d �99.��.�.��.�....••i9913..��M...,�3.�.�.�a94.��"4�..6..3.9. . • ��.... �940 .�tA��.. � ' �� 633��:.Ai1'C 4..�.....4�97i.�.ft.A.�..�tlAi..4.�A..�?.s.9099G.�..�i.asll44t.iX...�9�N499�4..�.��9.. �¢ • ' g9 •.33A...N.�CAAAi..i,��...A4..8CAA,A4i.....�8.gi99A1t�..�4,�999.99RB......itA..R.....999q4994�94.+ SO ..►4�+4�.��4�4.........A4..9S.B.9.8.....�9..G9�A4��...9..8..jB...u J.........4N9N 49949�.9C•l4.. S� t S1 d 9 tt+IIB.•A4A.,,... . ....i.sti.r..B....A.•X t4��AII4dAA.,.AB,...4.9844....1�44�.899A�siis�A.R.6l4.t. f y 52 8.�399�4i�3A.�A L......�.,.....�.908..8H.4.....At998�'889R94S.AA.F390AAB9A..�4A1�RA9R499 4....A..4... SZ SJ .B3BO.�.A4Ar�.4A.....�.......447G.,..9..8....��989�•�•993 J.940.....qH99.l.A�..R.8999.M•4��98.A....49... S7 �i a�.il�4.fAAA4��.t4A.l;.....G4.:C444..98s•.A�.,44A3A96��•9.iA.:4.A:.94849s....1�..999..944�4989...s449R4, 44 5 . � tA..N�A..� .AA.ti.A.CAA4i.CAiAB..B.. .�8� �.idg39•ss•99i9..i. 8�.4B�A....1��.......NR9ANi�4 44,4�4aq,=» SS L� ob ��...��.•�j..�.�N.C.'4a4l�.4 Ud9��..�.809;..��809....89949.9.��.�G�.�...�G........999N�99 �9N99.9...��4 SR 5T g833+8•.8Bl4� A u.A....1.G04433A.;4833483.9.A��,��A.99B.L89A99.AtA.,,,l4�41.•A1,�4��4.9��9R894��,.,...�qq9.�q �T � ¢! dd�ss3..AN4A��4...�.�,.�.'i�Aid�..A89..A3.683...3.f8...94..Aa,R�.B....Ait.999 B.iAa�.,.w9A�.�.......9..�4A4 Si a9 B.3j9�9. ►4�A►..G..z.�.44CAi4�A.�A9.9Ar3.+... �.A�.80.9.944......4 . Rr...�4A999.��......•..CM.......�.�Aoeq S , bJ ..a3aaZlaaaaanna,.�..A......a��.AA8484A...i..Z.I.A�.9„ON..A9..s..�A.�....$q§f,4.49499R..,..,,4�4......949RRM �t &3 .9883.At�AA4�i1..it.1......3A4.�A83884tA8.iJ a.AA..9d�p90i�........4.....89C44989B4R8998...9A....... �i9q39; .2 t � .��..��....�.A.�..'�4.4G94B9..8�...leG•►�•84..�........•...J�9.B8C8•.��499....94... 99949RA�44ti� t ....�.) 0333��4A.#��4�t��.rf.l.^46..At;A.AAA.84,4i�A.,'ii,S�9AA..A4..,....'«4=t�=„•.,•.s.•.a.P...•.q4aR. ... R�4.,. 5T ��Y 8��t{�iA..9�4AAAA.r4.►.^.CS..A4A�..A98...AAA49.Bv��BA89A...v..iB...C..89�A9,... d............. .�.. C'..4..4 Ri �-5 �\��.w..�A��N�..�.A."...4AA�.A94�OU BB\.9..9�A.49.9...=4.9.....p9999.B1�1�1.9..�..•...9a49q.....�R:�.,... �,5 ' A�►��.�s8i...•a4..4.A.'G'.3.83..A3..A.4A,8AA...�4Ai..8...t4A.9II9.9�9R9 .1.�...999R.6:....3��wR...�R.B....= 6S .7 tA0 .9.3..i. �.i..�.AaA,,.C4..�AiB4A.48......88...AS3..d...3A9.84.69�.a 9...R9q�4.. ..9•••:4y..en.aad.a �� -E ..33 ��3. �.•..1��. .. ......64�.....BA4..«..Cr.y..��49999....�..=.909N9^.14. 91��44999.��....9a��q��..4�n bf . .4 •.AXi4�•�d498,.4..Z.,3.•:...AA..,;AAp{A.4.,.349oy..A4.,.�4�A4.19d,G90A9�4.�N..•.94..99yq,.4i..q�•+.�.�.,t•ts , ^ 70 •�..��4� .. aa d�..�..�.......C.. .A.9�.L�.A88.?9s8.A...'9.A.A.�AA..C999...�9..r...A99Art9...i9.9s��•..4..O.L4 79 I1 . . .��..�.8..•C.�..A.......C..B.4.BA.�49.99..=.A..A..�y9444�.8..49.P9.A..9....999h99q49..4R�*��9..�...�eq ' f r2 ��i.4..•..3.,�4.C.i..t...........�AB.......880959..4�.,A's9.�.i..8�a.9.4CAa.8,..94i399998..4..a,.••4..4.9t�n94n9a s� � 13 33.•��A..•N. a4�.C....�.AC........i�......BAA..9�4A.d1..�A99A.1..9.8•48.988..AN9q9999999..A4a..9�s•do.l.4r4R^q�t� , f� dd�.��.�..��C...p4.1.4:A....O...�4403...B9B,B9..4A....A4..i..►.�.9�9..^.9�4••q.a499s�eep999A.9'�464�•�q4q.449 f♦ l5 .e�3A3..•$IAAA.Xr�34.�.d3"s...�...�AAA .88.9.9..1.4A.. 8;. .�.p.,.AR,..l.l99s�•9R90.4..A$....9..8•IIi...�93�9G4 �o ••• AA.dAA��....4A.A.4AC•...OAi,AB..b..A.8A994q.8.AAZAAA.;.A.rA..d...AAR;9.R•+49q4i..9a..i.....R.B..•.4R.�4 ?q �....BAAd�..�.�........�4....•...RR9889..4R.G494.A4.•..A4444r...��4.A..Oq�49899MN999P..44C.lA.�....►...999�99 11 T6 ..3.333d�3.AA3;.t:.GC.4A.......?Ad9893.A.AA6..i,A.jd�.,..4�A......A.:..4..89,9*4944...A88...s.,l�..l•.R.iPq9994� tII 74 I9 ��AA.9�..AdyA.'�.�c.�......... �99�9..A94..89r.A.... ......C....�A.� 4.�NP9N4i99L9A483.,. r...i.l6 AiNq.�44,�s�p� �q � BJ ��.4399�.3oA.�.X.'.C...........�A9.A9.4.4..A9........�A444.v4....A4..d�..w8999999�44q9�..9�. .I.�..Aqqq9..../�! �0 ' . . 81 ..�«.9..9A8i...4A;:.............9..9334AAl.....AA....�A....,........A�Ai$8s..s.4A.�RatB.A.P9�....e�9..q.,a9..A�liG t! AZ . i�9d.944A...�.................idd33..,.....�.... �C.......•A.. ... �..•...A8.4AR4..A.949...•.dHq999nna�soO�A4 1s 97 33� 3d.38GG4•.4.................498.�0.......1... �4..........R�I4A...�� .... .C.q...A•.p�.....l.90...A�at�A�4s 1� 84 l3.t3....3aab..�.................4.A��Add...3....�A...3.....A.....AA....�S.r..4A.99RA..9R.9•8......sti•.�4i,qdnnS ♦4 05 9.�988.B.14..i�33�................�..AA4..�....4�...=?...n9a.....�......a.RAi499999.4.......9....�AiiM.O79i�i49t �5 ' . 46 ��3=�...w...�.��•r�33�..r3......��..�....�..AA��...x...�..9Ar.��.....��..�...899R•��w..9�.9r•�9 t��►4qO.�� ti5 _ 67 ♦�3..ot0A44A....=.....4.....r.Al..?...141..sA�,A44..98.$:..�0......A...�..AR�.,..,..gq..�•,.9�...,49�9f44qa��SU149 1T _ OE i.�•..•�49AA��C.:`......•... A.AA..••...?.•43.�A..98..•....lA4.A94.i�8...•..►...►i..•..�..ir�..•.A�.4..� 1�0A84 ♦S 89 �31....9_A4AA�^�C3R4......r...4iA.4.0......4..G4..�99...r.C9..99.A8N9e�94....l�..�..4....4A.�......94994.«p�=A!!l��7 �9 9J .d14,3�8.8AAAA1�Cf:.'...........�A,A4A4G44AA46,IIL.A499,44A.....99AEg84eA.6Rq99g4A.A..G....al�A��R4R4��s�AqBA� q _ 41 .3�A.�� 94A41A�S�x......,.....�AHA4d.18.AAA..;�,A�Aa8.A,9.99a.Nq8q498 RBf;bL4.q4......l1 ;q�qiRqaqaaiq q; i` 92 3�4�..��B�A.....C......40...."-,.A9.4G0.lACACCC4...A..�Aq..93B99..997BA8 999999 ��9N949��499�4 93 A4�'�4A1344A....C:•.,...4C.....44,AA6A;44.4AA4A....l44,.IIA049A3.aq99,8 989 �,qgqq�qqq�w . 94 •3A��i...9AA....C'a..,...�..�...1,4.�A4dlA.��Al1�.5.AC."?AdAAd.4119A.N 894 ..• .;R999� qs 95 ��.��48 ...4....44....... .. .... -��GA►.OAO��..�.C.�....AG9R9np09B 45 •3..�. .. A...•4..•........,.• .�ARA9A.�RA9�4�........�Xed.A408 999H • � 97 �.�.• B..�A..•.A.........•...•A_0...,.s...4lR.AA.14A....sAA..dAA�8R8q .. 98 9..4p.......•..r...w....4_RA........�4�....OA•AA4A..GA.�AAGGA ti 99 8..44............s........aA..8898�7....1....898.46..A.�.4aA 44 1J0 ... .�......lq.........,..1...889,.44....4d4...899.43.i.d.�4 � 101 .�.�......"�...�............8098989.?....4G�.993..As.?... - 191 , 1J2 �4s•44..••..3 .. .• 4A4AAAA4=,,.A�.A.AA.9.4.8.,.A . 1�3 �t.f�...r...�b�.....s.�r.AAA�..�.,...9999i9d..�..i.8.q8AAA 3 1 0 .A..�...�.�.444AA...�.3A14�...4....».4R3B39B.�A......934. � ir5 ..�.�...�.A.4��A41...344•44As.4...s..A4A6A9...44.....988 S36 . 1�.......a....4i...9A.ACGA..A.......8A3.A8,.6A.9A.A..A � id� G _ 1J7 ..G.�.•..�.........44q99.490A4..•.......9C9�9.A�40....98948 ' SJa ..4�4.e.......B...C�433AA43GA4...... . . 3.dB.A4GG43.98...p l8e 1�4 ..tlC.........•. .A8133II438A81......4.4:4A.98.,.d8A.4849.9. � _ 110 • �,�e�C...,. .e0A79A44d98C.A�......9•B.Q44A...�.9.9..�. ' 110 _ lii . �..A4i..M .�0.433A44A99C.93......8.9.CC4AA4�.4.Q9..$. 11S �4..A.....t .tA3339ddA88G A34�.,....3.A.8�A4A..lA48,. !�� •444.9344999C.099�..44.99.A8.AAAA...4q9�. � 11J t14 ,AA4 N 94A999C.94G.49'4�43AAq99444,,,4A4J _ t35 .iAq3i833B33C,8^49d9d3�.�dN�AR�i�AB,.yp :iS � 116 .�43�39f399A.. 9.•0.9.4.�3B9jq..9006..=. t!l Y 137 ;�3i3A3..98C.�3•'..•4.8,.....99.44,6A J 116 .i8�3d.....i.��•st.d=.899....AA.AA St� 1 9 33�.......8• •�.99q999897044.. i�d .A988a.e9• •A$9..,.,.,..94. �;p 321 �'B+ . @9..•...B3iA x22 BBA• �•�iei:��:...4 1 1 , Lti ♦gg •.• _g�gA tjS � 12s + - iis it6 �9i:..n J 12i as�g.$9.A r� 2t26 _ - 124 '.99.BB3. ! 'Y �O t 13� •.8...999.4 � 129 J 13t �99��99..� � i)� 133 i��4••••A � • tJ7 8....A !tt � OJJ7)OOd)040300dCI]17J�7G��)a))C7JG4JO4C0700000^.C�C0009)07aJ00p:)099090079C70�0�0�00R00"n7009�OqC1111t!lttttttttttttll y J G1.O�JJ63t31121121122� 22:°_215�3353;3}�4�.�4��44555555555i65�555555577r7T777)T99�+48�ti449�94q94oq�q+�+n�n•qqittit'.i!?! S234i57i931Z3�5679}}1�Sv5i73d312S�Sb739�222055T�9:323�5679i01_145ST;90123�55783t227455�99�32T4S57;3?12TL5579q'!?t�ca71+ J � ....... ._.. '�1 ., � '.— — — __ � � � COMPATIBiLITY COMPARISON OF THE LOCAL COMPREHENSiVE LAND USE PLANS AND THE LAND USE SE1tTABlt(TY COMPOSITE � A Nighly Gompatible B Campatible C Campatible (With minor land use controls imposed) . incompatible (Nat the aptimal land use according ta the suitability campasite} = Compatibility Nat Compared * Major Water Bodies . , � � � � r - � GRI]iIn v�a 1 I'�'' ` . CJMP03ItE ]F fiE �IiN SUIi�BILIf► M4P 4N0 COMPREM?NSIVE PL►VS � " ' fjV�L V=RSIJV �j37i�OJillllltllil2��'�2L22?IlS3J333�Ib�444L�4�44i55555SS�i66�6655A5�7�1�)71j77�1�1��70a04�aA9�at'.jsF�7��7121tt1t!tt � 123�ii7S9d127�567i�Jt2l�5i7i3]12Ji567890123�557l9012J456�l9�1234567l9�127�557l9'J32t45S7�9^123�56779):f+tc67�q�!�1�S�71q J 9897�9 J . S 93.944��1� S 6 88.��9��. 6 7 89..989933�B.B 7 a 8��..89949�9.9 . � 9 9��4.8...9..8 � 9 io e�u a.a....._e ze 11 9�9999.....93. 1t 12 �9999....�934 9999L lz � 13 99998...��99. 9999.�.9. 1♦ �BB98..9A41�99. 833.....3939 !� 15 ��4...993...9 3.........999999 16 4AA�...B�B...B9.989...��..99938�99 17 �A11B...99.89399739..••••.9999•••a9 1! ... OA�.°....G444d�=.93.��w•..99A••999 � 19 8..9... 98 93999...A��U�G9..9.•••••..9a.g3999 - 114 � 20 �3....... eaaae BRB39....9999643q.9.•••••'g9a9999N9q Zn 21 8....... B9dB99339 8999.B...B8939.9.�4C•••••��:89999994 ' 22 3 93B338B99.39 899.993....8999.....••••• 9�6A�99999 i2 27 3..��...� 3398)9B89a.991•89939999....9B9n.....••••••• 999....999 ;� 2� 7.......� ..�BB3aBBB398�9..39..939a.....9.�.....•"",�'9899.4q93�9 ' ' •<� tS 83........� ....3.3.88338.�9.8.9CG993��..899...•••,••••.9999999999q94999 2S � 26 dd.B......�.................9..3983999..99.9ax43a��..49998.••••s••9.99999A999999999A • i6 Z7 j..�.....�.....•... .833BBA99399393.►oaB39..B..7.9....••s�999999999999..°.A9 7 ......... _ . 20 3..j....A1...................93398399.91..9..0A.89..84...3779.'•99943499989�9...9A.99 � 29 93.�39..�4...................483...3999��99...e43=9...9�a.4.99..••�9j99a�4.►...•.98�=. 29 7J d3B�33.�....................�....8..999999939.d�OB...99��.9.93.•�9?999B99.A9..•.=.999.9 t0 71 99).{)..�.....................3..988.939939939�33939.....B9991999.•99997999.439.'•a.999994 It 7Z � B3d9�33.�.............. .....43..3990.B99i99.934394......3999999.64999.999.8999.•99.39999a lf. 33 3333�...4.......�............4.9..9Bd9.99999...R9344.......94999G..999.9134.8999.99.99.99N � 37 � !� 333).�.:.....................4.93..8998.9760.�.0�9��..A44...99999..999.P199.399a9.��.9..V�9 7♦ i ]S d3.9. ..�....................44A9].83949.39�704.4.90C..449..39991a..9.9991N999899999'19�.0994 .�s9 7S 36 99.3....�....................�.8339.333]9.9��C4�0�303..?44..3J999°9.9..a9999g99i99999999.9979.G64 76 - ' 31 93j301..�.....................3B499d993d0..94.46�4933....CG.99999?i..99999H999.9999794999a99.�U6 ]7 JO 9.898�►..4...............�4....9.sae�3a»�.809.�14�93N...OG..9944A99..99999?949.97499999eq..��6067 T� 39 3. 3...�...............U...�800GG�049i4=.99.�34�4449..=......9..�9..9�A999999.T9Ai6A949..�1lS99 19 �u 3439 3.C.��...............9=C�9034..4C?900.�.3.9d..nA33....9....P.9999.39999999.4�G4Ae.149.�asaaq9 ♦9 � �1 83Bd9Bi4�CC�441...•..•......99148AA�A404..94=..99dA7.3C994....9.9.°9n;qq.q999999.�l�qOG30�4 JlS4O9q4 ♦1 � y2 999999.�C..G044..............3B999A9A44iC9.GG3.�38.A.94q9B:...99897999999.9999..O3A0GG46C�..0!'1999.9 ♦� N 63j333.��..�Co�........ 4.99949A4�G439.��i9°C9°.499999...99nq°qq�q'�°..9Ayaaa��ae.....S1�9499.9. ♦7 ' ......�j...9C4��lCG4�.9.c-d73��8639�99...99999J999999..P�........a98..00.aa999.ai �� 4 d3..933.�3..C:....... ♦S BB339999��C�C1�GA..........939.499A904��.A4.99?468A�A30�99...999999)99999..99......999999.de94794...�� •S t �6 833�3j9.B�..A�4AA��4�.......333.4..8��.�.�A�9..2A944�4°44...J 9989999998..93..�eqs.......9900.940r..,19 �6 . �) 83393 . .....C..4�.......933�.: ..G�a9.49A.4B30444=C�..93A��9A9'19..N999..4GOG439999v94aq99.f:C9�•�� 7 �e 3333��.�.•.•.�..4�.•......93 �.� �..�A.�.94 J�4Ao=...979q93999q..99�4..44G..9g999944493.....•• a9 �� •....�4�....•...898.4.►G40.4...0..9�9qC644GB..939�979997..�344.64►6.�a�90�9oq99991;...••.�9 ♦9 � �9 9d3aA�..... ° Sd 939�9.4N..........�4........983.8939.34...4.9.4C9•4l401..919q999999..999�.GGOG3144999iq99i99..9.�.1a9 RO � it 33�..3..•................4....B3..Bd..9�..�ea..4a4••e4a4a..9s493939.q9994..G�ia�]l1q9374aig..n.99.....9 S � . SZ 3933999.4•.................4....93.B..B934..9qa..99�••9A970..9A09939.99aqq..p844446999qa..�•s1...9.'ie949 .S 57 �43339d►AA............... ......9.....9..8..994.8084•••8999..Ba98..999979.1.Gs..sa99A'f9••9994n..q9qa�va99 S � 5� ��.................�4.•.....9..3d.9.�►...�.B�B4•��•�897..�...9999899.1�4.4�l4999999�9o9'14i99a�iane9iq S� .• , �5 ��404\��.....J....................B..dG.�.199...��883••�•9899....04G99B0l.64.4046��9499qa9A9�o941�i�a�n94=? SS � a6 �3U��C..........................B9..G.9.A�99..�4879..9.q9799.1.e��sOG4..00..�000\0�q994•1499an9•aat�e>099��p S5 . 57 93j3�BOBB3......CC..... •Bj�....B.aane.�C4.09q9.990�9..�4l641...44�.1644....aiA999q9eq.9a»+v�9�9.44 S1 is 39�'�3d3.........0.............•••..9....999i6408.44..�97994499..9�GL4A..4999999999....47444994�.97'laaieq9A.a49 �� 59 33d33999390.....•..........G�4�IG4..9.8..8933GC4G.A4.9BA�l09C4N .9�ACL....�9N9q99an99..�nGl4AR�4..9aaa��e4� 9��0 ' S9 � � b0 3dd3�33...................44444U..9.9...9..G444.�...8..73oC4�.��a�s...640A999'1991999q�1A49q99A...a�1ao49.�1447 6q ' 61 B98B3d3................ ..46��4...3998..►8...4.9��..9...9.�G9.9a4C..lil49B9'1a999W9A999A�9q9�..b4ai?a1s9.4994. til 62 33...33j8.................4ACR4G..B.39..9494._...4►.9GA4..G9..394....A4G9.99�a9�0449�99'1�4q..qrtq4�l4�n9.N9. 62 � S] d9333d4�8....••....... .�446CC.....99.049.8'°?6.9.H4A44.l9..09..'99=A4?994666�..Oa�94q4n94999'I�a»>4'14..N�. 61 ( 6� 8��...4BB7...�................... 93...44A.098'A.F.994.G4_...9...99�^aA.9Gl66EOlGGA999a94919a9'laaaaqq_9.9... ti• 65 A U�...�R9.•......................83l9..d.409G4�..9.9.9A443.09...99.�a10194a�6Gq9a9.9in9Rnnq9n9noe».R?•.qo99 6S 66 R44�A4�a40J798....................BA443..6446oa4....9.l7?Oq..A.�A9.7.9419..961a999'17�.'I�o9�A•,•••9.a�.4..�4AV= RR .. 61 461...69A39d.3.�...................34a�.97.00A479.9d.Od94....9E9.9.9R199..999a�99�9999aAA99•••'.•t?.q.. .A. S7 ( 6S 4433•9d398.43d..)4..CC�44d�..�A4.....9�449.9..98988...999944..A9A?a99't4a9..99...9qq�9499a99aq9n��a......$..w 1� - 59 ��f��4��3J9B9B�.�:..................9el4►...9f93..9..117?9.A:A0.4.9919A71..799.•9979q93i4A94...9•••aea.9..a.4 69 f '„ 7u �004�\�p�BA�9J0.•..........•..... B..3CA44...94""...AOA=9.4....a.9999979.9.9999n99�999'n999.4.�•••�'9.0..9.4 7q 71 �R4��..�A4.09�.................BB..9444►8.99�9=..B..A��=9.O...P3..99497.9999�N999�Aq�9q49. •••iiq.0.4.�to 71 ( ' 72 .....�4AA6R33..C...•.............8..934C.469.9H30B4...4GA?9.6q..93..94999..9944�99nq9999�99.�1�9.•••�'�,04.'IAnqela 7e . ' �7 39.•.4�RAAA44..4......................9444699A'7999A....444C97A4...9.9•.R99..899999a9A999A4A.q99q9•••.�a,9'i.q49a994 ' �3 /� jj'.4��AG934�.G.......................49...9a9�93R...�4A0444G.6..00e9399.:.94q••�i9999.....9'1^�1't.••....A99949.4'1 74 � 75 3 •3433979i..A...............:........978997..99....404064AC11...4C0lSnq66..9q•••1999.999a9i9a9q9?• .9aqnnl49.q 7 76 3d..Bd..33.440................ .�9..9.....�04AA4AG4....A443A�04C.9A9•�99'1N.14+9An,e9ql��i..'49�-1n9. 75 � 77 99..3..940.A.Ao....................9397�7..9..9........44A40........6G4e4�.99Q.�9q99.99...9..94i1�1..oq9a'19'19 s7 7B 33i.338•3A344G4.............. ...89d30A.....89............. 9.....99999..99�9�999.q9�...9a9nqq.�qa.9iaq�49q41444�• 71 � 19 U.4GB3�d4.AC................4...999044 9...97... ......A.999...B.N9.09799999R.9....94+9��a 1..4..�iVY9qq0��• 74 - !J �7•.39d4334i�......•.... . ...�3997aE4.a.9....�04G........099?4.44...49999999)...99.Aqqn999147.94�0'IaRnq99�a... �9 . .... E1 �8..9�J�A3.A4....................99�939A�46�9.....eOGG..A19993.6�99..�:..89.....9.8.94..A9.�1�971+t..q..9'1An9e�o'J... �1 E2 � 33 .899dd..60..........�09.......d90�939999....GA04C..AC999999.Ai66......999999..9.99�99��A9�19��it��Ola�1�q�1C'1i�14�.. �2 !3 �3�.Bddd3�1A.'..•..•.•....�4........8q...8999....44GA..4447999'7'A..........999949...99a.949�Ra�q��a..9....49vona,q, �T � " BO �d3.39a899...................................J444..CC4317�99.CC446..R9R]..9A99.99919.9'+q1a9.9oaiaq......qq9.^..a. �4 � � ES �93d.d00333L..........33.....................4��4. 444A=649.9.4CdCl.448q99..9..99994�9.94�eo99a'+a�9......4nn4„A9. 7S E6 �dA3......48.....•....93.....................IA...I1A4=C.fAC..8.G47C.OqqB89G...9�9999'1� .4awq.te�a�aa......^^1...44 �R � ^� 07 ��d4.?.d.........•.....9......4�1•°......_.U.�...4.R898C44C0...4..4.4G...60f.999RN9199A.4A��.9aa1�499.... •9.. .49 �7 - 9S 4R�44.Bd.B4�..•.........9..•..48.GG...-..._C44.4..4.9989A44oG04.9.994..979999�.999..914Qq.N9.4.qaq�eqoq9n,qr��..a..9 �� - 09 �30•3j3B_..4........•...9.....04..G44......f,A4..GG.99��39�797N'1�..9'f9=49.499a.6.q.0040A99..9.q91�a3^a44�49n4=....9.. �o . 90 4�44.3AB9J4A.............0....3..800G..4...0l4G.A.B89777.999..99..997°4C.99999.a.AelAOEqG....994��telsq�R�n��q 99 91 A344.4A44d4...............9.... .8l44944...C4.4A....B90..9i99..P9.9999 9.....999496q404.. 999.i'?..94'f4�.9 9� . 92 43i0•4Rd.8..................0.-8.B4A4A4e4�.CAf,4AAA4G4A...99097..99899R 999998 �9l'a„an9nn q • 9J .4��4L43.....................d..A4d404CA...CCC.A4A0A4114A4..9.9..99999 999 99a9�9.9�79q 9'� 9� • ��►4�4GJ..................�....A464A444A..OrLG4G-G4C4==4A...�9.99998 B93 99?i�?9qan9 04 � q5 •�O��OB AG....�..................0,=4II4�4�CO.00O►04�A14d4G�44.9A�q949B 999994 95 96 •3C�4� i44.•....................A4i494...4�14..4A4..lC4444CAA..?94999 9S - 97 34.IC 844.....................A:.A.....GAAE9...�.A44.�4C44a404.99939 97 . 9B 3A4............ ..4-....44404.4......44G��4..404E06ACOq 9� � 99 BA4........... . .4:..A.........A...........oOCACAGC4 ' 9"v _ . 1�0 404.�.....................C..4..........�4.......3...4�.1ACG i7� 1J1 �44.4..•.............. ..... 4........=...4......94..A4:l44 � Ln1 . 1 iJ2 C4�................. .4.....0........'.....AA...99471...a. lR2 103 4RAA.8..............0.0..4...38.3998.89793..44.�6.49)9.... . 1�7 � 1J4 AA4................A.4j..a.B33.B7a4a3..a9B....a.a444499.9 ��0 1J5 44A...........4 W.64437.4...89.93CG49.......4.�AROAA4.99 175 ` 1J6 4��.......��C......�)34a.G..�B.9a444G�9..A0..4..4..0.4G. 175 luT . .IA............�......)390.8...AA.4449a40a994..04►...40....9 107 : � 1d8 44...................�790...8...4Aa14...�4l39.9.4n44..4..44e. 1a� ' 1J9 AA.............8 .04.73...8.�.0�14..4.999.09d..GA4.e....0.90 199 11� A41.........3. .4A43j....0�339.4�94L..9A949.6..A464..9..16a 11C . 111 GA.....:..4. .4. 33....83�d9j.B93C.9C9i.......4Ae.99..� 11 ( � 112 8.......... ...�338...Bd93379.997.aq99...........99AA t1; 113 ....990..88093939..9...BR...9.........9.. fiJ 11� . 339..39d33939..9=9•JB.A9l9.........9 1� 115 ...9138.3889939998.9.9•BOa�'1�9�......_. 1S C .' 116 ...339B.d90.3B N 9•.99.9.99939499....._. 15 117 ..933.998�d9993��B:�.R.39A044939..... 1t� Ile 93839.899BB.9••••�BB=B83d4AAA..... ti� 119 39.4A�4AC.9• .8999998999..... 11 9 J L20 ..8889..P• •,B98B'f999B�90..� _ !ZQ � 121 •'•B'0• ..80939•9A9R9„ 1�1 J 122 •.84• •�BP..��A0.94. 12t 123 • g• • �•• •484.. 12T C 12� •80 • •A44�, 12� 12S •• _ ... S�S o �z� .::a4:::. , fig.31 �z� _ 12d •B9.09... 12� 129 � •90.Gd..... 1>4 •130 9A.a7..A.. tt� Q 131 •99409.4.. 1�1 132 •.4..9..a. t�� 137 �0.....►. 1T* � 67]J:Jdd�d61d�3JJ]�JJJ»OiiilJl]LJI�CG]070]7000�COOC:vCB7770770",J7S]Od7JC1;7^.7009�^.7C9C97^:^97RP'1^7L•ttitttittttttttttt G7))7J']]11i11111112>?a22__'2i71:S3JS33�W44�4�4�i55555555565�A555F557777�I77779jqt��q9991o?Oq�aq9 Y'?-•�n�^eltt!!t!!:l � Q 123'vi57e9i123+567ii)12305o7937L23�i51i30127b55719012J�56799J1_t�59749:121�5579�C12S456779S127o55�?�^2t��56�91':27�'S'7' 0 0 ' � ; _. ■ COMPATIBILITY CO�PARtSiON OF THE INTERtM REGIONAI LAND USE PLAN AND THE LAND USE SUITABlLITY C4MPOSlTE , A Highly Compatible B Compatible I C Cornpatible (With minar land use controis imposed} . Incampatib3e {Not the aptimal land use accarding to the suitability composite� � = Compatibi ] ity Not Compared %', Major Water Badies O C� O O U (: U ( (.� (' ,. ( (: (, O CJ �f� Ci C :` „ �� , c � � . , , , -- ., . .- ' ' � •vNJtvvvJVVNr�rr��rr�rr��+r�u��.r.....1.~...�..r...~. y,yWJJ�YJJJYJ.b4�.a.s.a..�urvvrvVrvVVVJ•.I�.1�O�J�.I�J�Y•J'�TINNWNMJIY�NY1Cti'i't!tl�ClwrVlH�ru�rM4NNNIWVNN�WVNN1'rr�+r�rYr�r�r � u�+ry.0 Y�J�V�C�.i�v��,J.ir VJ•�n�yN�•-��OR�VO��'1f�uNr��...p3�T��CwNr�,JO�JJ�Iv�n�r..�ppe�,T.�fyNr�.�JS VJ�J�CwN��.O��TNC41W�.a.OiVO�NOI..�Nro.00i VPVItMNr�.��0�1 VO�N�41Yr.��pOVPNf4N"'��pJV�TNICUIVr �j ♦1 '[ .�.y.r�.. u...�.�.J4✓...� •�� •��!1 ' ya�r. y ~•••.• •��aNnA r Y /� yDW.J....La��WYYO..,.Jrr..�WrJW..��,,•• •��W��rJ.v.wW -•.y w JW��r J..I.r.w��V+I�W p J"'� YPYYYDnLaY➢>iDY.9PYA�:.�r�.� �✓�� "�•:Ir.wJ�J.�u✓��r.+..,Ji.rwiJyr� �wv.Lr�l�ir• .♦ W,y.yyJly Nr.. G •SttT.D.D.].:+t��D.Di�.l.• PLi��JYDYAU�S:rJ41JYDPWuM fJ'D'JW�(L�:1�y�y�la��.�YC�.�('�.li��l��tr��)C�() P...�. � onon�n:�.c^�.. .'.xne ni. •u,a. > .•cnnm.wu•.�aa�oa.c+ �.a�. .� ns.i. u>.. ou�-+smps►�o.no....a.nci�i...nss>nc�n... ss s.ncir�s c,., nar.nossu nu.'.��i:i..�� ' _ _ 'a.,.�....�..nu..i.+:.�;.».. .._. .,....�u..n..:......�i,.nn a.. � .- �:..i:':�, i„�i . .in...n..0 .n.�nciw.un�.as..n..ai-..un..�.... .i.p.uM�.a.•...�.....a..-..�.i..�-...,o.. • y ' • �.. JJ]„�J'l� ��JJ.•.I,1�7/�:)Cf4.l.�<;Y:IY➢Yl).l�'l.lpl�✓t��• �su�.r✓u�r y� 4un i�y'y.�.>.i..i . >J •�J ✓�... ��l lonl.l.l+rv.- lnnnn lll•'l�.-.:.nn.. ea. .-.� �V•� • 1 T .l.lY. sLt�antlnnennwP.• ot . f ,►n... • O - s^�i�;icini��;ic�.i��ci��oc��n-inia...��-�,.��•,-n'en�nnci�.:e.�.nannnna.Y.sa>nnenaa.. 'w.- i a s>onnnnaaesnnoane.�.u�n000n:�.+n�••y,,c,a.nsni.o-vuneossoseysanna.. ,,, � �r-onc�.�c.nn.�.�n.-,<�o.�o... a.nns�.oanosassu.a-nnnaor.. :�..... � o ...Yp••anannnnnPannn�noo-ernnnna.�nnncin.i�nci.�nnvao-as.aona•a..asa�.�no-nsn.. N nn..>n>nnnnne�e �n�ouonnnancin-,nr.i...anon�.�ss>seas.ssnn.. ,p:..: .��eµ�.nssoapna+�+ys.�.i.usa:�c nananoni.aa�.anai.i.anaPao-nsaa.• n :�..o-.pn�.a�on�.:.�- �sY- . ..��u y s+➢q.4D✓aaaau nya.• AA.n os401"f>Lbnsn4fOs�LYi. NNr•. � _ YT'�' �l�a �'Pi' MN�' M fl.li C[] �Gb .R"C• n�r I i P .Ot'+. u' M mW j. .-�✓ n�� .i.0 y n� ncltK��. .��Yv.Y: �..� _ _ f)C.l'f:�I�� VII �-, ' a(lP.'�LW�•y - _ I �•�••J•• ••LT• � an4YLPJ4n11WV •IVP ,• �W Jµ .� S.. - �.ni.i.Yn� .P�_. n�:. . ...C)n.. ..Ui.L ,�a.�r V� _ •�''�l iT"..1 - •:D.� . 0�91C1�D�ny✓9Jtt.�t0��.��;'.'�l.�J�:J�':1T _ � e.�-G(llolvi•Avu4e naP14 •= J�w•� •a� ..in..n.. . � -ni-yi.�n��r.��n(i��.o�n?.:r�_��v:. -n:�s.n..e..a„-.nc o_:..a�.:�c� - �.�y�v.n.nm „�,n _ _�n nn=� _ �� ' - _ .... . .c�� o�.�',r�.uc...'._...a... J. a.0_m y "� - .J.a:�a...' .�:l .t�..nl.•n -.� _ .�9.J.. .fw.�. �� a>��yn.u .��✓�.:'� ' c,�om��i �W�� . .i.'.:� . ' nci:;:;.i.•�. ' _ �� _ :,i...o.�:n >uuma�G..atL�:••�� .6u.�u zy mm�u.a�. . _ � .��'J..�J�. (�Cl<l.Y � •�.�.. .�.p.G.u •'Dp✓eY:.W��1:1.��.�.�I..W.w1r u J!✓YY...y,ajW �"C.. .t7�♦ .GI.L�� Df�f�C�('��t f •>LaY.�� .'DIT..Y ID:DIIIJl��L�D J'.�•Ci'V YDY1JOhY►A��YUJIDS:D irC�• - - .cn�.nr. ., ia.�. - nw.:. :n�rn ..�nainomn.:in.r�_.. aonnsnac�mano.ms..w�o �� w:n:. •.D�O'OPDO�JaP. D nci-�nnnnni:�ai n;,n nnnn.. e.p.�.'%s�;�� .'=ivnn�:�NY>P�LS9.Yalp.p��WWHna.'J..�l..�.b.JD.WJ.IL�OWPYOY.rtULL"vl..JIILJu a��.. . •D ♦ ..p.pA7C��:>.lnu. p m�9il�ilul��,(�6npp�• DD.9'.1• m9my1J�L�Fo�pW�Dt��OIJJDY> y • .JPi.. oC�CIC�i��Yi.o.i.�pn aYf.Y... _ ti�t+ uWJf•.YUI�.• i�� ..�L.4nu.m',Dt.�.�C.-J�W.D'J.�:l..�.�.W.y'Dm•J1LYL JfJ 2 f�.�� _ u�'ltl("�(l�l�.n�. T(�LAP��.,^ � J{�r�•a 4i PW��WW•YD4..�LW�.M►�. .L(�y;J��. .. y �Cff�a�. ��1.��-:. 'l�) t.l..�. y.*i1�ui�y�✓fJ�i"�i:.. Y^J�. •w�us� �� • ' '- ..I.J�iut_ _.-.C.YY43.t.f�l�i•o�xC-� nC.['.(�.�. .J��C.�Y 4PWYG1PYyiL�P�iJW..:��.4.]l:�J�.�. ��wuC.�. �1Lun.. � �� _ - .� •Cll.• •NN1JPy;. ~J11:�-. rJ�� Af,�..�...� t'.C.4.y..l Y.. r''f N.�i•, F .�. � � _ .�CfT L uC`40.. - •Y✓uAp�YP�^l^Oe�n'7•�'(�f11�1.✓.�flC1Gl+C1(1n4�w�L+J••ry1��1�1i�•Il•r t.11�.. " " ,`.n.'.LO.'-��.�.� :�,`i: ..or.,..n..a.s.uns.n�n - - - - - iii...v�..<ln.,n....�..u�,.� nr,�:�. ��. �,,.�. _ _ _ .... _ _ ' n.�.,� ��. o.�... •!. >r.,nnn�-e_pn.. - - :,c a�� _ :.�rn,n.t. .o••woneva.n n.n.muu�✓��.:-:y uo�n A �.,nuuu.� .�c.c�nnnncnaaei.nm�.':':J n�:uiii%ii�;inori��,ii oa�ny:' '" •T' _ •�-.-r•• i.r��.^u.:, nc�.�... �m•�.r ..�u•_ .o.,� • . ' '�con.m.s m�+on n.innu � nMmi.pnV.p � - L�J4TDA.9P^O.�•G'[l mn n`s-enaeni-.. n.amn�ac,vam an.•�6n,jc�a-orw ..,c.. .�ot�na.+n it�rtrc�r •��•••Y pnrnr.i.nn•n �tl(iC+r�u t.✓�.••_.�.n.•�^.unn�� . ..(].�,liui.i�nAi. Cff��-✓✓✓nuuC.Y..�,�.:�n..�✓��.....�„U •�>..a nl...mnA� 'aJn:l!➢S� Y • NJ.-� u •:i. nY�.nt�[•�u•�t�..u�:� • .()Gc.��.v � .'•a.�•4rn^.�.�. .f+ur�•n.C�.m'�..nr. .C�(`[lt�.. mS�i� lDt�✓•CI(7CN"�C).W I'O�f. :"w�on.,..:onn �nPnr�.-CY:;i,i��r,.�.n,unrn>s-oc.�.�nnr�l..:, nc��.....u•s� sj..mw.. .. . . .,��co.,i..i.• .�i��• `�:� y ' _ " F �. nr:..,.. ' - _ _ 'n�n..��c+ro.un�`r� .o•�� - .y�.• , ' _ J.is.•i..i.�n.i:e, � ..- ...��... . ,.� �:. .. [�(l+ •..YtJ .S.. Yf_'�'it�f.�t t J�� .�J .`i rV• J' �f�fll.(..)��...Y4Y��• •��•� .µ�. �i��'('..�P:'�_V. aYa��n a'.]i yY.�+ rai�sa��W ..i�..ti•• ..>s�:ry�`�s�f•.li��•�.1�• ... L a0�. � �✓.l• �.� _ A.YY LL�J�.��••�••L.�Y. �l�.:l�.W.r..C'Jn.��l.]�• .Clllf.�L . �J�. Y�IC`�� _ .. ..�J�L`t��t.raVa�Y✓1��y1.�L'.VJW.JW(��illfR�N✓�.�lC��..�YM�Ii)��()tiC1• (1��.�4'.r ��" 1��.�'J�.::�.�.:.h. Y�:.F.[.t.Pc.�:'�..C.to:�.�. . •lC1�D'J.�Y✓.1�•�•J�_C��lflC�i�f�.. • y�if�fliul��l� 1•�y `J L�� P (� ..� i,. :.'J!)fJn.�.lr•.4.�. tlL - •(lfl. - n�a.. �:�.....«:"n��.t'[.al+uY. u...l:.es � Nv.� i.._.� � � ��u�i. YD. L.l. u.1t.�lJ(lt.i:t.�iii��ui.��i�,�lf,i��'ilt.�.•� �.. �YY•✓ � ..l r ��nY�_4.�• �..U'�fJ.. .��r��'C�<l�)G�C�C��.l.�.�(/��f�ll�Yf�C�UJ.��u. f��. L lyc� � _ .y�..L��.s. �.J ��tt.� �.�.�'9U�•('.�l.�l� ;iflf��f�RiY�� •Gi Jlv� ^:.� =.w. ... Y ��... i �.�.�ii �SL.��.�• LYl7Ul'Jb�llM1:WU..�t��\..�LWlJu6 C1nil�,(•iK)f].`�1..IUL'{D PV.. _ � .al:•• .. � NA:.Y..��• .�L....ii.441..�1i.1.�.�.h��(.<"�CK.LL. L - (I�:^•I.�:J.=.t'J.�.. :�L�..�f`i.C...•t Yt�PL�L�L4�V �IJLL��:.L.JWJ:QW.JI, tl.l,LL.Jt'Jt�`�W�'LLI.,� - � yµ• ._..Yo�.��..�. � .w �1.1.�-�w�.�y � y �� r.��.- �....�..: �1� .�� .�.� W�t C•V�C.Y�. .`�t� � Y{I�•:� L 4> ►LPYYYY��-4��1..i1�r '(1✓YYu��.y.�OIJ�.y Luu Wl�..�.y•4fVYt��tLl� P�ieYALp➢..i�pDl'f..n..�WWyP��.CY�41..4~ �.�� yDC.�� ♦�{.�.r:'.�.��wPYrL�J:�LL.�4YYYs�Ym0.{:.y�••LYf.• .Wt�J'�tr. •�4�.��.��L.C.W �s.. - .�G�i.:Jf.y.�:.tFl�....1'.:.�Y�YLLL�Y.�C�::..WYY-LLl4-1��`l'.��IiLLU.i��. LL'J�.::i {�ut ��l�tJ�_�: .�L,�..�'.��:�L� Av':- 1:.�:+rt•nWLy+•4'/•)✓AM411I4.I'�Y��i.4WG�Y LL4��Wr�L�� W.�ww� .:r..�..._`. • ^�� _ r�..� ..�._�^T.� ��:•�.a��... �r:.'t'r4�� ?l•T.• r��'�...• .�•�1...� • ' ...4:.�:.�.'�.iLr��t��.�1..iL.:.� �1�• 41�.r1.,�W�..�W..u.��r�M W \u� S�S�A��'�Jyl•�. •6C• C'{��i„Cl::.. •L� ��?�r�y,^C'^G'ulDt 6lCS.:��1i�F�.YL10.iLYLL��01G��If� P1r Dn ' �.C'• t_ "• S4�_....�t�'i_ � 4 ►�:J4� ^4�^R.4•P •1.�.�C.:' f��..� nl+G(.:.,-f"":^vl:.•CC:^.0 wF�L`[4��rlC"+Lf�)Gt':-.�+.�'�VCc:.t_4�l.Lt..Fv��.rti�'J[.4•t13� �[`.� Ct�•',��1"t:�C�r��U .4. tlC'[:�. .C'LL.:.Pl.••G��J�.♦ �tU'.�Ir.��PT4�L.'uUt^4f.�:.�0{!� yW� � �•1.,�.� •4..M�• � :.�.r ..{��.,�-I Ii��.'�.�r��..J• � L.:LYY)..�.��44Y•: •C�:.'.44'�" �. ' � G.�" 1..(....LLf��l-• 4�7'��i.Ll:t,ll�hP.�ICLL . •�•• - cr.��. .:cn:.�:i rrt�ra,.i• •�.�•i i-i °'°;` • l.�U� ^ � �77 � � ��_ u:O• _ �.Cw'L I�CJ liyr4�.��T: 44��y '� •�•1•�n � _ ♦ �� •:_� - ..�.. J !' .�J�I:IL�. �kW.�� •n Wi'+��✓>�w�fi�i�l•� �y p.y CQI.^rt�..��.::�.+��a�.r�.�.�.�t��• ♦�♦ � ~� ��:. GGW�:�JLL.r�.• . r, .{..• � 6..if:� �1��t�'.JI.,:`ry':.t�:...•i�. ::;;�J.J'..�:L'r'.^fJLLf^�,r,.1�1.t.• •:��.4�,W.-.iii H�H �'J��r�.n y � .�.: •• �' '.i:l..... .U::.�• •• •i. (-n)W1�4�. Lyui,W�� ,Dr.�• � �I :.Yr•.1..'wc'.�.�n'.:. Jil��...R;WL{��i.�LiJ � ' l J ' J' :.LL41`�•'��.r=1..1M.4.1�Jl.1.l�LJr� V'�~ \ � �C y: �.`2.:- • ^ -� ' • •�r�f��• (�1'�a_f^� TP•:�u�w11�r l,�I� W Y rr.. •• �• ` t �.�1LL:,.Y`OiY�rV`_ l�� `I..b � ,�✓ 4 �a L i I:r V�� :.�� i . Y� _ ��: • •[.4....�i.a.,l t •y. .`LL'r..�ly�j��:• +� r U VC�. •>; •�u:l��.1�4 l �:L �'Y4'.• � �Fr � ��' • • ..1L4�W11 wCL4••\.��1.�.�..�.��1.4��C 1:bCLL�Wlr•~.LL�..� Ivr� 1. ' � ..�� .='r.:Jl'.w.....Y::...l:W �I�C..p.M.,yy,~ r-1-� C'Q.�. r• "' .y - f' C: 6...C�.Y4 ..G4 t.r.. . .14:.rGL,� r"l./ �r �Fr . •rl-C4S��.��• � � "�r•" � . . �c"'�"� ♦ �C1-a ' .�, ..�-f...r..t.`.�.r..�-r.�...�.�.r�-�+rrr�r Nwr..f.rre.r.. yw4wNNNNNNNNNN�+Y/+rrr�Hr�+'.no��oupeoc+e�O�p�D�p�p�p�p�p�p�p6sOY>OPi00VVV�v"�vVVVPPPPpPO�PPpNNNNNNNYMNYt�flfl�IIMY441YYGYMYNNNNNNNNNNMI'�rrMMNN1�r ,1 �� I.iNrc�ppVPNfMN�'+�OOVPNfWNrn�povTll�t{yNNP�OP�PNfNNNo�(avPNfWN"�..0>vpV�PlyNr�p.pmVO'MtYNrc+�pqVPNi4tW�e��OOVPMI'IMVh`e��ppVPNfMNNt��00W'M�'4NI+t��pO�PN�M111,+n�pPVPMrMNr �. 1 Or+ A i, r; . � . . � ., , . � , , . - -, ,- - .. .. _ �� - The most important aspect of the Regional Sewerage Plan is the fact that the provisipn of sewer service is restricted only to areas con- sidered suitable for development. Though the construction of many of the Green River Sewerage Area facilities is not inconsistent with the Regional Sewerage Plan, the use of these facilities in areas unsuitable for development is inconsistent with the goals and objec- tives of the Regional Plan. Development is .not likely to occur only in the suitable areas because local governmental aqencies, not the reglonat agency, control land use. The local sewer plens support the local land use plans, very often encouraging sewerage facilities to be constructed in areas shown as unsewered on the Regional Plan. Without some form of strengthened growth-controlling or growth- directing palicies, the probable development of the Green River Sewer- age Area is likely to create adverse impacts, particularly upon environ- mental quality. � Some of the likely adverse impacts will affect components of the environment which are presently marginal in quality (e.g. air resources) , truly unique (e.g. Green River Valley soils) , or extremely fragile (e.g. postglacial lacustrine sitt deposits which are prone to frequent landslides) , creating severe hazards to public health or safety if influenced by urban development. The important secondary impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Auburn Inter- ceptor will be the response of social , governmental , and economic systems to the impacts upon these critical elements of the environment. New systems may be required to cope with the resultant critical conditions. The air resources of the Grezn River Valley are certainly a critical component of its environment. Data measured, compiled, and analyzed by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency shows that existing air quality conditions are marginal within the Green River Valley. Both the annual sus�pended particulat�e and the annual particle fallout standards, 60 ug/m and 3.5 grams/m /mo, respectively, were violated at Auburn for 1972. The �verage suspended particulate level2at Auburn during 1972 was 61 .$ ug/m ; particle fallout was 4.6 grams/m /mo. During the first four months c�f 1973 the suspended particulate readings for Auburn averaged 79. 1 ug/m . The Green River Valley acts as a trap for air pollutants under certain meteorological cor�ditions, particularly inversions and low winds. Further industrialization could cause temporary increases in pollutants to levels that would represent a threat to public health. The valley also acts as a receiver of pollutants from the Seattle area when the wind is from the north or northwest, and from the Tacoma area when the wind is from the southwest. This fact, coupled with the already marginal air quality in the study area, makes it unlikely that existing air quality standards will be met. Studies conducted during this assessment show that existing air quality standards will probably be impossible to meet within the Green River Valley if growth continues to occur in its present relatively uncontrolled manner, even if pollution control devices are utilized by point sources of pollutants and automobiles. Further industrialization of the area could lead to serious air pollution problems unless such development is carefully controlled to insure the use of the best technology to control emissions. 146 The growth and development proposed by local land use p]ans wauld simply overtax air resources. If, for example, industrial development in the Auburn 5tudy Area utilized all of the land Auburn's Camprehensive Land Use Plan sets aside fpr industry, approximately 43,000 people would be employed. Canvgrting this employment to daily vehicle trips, and disregarding mass transit, appraximately 135 to 145,000 vehicle trips , or over 230,000 person trips woutd result. This magnitude of trips would require approximately 10-i2 lanes of freeway. Over 25 lanes of arterials wauld be required. The existing marginal air quality of the Green River Va.11ey would certainly not he improved by this substantial potential increase in traffic volume, Water resources within the entire study area are also likely to be degraded by the urbanization of the sewerage area. Waste loads from urbanized areas are considerabiy higfier than those from forests or agricultural (nan-pasture} areas. The RIGCO study's preii�inary fin�ings {as af August 1973) regarding the starm water runoff waste loads of various land uses are shown by Figure 33. Even if develop- ment occurred in a manner consistent with the IRDP, and the Auburn Packing Plant and Auburn Lagoon were intercepted by METRO, RlBCO' s preliminary findings determined that by the year 2000 a net increase in wastes discharged in the Green River Basin will accur as wash-aff from tand surfaces displaces point sources of poiiution as the major water pollution prabTem in the basin. Sacial impacts likety to result from the urbanizatipn stimulated by the proposed action may change the present rural atmosphere of the City of Auburn and, its vicinity. The occurrence of such a "small town" atmos- phere within the heart of a major metropolitan area is uncortxnon. Many citizens and Auburn city officiais have praised this aspect of Auburn and the lower Gree� River Valley, � In the final analysis, how society respo�ds ta critical probtems within the sewerage area, such as the probable decrease in air qual 'rty within the Green River Ualley resulting fram urban development, will be an important secondary impact of the proposed action. As impacts upon such critical components of the environment increase in roagnitude and cumutative effect, perhaps reaching unbearable levels, "contralled gro�eth" policies based, for example, upon the "carrying capacity" characteristics of the impacted critical envirdnroental eiernents, may become a nacessity. Di�'F1GU� C questions regarding the economic and social prablems resuiting f ram sucF� poiicies wiil have ta be confronted and solved. The well dacumented impacts upon natural systems created by the urban- izafiian process, which affects water quality and quantity, visual and aesthetic qualities, noise levels, wildlife populations, and vegetative communities, for example, are relatively unimportant when compared to the impacts af�'ecting critical companents of the environ- ment. The major secandary impact associated with the Auburn Inter- ceptor anc! its associated sewage caiiection faciiities in the Green River Sewerage Area will be the accammodation of future urban develap- ment and its impacts, requiring policy-makers and the pu6iic to make the appropriate decisions, 147 P4�► p,4, tr h�` r ,M� � � � _ �� `,� 4`` ib ac. p 1u h p�r � �b�AG y �.'� 00''� A2 �w�P (� °�M�� ,�+P ° �bt¢° d o� �s� °�0 A a o.z � ��i� � Y Ib la` �Z o.2 � Q q .O b � ay $ co� �� k o�� a � ►d, �o 00 ob� ooG °1 01 paZ .� pOZ o.2 . '�01� tn� �r� �L el�y .�10 � Z 0.Z ,0 Z �+►� .y ''"r . ,o ao 500 �� ot ,oi Ar 8 oa�s °� ,� �'�' � ' .�I "` � -�' p �c+oo� �°� �� .oZ o5 � g a.ti 1� ,ti� � So 0 9p � oZ �,� , ob � �� 1}. q� 9 ,� ,Oi7 .b�7Z � . '� '�1 '� 9Pp0 �� 5 �� d az oz °5 '�� y .00�4y a.Z zs o qo '�`°° �� 9� y � .ot • .ob�3 °•Z .o� �a�� M �� g� �� poi, 05 ppt �� p.Z e�p �� ,�0 9► .q� q(o �y .oaz � ,t� .poZ �� J,�,�►� ,'' 4•0 '�' a � .� .01 � .Dof�b tm"�..- `a .�' ' ��,a �?�° ,�� 5o abz� .� °� .� °� �'1 t.'t Zoo ioa � oa3 p� �oZ � �Z �� .�5 �, .+`' � � 'S � l,yoo ,�o r�3 0.1 '°qZ .a7 0.2 _�a 3s d ,,� ro o�� z3 �� `i to �.Z �.z �r 4 '� ,a 5 �y o 5 o.t � o Z �.o .ao� 0 0. ,ot �,p�,LL , yo 'oq oq ,q ,� 'oop �o �,� �t� � .z ot� � t � �� •aQaZ9 �� 't� � p,6 �� SQ� � .��? � Qpa31 62 .80 ��.�A I'�t. 0� �1Pt Q L0D ,01 '�x �� 5 .� 'S �5 i� t� 5� � � o� ,�001 •o°°ai � � r��Q, Q�. � �� .c o ,�flo ooy� .°°L , ,3 .c Z •'�►- � ,i5 �a � 5 � � .5 'l�'�'�''} S .6 �j .t o �' i � �� 0 1.� �� 5 �� rw��k"tL .i � � . s Per l�+'n°j� � .a1 .a5 �d�� ad � �+�°`'��r� �v�►�'°� �St'� �� G p M��yA � � `,�'�„�'�a�01'ro�'��°K s�►�,�5`a�� `� , �\ rGY'�' a a \ \ � , . 111. A GOMPLETE DESCRlPTlON OF NOW TNE TREATMENT WORKS' DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROLS WILL MlNIMlZE THE ADIIERSE lMPACT QN ALL ASPECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT METRO construction projects fallow the generally accepted practice of aliowing the contractor tF�e maximum atiowable ftexi6ility in selecting his own constructian methads. At the same time, he is held responsibie for meeting the intent of the plans and specifications of tMe given project and producing end s-estalts tE�at meet METRO standards as verified by field inspections and testing. F!e must also comply with permit requirements fram other regulatary agencies as previausly ekplained in I Section I . A11 METRO construction instaltatians employ state-of-the-art methods and rigid manufacturing standards controi the quality of the materials used. Each METRO sanitai•y sewer utilizes the best avaitable technoTogy while at the same time r�maining econamical to construct; each is ' designed ta meet ar exceed Federal , State and locai standards. There are no specific design and construction cantrols that minimize adverse enviranmental impacts other than those described in Section I . These specific design and construction cantrols either respond to specific agency requirements ar are put into effect to limit METRO's liability. In most instances, these cantrols will be sufficient to assure that anly minimal adverse environmentat impacts wi11 result from the proposed project. Specific design and constr�ction• controls which wil ] minimize adverse enviran►nental impacts include such controls as the use of screened wells in the dewatering process to eliminate the intake of sail particles and the use of pipe outfalls and diffusors to discharge the water created by the dewatering process, This will lessen the threat of sail erosian and the slumping of drainage ditch banks. Sedimentation basins will be utilized to prevent the degrada- tion of streams used as spawning channels . Monitoring of the dewater- ing effluent will occur periadically ta insure that na water quaiity impacts resu}t. Dust and particulate matter will be controlled by sprinkling access roads, trenches, and stockpiled backfill , if necessary. Noise will be controlled by conventianai means. Restoration of the pipetine carridor in residentiai , agriculturat , and ' other improved areas will minimize the lasting adverse impacts created by the proposed action in thvse specified portions of the corridor. Road surfaces and ather paved areas will be restored to conditians which at least equal the original conditions. Jacking under intersections and railroad lines will minimize the impacts and inconveniences impased upon the residents of the Kent and Auburn area. Na streets , highways , ar railways will have to be clased for mare than very brief periads during loading and untoading operations. When the influent structure of the Auburn Lagaon is diverted, all nec- essary precautions will be undertaken to assure that minimal amounts I 49 I of raw effluent are bypassed. The likelihood of any pollution occurring as the result of the hooking-up of the Auburn Interceptor to the Auburn Lagoon is very slight. The Renton Sewage Treatment Plant is quite capable of adequately treating the existing and projected future Auburn area waste loads. The high de- gree of treatment provided by the Renton facility will minimize any adverse impacts of the Auburn area's wastewater upon the water quality of the Duwamish River, the Duwamish Estuary, and Elliott Bay. The Renton Sewage Treatment Plant has prpven itself to be a highly reliable treatment facility, with alarms, duplicate units , and duplicate power sources safe- guarding against equipment malfunctions and emergencies. In addition, frequent inspections and METRO's thorough maintenance program virtually eliminate the possibility of diScharging any untreated wastes. METRO is a leader in the field of operator training. Over eighty percent of the Renton Treatment Plant operating staff personnel are certified by the Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Association and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Monitoring of the Renton Plant 's effluent occurs on a continual basis, both at the plant and at METRO's automatic monitoring stations in the Duwamish River. Within METRO's Water Quality and Industrial Waste Divi- sion, well-staffed water quality laboratories are maintained. METRO's monitoring and water quality analysis program is the most sophisticated of any agency in ttre Pacific Northwest. � At the time of this writing, only one set of adverse impacts will not ' be minimized by the proposed design and construction of the Auburn In- terceptor. These impacts include the disruption of the previously men- tioned wetland areas and their associated plant communities and habitats, and the removal of the residence at South 285th Street. The construction route, as now planned, wilt adversely impact both the wetland area south of Southeast 216th Street and that south of South 277th Street. The former is scheduled for eventual development as a Kent City street within an industrialty zoned area, and accordingly, is destined to be impacted in the future regardless of METRO's construction plans. The latter may, however, be a different matter. Final design inves- tigations for the Auburn Interceptor may reveal that it is feasible to construct the pipeline on the east side of the railrpad tracks south of South 277th Street, rather than to the west of the tracks, thereby eli- minating the disruption of the marsh. This would allow the small resi- dence on the south side of South 285th Street to remain intact and the risk of damage to the Olympic Pipe Line Company's pressurized petroleum product line during construction would be eliminated. The previously described EPA policy for the preservation of wetland ecosystems makes it imperative that this feasibility be explored. This natural wetland area lies in King County within an area designated as "rural residential" on the approved King County Comprehensive Plan. This designation en- Icourages the construction of a maximum of two dwelling units per acre. �50 IV. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEM ENTED Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided during the construction of the Auburn Interceptor consist primarily of the disruption of the existing plant, animal , and soil communities within the proposed pipeline corridor. The existing terrestial ecosystems will be destroyed along much of the route. All existing vegetation will be removed and the fifteen to twenty- five foot trench required will necessitate the excavation of existing soils and alluvial deposits. Proposed sitE restoration efforts will usually not recreate the natural conditions. Since few, if any, new suitable habitats will be created, the quantity and diversity of birds and small mammals may be decreased. The required dewatering of soils will impact the groundwater table during the construction of the proposed project, but the lowering of the ground- water table should only be temporary in duration. Upon cessation of the of the dewatering procedures , groundwater tables normally re-establish at previous normal elevations. Groundwater resources are not likely to be significantly impacted by the operation of the Auburn Interceptor, though some groundwater infiltration will probably occur in the future. This could contribute to a slight lowering of the water table in the vi- cinity of the interceptor and other sewers serving the Green River Sewer- age Area. Construction of the Auburn Interceptor will require the vacation of one home. The vacation and destruction of this home, is, however, avoidable, if south of South 277th Street the Auburn Interceptor right-of-way were located east of the Chi�ago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific/Union Paci- fic railroad tracks rather than west of the railway. This action would also prevent the disruption of the significant natural wetland area just south of South 277th Street. Minor unavoidable adverse impacts wMich cannot be avoided during the construction of the Auburn Interceptor include increased noise levels and the temporary disruption of some street, highway, and railway traf- fic. Public utilities will also be briefly interrupted as overhead and/ or underground telephone and electrical cables require removal . Gas mains and lines may also be affected for short periods of time. An in- crease in particulate matter is likely within the vicinity of the pipe- line corridor as some dust will be created during the construction pro- cess despite intensive efforts to control its occurrence. The pipeline corridor vicinity will not be aesthetically impacted for more than brief periods of time along any one portion of the project. The resultant adverse visual impacts will be restored to as near their original state as possible in devetoped, improved, and cultivated areas. � The proposed action, if implemented, is likely to have a long-term envir- onmental impact upon land resources, for it will allow local governments to encourage urban growth within relatively undeveloped areas and to intensify development within currently developed areas. Along with this accelerated growth, the problems normally associated with urbanization are likely to occur. These include an increase in noise, air pollution, congestion, and ecosystem and habitat destruction and disruption, as 15� . _ _ . i well as the myriad social problems reiated to urbanization. Many of these and other impacts could, however, be avoided. Section 101 (b) of the National Environmental Policy Act requires the Federal government to use all feasible means to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources, including the Environ- mental Protection Agency's wastewater treatment assistance (construction grant) programs, to: (1) Fulfill the respons'rbilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) Assure for all Americans safe, healthfu} , productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesir- able and unintended consequences; (4) Preserve impo�taRt historic, cultural , and nate�ral aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of indiv�dcral choice; (5) Achieve a baTance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing bf life's amenities; and I (6) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum � attainable recycling of depletable resources. ,I None of these goals and consideration will be directly sacrificed to any significant extent if the proposed action is imp}emented. Indirectly, however, if the proposed action acts as a catalyst, stimulating further actions by both public and private agencies and individuals, leading to the urbanization of th� Green River Valley and the �rban development of much of the Green River Sewerage Area, some of these goals may be sacrificed. �52 V. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The long-term impacts created by the Auburn Interceptor will be both beneficial and adver$e in nature, reducing and enhancing elements of the Green River Sewerage Area' s environment for future generations. Water quality within the lower Green River, for example, is likely to improve as a result of the proposed action. According to the preliminary results of the RIBCO studies, however, as the proposed Green River Sewer- age Area's sewerage system, facilities are constructed, allowing additional urban development to take place, the net water quality within the entire area will decrease as the amount of wastes discharged in the Green River drainage basin increases. Even if urban development were carefully con- trolled, the latest RfBCO studies (still preliminary, though) show that water quality within Big Soos Creek, for example, could be expected to be worese in the year 2000 during the critical 1-in-10 year low flow period than today due to increased urban runoff waste loads. The water quality of many of the upland lakes found upon the glacial drift plains may improve significantly as a result of the proposed Green River Sewerage system. Some of these lakes are currently undergoing accelerated eutrophication. This process witl probably be retarded when the METRO system is extended beyond the Auburn Interceptor and septic tanks are eliminated on the Black Diamond and Des Moines Plateaus. Non-point sources of water pollution, particutarly dairy cattle and salmon car- casses, witl continue to degrade the water quality of the Green River for sometime. � The effects of the proposed action upon the eventual receiving waters of the Duwamish Estuary and Elliott Bay are speculative at this time. Even- tually the higher quality treatment to be received by the Green River Sewerage Area wastes before release into the Duwamish River may improve the Duwamish Estuary's environment. The perfection of the RIBCO study's Duwamish Estuary model will provide the necessary insights into the Estuary's physical , chemical , and biological systems. The restoration of the existing marginal conditions of the Green River may encourage greater recreational uses of its water, particularly if the aesthetic conditions of the river are increased. If, as a result of the proposed action, other point sources, including the Auburn Packing Plant, hook into the METRO or City of Auburn's system, much of the existing bacterial pollution of the Green River's waters should be eliminated. The potential of diseases stemming from recreational activities assoc- iated with the lower Green River would therefore be substantially reduced. The provision of adequate sewage treatment facilities and the resultant cleaner water will exert a powerful influence on future land use develop- ment, reinforcing the pattern of human use which has developed within the sewerage area during the past decades. The construction of new industries and businesses could be a beneficial long-term effect of the proposed action, if development is carefully controlled. Urban growth stimutated by the presence of adequate wastewater, collection and treatment systems will probably change the character of the Green River Sewerage Area. The existing predominantly "rural" atmosphere of the Green River Sewerage Area is likely to be lost as intensive land uses, perhaps reacting to the construction of wastewater collection facilities, 153 replace existing land uses. The range of beneficial and productive uses associated with the land resources of the sewerage area will probably be decreased, if urbanization, in conformance with existing local land � use plans, is encouraged. Existing and potential recreational areas will be lost due to the utilizarion of open and vacant, agricultural , and forested areas for urban purposes. Urbanization will probably adversely affect biological species diversity and population sizes as habitats are fragmented and/or destroyed. Wildlife production will probably decrease. The production of agricultural products within the Green River Valley will also decrease if current trends continue. Long-term risks to health and safety will also occur if urbanization, stimulated by the proposed action, occurs. According to Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Aut�ority spokesmen, the existing marginal air quality within the Green River Valley will probably be severely affected by future urbanization. Increases in air pollutants could represent a significant threat to public health, particularly under certain metero- logical conditions. Industrial development on or adjacent to aquifer recharge areas could contaminate the groundwater resources of the area, particularly if toxic materials are introduced through surface runoff or direct discharge. This is turn may contribute to the contamination of both rivers and estuaries. The potential of a major disaster occur- ring in the Green River Valley due to mudflows and related floods or earthquakes will be substantially increased as land uses within the valley bottom are intensified. , Though there is little likelihood of a major mudflow occurring within the Green, White or Puyallup River Basins, small events such as the Electron mudflow, which occurred about 600 years ago and advanced 35 miles down the Puyallup Valley, are realistic possibilities. Even though similar smaller mudflows may not reach the sewerage area, they may reach large bodies of water created by dams along their routes, displacing large quantities of water and causing temporary but potentially disastrous flooding. Because such mudflows probably move at speeds of 10 to 25 miles per hour; evacuation time and reservoir drawdown time may be minimal . During the la$t 7,000 years, the White, Puyallup, and Green River basins have experienced at least one mudflow every 430 years. Inten- sive urbanization of the Green River Valley, stimulated by the proposed action, could potentially be affected by mudflow-related floods. An analysis of the seismic history of the sewerage area shows that small magnitude earthquakes occur regularly, and that moderately intense shocks, capable of producing severe damage to poorly desig�ed or poorly construc- ted engineering works near the center of the affected area, are frequent. Large magnitude earthquakes, intensely shaking much of the Puget Sound lowland area are rare. Though some studies indicate that the surficial formations of the Puget Sound Lowlands all respond equally poorly to earthquakes, the vast majority suggest that units, such as the alluvium and artificial fill found in the valleys of the sewerage area have a much poorer response than the material underlying the glacial drift plains. In the United States, exclusive of Alaska, only portions of California, Nevada, and Montana have experienced as many earthquakes during the past fifty years. Estimated recurrence intervals for an earthquake of a given magnitude in the Tacoma area are: �54 _ , I � Richter Magnitude Recurrence (ntervals (Years) 3,5 - 4.0 0.25 - 0.5 4. 1 - '4.5 0.5 - 2 i 4.6 - 5.a 2 - 5 . i 5. 1 - 5.� 5 - l0 5,6 - 6.0 10 - 30 � 6. 1 - 6.5 3� - 60 6,6 - 7.a bo - �50 7. 1 + 150 + II The epicenter of the violent 1965 Seattle earthquake occurred just ta the west of the sewerage area's western boundary, in Des Moines. The potential for tha occurrence af a majar earthquake within or adjacent I to the Green River Area certainly exists. Dam rupture, resulting from a strang mation earthquake presents an adcfitional hazard for those living down-valley within the White or Green River valleys. The proposed � METRO facitities are ] ikety to encourage the urban development af these I valley bottom areas. � Land prices within the Green River Sewerage Area are quite tikely to con- tinue to increase as the pressures to deveiop the area, particularly with- , in the Green River Vailey, increase. Majar iandowners, develapers, and ' speccaiatars will be financially benefited by the construction af waste- water treatment systems, particularly sewage transmission facilities, and the induced urban developmer►t 1oca1 governments rnay allow ta accur. � Meanwhile, elderly landowners, and owners of small farms may be forced to relinquish their holdings due to the high praperty taxes resulting ' from sewer stimulated industrialization and land speculation. Thougfi iong-term employment within the Green River Valley may increase, since industriai and corrmercial deveiapment wiil be made passible, the development of proposed new ccxnmerciai shopping centers, encouraged by the constructian of the West Valley Interceptor, could adversely affect existing "dawntawn" shopping districts in Auburn and Kent. The tax base of Auburn, Kent, Algona, and Pacific should, however, increase in an overall sense, as urbanizatian accurs. The public costs associated with urban develapment witl be substantial . These costs of providing services, facilities, and utiiities to developing areas presently accrue to the taxpayer. A sharpiy increased deman� fo� additional public facilities wi11 occur if development within the Grten River Sewerage Area is allawed to take place in an uncantrolled manner. Additional congestian, for example, created by the increased development within the Green River area, is likely to overtax the existing circulatian systems, requiring the construction of new transportation facilities. ' The costs associated with controtting the increase in runof� and sLrface panding induced by urban deveiopmenC, are quite high. More oft�n ths�n � not, the puhlic pays for the castly pumping stations, channeltxation II � i55 I. I projects, conduits, and simiiar faciiities, which, in turn, primarily benefit industries, speculators, and large iand owners in the valtey bottom areas. Increased peak vaturnes of water, bath fiowing directly to the Green River and being pumped into it by the existing and proposed pumping plants, may even necessitate the raising af fihe river levees. In the final analysis, the pr�posed praject is presently justifiable due to the past planning efforts and resource commitments by Metrapolitan, State, and Federal agencies. R�serving long-term options by inacfiion or the implementation of an interim solution at this time wauld probably only aggravate the overali tong-term water quality conditions of the Green River Basin. Grawth would eontinue within much af the study area regardiess. Present reguiations limiting the extension af trunk, lateral , and collector sewers, and the use af saptic tanks in specific areas would, hawever, dictate where the growth could occur» Water qual �ty impacts resulting from the continued use of S@�tIC tanks within most of the Green River Sewerage Area wauld increase. Other adverse impacts would continue to occur even if the propased action is nat impiemented, because land use planning and related poiicy decisions (not the patentiat of the Auburn interGeptor} are creating the impetus for the continual degradation of the sewerage area environment. Further justification af the praposed action is provided by the fact that if any alternative to the Auburn Lagaon were implement�d, the restrictions upan the extensions of trunk, lateral , and collector sewers would prob- ahly be eliminated. The stimulation and encou�agemant of urban grawth provided by the avaRlability of these faci ] itPes, particularly in the undeveloped partions of the Green River Valley b�tween Kent and Auburn, wauld be no less than that provided by the propased action. tt woutd, for example, be relatively inexpensive to con�truct a trunk sewer systam through the Green River Vailey from a local treatmen� plant. These sewerage faciiitias would ailaw u�ban development to occur, just as if the propasad interGeptar were buiit. At the same time, th� �easible alternative soluttons (see S�ctian V11 ` af this reportl appear ta be less cost-effective tha� the proposed action, particularly if the Auburn Interceptor or a similar project is required in the future, due tp the water quality standa�ds and goals embodied by the Federal Water Ppllution Control Act Amendments of 1972. I � I I i5b � VI . IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The extent to which the proposed action curtails the diversity and range of beneficial uses of the environment has been described in the previous sections. These factors will not be significantly impacted by the con- struction or operation of the Auburn Interceptor. Only if urban growth, which is likely to be stimulated by the proposed action, occurs, will the diversity and range of beneficial uses of the Green River Sewerage Area environment be affected. The proposed action will involve the corrmitment of large amounts of renewable and nonrenewable resources. The requi�ed concrete pipe, for example, will be irretrievability committed to the proposed use, and, of course, time and energy will be utilized in the construction process. In its entirety, the construction and use of the Auburn Interceptor can be considered as basically irreversible due to the large commitment of resources involved, which makes removal or non-use of the Interceptor , unlikely. Projected changes in the aquatic ecosystem of the receiving waters are difficult to predict at this time. Based upon the research of METRO and Department of Ecology biologists and the preliminary results of the RIBCO studies, the proposed action, by itself, is not expected to have a significant effect upon the Duwamish River, Duwamish E�tuary, or Elliott Bay aquatic ecosystems. The upcoming perfection of the RIBCO study' s Estuary simulation model should provide detailed information concerning potential impacts upon the Estuary's ecosystem. The present use of the Auburn Interceptor's corridor varies along the proposed route. Most of the proposed corridor, however, consists of grass and weed covered uncultivated land adjacent to existing and proposed utility or transportation corridors. The proposed action will destroy or disturb the existing soil and plant communities of the proposed pipeline corridor, affecting apprqximately forty to fifty acres of land. This action is not, however, entirely irreversible, for after the proposed action's construction, the corridor could conceivable be replanted with native vegetation or, in places, even utilized for agricultural purposes. The proposed action will probably commit future generations to specific actions and resource uses regarding water quality management within the Green River Sewage Area. As EPA often notes, the commitment of resources to establish regional wastewater collection and treatment systems may be irreversible. The long-term cost-effectiveness of such regional systems, as determined by present guidelines, appears, however, to be a greater benefit than the costs, if any, which may be due to the irreversibility of these systems. Current plans, policies, and regulations, as well as most economic studies, including a recent evaluation of METRO's existing and proposed sewerage facilities, support the regional approach to water quality management. �57 � . The irreversible nature of the proposed action will aff�ct future water quality management policies and plans of the Green River 5ewerage Area in many ways. The Auburn (nterceptor, for eacample, must serve a targer service area than the existing Auburn sewerage system in order to justify its cost. The Auburn Interceptor has therefore been designed in such a way as to al ]ow future interceptar and trunk sewers within the Green River Sewerage Area to hook directly into the Auburn Interceptor in the � future. Alternative wastewater collaction and treatment systems serving � the sewerage area will probably be precluded by the presence of the i Auburn Interceptar. The praposed revisions to METRO's Comprehensive Plan, affecting Black Diamond, Lake Sawyer, and Enumclaw, which are associated with the proposed action, also are likety to narraw the optians availabie for solving the Black Diamand and Enumclaw Piateau's wastewater dispasal prablems. Though techno3ogy may develop new waste- I water co] lectian and treatment systems, new facilities within the sewerage area will probably continue to be built around the praposed interceptor facitity and the Renton Sewage Treatrnent Plant. The Auburn interceptor �ould possibly be utilixed as an element af some alternative wastewater management schemes for the Green River Sewerage . Area or Metropolitan Seattle area. For example, if it wouid becane beneficial in the future to "plug-in" advanced wastewater treatment plants for develaping pracess water for flushing the Green River andlar puwamish Estuary, the Auburn Interceptor could be utilized far "p]ugging in and out" and transporting the residual salids. Such alternative treatment configuratians, considerably diffarent than METRO's Cbmprehen- sive Plan, are, presently being evaluated as part of the RIBCO study. The future implementation of such schemes is, however, highly unlikely. The iong-term effects on tand use resulting from the impl�mentation of the proposed action have been d�scribed in previous sections. It shouid be noted that most present trends are likely ta continue regardless of the propased actian. Southwestern King County can be sxpected to grow in response to the natural expansion of the Seattle and Tacoma metrapalitan areas. This growth is probably irreversible. Providing adequate waste- water treatment and c411ectian systems to the Green River Sewerage Area at this time is likely to accelerate the urbanization process wiChin the sewerage area and direct growth to areas provided with sewerage facilities. The present character o� much af the sewerage area is likely ta be altered as a cansequence of its urban development. � i5g i I � I i ; � VII . A�TERNATIVES TO THE FROPOSED ACTEON � A. lntroductary Conunents 1 . Policy Constraints ' I Water quality planners for the Green River Basin are given iittle flexibility because of Department of Ecology policies and plans which require the retirement af the existing Auburn �agoon, and recent fnvironmental Protectian Agency interpretations of the Federal Water Pallution Contral Act Arriendments of 1972 which state that constructian grants for treatment facilities utilizing any lagoon system without supplemental treatment components will not be approved. The construction of faci1ities which would terminate the use of the Auburn Lagoon or, with Department of Ecoiogy approval , the construction of supplemental treatment facilities which woutd be capab}e of improving the Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant's effluent to an acceptable level are the anly legal altarnatives. Environm�nta] Protectian Agency cost-effectiveness and regianali- zatian regulatians and guidelines lsmit the passible alternatives to an even greater degree. In fact, the proposed actian may be the only alternative which meets long-term cost-effectiveness standards and confarms to regionalizatian concepts. Furthermore, the Auburn Interceptor is and has been a part of the Seafitle Metropalitan Area`s water quality management plans for over a decade: The .Rentan Sewage Treatr�ent Plant and METRO facilities in the Kent vicinity have been designed to accommodate the Auburn sewage system's wastes after interception by the Auburn interceptor. These past actia�s and existing palicies, regulations and guidelines, as well as many additional factors, seem to limit the possible aiter- natives to solving the existing water quality problem associated with the Auburn Sewage Treatment System, ta the construcfiion and operation af the Auburn Interceptar. Though other facilities wautd solve existing prablems, resource corrxnitments and decisians made during the past fifteen ycars accarding to a variety of pT��ns have created a situation in which onty the Auburn Interceptar appears ta fulfill a] 1 requirements. Only the Auburn Interceptor ar a similar interceptor project is likely ta be funded, constructed, and placed in operation. Palicy revisions ar changes by Federal , State, regional , and local agencies could affect the feasibility af the design and engineering alternatives considered. For example, if water quality criteria w�re changed, resulting in more stringent standards, same alterna- tives currently feasible would not remain sa, because the effluent produced would not meet the revised standards. The Enviranmental Protection Agency's pending interpretations of "best practicable" and recent interpretatians of "best available" water pollutian control technologies will significantly affect the feasibility of alternatives to the Auburn Interceptor. It is quite likety that these �oming inter- pretations wiii limit the number af possible alternatives to a consider- able degree. A11 short-term solutions witl probab)y be a) iminated. I59 � __ _ .__., � I I Nuroerous potential palicy decisions affecting land use development aiso affect the feasibility af alternatives. How regional and local planning canflicts are resolved, and how private developers and large land owners decide to develop their land, will influence future waste loadings and the design of sewerage systems. Policy decisions and administrative reguiations and interpretatians regarding funding pracedures and the economic analysis of proposed waste treatment projects also affect the feasibitity of alternatives. The EPA guidelines dealing with the cast-effectiveness af projects described in canstruction grant applications are particularly impartant. Revisions to these guidelines could substantially affect the passible implementation of alternatives. Alternatives which are not presently cost-effective may becarne cost-effective if casts other than direct economic costs were considered. 2. Context tn addition to the Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant, mar�y other existing pollution sources exist within the Green River Sewerage Area, Some af these create mare serious conditions than the pollution created by the Auburn Lagoon. Therefore, despite the existing constraints upan the selection of alternatives concerning the Auburn Lagoon's pollution, alternatives to the proposed action witt be analyzed in the context of the entire Green River 5ewerage Area. � Due to the many t�chniques available for call�cting, treating, and ( disposing of wastewater, many possible courses of actian are patentially apen to water guality planners witF+in the sewerage iarea, if existing constraints are disregarded. If these numerous callection, treatment, and disposal systems are cambined into "packages" or total collection-treatment-disposal systems, the number of possible alternative wastewater management systems which wauld solve exist�ng and future water quality problems w�thin the Green River Sewerage Area reaches astranamicat prapartians. There- fare in this re ort the alternatives to the propased action are ! , P , evaluated individually as callection, treatment, or disposal tech- niques, rather than as a portian of a complete wastewater management "package". Mast af the individual alternatives for portions of the total wastewater management process can be combined with alternatives I for other portions of the entire wastewater management process. In I this manner a number of alternative wastewater management systems can be created. All atternatives to tha propased actian which have been suggested by individuals interviewed as a part of the assessrnent process have been included in this repart. � 3. The Evaluative Process � Most of the alternatives to be evaluated have been subdivided inta J either short-term interim sotutions ta existing water quality probiems in the Green River Sewerage Area, or long-term solutions. Interim salutians deal effectively with water quality problems far a periad of five to fifteen years, depending upon the efficiency of e hod and its cost. Durin this time, the treatment ar collection m t 9 160 � studies by many governmental agencies could explore long-term solutions to problems affecting the Green River Sewerage Area's environment and its inhabitants. Existing conflicts between the plans and policies of various governmental agencies could be resolved during this time period. If no growth or only limited growth were to occur within the sewerage area, short-term alternatives could prove to be effective long-term facilities. A sixty-year time horizon is used to evaluate long term alternatives. In light of the number of alternatives to be considered, the alter- natives will be evaluated within the context of the following categories: - The "no-action" alternative. - Individual source treatment systems. - Local short-term (interim) collection and treatment systems. - Short-term reduction of volumes utilizing existing facilities. - Regional short-term (interim) alternatives. - Land disposal systems. - Locat long-term alternatives. , - , Regional long-term alternatives. - Administrative and policy alternatives. Individual source treatment systems are comprised of processes and techniques wF�icE� treat wastes at each individual pollutant source. Local collection and treatment systems utilize one or more treat- ment plants within the sewerage area. These plants woutd form the components of a "regionalized waste treatment system". Regional alter- natives rely primarity on a regional treatment facility. Administrative, policy, and regulatory measures considered include those which could be utilized as a part of a water quality management scheme in alleviating the present and expected water quality problems within the Green River Sewerage Area. B. The "No Action" Alternative - Continued Utilization of the Existing Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant and Treatment Process 1 . Description Continuation of the operation of the existing Auburn Sewage Treat- ment Plant which currently provides slightly inadequate secondary treatment, due primarily, to its occasional overloaded condition and its lack of supplemental treatment facilities. 2. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Alternative The enrichment of the lower Green River by the Auburn Lagoon's effluent would continue. The present effluent is oxygen-demanding 161 and is suspected of creating conditions during low flow periods which occasionally exceed the dissolved oxygen standards set by the Department of Ecology. Summer low flow periods would con- tinue to experience depressed dissolved oxygen levels, perhaps affecting the aquatic ecosystems within the Green River. The input of nutrients into the Green River couid also add to the accumulation of pollutants in the Duwamish Estuary, thereby resulting in a water quality problem in that location. The DOE ban on the extension of Auburn's sewers would remain in effect, prohibiting the provision of adequate sewage collection and treat- , ment facilities to upstream point sources of pollutants, including the Auburn Packing Plant and the numerous septic tanks in the sewerage area. The existing lagoon conditions would also continue to limit growth and development within the Auburn area. It is certain that some costs have been imposed upon the greater Auburn area, as develop- ment has been affected by Department of Ecology and public health agency restrictions on the extension of trunk and collector sewers and the use of septic tanks. This moratorium on growth is, for the most part, due to the inadequate treatment system currently utilized by Auburn. These costs of "no development" are very hard to quantify, but most likely are considerable. Modifications to or the retirement of the Auburn Lagoon appear to be inevitable. The continuation of the existing system only makes� such modifica- tions or new treatment facilities much more costly. The Auburn Interceptor, for example, will cost nearly one million dollars more to construct in 1974, than it was estimated to cost if constructed in 1972, as originally scheduled. Estimated to cost $4,775,000 in 1970, the estimated costs rose to $6,685,000 for construction during 1972-1975, and reached $8,600,000 under 1974 bidding conditions and estimates. Beneficial environmental impacts resulting from the continued operation of the present Auburn Lagoon also occur. Unrestrained urban development, which may be stimulated by adequate treatment facitities in the area, could create air quality, visual , economic, biologic, and social impacts, as well as aggravate the water quality problems within the entire Green River Sewerage Area. 3. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Alternative Be Im lemented. P The suspected existing and potential impacts, described in previous sections, resulting from the use of the present Auburn Sewage Treat- ment Plant would continue. , 4. Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity. The continued use of the present system would continue to create both long-term and short-term impacts upon the environment without enhancement of long-term economic productivity. However, termina- 162 I __ J � ting the use of the Auburn Lagoon could aliow rapid urban develop- I ment ta occur in the Auburn area, if the local governments desire ` such growth. The long-term quality of much of the Auburn area's enviranment may then be significant}y degraded. j 5. Irreversible and Irretrievab]e Canrnitments af Resources Which Would ' Be lnvolved in the Proposed Alternative Should It Be Implemented I The resource commitments for this "na-action" alternative are � derived from the initiat poliey decisions which were made ta imptement the present system. ' 6. Feasibility of the "No-Actian" Alternative , This alternative is not feasible, for it doas not and would not , produce an effluent of acceptabte quatity, meeting State and , Federal standards. By .#uly 1 , 1977', aIl sewage treatment plants in ; operation must pravide a minimum of secondary treatment. EPA inter- pretatians of this requirement appear to exciude any lagoons with- out supplemental treatment from the "secondary" classification. The present effluent of the Auburn Lagaor� does nat meet EPA's recently formulated standards which specify the effluent quality required to meet EPA's definition af "secondary treatment." The existing lagoan will certainly not meet the Federai Water Patlution Contro} Act Amendments of 1972 goals for Ju1y l , 1�9$3, requiring I the utilizatian of '"best practicable" treatment, arrd 19$5, which calls for the elimination of all pollutant discharges inta all navigable waters. This alternative is in oppasition to the water quality management plans and goals set forth by the Washington State Department of Ecalogy, METRO's Comprehensive Plan, and the Puget Sound Governmental Conference's Interim Regional Development Plan. All suggest the retirement af the existing Auburn Lagoon. 7he continued aperation of the Auburn Sewage Treatrnent Plant wouid nat pravide a cost-effective salutian for meeting exi�ting and future water guality goals and requirements. Eventually, the current lagoon system must be madified or phased out completely. The Department of Ecalogy has even threatened ta utilize its enforcement powers, forcing such actions to occur, if delays in the fulfiilment of the State Implementation Ptan schedule continue to plague the water quality management situation in the Auburn ares. C. individual Source Treatment Systems 1 . Descriptian A number of individual source treatment systems could potentially be utilized within the Green River Sewerage Area. These variaus possibilities invotve many similar environmental , technical , ar economic consideratians. The fallowing individual saurce treat- ment systems will be discussed: i } septic tanks, ii ) an-site packaged treatment plants, iii) chemical treatment plants and �b3 _ _ , residual concentrate collection systems, and iv) waste compaction and collection. Individual source treatment systems would allow growth to take place within the Green River Sewerage Area without creating an additional waste load burden for the existing Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant. Individual source treatments also do not require the construction of extensive sanitary sewer systems, thereby eliminating the need for the proposed action or other proposed METRO facilities within much of the sewerage area. � The most common type of individual source treatment system consists of a septic tank and drainfield. Septic tanks are underground tanks in which the organic matter of continuously flowing sewage is disintegrated by bacterial action. This is the simplest, and at least for the indefinite period during which the system operates properly, the most convenient and satisfactory method of sewage disposal within the confines of an individual lot, where suitable soil and groundwater conditions occur. A second possible individual source treatment system involves on- site packaged treatment plants, which treat sanitary wastes at each home or within neighborhoods using advanced treatment facil- ities. Wastewater from these plants is typically discharged into water bodies, the soil , or storm water collection systems. A third possible individual source treatment sys,tem involves chemical treatment and the collection of concentrated residuals. These systems would utilize small packaged chemical treatment plants at either individual homes or at clusters of residences. The resultant residual material would be concentrated periodically and collected, much tike solid wastes. The liquid effluent would be disposed of in drain fields or recycled. A fourth individual source treatment system involves waste compaction and collection, and utilizes compacting units for the storage of the solid portions of sanitary wastes after the separation of the liquid and solid components of sewage. These septic wastes would be routinely collected, much like solid wastes. This exotic process has been investigated by European sanitary engineers, primarily as a method to enhance the operation of septic tanks. After centri- fuging or filtration, compactors compress the wastes and store I them until collected. � 2. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Alternative In light of the technical and economic feasibility aspects of the various possible individual source treatment systems, the discussion of environmental impact is primarily directed to the septic tanks , which are the most feasible of the individual source treatment systems. The impacts resulting from septic tank systems are characteristic of most individual source treatment systems. 164 The use of septic tanks within the Green River Sewerage Area may prove to be quite suitable, particularly as an interim measure, where climatic, geologic, pedologic, hydrologic, and topo- graphic conditions are favorable, though the satisfactory period of use for septic tanks evaluated by the Untied States Public Health Service in intensive nationwide tests 6etween 1959 and 1963, for example indicated 100% failure within a twelve-year period. Within the Green River Sewerage Area, including the Auburn area (more than forty percent of Auburn's residents utilize septic tank wastewater treatment and disposal systems) , septic tanks are the predominant form of sewage treatment facilities. In many areas the densities of development have, however, exceeded the assimil- ative capacity of the land resources, primarily due to the con- struction of the majority of these septic tank systems in unsuit- abte sites. Degradation of groundwater and surface water quality has resulted, and the nitrogen and phosphorous discharged to the land has been utilized as nutrients by plants in many of the drift plain lakes, stimulating plant growth and eutrophic conditions. Septic tank discharge can be beneficial under certain conditions, stimulating the growth of desirable plants, including agricultural crops and trees. The drainfield discharge also maintains natural hydrologic conditions at a more optimal level than those resulting from the transportation of wastewater by pipetine to a distant treatment'plant. Stream flows, particularly in smaller creeks and streams, can be maintained near natural levels during low summer flows, though BOD and bacterial loadings may increase, as drain- field discharge recharges the groundwater table. Properly sited, constructed, and maintained, septic tanks would allow growth to take place within the Green River Sewerage Area without creating an additional waste water load burden for the existing Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant. The use of septic tanks within the study area is a viable alternative to the construction of trunk sewers and interceptors beyond the Green River Valley, if certain conditions were met. Examples of such conditions include: a) Allowing the use of septic tanks only in those areas which are inherently suita6le for septic tank disposal and treatment facilities. Large portions of the Black Diamond Plateau, in particular, are suitadle, ifi growth is controlled and densities are not allowed to exceed certain limits in areas near streams, wells, and springs. b) The elimination of septic tanks using a phased retirement sys- tem from those areas which do not allow septic tanks to func- tion properly. 165 I c) The strict enforcement of a program of periodic servicing and sludge and scum removal . Enactment of such regulations would, in themselves, significantly enhance the present water quality of the Green River Sewerage Area by greatly increasing the effectiveness of the many septic tanks wlthin the area. If, by installing sewers or similar sewage transportion facilities, for example, quality and aesthetic quality of many of the upland lakes would probably increase significantly. Increases in the , recreational use of these waters could be expected, as could the anticipated use of these waters by a greater diversity of animal 1 i fe. 3. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Alternative Be Implemented Unavoidable impacts that would occur with this alternative are both social and physical in nature. The social impact involves limitations which would be imposed upon the types and locations of urban growth. Adverse impacts upon the physical environment would primarily occur during an interim period of time during which presently improperly sited septic tanks are phased out of use. 4. Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity � Control�led use of septic tanks in suitable areas would not fore- close future options to future generations. However, since such a system often involves investment by family units, the financial burden of switching to another system at a later time may be borne by those least capable of assuming such costs. 5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would Be Involved with the Proposed Action Should It Be Imple- mented Indirectly, the controlled use of septic tanks in suitable areas may result in easing the demand for sanitary sewers in those areas, particularly increasing the practicality of utilizing an interim solu- tion to the existing Auburn Lagoon problem. This, in turn, would enable the land use conflicts within the study area to be resolved before irreversible resource commitments occurred and created the basis for future Green River Valley land use patterns. The septic tanks, themselves, of course, represent an irretrievable and irreversible resource commitment. 6. Feasibility of the Various Alternative Individual Source Treat- ment Systems " a) Septic Tanks 166 i . Technical Feasibility The use of septic tanks within much of the study area is a technically feasible alternative to the construction of sewer systems for those areas suitable for septic tank use, at least as an interim solution. Land use and/or other enforcement regulations would be necessary, however, to create a properly functioning septic tank system. It would be technically feasible to phase out improperly sited exist- ing polluting septic tanks through the use of administrat'ive or policy actions and/or the installation of sewers or similar sewage transporting facilities. ii . Economic Feasibility Septic tanks represent a relatively inexpensive means of providing adequate wastewater treatment in suitable con- trolled situations. However, due to their often short- lived nature, most septic tanks have to be replaced or relieved by municipal sewer systems within ten to twelve years. This imposes duplicate costs upon homeowners. The proper maintenance and cleaning programs also are costly to individual homeowners. b) On-Site Packaged Treatment Plants � i . � Technical Feasibility This alternative is not technically feasible at this time, though continued improvements in small packaged treatment plants, often utilized at ski resorts or recreational developments, have produced advanced treatment facilities which may be useful , particularly as interim facilities in areas such as Black Diamond. The many point sources pro- duced by a system utilizing many small advaned treatment facilities would, however, be contrary to present plans, policies, and regulations. Even though advanced treatment facilities are now available in inexpensive packaged units ($2,000 to $10,000 for a single family residential treatment plant) , it is not believed to be feasible to serve the needs of thousands of people with such facilities. Septic tanks, however, do serve thousands of people in southern King County, and provide a minimal degree of treatment relative to that provided by small individual advanced treatment plants. Standard residential septic tansk typically cost between $500 and $1000, not that much less than the most inexpensive packaged advanced treatment plants. The technical feasibility of the widespread use of packaged advanced treatment plants remains negative, however. 167 ii . Economic Feasibility This alternative is probably not economically feasible. c) Chemical Treatment and Residual Concentrate Collection i . Technical Feasibility Chemical treatment systems as described above are still experimental . The utilization of such facilities as a local or even neighborhood scale is not feasible at this time. Though quite suitable for large boats and airplanes, they have not been proven to be suitable for residential use. ii . Economic Feasibility This alternative is not feasible. d) Waste Compaction and Collection i . Technical Feasibility This alternative is not technically feasible at this time, and should be considered experimental . � ii . Economic Feasibility This alternative is not feasible. p, Local Short-term Collection and Treatment Systems-linproving the Existing Treatment Process Alternatives involving the updating of the existing treatment process of the Auburn Lagoon can be considered in conjunction with the alter- natives discussed in the following section, concerning means to cut down volumes or lessen peak flows of waste water flowing into the pre- sent Auburn treatment facility. Although these two types of alterna- tives can be viewed as one combined alternative, they are separated in this discussion because the resulting impacts are different. 1 . Description The following local short-term collection and treatment systems I involving the updating of the existing treatment processes will be discussed: a) Adding to and/or modifying the mechanical aerators in the exist- ing lagoons to increase biological oxidation. This alternative is presentl•� being implemented by thc �ity ci �,uburn. b) The addition of a final filtration process utilizing a multi- media filter or microscreening unit to cut down BOD and suspended solids in the effluent. 168 c) Addition of an activated sludge process and sludge treatment plant to increase the breakdown and oxidation of organic ma- terial . d) The addition of one or more aerobic lagoons to the present site to be aerated mechanically. The existing system could then be utilized as a storage facility for toxic wastes or as "polish- ing cells", providing additional secondary treatment. ?. Environmental Impact of the Pr�^��.^.d �,lternative The alternative of adding to and/or modifying the existing aeration facilities of the Auburn Lagoon would increase the dissolved oxygen concentrations within the effluent and decrease sludge deposition within the lagoon. The resultant increase in treatment efficiency would probably be minimal . As an interim measure, however, this inexpensive alternative could be expected to improve the water quality of the lagoon effluent , lowering its BOD load to levels acceptable as "secondary treatment". Suspended solids would continue to be dis- charged into the Green River in unacceptable concentrations. The enrichment of the Green River by the nutrient load of the lagoon effluent would continue. The impacts of this alternative upon other components of the Green River Sewerage Area should be negligible, for the Department of Ecology's ban on sewer extensions would pro- bably remain in effect, and no new interceptors , �timulating urban growth, would be constructed. The City of Auburn's ongoing implementation of a version of this alternative, adding two or more aerators to the first stage aerobic lagoons, will increase dissolved oxygen levels and decrease sledge deposition, resulting in increased treatment efficiencies. The treatment capacity of the Auburn Lagoon will also be increased by this action, allowing urban growth within presently sewered areas to continue. See Figure 34. The environmental impacts of adding a final filtration process to the existing lagoon are quite similar to those of the preceding alternative. The quality of the effluent from the lagoon would, however, be substantially improved. Typically, eighty to over ninety percent of the BOD and suspended solids are removed by a final filtration system. These results are significantly better than those which will probably occur utilizing the additional aeration facilities. Improved aeration facilities will also not result in treatment efficiencies as great as those resulting from final filtration systems. Filtration systems can also substantially reduce nutrient loads, often removing over eighty percent of the phosphorus and nitrogen in the effluent, depending on the chemical form of the dissolved nutrients. Presently, the most harmful pollutant discharged into the Green River by the Auburn Lagoon is its relatively high nutrient load. Impacts of this alternative upon components of the environment other than water quality should be minimal . This alternative, by itself, would not allow a significant amount of additional growth to occur in the Auburn area. A final filtration system wou)d not increase the treatment capacity of the existing lagoon; only the quality of its effluent would be markedly increased. 16g . � � � � �---- - - -- --� � �Q� 5"T1��"t'4.W. � (30"Ot)'rFA�.� � E�I�LU�N'r ��l . SfRucrv R��'�.- - ----�---- - -' -/ � � , C � ; . � �, ' `�{ `� � . . � �� ... � ::: { �\\� `�-ONb STa.(�t� � A'��0�!L G�LL-5 � �.�!� ...Q .. p � .: 11L ....� ... � � � � v :,� ( it�a�u�e�1 (�► o�cre51 (4.� N 'I . tu a►�►'c5> ��c c�-zoo� ' :: � ' .. ly. �� o .:: Z :.:: � �� :�:: f-°-- , .... � �� :::: j ._.. � i �::: .� �idd.,��iorw I Aera-I-o►� � _-� �t�einq ins+��i�� t�-r sfi� -- ��,��P,�IzAI��G�a.LS � I � II i ::�_ ��X�stirw� � iN�t-vENT _... 0 floatl-i� �-t�U�fiVi� ;�: �rott�or5 O �� HOv :.:: ��__ - R�JD lAb E��IST1��'C AUBUR� �' TREAT� �E��'T PLA��'T fig. 34 The utilization of activated sludge treatment techniques and sludge treatment facilities in conjunction with lagoon treatment systems usually greatly increase treatment efficiencies and reduce detention times and the surface area necessary for operation. Overall re- ductions of BOD and suspended solids in the Auburn Lagoon's effluent would probably range from 85 to 95 percent, based on the performance of activated sludge lagoon systems in other areas. Modifying the existing Auburn Lagoon system by adding an activated sludge process, would, however, entail major interruptions and modifications of the existing treatment processes and structures. The addition of an activated sludge process to the existing Auburn Lagoon's treatment system would allow some growth and development to occur in the Auburn area for the lagoon's effective capacity would be increased. The shortened retention periods associated with activated sludge- aerated lagoon systems (one half to two days for a six foot deep, three to ten acre tagoon) allows greatly increased volumes of wastewater to be treated effectively. The major environmental impacts associated with lagoon expansion alternatives would affect water quality and land resources. Water quality would be benefited by the higher degree of treatment received by the Auburn system's watewater. Increasing the physical capacity of the existing lagoon system would permit the aerated lagoon's to continually operate at optimal capacities. Sudden large influxes of wastewater would no longer affect the quality� of treatment provided by the Auburn Lagoon. Present BOD loads could be reduced by forty to eighty percent by the use of expanded lagoon facilities. Utilizing the existing tagoons as "polishing cells", which would retain the suspended solids carried over from the additional aerated lagoons, would produce an effluent which would be quite acceptable by current water quality standards. These cells wo�ld provide for the biological stabilization of cap- tured solids and for the further reduction of the BOD of the waste water prior to final disposal . Effective removal of suspended solids should be realized at retention times of 6 to224 hours and at hydraulic surface loadings of 500 gallons/ft. /day or less. Land resources would of course, be directly impacted by expanded lagoon facilities, and since this alternative would build additional treatment capacities into the Auburn system, growth and development in the Auburn area could occur. The possible impacts of such land use changes are noted in earlier sections dealing with the Auburn Interceptor's possible impacts. , 3. Adverse impacts which Cannot be Avoided Should the Alternative be Implemented The alternatives which update the existing treatment process are associated with few, if any, unavoidable adverse impacts. Additional or modified aeration facilities and the use of final filtration systems , in particular, have few, if any, associated adverse impacts. The use of an activated sludge treatment process or the expansion of the existing lagoon system would require between four and twenty- 171 four acres of land near the existing Auburn Lagoon's site. The use of the land near the existing lagoon by either of these alternatives would not significantly impact any natural habitats or wetlands, or human settlements or structures. 4. Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity. Local short-term uses of the environment largely involve the use of land resources in the vicinity of the present treatment plant should the alternatives of expanded lagoon facilities or activated sludge treatment be implemented. The other alternative means of updating the existing facilities would involve no additional short-term uses of the environment. However, since the various alternatives in- volving updating the existing system are, individually, only short-term or interim treatment methodologies, long-term economic and urban growth of the Green River Sewerage Area may be limited. 5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Committments of Resources Which Would be Involved with h Pro o d A ion Should it b Im lemented. , t e p se ct e p ' Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments of local short- term alternatives primarily consist of the materials required to implement the alternative treatment methodologies. The land necessary to effectuate some of these alternatives also would repre- sent an irreversible and irretrievable resource commitment. The irreversibility of the commitment of land for additional lagoon facilities or a studge treatment plant can, however, only be con- sidered in relative terms. Land which would be available for such purposes is likely to be used for urban purposes at some future time. The commitments must be analyzed in terms of previous policy decisions to urbanize, which are probably irreversible. The local short-term alternatives probably do not represent an irreversible or irretrievable approach to wastewater management. The phased implementation of various unit processes, responding to strict water quality standards or increases in growth, would be allowed by most local short-term alternatives. These alternatives would be a step forward "best-practicable treatment" and the 1985 goal of zero-discharge. 6. Feasibility of the Various Local Short-term Alternatives Which Update the Existing Treatment Process a) Adding to or modifying the existing aeration facilities. i . Technical Feasibility The four aerators presently in the two first stage aerobic lagoons are not operating as effectively as possible and could be easily modified to operate in a much more efficient manner. Improving the aerators has been contemplated by the City of Auburn. The ongoing addition of two more aerators to the aerated lagoons will increase dissolved oxygen levels and decrease sludge deposition, increasing 172 I _ � the treatment efficiency of the lagoon. The addition o� more than two aerators to these first two aerobic lagoons would have .only a minimal effect upon the efficiency of the existing system. Placing aerators in the second set of aerobic lagoons is feasible, but would probably have little, if any effect upon the quality of treatment, due to the excessive slud e de ositions occurrin i 9 p g n these ae robic cells. Addin add' ' g itional aerators to the first set of lagoons would be a feasible and simple undertaking. ii . Economic Feasibility ' This alternative involves the lowest capital costs and probably the lowest operations and maintenance costs of all technically feasible alternatives. It also has the shortest project life of all conceivable alternatives. i Modified or enlarged aerators are, however, ca able of P being integiated into at least two long-term wastewater treatment systems. This flexibility is a valuable feature. The implementation of most forms of this alternative could be accomplished for approximately $15,000 to $20,000. b) The Addition of a Final Filtration Process i . ,Technical Feasibility Final filtration of the Auburn Lagoon's effluent could utilize any of a variety of processes which separate suspended and/or dissolved solids from water. According to a local consulting i engineer familiar with the Auburn La oon's existin � g condition, a filtration unit, utilizing a mul.ti-media solution of sand coal , garnet, and gravel to filter the effluent before its � discharge into the Green River, would greatly improve the operating efficiency of the existing system. This filter would significantly reduce both BOD and suspended solids by large enough margins to meet and probably exceed all applicable existing water quality standards. A preliminary estimate volunteered by this engineer, a consultant to METRO, suggested the use of a filter of approximately 900 square feet. Since most filter areas do not exceed 800-1000 square feet per filter unit, only one unit would be required. The separation of solids from the Auburn Lagoon's effluent could also be accomplished by using such processes as Lamella Separators, microscreeners, ultrafiltration cells, diatomaceous earth filters , or other supplemental treatment techniques. All would produce an effluent meeting EPA's requirements. Microscreeners, could be utilized as a final filtration treatment technique at the Auburn Lagoon without requiring major modifications to the existing treat- ment plant. Some form of holding pond would, however, be required. Microscreening has been suggested by some engineers � 73 familiar with the Auburn Lagoon as being the most technically feasible supplemental treatment process, due to the composition of the algae in the lagoon's effluent (primarily very fine green algae) .. Sand filter media could possibly plug up, decreasing the treatment efficiency of multi-media filtration units. The increased use of daphne, shrimp, or other crustacean "algae-feeders" in the summer months could atso eliminate a portion of the algae within the lagoon's effluent. Because BOD removals are a function of the solids composition, directly related to the amount of algae in the ffluent of the Auburn Lagoon (algae make up almost all of the suspended solids discha�ged by the Auburn Lagoon) , these "feeding-filters" could, under controlled conditions, reduce both BOD and suspended solids to acceptable levels, according to DOE officials. At the least, the controlled use of "feeding- fiiters" makes the final filtration processes mentioned above more effective and more feasible by reducing the algae within the effluent. Operations and maintenance costs would also be lowered by reduced algal concentrations. ' Any of the final filtration processed would remove or I�' reduce algal concentrations in the effluent, producing a low oxygen-demanding high quality effluent.� All are .technically feasible. � ii . Economic Feasibility Based on the present average daily volume of wastewater dis- charged by the Auburn Lagoon, a microscreening unit costing less than $40,000 would be adequate. The capital costs of I a multi-media filter of sufficient size range between II 0 000 and 60 000. Units ca able of treatin the anti- ! $5 , $ , P 9 cipated average daily flows of the Auburn area in 1980 would i'I cost approximately $160,000 (microscreening) to $170,000 , (multi-media filtration) . Relatively low operations and !, maintenance costs are associated with both of these supple- I � mental treatment processes, with microscreening units typi- , cally requiring lower operations costs than multi-media filter units. Ultrafiltration cells, diatomaceous earth �i filters, and other more exotic final filtration processes ' are accompanied by extremely high costs. These processes are currently competitive with microscreening and multi- ' media filtration only in specialized situations. All final ' filtration facilities have advantages associated with their ' flexibility; they could be easily integrated into various local long-term treatment alternatives. ', A � c) dding an Activated Sludge Treatment Process � i . Technical Feasibility 'I 174 Modifying the Auburn Lagoon by adding an activated sludge treatment process would require major modifications to the existing treatment plant. During the construction of this alternative the existing treatment process would be inter- rupted, possibly affecting the entire Auburn area. An interim treatment facility may be required. The land required by the addition of an activated sludge treatment facility, adjacent to the Auburn Lagoon, is, however, presently owned by the City of Auburn's SewerDDivision, which increases the feasibility of this alternative. ii . Economic Feasibility This alternative requires high capital costs associated with the necessary modifications to the existing treatment plant and construction of a sludge treatment plant. Excluding the possible construction of an interim treatment plant during the modification of the Auburn Lagoon, this alternative would probably cost over $400,000, based on the existing average daily flows. A plant capable of treating the anticipated average daily flows of 1980 would be likely to exceed $1 ,000,000 in capital costs. d) Lagoon Expansion Alternatives • i . Technical Feasibility The major problem associated with the present Auburn sewage treatment system is its inefficiency due to occasional and �otentiat overl -�ding ond its inability to absorb continued urban growth in its service area, and not the inefficiency of the lagoon method of treatment. The construction of addi- tional lagoons to handle the overload tne projected waste load increases over a specified interim period is a- tech- nically feasible alternative to the proposed action. At least two types of expansion are possible: (1) expansion of the present two-stage stabilization pond with essentially the same process but an enlarged capacity or (2) construction of additional lagoons of smaller size with mechanical aeration facilities to increase the treatment capacity. The feasibility of expanding the present lagoon is question- able at this time due to the requirements for a large parcel of land for expansion (essentially double the present size) and the general unavailability of land near the existing treatment facility. Currently there exists only ten to sixteen acres of land at the treatment site available for immediate expansion. A1l vacant land surrounding the Auburn Lagoon is either privately owned or leased to the Municipal Airport Authority by the Sewer Division, except for a slx acre parcel irnnediately south of the Auburn Lagoon, which is still owned by t�e Sewer Division. � 75 The second method of expansion is more feasible, yet also contingent upon the availability of land. According to the 1968 Engineering Report of the Auburn Treatment System, one alternative treatment system, which would adequately treat the projected volumes of wastewater from the Auburn area in 1980, would require approximately 24 acres for aerated lagoons. This amount of land is about two-thirds again as much land as the existing lagoon system occupies. The existing lagoons would be utilized as "polishing cells" if this alternative were implemented. See Figure 35. Land availability is the major problem conf ronting the , implementation of either of these lagoon expansion schemes. , The required land would have to be purchased from private ', owners, or perhaps , some of the leased land could be returned to the Sewer Division of Auburn through negoiations with ', the Airport Authority. The vacant area south of the Auburn ��i Lagoon is not and wilt probably never become a part of the ' Auburn Airport. ', ii . Economic Feasibility Expanding the existing lagoon facilities would require at least 24 acres of land in order to adequately treat the projected 1980 wastewater volumes of Auburn, according to previous studies of this alternative. Purchasing the necessary land from private owners would require a rather large sum of money (approximately $350,000 to $450,000) . When evaluated over a 5 to 15 year interim period, this , alternative is moderately expensive. The possibility of , acquiring free or relativety inexpensive land from the Air- I port Authority does, however, exist. This alternative is ' � capable of being integrated into most long-term alternatives , updating the existing lagoon's treatment process in accor- ', dance with more stringent water quality requirements. I E. Short-term Reduction of Volumes Utilizing Existing Facilities As mentioned previously, this category of alternatives can be con- sidered in conjunction with the alternatives in the previous section for ' maximum effectiveness. These alternatives are grouped together because of their similarity in purpose and impact. Alone, none of them are ' presented as a solution, but any one of them may constitute a part of an effective wastewater management strategy. The volumes of treated effluent discharged into the Green River by any local treatment facility could be reduced (proportionally) by the utilization of effluent storage facilities and the phased discharge of effluent. The volumes of untreated wastewater flowing into a local treatment facility could, be reduced by the use of properly sited and � maintained community source treatment systems and/or the separation of storm sewers from sanitary sewers. 16 7 �� . .. 30�+, 5-r. N�(. -r- � ch�orc�. i GonrD�G� i .. TAf1K� 8%Y�1'S110' i Ov�'�Ol�� .. 30� � 30.. __J . i--- �"--- I r•— ---� �-------- ��----—��5 .. I � —� --- ' ' ----li � i i � ' � ii � i .. � � i , � i i i � i � i i � i -• i I i i ' � � ��—�74�.5�'IY� C0�✓-�1"�i��G�1� i � .. � i � i PoliSE+�� i i i i _' � j ii Pord i , � 1 � � i �I I � I � � � � �� I f � � �� j � � � I j ��\ I I i I II t.. � i ��\ ��T►Nb ��, ; � .� i � \` l-�(�Oot�� ;� ' � li �" I� � � �!. i ' �� i i � i -�7 ; i �� ;�� i � �x�sl�dil� to �Ytmoved I � �� i� i � � � i (Iba�,►reSl �\; (Ib a�u�e51�� , � � i, i � � \� �' � � 'L-�'�' � i i Po l i yh i nq, �� ,'' ' ; � R�F�r��l �fv4t�� ittilV�t�1 �. . � ,-� ' i � � P�nd `��.%' � � i em�ewu� hold�ih� po►� , ,- � � � � ��- � ; %�' �:• (3 a�rGs1 � , �t i � .� ,. , i� .. � , ZI � ' ;; ';� � � y�v I. � � ° i i �� I i 'i QA�iS Z-. � i ti� �% (3 au�e5> ��., ;,�� x�s1Tr� pv►v�p s-�'toV� � �� . `t � .. � ; �� ` .� W� }"' � � --� -- -- -- --- ��'�1�Z� ' ��__----- � � � �• - -- - -- - - t�ll1'IIJFs�Z"�. -- ` �_____ ______ , L � . -� � L'XY3f1� aJb � .. . ` ' �''^-�M��.lno�nicecl aera-to►�s �* �. o 0 0 ��- Q �br-�� . i N A�RA�D LAbG�N � . C�o.c.re�� ((D �.creyl �.. : U O O ' �.�.. � s'�., comrninv+r.�r �� !� � � _-, ' ��r►��o�� A., "ra�.� ae��rA'�� '" C C� O O . ((n ac.resl �-- � (o �r.rc5) .. �� O O O I�I � ., �`_ r . .�J N . �Ie I�-�-�' A PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANT EXP�ANSION SCHEME � fig. 35 1 l . Description The first alternative involves the storage of treated effluent in sealed facilities such as tanks (above or below the surface) during periods when the Gre�n River's flows are too low to adequately handle the quantities of wastes in the effluent. The stored effluent would be discharged at a later date during higher river flows when the Green River is better able to accommodate and dilute larger i effluent discharges. The operation of the storage and discharge facility would basically maintain a standard proportion of effluent relative to the volume of river water. The most practical storage facilities would consist of vertical containers and pumping facilities, such as the closed tanks utilized for bulk oil storage. Such fac- ilities would utilize much less space than conventional lagoon storage faCilities• Lagoon storage facilities are, however, much more feasible. The second alternative, a community source treatment system, involves the use of individual source treatment systems as small temporary community facilities in properly planned locations, and of sufficient capacities to adequately treat community wastes efficiently. An example of such a system would be a community septic tank system for a small residential development. The third alternative in this ' category involves the separation of storm sewers from combined sanitary-storm sewers. Separate pipes with different locations and different disposal sites would be required. 2. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Alternative The first alternative would reduce the volumes of effluent discharged during low Green River flows. A primary pollution problem associated with the Auburn Lagoon's present effluent appears to be its relative proportion to the vartable Green River flows. It is possible that too much effluent is discharged during low flow periods, possibly causing high levels of BOD and occasional dissolved oxygen depressions downstream. Construction of effluent storage facilities and the controlled discharge of the effluent during high flow periods would have the environmental impact of spreading the existing burden of effluent over times when the river would provide sufficient flow ' volumes for adequate dilution of the effluent. This would reduce impacts upon aquatic organisms in the river. The environmen al im - t pact of the secord alternative, the use of com munity treatment systems , would vary according to the treatment system utilized. The most likely system, properly sited and main- tained comnunity septic tank systems , is not likely to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In fact, many direct and secondary benefits would probably result from such action. Existing water quality problems on the Black Diamond Plateau, including the enrichment of its upland lakes, would be eliminated ifi the many improperly located and poorty-functioning septic tanks I 78 currently used were abandoned and a praperly sited tank, serving neig�borhoads or large devetap�ents were utilized and maintained. Indirectly, these systems coutd influ�nce land use patterns, encouraging c]uster development and development of suitable areas, rather than the current land development and land use psacticss. The utilization of an individual source treatment system such as the septic tank and drainfield tat an enlarged scale) as an interim facility for a larger unit such as the neighbarhood or community. would a11aw growth to take piace within the sewerage area without creating an additionai wastewatar toad burden for the Auburn Treat- ment Plant. 5uch community service treatment systems are quite suitable as an interi� measure where cl 'smatic, geologic, pedalogic, hydrologic and topographic conditians are favorable {at least for the specific period during which the system operates praperly - usually less than ten years) . Adoption of this system for neigh- borhood/community use would require temporary use of one or mare lot areas for required disposai purpases ar preferably, utilization of apen space made avaitable under a pianned unit development. Sub- surface dispasat to absorption beds ar trenches would most prababiy be utilized. Individual septic tank and drainfield systems are presently the � predaminant farm of sewage treatment facility in the Green River Sewerage Area. Degradatian of ground water and surface water quality has resulted from the use of these facilities due,� primarily, to the construction af this type of system at unsuitable sites. Cammunity systems would reduce the problems created by individual units by centralizing the structural facilities and reducing the total tank uolume. � A third example of this form of a]ternative, the separation of storm � sewers from cambined sewer systems, would directty impact many aspects � of the environment. The most noticeable direct impacts wauld be those retating to the inconveniences to the pubiic associated with the removal of existing combined sewers and the construction of twa separate sewer systems. Streets, sidewalks, yards, and ather areas would be disrupted far a period of time by the canstruction af storm and sanitary sewers. Such a sewer separation program would have the positive impact af eliminating the bursts af storm water which currently upset the quality of treatment pravided by the Auburn Lagoon. The typical voiumes of wastewater treated by the lagoan presently range fram , ane ta two miliion gallons per day. When rain occurs , the lagoon often must treat over ten miltion gailons of wastewater per day� because of excessive infiltration and inflaws of storm water. The quaiity of treatment suffers as a result. Some urban growth and development cauld be accar�nadated by separating storm and sanitary sewers throughout the Green River Sewerage Area. � 79 � - - �_ _ __ 4. Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity The alternatives in this category would provide some relief to the periodic physiological stress on aquatic organisms in the Green River, as well as the occasional overburdened conditions of the Auburn Lagoon. The likelihood of severe violations of water quality standards occurring would be significantly reduced by the implementation of any of these alternatives. These alternatives are not, however, particularly well suited to continued urban growth in the subject area. Higher overall effluent burdens upon the Green River would eventually result if only these alternatives were implemented. 5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would be Involved with the Proposed Action Should It be Implemented The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the involved resources for these alternatives would be the expenditure of human labor, time, materials, energy and funds. Basically irreversible and irretrievable in nature, these alternatives would not apprec- iably assist in achieving the nation's goal of zero-discharge by 1985 or meet EPA's probably definition of "best-practicable treatment". 6. Feasibility a) Utilization of Effluent Storage Facilities and the Phased Discharge of Effluent i) Technical Feasibility The construction of effluent storage facilities capable of holding treated effluent from a local treatment facility for periods of twenty to fifty days (depending on the discharge) during the low flow summer months is feasible, pending the availability of land. Lagoon or lake facilities, are far more feasible than a "tank farm" type of storage facility. The construction of a 100,000,000 gallon storage lagoon could, for example, be constructed relatively inexpen- sively on twenty acres of land. Depending on the quality of the effluent, this facility could be utilized for recreational purposes during the summer months. ii ) Economic Feasibility This alternative would either require a large capital investment for large storage facilities, such as tanks, or the expense entailed in the construction of lagoon or lake storage facilities. The costs of the "tank farm" alterna- tive certainly exceed $1 ,000,000 for a useful facility. The costs of constructing a lagoon or lake facility, however, would range between $500,000 and $700,000 for the I 80 least expensive 100,000,000 gallon facility configuration. These estimated costs include both construction and land costs for a twenty acre facility. The installation of the ' necessary pipe and appurtenances would be additional I, expenses. It is questionable if such costs could be justified by the small water quality benefits which would result. This alternative is not readily incorporated into any long-term treatment systems, except as a backup or overflow system. b) Community Source Treatment Systems i ) Technical Feasibility The adaption of such individual source treatment systems , as septic tank and drainfields units to neighbor- ', hood/community treatment facilities is a technically �, feasible alternative, at least as an interim solution, as ' long as land use and/or other enforcement regulations were � in effect. They would provide a viable temporary (10-15 year) � alternative to the construction of trunk sewers and inter- ceptors beyond the Green River Valley if certain conditions I (allowing septic tank use only in those areas inherently ' suitable for such disposal , elimination of such systems in I those areas not suitable, enforcement of � periodic , servicing program, etc.) were met. ii ) Economic Feasibility , Individual source treatment facitities such as septic tank/ , drainfield systems represent a relatively inexpensive means ' ' of waste treatment, articularl when ada ted to commu ' P Y nit P Y use. These systems are being used in many parts of Western I Washington as interim measures, to be removed when sewers are provided. The retatively short-lived nature of these systems, however, eventually impose extra costs on the users for system replacement. c) Separation of Storm Sewers and Sanitary Sewers i ) Technical Feasibility A sewer separation program would improve the quality of treatment provided by the existing Auburn Lagoon, as well as increase the feasibility of other local treatment facilities by lowering the volumes of waste water requiring treatment. The actual process of separating storm and sanitary sewer systems is technically feasible and has been undertaken by the City of Auburn during the past decade in portions of its combined sewer system. 181 �` ii ) Economic Feasibility A $ewer separation program for Auburn would probably cost between $500,000 and $1 ,000,000. An increased emphasis on , such programs by the Environmental Protection Agency makes ; it possible to receive Federal financial assistance for such programs. Storm water separation programs have, however, received very low priority for actuai funding. F. Regional Short-Term Collection and Treatment Systems 1 . Description Two alternative regional short-term collection and treatment systems can be considered in this assessment. The first involves the construction of a small size, shallow depth, conventional interceptor pipeline, which would utilize a conventional interceptor pipeline, similar to the proposed Auburn Interceptor, capable of handling the Auburn area's waste water loads for an interim period. These facilities would be considerably smaller than the Auburn Interceptor, and would not require the deep excavation necessary for the Auburn Interceptor. A conventional interceptor sewer of a limited nature from Auburn through Kent, to 217th Street could be of a size just large enough � to handie the present wastewater loads or those of the very near future (5-�5 years) . The shallow depth would cut excavation costs and construction time. Several combinations of sizes of pipe and construction depths have been investigated by METRO, as was the possibility of utilizing the existing Auburn Lagoon as a storage facility to ease the peak load upon the pipeline. Al1 of the various , combinations of size and depth are technologically viable alterna- tives as interim solutions. METRO has found that the Auburn Lagoon is not suitable as a storage facility in conjunction with a small pipeline. 1 A second regional short-term collection and treatment system involves the construction of a pressurized above-ground plastic pipeline. Such a pipeline would be entirely above ground on supports, carrying 1 the wastes from the Auburn area to Renton for treatment. It would be of a temporary nature (10-15 years) in terms of design and, probably, materials. 1 2. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Alternative � The primary environmental impact associated with the construction of a small size, shaltow depth, conventional interceptor or an � above-ground pressurized plastic pipeline would be a restriction on potential urban growth. A strengthened system of land use prior- � ities and land use planning, as well as an implementation program for development would probably have to be devised. � � I 82 As mentioned previously, this restrictive situation may be beneficial with regard to the natural systems of the sewerage area, particularly its air resources. Social and economic impacts of this alternative are, however, likely to be adverse. Wastewater transported by either a smaller conventional interceptor or an above-ground plastic pipeline would be treated at the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant, just as if the Auburn Interceptor were constructed. Therefore, the direct impacts upon water quality of these interim measures will be identical to those described previously. These two regional short-term collection systems have similar impacts , except that the use of a pressurized pumping system for the plastic pipeline would require a sizable commitment of energy resources. The proposed action or the smaller interceptors considered in this alternative, which rely on gravity flow, are much more energy- efficient. Also, the visual impacts of an above-ground pipeline could be significant, relative to those created by conventional interceptor sewers. Furthermore, because both of these regional alternatives would probably be only interim facilities , the impacts of a long-term permanent facility would be, at best, deferred. 3. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided Should the Proposed Alternative be Implemented The unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the two possible regional short-term collection and treatment systems are related to the commitment of energy resources necessary to implement such alternatives , and the impacts associated with the existing Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. In gcneral , the adversc alternatives associated with this dcveln�m�nt would �c qui�e simllar to those associated with the pro�osed action, except for the greater dis- ruptions and construction impacts which would occur if the above- ground plastic pipeline were implemented. 4. Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity The proposed regional short-term coltection and treatment systems would result in minimal local short-term uses of the environment. The systems would serve areas already urbanized and long-term economic expansion within the service area would probably be limited and/or postponed. 5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments With the Proposed Alternative The commitments associated with the two regional short-term collection and treatment alternatives are the expenditure of time, labor, materials, capital , and energy resources. The irreversibility of these facilities would probably not be a detriment in meeting Federal goals and water quality requirements. �83 6. Feasibility a. Construction of a Small-Size, Shallow-Depth, Conventional In- terceptor Pipeline i) Technical Feasibility Al1 of the alternative combinations of sizes of pipe and construction depths are technically feasible facilities. As interim facilities they would be capable of handling only the immediate and/or short-range waste water volumes of the Auburn area. Their feasibility is therefore di- minished without accompanying growth-limiting policies or regutations. The viability of this type of regional faci- lity centers around its economic feasibility, not its technical feasibility. ' ii) Economic Feasibility Since the only major cost difference between large and small sewer pipelines is the actual greater initial cost of the larger pipe, the economic feasibility of the alter- native small-size, shallow-depth, conventional interceptor is questionable. The alternatives which have been examined by METRO range in cost from approximately two million dol- lars for a system capable of accommodating only today's Auburn waste load, to approximately four mil�lion dollars �for a facility capable of handling the expected increase in waste water volumes for the next ten to fifteen years. All utilize standard reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) . The construction cost estimates are based on mid-1974 prices and do not include right-of-way, legal , administrative, or operations and maintenance costs. METRO determined that a shallow-depth (9' average cut) 36" diameter RCP sewer capable of transporting the existing Auburn area waste water volumes to Renton for treatment would cost approximately $2, 151 ,000. The three facilities eval- uated which would be capable of transporting the anticipated 1985 waste water volumes to Renton included a 48" RCP sewer in a trench averageing 15' in depth (20' cut through Kent) ; a 54" RCP sewer capable of transporting 35 mgd in a shallow (9' average cut) trench (11 ' cut through Kent) ; and a 36" RCP sewer in a trench averaging 9' in depth, with an aerated peak flow storage basin (15.6 million gallon capacity) and a 23 mgd influent pumping station. Al1 of the sewers evaluated were proposed to be 32,400 feet in length. The above facilities would cost an estimated $4,337,000, $3,470,000, and $3,488,000, respectively. Since the major costs associated with pipeline construction are the excav- ation and installation costs, the size of the pipe is rel- atively unimportant up to a point. It costs almost as much to construct small sewer facilities as large sewers. 184 � Smail interim pipeiine facil 'rties also lack fiexibitity. � An interim pipeline cannot be updatad or madified withaut great expense and disruption of service. A tang-term facility wi11 probably still be required after any interim solution and the costs of such long-term salutians continue to in- annually. Far example, the 4$" to 7$" reinfarced cancrete pipe Auburn Interceptor, laid in an average 20' - 25' cut will cast over $$,5ao,000 at the present time. lt has been estimated that the increased costs due to construc- tian delays are weii over $500,000 annually. The costs of twa smailer pipelines aver fifty years would be much great- er than the cost of one large pipeline over the same time period. b. Construction of a Closed-Pressure, Above-Ground, Plastic Pipe- line II i) Technical Feasibility � This altsrnative would utilize an above-ground small dia- meter plastic pipe with a pressurized transpartation syste�n, requiring a high pressure pump station in the Auburn vi- cinity. The plastic pipe prabably has smaller maximum de- sign capacity limits than conventional concrete reinforced pipe, but a preliminary investigation by METRO suggested that the size required for handling the immediate and short- range waste water loads from the Auburn area was feasibte. Several prablems could, hawever, accur in constructing the pipeline, for it wouid have to clear such obstacies as roads, highways, utility lines, and the Gresn River using canstructian techniques not applicable to canventianal un- derground pipelines. These problems cannot be investigated in depth until more refined data is made available regard- ing the possible locations, sizes, and methods of construc- IItion. The technologicai feasibility of this aitern�tive I is questionabte until soiutions to the problems anticipated in the crossing af abstacles with the ��S�iG pipeline are � presented. This alternative wautd a3so necessitate the utilization of a pressurized plastic pipeline capable of resisting stress and weathering. ii} Economic Feasibility Basicaily the same kinds of casts are associated with this alternative as with the previous ane. Excavatian casts would be far less since they probably only apply to certain situations where crassing obstacles would entail tunneling I or excavatian. Installation costs could be much higher, however, depending an the method af instaltation and the famiiiarity of the contractor with the methods and materials invatved. The costs of materials cauld be high depending on their availability. A preliminary engineering cost es- 185 timate of this alternative by METRO was approximately $2,000,000. Assuming this cost to be within reason, this al- ternative would probably be economically unfeasible when evaluated against a long-term facility costing $2.5 ' $$•7 million. G. Land Disposal Systems 1 . Description � There are basically three types of land disposal systems com- monly utilized in the United States: a) spray-irrigation sys- tems, b) infiltration/percolation systems, and c) spray-run- off systems. Each involves the dispersal of effluent from se- condary treatment plants, holding ponds, or stabilization la- goons upon the land. Stabilized liquid sludge can be dis- posed of utilizing land disposal systems. Spray-irrigation and infiltration/percolation utilize the seepage of effluent through the soil to treat the waste water, whereas spray-run- off systems require the wastes to remain on the surface, where ' oxidation occurs. Specifically: --Spray-irrigation involves the application of effluent from secondary treatment plants or lagoons onto the land, usually in conjunction with the cultivation of crops, so that it is absorbed by the soil and used by the plants. Spray-irriga- tion requires fairly extensive tracts of land with moderate to high infiltration/percolation rates for adequate absorption so no overland flow,which can contaminate surface water, occurs. � --Infiltration/percolation systems spread treated effluent on land covered by vegetation in fairly large quantities for the purpose of allowing it to move downward and through the soil (in- 11 be- filtrate) and urify itself. It is intended to eventua y P come part of the groundwater reservoir. It requires fairly extensive, mostly level land with highly permeable, deep soils for maximum absorption and minimal overland flow. --Spray-runoff is the slow, steady application of treated or sometimes raw sewage to a fairly large sloping area of land so that it moves slowly down the slope by overland flow. As it remains on the surface, the soil and plants growing on the slope act upon the wastes, oxidize it, and effectively treat it. The process requires a fairly extensive block of land, gently sloping but not steep, with moderately to highly impermeable soils, which prevent the seepage of waste water into the ground and the possible contamination of groundwater. Provisions must also be made for preventing too much overland flow, which could contaminate surface waters, from occurring. Settling basins are often used at the base of the slope to retain any excess runoff. I 86 Deep earth disposal can also be considered a land disposal technique, though the earth is not expected to "treat" the waste water, as in the above systems, but only store them for an extended period of time or release them slowly into deep groundwater tables where dilution to non-toxic levels occurs. Deep earth disposal alternatives involve the discharge of raw or treated wastes into large underground voids, including abandoned coal mines, caverns, or depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs. Because of the goal of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 which states that the discharge of pollu- tants into navigable waters must be eliminated by 1985, the RIBCO study has been considering land disposal (not deep earth disposal , however) as an alternative waste water treatment technique. The only other major available method which will achieve this goal is the use of advanced treatment plant facil- ities, which remove all constituents considered to be pollutants, and to discharge the resulting pure effluent into a stream or other body of water as desired, or to re-use the water directly. In the land disposal alternative, RIBCO has considered the use of the applied waste water for both crop and forest production and groundwater recharge. , 2. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Alternative� The environmental impacts of the various forms of land disposal and deep earth disposal systems are related to the mode of transporting the effluent from treatment plants to the site of disposal and the characteristics of the disposat site. The f- environmental im acts of all forms of trans ortation are be- P P coming increasingly problematical , and cannot be adequately discussed in this assessment. The environmental impacts direct- ly related to the disposal of effluent upon the land are also rather speculative at this time. Based, however, upon the available evidence resulting from ongoing and recent research by EPA and universities throughout the United States, it appears that all of the land disposal systems can produce a high qua- lity effluent given the proper site characteristics. Between, 85 and 90 percent of the B.O.D. and suspended solids in aerated lagoon effluent, can, for example, be removed by supplemental spray- irrigation, spray-runoff, or irrigation/percolation treatment systems according to recent studies. The use of these sys- tems also typically results in reductions of phosphorus ranging between 55 and 95 percent and total nitrogen reductions of 50 to over 90 percent. In addition to the excellent removal of solids, oxygen-demanding substances, phosphorus, and total ni- i trogen, all land disposal techniques usually substantially reduce li pathogens. In addition to the increased water quality resulting from the use of land disposal treatment systems, both the constituents in the waste water and the hydraulic loading (the applied water) 187 � itself wi 1 have short and lon - u on the dis osal I 1 g term effects p p i site and upon the downstream watershed. Soil , plant, and other I factors which will probably be affected to some degree by long- term application of waste water include: -- Plant productivity at the disposal site -- Soil organisms at the disposal site -- Soil structure at the disposal site -- Wildlife at the disposal site -- Domestic animals and humans through plant uptake and subse- i quent consumption -- Use of the disposal site will be limited to uses compatible with the disposal procedure and its resulting environment -- Downstream surface waters and ground waters will receive cations, anions and nitrogen not removed at the disposal site and the ortion of the a lied water not eva orated or P PP P transpired by the plants In most land disposal system� plant productivity, soil organ- isms, soil structure, wildlife, and downstream and groundwater quality are benefited by the applied waste water volumes. Odors and other noxious adverse impacts rarety occur. As with ' all treatment systems, efficient land disposal operations re- quire good management practices. Studies by EPA show that failure and/or decreased treatment efficiencies of land disposal systems are almost always due to overloading. On.ly then do significant adverse impacts result. , After prolonged periods of time, some land disposal facilities, I particularly those applying excessive amounts of raw sludge � (which is not allowed to be disposed of upon the land in Washington) , have produced high heavy metal , salt, or pesticide concentra- ' tions in the crops or vegetation of the site. Secondary chlori- nated effluent, however, has not been shown to create such a problem when applied at moderate to high loadings. Some plants naturally accumulate levels of waste water constituents which can be harmful to the plant consumer. These types of plants should be avoided, used in such a way as to be harmless, or harvested and destroyed. There is a general lack of documented data that specifically relates public health problems to the irrigation of crops with waste water. Several sources indicate, however, that potential public health problems associated with the irrigation of crops with waste water can be safely controlled with reasonable safe- guards such as using chlorinated secondary effluent and not using the unprocessed crop for direct human consumption. No vast out- breaks of disease have occurred related to pathogenic organisms normally found in sewage. Appraisals of health effccts related to land disposal of treated sewage effluent have concluded that from a communicable disease viewpoint land disposal is far less hazardous than disposal into rivers and streams. The few bac- teria and viruses which might be applied to plants during the land disposal process do not present any health hazards. 188 , ; The normal environment is not suitable for the survivai of bac- teria and viruses that are pathagenic to animals or man. These micrabes usually die within a few hours or days when exposed to the environment. The major concern in considering the deep earth disposal of wastes is the possibility of cantaminating the ground water resaurces in the disposal area. Until such a time as the com- piete invutnerability of the system cauld be established be- yond doubt, there would remain the possibility of such ground- water contamination. Other environmentat impacts are associated with the transportatian, starage, and handiing af the waste water prior to disposal . Anather impact of this alternative is the high degree of permanency inherent to deep earth disposal , The raw or treated effluent stared in such facilities may be "lost" for a considerable period of time. 3. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Alternative Be lmpiemented. The adverse effects which cannot be avoided if land disposal alternatives are implemented are primarily related to the cli- matologica] conditians in Western Washington and the inherent suitability af dispasal sites far treatment and/or disposal purposes. Depending on the size of thc area served by the land disposal system (e.g. regional , locai , clty. town) . small to moderateiy large parceis of iand wouid be withheid from ather uses during the period when iand disposat operatians occurred. As nated earlier, plant productivity, soil arganisms and structure, and downstream surface and groundwaters wiii be affected by an land disposal process. The extent to which these impacts will be adverse are only speculative at this time. 4. Locat Shart-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Praductivity The ]ong-term productivity of se}ected areas could be enhanced by a well-managed system of land disposal for sewage. High sustained yields of forest products could be expected in areas designated far such purposes. Craps, suited to the Puge� 5ound Region, which are irrigated with waste water elsewhere in the U.S. include corn, aifaifa, hay, fadder, cereals and pasturage. The lang-term productivity of these crops in land disposal i areas has bean demonstrated to occur in many disposat sites acrass the United States. The short-term uses of the environ- � ment would largely involve the use of products grown on such � disposal sites. These products, such as timber or agricultural products, are renewable in nature. The dispasal sites, due to the nature of thetr operation, would be limited in their use while in aperation. � � �R9 i i ; Deep earth disposai wauld represent a lang-term ioss of paten- � tially useful resources. It may be of short-term vaiue, but � such techniques would probably not maintain and enchance long- term praductivity. 5, irreversible and irretrievable Resaurce Commitments with the Proposed Alternative � The system for transporting sewage to the site of disposal will I require cammitments of time, labor, materials, energy and fi- nancial resources. Land disposal systems for sewage would also involve a commitment to disposai use af the selected areas for sufficient periads of time ta make such an alternative a viable solution. Deep earth disposal af waste water, as defined in this assessment, would, in all likelihood, represent an irre- - versible and irretrievable resource commitment. In terms of I the l�$5 9oa1 of zero-dischar�e, the resource commitments I involved in impiementing the land disposal systems described I within this assessment would probably nat be "lost". Land j disposal systems, as noted earlier, do not directly discharge into navigable waters. j 6. Feasibility I a) Land Disposal of Waste Water , i) Technical Feasibitity �, Disposai on land under careful management practices on , sites having suitable characteristics can pravide a high degree af remaval of BQD, nutrients, heavy metals, ! i viruses and bacteria. The waste water allowed to per- I colate into the soil , eventually joining the ground- water reservoir, is usually nearly devoid of undesirable ', constituents. � The process of waste purification and treatment an � land is very complex because of the targe number of � interacting variables invalved. Although land dispasal ( has been practiced far decades in same locations around the world, considerable additional research and opera- ting experience is necessary before the long-term ef- fectiveness and reliability af dispasai on land can be futly evatuated. Nawever, research and demonstrat`ron projects are now underway in the Northwest and in other parts of the United States which, when campleted, are expected to add a great deal of knowledge. In our region important aspects af the land disposal questson relate ta the suitability of forest sails and the effects on timber productian. The Corps of Engineers is funding a current research effort by facu'tty of the University of Washington, Cotlege of Forest Resources. This program is scheduled for completion in 1976. 190 �� .�..��„��„��J � - - - - I fn selecting a site tttat will be suitabie far land d3s- posal of chlorinated secandary effluent, it is necessary to inve�tigata and evaluate the complex interrelatianships af several parameters which comprise the pE►ysical make-up of the site. These parameters generally describe the soil characteristics, topography, and the underlying conditions af the site. The RIBCO study has analyzed these parameters to determine the locations of areas found to be generally suitabte for tand dispasat . Preiiminary findings indicate that the areas identified an Figure 3� are generally suit- able far land disposal . It is believed that the general vicinities identified contain within their grass bour►d- aries sufficient suitable areas to accommodate the tatal waste water flows predicted to be collected and treated at municipal plants in the Seattle metropalitan area in _ the year 2000. 7he generai dispasat site selaction requirements which I the R1BC0 study uti � ized ta define those areas designated on Figure 34 included the site perfarmance {soii factars, � primarily) , permissible land use, social and enviranmental � impacts, cost buffer zones and other factors. Areas � designated for planned major land use categories were eliminated, as were watersheds far municipal water supply, devetoped iand (though suitable open space areas within , the urban lands may be compatibie wifih sprinkter-irrigation of waste water} , areas above 150Q feet ineievation, and sites further than 40 miles from 5eattle. T'he floodplains adjacent to the larger rivers in the Puget Sound Regian were alsa not actively considered as potential areas for the land disposal of waste water. Thaugh these areas often contain soils weli suited far II waste water treatment, and cauld utilize the nutrients I and water during the dry su►�ner grawing seasan, some major probtems involved with their use were identifiad: � -- These areas are farecast for urban encroachment; -- They need erosion control and same flood protectian to prevent erosion of surface soils (with fixed � heavy metals) into rivers and eventually into � estuaries where heavy metaTs are criticat poiiutants; -- They need subsurface drainage systems to provide an aerated soil column; and -- The seasanally high water tab3e typically found in these � areas will present spray-irrigation in the winter months. Sprinkler-irrigatian of waste water may be reconsidered for floodplain areas where the above problems do not exist or where the above problems can be feasibly solved. i Land capabie of seasonal application may be vaivable, however, particuiarly when tocated near treatment sites ar transpartation rautes. 191 � � �-- -- � � �� 7 � y � N� a•�••�ti 1 :„�..y �,,. � ti SEWERAGE I AREA . . � f �w �. l Ta�ma �•1 �-- _ . •,..r. .,,� J � � POTENTIAL , LAND DISPOSAL f�g.�6 SITES Within the Green River Sewerage Area many areas not identified by the RIBCO study could potentially be utilized for land disposal systems. The sewerage area 's deep deposits of loose sand and outwash gravel :,re suitable for infiltration/percolation disposal systems. SGrav- irrigation could be practiced on many plateau and val- ley soils not subject to flooding and ponding. Spray- runoff systems may be suitable upon the Enumclaw, Lake Tapps, and Black Diamond Plateaus. The feasibility of land disposal actions depend on (1) the availability of suitable land for disposal sites, (2) an adequate meth- od of transportation from the collection/treatment site, and (3) suitable climatic conditions. RIBCO' s studies show that upon the sewerage area's silt, silt loam, loam, and very fine sandy loam soils, which comprise 18,410 acres of the sewerage area , the physical site requirements detailed in Figure 37 are necessary. For the coarse and medium coarse textured soils of the sewerage area (67,650 acres) , the necessary site require- ments are described by Figure 38 . Large portions of the sewerage area appear to be quite suitable for such land disposal techniques, assuming the sewage is of secondary quality and chlorinated. In providing an adequate transportation system to the ' disposal site, the location and distance of the site relative to the treatment site is the most important consideration. Several methods could conceivabty be utitized, including rail , truck, pipeline, and barge systems. Barge and trucks are probably questionable on economic grounds or capacity requirements (trucks are limited) . At1 four methods are being used by other cities for transporting wastes to these types of disposal sites up to 200 miles away. As far as suitable climatic conditions are concerned, all three land disposal systems have been used in cool , humid climates in the Midwest and Northeastern United States for at least part of the year. The effective treat- ment loads of the systems on a given area of land decrease as rainfall increases and the rate of evaporation decreases. During the "wet" season in this part of the country, one could expect to decrease the amount of disposal on a given acreage. Due to the uniformity of humid conditions and the general lack of periods of heavy rainfall , the decrease in effectiveness of a land disposal system in the sewerage area would, however, probably be less than that measured in the eastern areas of the country. Spray- runoff systems are particularly sensitive to rainfall . �93 - �� . `—_ -- • ' �.�,,. � . ..---'-".''-- , F�� T F ,�,.-.;-r . UEN _____."`—SPRaY i[�RIGAIIC?N �F E �XP..E co t��`-�' CF T�+� �Q,,. ��ss, _J�,_ v�hus . EMENTS F4R n�� UIR :--rtcs � �E:i.vr ,�oa�r ��oaEri fla�Z�R'a , _''"— 1CA� R�Q �RA��Ef:t�• • , � �.oP�au�cs. �' t f_ � ' " �9�r. QNYS �:�,� Lnam Silt pRAY FtEI.D GSo�� co�.}�yr.tiri �f2V- ORA1.i.'>G �PN�SFNO�US_ r �9�'• ' (�A'1 � ' �„ t�nd� t.�,'� l ��u�Z�� 5�....- DCP1 ti �F � �C �� 11.� f'� y-.1"_.---- GO-9C`v � t,�� _ v�-.r + R .,.-----�"`�� t�V TQ �R ER� ►O�S�� i ��Ox o��ar .. ,,,�T�,.�•...,•�.•-�-, EI.A \'.r.� tYc11 to •99:• � ••� � � � S�OP� ASS1t:� TN � (h5t2�.�S. _ . ' Moctr.�au��v __„_.._- >9°�'4 • ...---"" ` t:i!11 I�VLIC �AS1v� e �fl�P�.`� '� raiticd •--"' ga-C4°" —. '>99Y. ' ;��4��JC,iY �{Y�r� yE.G�T /a t.itN. weltd i � r :.?P:.IGi,'10!: GCf S T7Y CQV�fI 2 � 5 _� ....---"". { �'50�. or h go- y 94x �� 4� r.""_ t i h/h C J Rl �p tn a ..--- � 60- �qg,t �.r.'� ` forc:t ��4 � .. " '�,9Q;G » or hi-`�c� � � 9"'G M.�._---"___,.----""" '� ;;nar•��t Z 5 5 � - 66•� 9 _�"_' '>94=�_ ' �� ,,�Jwk uD t�1� __,,,....---- 5 !'�� 949L �or h��.__„�a�s �Y � I ��:�n/� '� � � :;y.�..-----'"`�'�r 6,y.8a"', 'I x ,c.r�; - uv co 8 •---�-' . t 5 '. ._-,--,--''--r"' ' �99"• , 9Cn Ut h�v::CT , C ' ° . �'" 5 � --"='s�=�`� � i�-'""_...--- +. �.,.� Tr4c Q�.1 Rth�y �coP Z __..._.._�_J--�-"'"" �;_,��. g�-'8C'.: }� .,_s:s�=- �I o �p to 6 _,,,.---"' �—' �9� a�tr:;ac�,, 9� r 39�e I� Fora�l= ,--"_—�� 5 �...+r�� g0'4 7 � �t:,;Y-Octl �..�.-� 2 -�'�"� 6�" 0.5 �'"`. up�0 15 � `' - � ��-�:-'ssz -"""'.� '�4QX or h�;har ' Fcrest 5 . a„'.."..� \Yeil:o � . Z , '�„'.� �rs:oly I Q5 �C •_l`:v} �� 4 mod drolaud �� S m/�.v�t �ra<',c CroVS nE1 . ' $ . W . —.- 1 7''��{ Fot�^� iArri�-�� j . ��1 ,�, `��t w�,_:.�,-_"""..y- uP t�2� "'""'_...- ' i �s,r t Y.tac�=� .�. Fcrost � ..--- _---^."".- 1 �_ _.�.,.^"„'' ,�,.� tOct-K'°Yi t _,�---�----'"... t *e� wk � ��..--� ;,.5 j��A�1F ..�...�^"�" ��a„t,r�. . . r��T K'K'p� ' ...+„"'""-� -....'`-----" CQl.4`J,�."1�`�J' """`_ • hD ' ,ES -� �C`J�':�r and socd 4e�`^i�acion. ro bara dv�iRR?��n:in4 �.(Reicron�= ;� olied when ti+Cx°soits a a:si�r.�ia:ive saii cotu{^. y td bz sp �X ec;�W'�'h�5 t:. iicac,�n sYo s,o'i e ro��`a; P low � `�S� ti v,^zk eP� i,.d,S....�iJtiYC � t�P t��Jc�,^ ^nttii6 et::,�.n:. ranova{rottcct+vef'1 a�2�.,Gti:s x soil cotum.. La,�,cr X ,,,Z re•r,ovst ex?"-=:ed in a 2 • ,.t V t^t ti . °• 3 � 6. L O'��r 4� nd on 50Y.N�3'� �Re�atencct 1. Z• nected,b�.. �pnth;. 1 & 5� ti�;ho�romov�•e1• ��ur:�9 wintcr �a;erencc+ h03�Q•��al`�o�4'.n'zms and P n dl��to 9fa�nd wa::r.l I . ' retcd t4it cctun 8.9«^%O '� . , on 5�t�� p water. 1' ..�orat ba:ed uh to 9tvu exP'�:�d d {7+�9'.l rc,. -nn deP t orlal c�n De � to�l tulu� �i:c�'t�"• r.a�o��5 i:.eorot.d �that are ric`•+i�o�C° � pver?7:4 ramo''��b ave'IY eountc.pa�u. ,,,,�,....�.-.."" , nd 9' et ot troatmc�t. t�no sandY toamt a teaxt 4 toct detp� �rable 1cY , � y��ti(sandv lo�'"on;.ho sod column i:a: d��naC��'n 9ti�"ide s ComD �, � T.e m-C�u�++�O��blaulzv',oi::�sa:me��wh or even siit`!ctaY i��ml wttana Goti c condi:ions. � � w c�Q"'°''`a..^ �� , �d.r daY 4oi s 1o�Cin4�o avo�d?esmanon: :_�^ + , r ' t,nc te.<tur.0 tods.sa^t� Y �,, r d � f`�"'�E"�i�d�.��on m.s:bc S�vz ,.►-�-"' . s.�,�=,� T� _--- ��EN1,EN L RE�V , D1�p05"A LAN� _ _-- �_— __---- � _ - — � . . r , PHYSiCAL itE4t�lREMEP�TS �OR SPRAY IRRIGATiON OF EFFLUENT � C-..:.l. m�c'�v^�c��rya ir.tcrcd�.�i�c-LOamy sandt,s�rAy lo��r+�,�ine sZadv lo+ms,and q�,rmt�v eountrt.oarts :�=!'_:`tT `•'!`:9ifU`�( �E�:11.i�t� SP��Y FIELD CHkRkCTE�iSiICS cXP�CTED LEVELOi- T°;.=.�.`:z';T � H�;.?.:�LIC OEPT/1 OF SUIL GOIUf.fN ' 'r�'l�VY R!:.T'l;; (' ��IC.'.T101� r � � � __ C:.�/i.ITY VEGETATIVE SIOPE �EFRACTO�Y V�al.S p�-� GF StT� '►SSlMIIiTIV TO G.OUNO TO t:!PERv- DRAINAGE � NITROGEN 3CC; SS, �- COVER 9'e GcPT1� IYATER IOUS lAYg r'tS CRGAPJICo, Q:,CTEP.I?. (IN/HOUR1. � (!.IIN. FT.r � (Miq. f7.1 �►.�iH. FT.) �HOSPHCRUS � � , , '__.�'�'/�� f��'�_'� , ` � . ��/ 2.n:«. O.g Fcrest up to 8 2 � 7-20 5 Rapid to y >8C?'. � . . . �50-EO".G � >� I >gyx S . C..25 1r.i+r • (�t�y-Oet1 exccssival o�hi;hcr � � 0 CO 20 2 7-20 :1 � r��d.Ttiets >00"w 5C-�?i »OX y 9!X ( . toil<a��rot Or ti�•:}cr � Truc�c Crops ► � up to 6 Z � �_Zp 5, � cxp:ctcd to >8� iy�-90: 79C}G >4�� k !.l�nn-S:n�l restriet M•etcr or Rii"�r ---- f fora�o � e up to 8 2 � 7_20• - 6 ! mo'--?�=��=i' >807G —50�9C:; � >90l� I >4f% ._.. 1 4 ilt:y-Oct) � j � ar h:y'�cr -�__ � 1 �n wsc � 0.5 � Fores[ � up to g�' 2 � g-�g - ._g_... . I { >807: 50-c"v L � r 90'K + >?�Y, ' =t to C�3 inil:r � pI� � ! dunn9 ra�rry Y { � � or�•-'i�•. � . srr�en � ` � 8 to 20 � T +@ 5-i5 3 � � • >EO'!C 50•�£.': � >90% � >ayy � . � 1 or nic;!:e� � I ?: m wt ! 0.5 Forat � up to 25 2 5-10 =' �807„ 50-3QX � >9CR >cyx s..nn�ro,e+y or hi��e: saaon f � � � ` � i 1 f��JTt:•�TcS ��D COtA;.1EpiTS� e Percol�tion ntes wel!�Dov�0.5 inct��c per hour ere oxp�cted for th�fe►oi(textures. b Lsis chan 2 inc?�cs per..eek applieation ra:t thould bo sapliod when thcvi toils aro E�rs e'urinp p!anti�p end fcod t^:mina:ion. < Q�K E7:;rcmwcl I�expecud witS 2 ft.��:imul�;ive soll eolumn. Increa:o in aaimul�tiv�soil eotumn tAlekneu wi11 incre�u th�perani ot romo.al. �,e'.oraece� 1, 2, 4 & 8i � SO to E7x�nd A�•,har r:mor�l i��xpected bsaed on 50%tl03•N ol total N in apptiod�(fluent lowcr x removd reflcc:s very(ow NOrK removol by or;aniimt and D�=�t�duriny winWr monthi. (R�:uenees t, 2, 3, 4 & 7) • Ov��9p�,G ro:nov.l�xpac:ud In�oretetl toil co�umn to minimurn do�th of impervious layert, (Retereneus 1 d� 4I f Ovor 95%nmov�l�Rpecud In eentod�oil column to minlmum dopth oi Imponiou�layort. (R�feronee �) � .QN��pQ�� t�U��EM�A�T� fF� 3� At present, the legal authority for regulation of land disposal from the public health standpoint is vested in the State Department of Social and Health Services. The Department of Ecology (DOE) also has jurisdiction for site controt and approval through water quality control laws. However, neither of these agencies has adopted general regulations or guidelines for the prac- tice of land disposal or irrigation with sewage effluent. In the early 1960' s, the State Water Pollution Control Commission prepared a position paper regarding disposal of municipal sewage effluent on land in the Lake Wash- ington basin. This paper covers topics such as require- ments for buffer zones, protection of the area, rates of waste water application, crop management, and monitoring. These requirements were never adopted as official policy, but used only as guidelines for areas tributary to Lake Washington. The present policy of both the DOE and the Health Department is to evaluate each proposal for waste disposal on land on a case-by- case basis. In the past, the DOE has apparently considered land disposal as an interim measure rather � than a long-range practice for disposal of waste water. It appears likely that, due to the present national I goat of zero discharge of pollutants to water bodies, acceptance of land disposal as a major alternative to ' advanced waste treatment will merit careful consideration !, by DOE in the future. The Seattle-King County Health Department has no jurisdiction over, or policies ' relating to, land disposal . In the United States, the least restrictive of state regulations (Arizona) affecting land disposal allows chlorinated secondary effluent to be applied to: - Food crops, where the product is subject to physical or chemical processing sufficient to destroy patho- genic organisms. - Orchard crops, where waste water is not applied directly to fruit or foliage. - Golf courses, cemeteries and similar areas. - Watering of producing dairy animals. - Water storage reservoirs used for aesthetic enjoy- ment or secondary contact recreation (boating, etc. ) . Orchard crops, golf courses, cemetaries, parks, campgrounds, and hay and silage crops are presently being affected by chlorinated secondary effluent in the State of Washington, primarily in the Columbia Basin and Spokane areas. Past experiences with land disposal in Western Washington have not always been successful , probably due to the improper siting or operation of such facilities, according to DOE officials. 196 i I I ii} Economic Feasibility � A comprehensive evaluation of the costs of land disposal processes inciudes the necessary expenses of the treat- ment and handling facilities as well as the land dispasal system itself. The basic factors which determine the costs of the land disposal system itself inctude: 1) the waste or waste water characteristics and valume, 2) the treatment costs, 3) storage ( if required) , 4) the transportation mode and distance, 5) land availability , and characteristics, and b) equ�pment and materials required far aperatian. The primary requirement associated with these systems is the need for suitable land. The land does not have to be purchased to be used far operation of these systems, but may require a legal agreement such as a lease, easement, or contract. These usually have some costs attached to them. According to availa6ie EPA research results, the land requirements far 1 mgd flows, utitizing standard annuai app) icatian rates upon suit- able sites, are approximately 1�+0 to 560 acres plus buffer xanes for spray-irrigatian systems; 75 to 140 acres plus buffer zanes for spray-runoff systems; and 3 fio 75 acres plus. buffer zones for infiltration/perco- � lation systems. If suitable land had to be purchased , for the spray-irrigation af 2 mgd in the Green River Valley, its cost wauld be prohibitive due to the large acreage required and the very high land values. Land on the vatley walts or plateau areas is much less expensive but might still be high enough ta make it prohibitive. A secondary cast would be that af equip- ment, which would be comparable to the costs of standard irrigation equipment used in agriculture. Another major cost wouid be associated with the transpor- tation of wastes andlor wastewater from the treatment site to the disposal-treatment sites if the distance between the twa was cansiderable. The limit of the economic haul would have to be determined based on the method of transportation, accessibility of site, and estimated average loads. The possibility exists of arranging a cast- sharing agreement in which the increased yields generated by spray-irrigation disposal techniq�es, far example, would pay for a portion of the treatment facility. At dazens of land dispasal sites across the United States, farmers and timber companies actually provide free land to be used for wastewater disposal . The increased forest crap yields, for example, more than pay� for the use of the land. It is anticipated that Douglas-fir ' �97 4 - __ � grown under intensive spray-irrigation situations could double their production of wood. University of Wash- ington foresters speculate that by combining selected � genetic stock, careful thinning procedures, wastewater disposal , and sludge application techniques, increases of four to five times the original volume of wood per acre may occur. Such secondary benefits, including ground water recharge, soil conditioning, increased crop or forest production, and the maintenance of natural ecosystems through nutrient recycling, are difficult to measure and still often speculative, but most certainly enhance the cost-effectiveness of land disposal strageties for water quality management. r Further enhancement of the �conomic feasibility of land disposal processes is provided by EPA. If reasonable and approved by the Regional Administrator, certain direct costs previously not covered by EPA' s Construction Grant Program are now allowable. These include land acquired after October 17, 1972, that will be an integral part of the treatment process or that will be used �for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from such treat- ment. Region X EPA officials have stated that their minimum secondary treatment requirements could be achieved by combining a lagoon treatment system with an irrigation effluent disposal system. This is viewed by EPA as an alternative to adding supplemental treatment � components to lagoon treatment plants. The life of a disposal site will depend on the complex interaction of a number of variables, and therefore can be estimated only after a detailed investigation and evaluation of site characteristics. In every case thorough monitoring would be necessary to indicate the occurrence of problems or potential problems which must be corrected to insure continued usability. Resting of a site periodically for a year or two may be necessary to restore its effectiveness. Studies at the University of Washington have indicated that land disposal sites in forest areas of the Puget Sound Region should have about ten years of life for average sewage sludge appli- cation rates of 0.5 inches per week. The life would be limited by heavy metals. The yearly application rate (lb/acre/yr) of these heavy metal constituents in secondary waste water (at 2 inches per week) would be much less than the yearly application rate of the same constituents in the sludge. Consequently, for treated waste water application, site life should be considerably longer than the 10 years indicated for sludge application. b) Deep Earth Disposal i) Technical Feasibility 198 --, � The main factars to be considered in evaluating deep earth disposal sites are the following: 1} The availa- bility of large void spaces deep beneath the earth's surface, 2� The desirability nf filling such voids as � mines and caverns which may became economically i valuable at same future point in time, 3) The proximity I nf important undergraund aquifers, and 4) Adequate transpartation facitities from coltection and/or treatment points to the disposai point. ` The most suitable anc! availab]e sites within the study area are abandoned coal mines in the Slack Riamond area. 7hey are potentially available, questionable as to I their economic value in the future, and accessibility I by truck, rail and, possibly pipeline, transportation systems is excellent. Underground aquifers could, hawever, be affected by the use of such sites for deep earth disposal . Thaugh cities in the Southwest have been filling abandoned ail wells with sewage far quite � some time, and many cities in the East (Pennsylvania) � are filling old caal shafts with untreated or primary- j treated effluent, the technical feasibility of deep earth disposal in the Black Diamond area is questionable , at this time. ii} Ecanomic Feasibility An ecanomic evaluation of this alternative is not based an any precedent within the Pacific Narthwest. 7he cost of sucl� a disposal method probably depends an such direct costs as the transportation of wastes and wastewater � from a collectian site ta a disposal site, and possibly a starage facility at the collectian site (depending on the mode of transportation} . A handling faciiity at the disposal site wauld atso be required. Obviousiy, the greater the distance between the collection point and the disposal point, the higher the casts. The effic+ency af the transportation system also greatly influences the costs. No estimate of the costs of such a facility can be made at the present time. H. Local Lang-Term Collection and Treatment Systems i . Description Two local-term coliectian and treatment systems can be considered in this categary of alternatives that wo�ald provide relatively permanent loca] long-terrn �reatment far the Green River Sewerage Area's wastes. One long-term alternative involves updating the existing Auburn Lagaon' s treatment process. Construction of an advanced wastewater treatment facility is anather lcfcal long- term collection and treatment alternative. 199 The first involves the com6ination of a series of the modifi- , cations and additions proppsed separately as local short-term � alternatives. Some of these local short-term alternatives and their individual feasibilities include: - Expanding or modifying the existing aeration system. This is feasible and is presently being implemented. The addition of more than two additional aerators does not appear to be tech- , nically justifiable. ! r - Adding a final filtration process, which is quite feasible on a temporary basis and, in combination with other modifi- cations, appears to be feasible on a permanent basis. - Adding an activated sludge process. This was found to be not feasible unless an interim treatment facility were constructed. Adding an activated sludge treatment system woutd require major modifications to the Auburn Lagoon. - Constructing additional lagoons is feasible as a treatment process but depends upon the availability of land. Essentially, any local long-term proposal combining the individual alternatives listed above would be feasible, as long as each individual process was feasible. The alternative of constructing an updated secondary treatment plant .could be accomplished by combining individual treatment processes, such as those noted above, in dozens of various "treatment-systems." For example, secondary effluent, as defined by EPA, would likely result from a treatment system consisting of six enlarged aerators and a multi-media or microscreening final filtratior facilith. The controlled use of algae-feedinq crustaceans during the summer months could also increase the treatment efficiency of the present lagoon. Another treatment system, utilizing an activated sludge process with additional aeeation, expanded lagoon facilities, and a final filtration unit would also produce secondary effluent. An additional possibte treatment system configuration could consist of expanded aerated lagoons with� final filtration, but without the use of an activated sludge treatment process. The actual design of an updated secondary treatment plant at Auburn would require detailed engineering and economic studies based upon the degree of treat- ment required at present and that which may be required in the future. The simplicity and reliability of the individual treat- ment processes, and their costs and compatibilities with each other and potential future treatment processes must also be considered. The second local long-term collection and treatment process involves the addition of a physical-chemical treatment process in combination with the existing Auburn Lagoon and an updated secondary treatment system. One potentiat advanced treatment process would convert the existing second stage aerobic lagoons 200 to coagulation-nitrification/sedimentation basins. A sludge treatment plant would be added to the second stage lagoons, utilizing an activated sludge process. The treatment process would be finished with a final filtration unit and chlorination. 2. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Alternative Both local long term collection and treatment systems would be similar in terms of environmental impact. Either waste water treatment facility at Auburn would significantly improve the quality of the effluent discharged into the Green River, and � would satisfy existing Federal requirements and State water quality criteria. The water quality impact of either treatment system upon the entire Green/Duwamish River system is difficult to ascertain, though the water quality of the lower Green River would certainly be improved. These systems , particularly the advanced treatmcnt plant alternativc, would �ot bc expected to significantly add to the accumlation of nutrients in the Duwamish Estuary, affecting that portion of the Green/Duwamish Rivers aquatic ecosystem. An advanced treatment plant could signifi- cantly reduce nutrient concentrations in its effluent. The secondary impacts of local long-term alternatives, such as either of the two described above, would probably be similar to those which could be expected to result from the completion of the Auburn Interceptor. Urban growth and development would occu� in the Auburn area, if so allowed by local policies and decision-makers. 3. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avaided Should the Proposed Alternative be Implemented If a local long-term alternative were implemented, the only anticipated unavoidable adverse impacts would be related to actual construction activities and the use of the treatment plant site. The increased long-term operations and maintenance costs of a regionalized treatment system compared to a regional system can also be viewed as an unavoidable adverse impact of this alternative. 4. Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and En- hancement of Long-term Productivity Short-term uses of the environment resulting from these treat- ment facilities would be primarily associated with the urban growth which could be stimulated by the availability of adequate waste water treatment facilities. The long-term potential productivity of much of the sewerage area would be diminished by the resultant growth and development. 201 Long-term environmental conditions would be benefited with re- gard to water quality if this alternative were implemented. An advanced treatment facility, in particular, would provide water resource planners with the opportunity to instigate innovative water recycling programs. The treatment plant's effluent could also be used for flow augmentation and for flushing the Duwamish Estuary, if required. 5• Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments with the Proposed Alternative , Construction of any long-term collection and treatment system involves the irretrievable commitment of human labor, material , time and financial resources. Contingent urban growth will al- so necessitate commitment of a wide spectrum of resources, not quantifiable at this time. The irretrievable commitment of resources involved in the implementation of either of these alternatives would be consistent with the nation's water quality goals and objectives. METRO and the RIBCO study have speculated that an advanced treatment plant in the Auburn area may become necessary at some future date, in order to flush pollutants, primarily resulting from the anticipated urbanization of the sewerage area, out of the Green River and the Duwamish Estuary. Community resources to such a project at this time would probably result inconsiderable savings of monetary resources. 6. Feasibility a. Updating the Auburn Lagoon to a Secondary Treatment Plant i) Technical Feasibility This alternative could be technically accomplished in any one of a number of ways, as mentioned previously. Dozens of potential plant configuations are possible, as various unit processes and combinations of unit pro- cesses are available. Two unknown factors affect the technical feasibility of this atternative as a whole. The first involves the questionable status of available land required for the expansion of the treatment plant. The second concern is the status of future water qual- ity standards. Both must be well defined before an ac- curate evaluation or a detailed design of this alterna- tive can be made. This alternative would discharge effluent which meets or exceeds current water quality standards in the Green River. However, as waste loads increase and the water quality standards become more stringent, this alternative may not provide adequate treatment and an advanced treatment plant may be required . � The option to increase the level of treatment at a later date would, however, exist. This treatment alternative would remain quite flexible. 202 I i �} Economic Feasibility , Updating the existing treatment process wil ] become in- creasingly difficult to implement ecanomically in the future. The recent (1968� Comprehensive Study of the Auburn Sewage Treatment System found it feasible to up- date the existing treatment plant, primarily be expand- ing the lagoons and adding madified and enlarged aera- tion faciiities. At that time the cost of such actions was estimated to be $380,000• This figure did nat include the purchase of land {which at that time was awned by the Sewer Divisian) or the addition of such facilities as final filtration units. This modified treatment facility's maximum capacity of 18 mgd (peak flaw) was sufficient to serve an estimated equivalent population of 62,000 people. BOD reductions ranging between 75 ta 94 percent and sus- pended solids reductions in the range of 75 to 85 percent were expected to resuit fram this facility. The implementa- tion of this alternative treatment scheme would cost between $460,040 and $5Q�,�aO today, based upan an annual inflation factor of 5% and the the estimated 1968 cast. Such suggested improvements as the use of an activated sludge treatment process and the construction of a sludge treatment plant, and the addition of a finat filtration system to an expanded treatment plant would add consider- ably ta the estimated cost figure. The exact cosCs of ' these improvements are unkrtawn at this time, for they are dependenfi upan the size and type af added faci3ity. The total cost-effectiveness af this alternative is alsa un- known at this time, due to the potential requirement for advanced treatment sometime in the future. This, coupled with the possible necessity to purchase additional land, makes the economic feasibility of this alternetive questionable and in need of additional study b. Canstructian of a �acal Advanced Treatment Plant i . 7echnical Feasibility An advanced treatment plant configuration based upon the existing Auburn Lagoan facitity could be constructed in two majar steps ar phases. First a siudge treatment plant couid be added. This sludge treatment plant wauld utilize activated sludge in the existing first stage asrabic lagoons in combinatian with a sludge dewatering facility, which would hanclle the excess activated sludge � generated by the ]agoans. The second phase of construc- tion would convert the existing secand stage aerobic lagaons to physical-chemical treatment facilities far the coagulation-nitrificationlsedimentatian of wastes. In � combination with a final chemicai/filtration nutrient removal system, it is anticipated that a very high quaiity effluent would result. The effluent's BOD shou3d range 2a3 r between ] - 5 mg11 ; suspended solids would be anticipated to equal 0 - 3 mg/1 ; PO should average about 1 - 2 mg/1 ; and NH - N would be expected to range between 20 - 30 mgll . �The utilization af activated carbon adsarption and/or ammonia stripping units, for exampie, wauld further increase the quality af the Auburn area's effluent. An advanced treatment facility, such as that described above, is technically feasible to construct at this time, and there appears to be adequate land at the existing site (4 to 6 acres) ta aliow canstructian af a sizable 'i portian of the additionai facilities, because the present I lagaon system wauld be incarporated into the advanced � treatment piant. Oniy a sma13 portion of additional land r may be required at a later data. The main problem assaciated with this alternative involves the lang "lead time" reguired for construction. This probably necessitates the use of an interim treatment facility of some fiype. Of the feasible interim solutions, the final filtration process appears to be the most feasible, especiaiiy since it could eventually be in- corporated 'rnto the advanced treafiment system. Such a facility wauid produce an effiuent that wauld meet ar exceed atmost any foreseeable water quality standard. ii) Economic Feasibility , The alternative of constructing an advanced wastewater treatment facility involves many of the same costs assaciated with an upgraded iocal secondary treatment plant or iocal short-term alternafiive treatment processes. It wauld be tikeiy that an advanced treatment faciiity be built upon an existing secondary treatment system, rather than "from scratch". The costs of an advanced facility shown below are, however, for a facility built as a new individual treatment system. Aithough na cost estimates have been made of an advanced treatment system to serve Auburn, a iq71 study evaivated a simi ]ar faciiity for the Kant area. It was capabie of handling the same flow as that projected for Auburn in the year 2010. The casts af the Kent facility were estimated to be $12,935,004 (capital costs) and $724,OQ0 (operations and maintenance costs) . These costs assume the piant would be constructed to its design capacity initiaily and operated at that capacity continuausly. These assumptian�, however, woutd not be valid for Auburn if the faciiity were built in phases according to grawth needs of the area. Since the present load on the existing system, discounting occasiqnal storm ' water influenced peak flows, is only about 2 mgd as compared to the 12 mgd assumed in the Kent estimate, phased construction wauld be appropriate. Therefore, � 204 i costs of an Auburn advanced treatment plant would be lowered over time. The amount that the costs of the � Auburn system would be lowered are unknown at this i time. They must be accurately evaluated before this alternativE can be campared against ather alternatives wifih any justification for the results. An additional cost estimate is pravided by a recent EPA research project in Califarnia to renovate waste- water for use in recreational lakes. This praject, utilizing oxidation ponds quite similar to the existing Auburn Lagoon as the b�sis of an advanced treatment plant, produced a very high quality effluent (90-97 percent � phospharus removals: 70-$5 percent CQD removal) at reiat'rvety tow costs. The capitai casts of the additianal physicalJchemical unit processes for the 0.5 rngd lagaon faciiity were estimated at $150,000 with annual aperating costs approXimating $35,000 annually. The total cost of capital , operations, and maintenance for an advanced treatment system utilizing coagulation with alum and flocculation with a conventional paddle flocculator, sedimer�tation in a harizontat clarifier, and filtration through a multi-media gravity fiiter cansisting of anthracite coai were estimated to be approximately $200,000 per ye�r {current doltars} far a 3 mgd facility constructed in conjunction witfi an existing lagoon. Another factor that must be considered in the economic evaluation af an advanced treatment system involves the benefits associated with the reuse of water. The RIBCO studies are presently exploring this issue, and thaugh no reai vaiue can be attached to the recycling of water in the Puget Sound region at this time, irrigation, municipal , and industrial water reuse represent potentiatty viable revenue saurces for treatment facilities. The iow flow augmentation of the 3ower Green ltiver by a local advanced treatment plant could benefit the fisheries resources, aesthetics, and recreational water-users af the river. This is a valuable attribute of this alter- native. Thaugh the costs of advanced wastewater treat- ment are abviously much higher than those associated with secondary treatment, the effective life of an advanced treatment facility in the light af stringent future water quality standards is much greater. This fact makes this alternative mare cast-effective. Based on twa studies conducted by METRO in 195$ and 1971 , the waste treatment system proposed by the existing Com- ' prehensive Sewerage Plan has been established as the most ' cast-effective method of treating sewage for the METRd service area. 1n general the fallowing conctusions were reached by the 1971 Reevaluat'son of METRO's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan: i za5 � - The conclusions reached in the 1958 report, on which the two-plant Comprehensive Sewerage Plan was based, are valid. - Had the technology been available, additional advanced- , treatment plants permitting discharge of treated sewage ' to Lake Washington would have added $527 million to $1 ,036 million (depending on the interest rate) to the discounted cost of the overall two-plant plan for the 1961-2030 period. - By the same discounted cost flow analysis, additional advanced-treatment plants added to the proposed second , stage construction program would add $224 million to $374 million to discounted costs of development over the 1971-2030 period. - METRO's Comprehensive Plan, in its present form, contains sufficient flexibility to imcorporate advanced treatment processes, as they may be re- quired by changing water quality requirements or made economical )y feasible by an increased value of high- quality water. - METRQ should continue to expand its system according to the Comprehensive Plan. Plant designs, however, � must be readily adaptable to expansion and upgrading. If this adaptability is not provided for, the advantages of the two-plant plan will be significantly lessened. These conclusions, in addition to the previously �entioned Federal and State policies, plans, and regulations, which encourage regional systems, form the foundation of METRO's adherence to the existing two-plant scheme. An advanced treatment facility does not, at this time, appear justifi- able to METRO. One additional consideration relating to advanced treat- ment plants within the METRO service area concerns their possible application in rural areas, particularly where there are water supply problems or other constraints on development. Plants in these areas would not have large growth potentials. Costs would therefore be lower than those involved in the construction of an advanced treat- ment plant designed to expand in size over a long period of time. The typical costs for a small advanced rural treatment plant were determined by METRO in 1971 for a 2 mgd plant serving the Pine Lake area. The estimated costs included $4,000,000 for construction, engineering, legal and administrative costs, contingencies, and land; $260,000 for annual debt service (30 years at 5�) , and $215,000 for annual operations and maintenance costs. This plant was expected to provide high-cost treated efftuent suitable as a domestic water source. 206 . , The RIBCO study has considered such rural treatment plants in their investigations of alternative service area schemes, including various com�inations of plants at Enumclaw, Black Diamond, Lake Sawyer, Black Diamond-Lake Sawyer, Rainier, 6uckley, and Maple Valley. 207 I . Regional Long-term Collection and Treatment Systems 1 . 4escription In evaluating regional long-term collection and treatment systems, route, size, and constructaon phasing alternatives to the proposed • action were co�sidered, as well as alternatives which transport the Auburn a��a' s sewage t� regianal trea.tment plants �ther than METRO' s Renton facility. ln considering the Auburn Interceptor alternatives, .three altgrnative routes (plans A, B, and C; see Figures 14, 39, and 40) were evaluated. All involve a large, permanent below-ground pipeline to transport all Auburn area wastes to Renton for secondary treatm�nt and eventual disposal• into the Green/Duwamish River. Plan A is the proposed action. 1 � . In Plan A, the East Green ,River Valley Interceptor is tributary to the Auburn Interceptor at N. E. 30th Street in Auburn. From � this intersection, a si�gae 72�incfi line flows west to a future �ower M� 11 Creek�Lake Dolloff Interceptor connection at N. W. 29th Street, then continues north as a single 78-inch line through Kent to South 228tfi Street. At this point, it diverges into twin 66-inch lines, one continuing north to a connection with the South ' Interceptor at �ent �ross Valiey Iroterceptor and the other, a future line, routing east, then north parallel to the South Interceptor to the Eastside lnterceptor. In summary, Plan A consi�ts of a single� line serving both A�burn and the East Green River Valley from 30th Street N.E. in Auburn through Kent to South 228th Street. Plan A requires an alternate service agreement with Kent and Awburn to; prov i de for that �rea nor..t.h af N�. ;.•E, �3pth Street on the east side of the Green River which is traversed by an interceptor in Plans B and C. . � . , Plan 8 suggests that the proposed East Green River Valley Interceptor be routed north on the east side of the Green River, then west to a po i nt tt�i butal�y_ to the:;Auburn. I nterc.eptor on the nqrth s i de of the GrEen River at South ��St}i Street. From this i`ntersection, a single 78-inch � jne flows north through Kent to South 228th Str.eg��as in Pi�n.A. Plan B would be s�aged as foltows: a 36-inch imte�rim connection from the East Gre�n River Ualley Interceptor across 30th St�'eet N. E. to the Auburn Interceptor would be required about 1980, and the East Green Rlver Valley .lnterceptor wpuld be con� structed about 1985• ' In Plan C, tfie Auburn Interceptor and the East Green River Valley I terceptor are separate, stage-constructed, parallel 60 and 6�-inch lines from Auburn through Kent. An interim connection at 30th Street N. E. would be required as described above in Plan B. The basic technical advantage of both Plan A and Plan B is that they call for the construction of a single large line through Kent rather than two smaller ones. The prospect of constructing a Single 78-inch line skirting Kent on an undeveloped frontage road is much more appealing than considering the impact of constructing two lines through Kent, witM the future line throWgh a highly-developed commercial area. It should be noted that a 78-inCM pipe is required even if the Green River Sewerage Area . ; , , • 208 . . �' M i "� � � �-`ri 52t2TX S�'"� y _x . s � �� , "'� �� r '� . KEt�� C �8 EY S$ �..� .# � STA.{?+t�@ �CON!!EG C1N� , 4. °'� �'� �. � ' � � �' � � ' �n ' , 8�CTlQN B,� , .; �(�µ;-;, `° , �� , � ' �°"'° S.2ZQTH ST. 6 6� . �� . ;,,�...� • � , � • ,,��:.s �' • ..`' �`�/ALLEY . E. 6�t�EN ftiV yt'C• LEY I"�= I MILE `"' � FtEGUl.ATOR �� , 1NYERC�PT J: `�� 3 � STa..44+2Q . �' :-: :�i . . s � � _ �t L�GENQ . _ � ; �„ . fCEN�' a�` `�=` :, } ,--- s�w�R (is7sl - .!�'S ° , 7. GClNN�CTION '� � - � w ---. SEW�R (t9?�-1985I : ,. , � ;:.a„`". . . . �,..� �t„, nf'. ;; ' " . '� SIPHON � '' „• �� . ;.� t�;� , � ,'�238i'fi ST. �,.•��..,�,..�`4;��, "� � L AKL``' ; � ; t!"�., . �`��'``ME�R'/D�ttf' "t' ` r.� . � ' � � ..� k _ e , ..+a- . �l � "" w„�. . PUMPrNG , it� , , ' � sT,�,� t�KF � STATiON ? �+� , �� --- � �;-� _ �r.r�«.. .' �. ..., � � ' E. GR��N RIYER YA#.,LEY �.:- AUBt�'N ` � �lMTER�Cl�PTOR SEC. 82 ,-: !Nl'E�`�El�TOR�� ",:��BeTX ,��'S. . , ST�l.3�$+80 i� . � r �. . . � r � � .� tNTERIM CANNECT1aN �g��:;€.. / SLCTI4N B� , ,_, i � rt � LOWER M[L�y�� . °, � . . CR E EK ' 48 � -■► N.E.3orti`Sr ..A�rt' INT�RCEI?�i'O#2 �� `' �� At.LOfiF - � `{� '� t�� E. GREEN 1411f�R VALL:EY ,,,,�! _ �tWf�f�CEPTOR � ,�,; �i STi4a.34�1+80 ' w.t � � � ,� AU'$URId �...h .�_ _ �, ,. � ' FLRNT '�` �'�'- � � � COMNE�TION '�"�< :' - -t `. :'�`� . - r ._ _ ` �' , � .:� . . . � '�-.� - � ; . , . , :;�~ , �,...:�, ,. . .. . ::h, . •'=��:.+ � � , �i�;��l��l.+'l�l,��`<� ,�E w ; ;�:� �^^�q,:%�^,`me:<, *'•$.. ._ , , `. N j ��., ,.� . ' . � � « j ,e `t /' ' - - . �'�:.';y.„,�, ` 1 , . 4 rff .rr�a.,�,�� , ,A `t';• �ms. is�`, a` . , •�y. r,a � ,�a,` +i�--'' _ �j4`.�1KE t�, � �'� ..i::. .. '"` /GENEVfi . , �; ,�, } s;��,, ,��4` -, , �;: , �.��. � :..,�. < ,�,.�� . aa 4' . . , �UB�J�N INTER�E�TC�1� �� fig.39 � �� 5.��2TH � __ � � . g U�'M;J RCE'�TOR'-�£LfEF , . ��' ,:, ,f,� � �� .�, K� C R t�t. ;� . t . � sir,�.�}� .�—` E B � . y �� ., � r�; CON ECT �'...: . .� t,' , � .- , . . .0 � j� t � ' ,S229TH ST. . ' _ S'EC�rT1ON C� $ .' k, �;r .`.. . � ;�' , � � � } � . ��'�VA L L E 1��--�-�:�� i� - '� ,,: - � �° . _ '� �EaUL`ATOR �' 'iO � � {� � � TA.,4 4+20 , f _ ._�-- �, _ �� ^ - _'_��=�_' '��- - - •- �� i M I L E h- {� �JrCE J11,� I �' rr= � w� ' ? L E G E N p � _ . . _._..__...-�. ;. - . _ � ^ �� S '; S�WER (�973) . �,')t^-,� y �. �' � � � ��, �i� � . -� ;a . , , i ti.. . � � . ��.�.. _ "•+ . ;�►�. -�.��r SEWER(1975 1985) �•� tx �.• ..:, ,.� � � ��" �"�� `'' • � , + S I PH'0 —� ' , oa}, , �, -�.., _._ . �r � '� ~ � ' � ,�:_k — . ;°��i� -�.___.____ � _._ �AA`£, y , k t`. �s ��-.`n, r' � .,� t Ai►E'�R/QlA+1i . �,.�., �� •�. � , .,`, ` � _ � �-..�., ; �� .�.`.. ' �x'?: �� ' �'"•" ;: "j=�,,� �� PUMPIAIG, ,� , ` 1�. �,� �/�'' f . _ ' � ~'a�\ , `-� �`�t��' �`.�' STATI01� � . , �, �� T �. GR'EE�1 &FY�`�ALLEY ��.�..J ' {=i., � � �--.'� „� , ' ; , �}��IT� ��``.�EC.- �2 �� ' . ..-� v S.�.rw --=:�.�-� , �'` .� �_ � C�=k � ��*��V x � t w 4,� , . t�p, � , ' A I ;ti` t �a f �� . :r , ,n . �,1l�iT�RG� �PTOR �� . �� .: �`� h �. .� � �, . . . . �,�,�„_ �� z . � ��2�Br � - 4 ; , �► � ,;�;�-.. � � . ,�.� - :o � .r4..: �^. � cc ST�:3�6+80 '� _ .� . � � : � ��,� �-�--� �''�"` `` '! " ! •�RIM CONN�CTION , �� . .. . �:� '` ; ... ��. ��ON� �, ,:' r .. . .. . � �� ' 9 s �� LOW E R M TL�.� 48 '' �;,, ,.�',� ��-. ST. ' CREFK ��:.F ,`` . L:��`E' IHT�RGf�O�l� E �� ,' � '' � , � � Av[[OFF � � ` =_ '�" �L�'�"':' �RE�N��RtVER VA�L�I'Y .�, � - �` �� ' ;�' �NT;�RG.EPTOR ; ,f" ' ��~. � � �..., �, . �+ISTA �47�-80 �� ._.,....ti: ' � , , . ; , � :� ,,.,..,� ;,, _� % '� - � ;�,�AUBUR P�AN. .�. � f , yi }N �10��V�I O!� �� f' . 1 . , ' . tl � 1 ' ^^��,�� ' � ` . . , � � , �fn A ` 'c � � .� � :. �'° � ..r F E'. � ,+°f '"'�... +x , • , " _� `t. , ,a ' Y' . ( t� . ' . � ; " f � vlCkb � . t / ; . � h,'t � #'F ` .�"i'„i �°.3 - � � �'� � � {J t � �� a�'. _- . ,_i s�._,., . � ' ' ' . . ,. ' t.. + y� ,f� "� �„d + � ,_ 3 " Y `j�. r"`af..'�...,., ' . ..s. :,I:. ,�'Z,.{?_ '.�$.� - .d• f�, . . �, . ., :t' , ,�:j � -�� . �! ✓ _ R t �p_......r^, r: . ._.__,.—..- ...�,4"^'_'-'�,. . ' � y/' � w i � 3;s) � i. ,w .i. ,n . , F,; , . a t .' j r �S' �:._ , . '' r t . .r ,�a. ' +"i p � �� '".� �.; j F- ..�IIK� '�'h ' • , '"'�; �! ' a�. .t� > :* � . . ... i`��ENE�VA `'� -1_ `►: '''+. _ � ,� `3.� r � �w :' r�., � . �#��.� � .�i r""�'...3. AUBU�N INT�I�CEPTOR. plan � fi .40 � g l population does not increase beyand the Interim Regional Development P}ar�'s Year 2004 level , and arr $4-inch pipe would be required if the entire study area were sewered. Alternatives were also considered which involve the utilization of regional interception callection systems oth�r than METRO. These facilities included a regional interceptar to the Puyailup River Basin sewage treatment system and a regianal interceptar carrying wastewater west to Puget Saund. The regional interceptor ta the Pu�fallup River Basin utitizes a large interceptar callector system, similar to that used ta implement the METRQ system, to divert wastes from the Auburn area to a developing regional treatment system near Tacoma. The con- nectian of the interceptor pipeline south af Auburn would most likely be to the propased Sumner Interceptor, which wauld be extended norCh from Puyaliup and Sumner. A pump station would be required to cross the low divide between Auburn and Sumner. The total length of the required interceptar would be considerably longer than the proposed Auburn Interceptor, A regional interceptor carrying wastewater west ta Puget Sound wauld require an interceptor, similar to the proposed action, to divert wastes from the Auburn area to an existing or future treatment plant on Puget Sound. Due to the topography, a tunnei faciiity would be required in combination with this alternative. Existing treatment plants on Puget Sound directly west of Auburn are not capable of handling the ioad from Auburn. Na new treat- ment piants are as yet pianned in that area. Both inter-basin transfer schemes are realistic only if adequate collection and treatment facilities are available at the receiving end in the Puyallup River Basin or the Des Moines area. Other. regianai collectian systems cansidered involved rail or b�rge transpartation af cancentrated wastes ta Renton from the Auburn area. Barge transpartation of cancentrated wastes was determined to be unfeasible due ta the excessive amaunts of dredging and channel modifications to the Green River which would be required. Rail transport of wastes is equally unfeasible in terms of the valume of sewage which is presently� generated by the Auburn area. The present peak fiows fram the Auburn area woutd invotve the movement of at least 33� iarge rail tank cars per d�y. Storage facilities wauld also be required at the final treatment site (Renton) and in Auburn. These alternative regianal wastewater collectian systems will nat be further con- sidered. 2. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Alternatives � In comparative terms, the impacts of Plans A and B are less than � that of Plan C. The basic difference stems from the provision in A and B for construction of a single large line sk'rrting Kent aiong � an tandeveloped frantage road adjacent to the Valley �reeway, in contrast to two smaller lines with the future line thraugh a highly develaped commercial area of Kent, The latter would result in relatively complex logisticat problems and cansiderable commercial l. 2 I I -- _ � disruption. The risk of future construction through East Kent with extensive dewatering is difficult to evaluate but should not be mimimized. Projected flows in the Green River Valley are such that the East i Green River Valley Interceptor between South 153rd Street (Longacres) and South 216th Street (Kent Cross Valley Interceptor) would ne�d to be constructed some time around 1985 to 1990. At this time, additional flows generated by new urban areas and by newly designated industrial areas could combine to surpass the capacity of the South Interceptor at South 216 Street. A lower economic growth rate than anticipated could forestall the construction of this line for a time. Plans A, B, and C all dictate a sewage diversion or relief of the South Interceptor near the Kent Cross Valley Interceptor. Since the East Hill and Soos Creek areas can be served by a shallower line than is necessary to serve Auburn, both Plan A and B require a deeper cut than Plan C for the future East Green River Valley Interceptor north of Kent. The Auburn Interceptor at South 228th Street will have an approximate invert elevation of 7.6 feet. The East Green River Valley Interceptor, Plan C, would flow by gravity from East Auburn to a point at South 228th Street with an approximate invert elevation of 16 feet. This means that under Plan C, a cut of 18 feet results while under either Plan A or B, the diversion from the Auburn Interceptor would result in a 29-foot cut. A discussion of the environmental impacts of diverting Auburn's wastewater to a treatment facility on Puget Sound or within the Puyallup River Basin would involve an extensive analysis of the receiving water bodies or river system. Such a study is beyond the scope of this document. Suffice it to say that the dista�ce traversed to connect at either of these locations is longer than the distance which would be required to connect to the existing METRO facilities in Kent. Primary impacts associated with the actual construction of interceptor sewers would be greater if such long regional interceptors were constructed. Construction of the pipeline to Puget Sound, in particular would result in significant direct environmental impacts. Requiring either a pipeline uphill to the top of the Des Moines plateau, then west down to the shore of Puget Sound, or a tunnel directly to the Sound, this alternative would directly impact many aspects of the environment. An overland pipeline would require a very large pump station or series of pump stations in the Green River Valley, utilizing considerable energy resources. The closest existing treatment facility, the Des Moines Sewage Treatment Plant, is not large enough to handle the Auburn waste load effici- ently. Construction of a new treatment facility would be required, further impacting the environment. Al1 of the long-term regional collection and treatment systems are similar in terms of secondary environmental impacts. Future urban expansion, which is predicated upon the existence of adequate sewage collection and treatment systems, would be stimulated by all of these regional long-term alternatives. 212 . 3• Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided Should the Alternative Be Implemented in regard to the alternative routing of the proposed Auburn Interceptor, Plan C would result in greater unavoidable impacts than would Plan A or B, primarily because Plan C would result in the construction of a large interceptor in a highly developed commercial area of Kent. This disruption to social activities w�uld not occur in Plan A or B, which would be constructed along a frontage road adjacent to the Ualley Freeway. Otherwise, all three plans are similar in impact to the bio-physical environment, which has already been altered from its natural state along the proposed routes. The adverse environmental impacts of routing a regional interceptor to the Puyallup River Basin or to Puget Sound are not ascertainable with the scope of this study. 4. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity Short-term environmental uses can be considered to be fairly minima) since the various alternative Auburn Interceptor options would be constructed in areas primarily committed to urban development according to the applicable local land use plans. The short-term environmental uses affected by the routing of a regional interceptor to a location other than the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant would depend on the exact location of such facilities. Al1 of the regional long-term alternatives are likely to stimulate urban deveiopment of the sewerage area. The long-term pualitv of the environment and potential biological productivity of the area would therefore be foresaken for short-term economic benefits , which often result from urbanization. 5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would be Imvolved in the Proposed Alternative should it be Implemented Any regional long-term collection and treatment system will probably commit future generations to an irreversible approach to water quality management, in that it is not likely that once initiated, any given alternative would be discontinued. The expenditure of materials, human labor, time, and financial resources would preclude a change once a given course of action is embarked upon. However, Plan C, as described previously, represents a higher degree of flexibility in terms of irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, in that it provides for the staged-construction of parallel lines and thus affords greatest service and flexibility in providing for the ultimate sewerage needs of the sewerage area. Regional long-term solutions which route an interceptor to a treatment facility serving the Puyallup River Basin sewerage area or a treatment facility on Puget Sound would involve a longer interceptor and consequently greater commitments of all involved resources. 2� 3 6. Feasibility i) Technical Feasibility All of the Auburn Interceptor alternatives are technically feasible. For a more detailed description of the probable con- struction techniques and design considerations refer to Section 1 , which describes the proposed action. , The technical feasibility of diverting the Auburn areas' wastes to either the south or west is contingent upon the presence of adequate connections and treatment facilities at the receiving end of the proposed interceptors. According to the recent "Puyallup River Basin Sewerage General Plan", the Auburn, Algona, and Pacific area, with the possible exception of the extreme southern portion of Auburn and the northern portion of the Lake Tapps service area, is anticipated to be serviced from the north via the proposed Auburn Interceptor. The sewerage plans for the Puyallup River Basin include a major intercep�or from Tacoma east to Puyallup and then north to Sumner. This interceptor is not, however, scheduled to reach the Sumner area until at least 1990. Until that time, the existing Sumner treatment will be continually expanded but only at a rate equal to it' s service area growth. The Sumner Treatment Plant is not capabl2 of'absorbing the wa�te loads of the Auburn system at this time. A diversion by pipeline west to Puget Sound appears unfeasible at this time and for the foreseeable future. The 1968 report on Auburn's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan suggested and analyzed this alternative, concluding that it was not feasible. ii) Economic Feasibility Among the three alternative routes for the Auburn Interceptor, a present-worth analysis of the three options favors Plan A with Plans C and B rated second and third respectively. The analysis, using a 5-1/2 percent interest rate, indicates a Plan A present- worth savings of approximately one-half million dollars (about eight percent) over Plan B and one-quarter million dollars (about four percent) over Plan C. While any delay in anticipated construction dates tends to bring Plan C closer to present-worth equivalence with Plan A, it also allows time for further. develop- . ment and consigns greater risk and community impact to Plan C. Plan A entails total construction cost savings of 4.5 and 5•25 million dollars over Plans B and C. These Plan A savings are for total construction costs. The initial cost for �he Auburn Interceptor, as proposed by Plan A, is 0.8 and 1 .8 million dollars more than for Plans B and C. 214 - - � A present-worth analysis shows Plan B as the least favorable of the three locational options, being approximately one-half million dollars (about eight percent) below Plan A and one- quarter million dollars (about four percent) below Plan C in terms of present-worth savings. Total construction cost estimates indicate that Plan B is 4.5 million dollars more expensive than Plan A, but carries a .75 million dollar savings over Plan C. 7he indication remains that Plans A and C would be equivalent at 6.85 percent increase rate, or they would be equivalent at 5-1/2 percent interest if the East Green River Valley Interceptor was not constructed until 1988. Total construction i� cost comparisons indicate that Plan C is the most expensive, being I 5.25 million dollars over the cost of Plan A and .75 million 'i dollars over Plan B. Plans B and C both provide local service along the east side of the Green River, and defer tF�e final design !� of �he East Green River Valley Interceptor to a time when the I develppment patterns of the valley might be better known and the actual need for construction is apparent. These advantages do not, however, appear to pffset the additional costs of twin intea- captors or the risk and impact of future construction through Kent, according to the Auburn Interceptor's Prelimi�ary �n�ineerin; Report. As to the feasibility of routing Auburn wastewater to facilities , , within the Puyallup Basin or on Puget Sound, current plans and I the lqng distances involved are the primary limitations. At present there is no provision in the new sewerage plan for the Puyallup Basin for accommodating the Auburn area wastes, with th� possible exception of the north Sumner Valley and the tribu- tary Lake Tapps area's waste loads. Interceptor service to the Sumner area is scheduled to occur between 1990 and the year 2020, which makes it necessary for an interceptor from Auburn to reach Puya} lup in order to connect to the existing sysXem. This distance is Fonsiderably longer than that required to reach the existing METRO facilities in Kent. The scheme for tunneling ynder or pumping waste water over the plateau to the west of Auburn for a pipeline connection to a treatment plant on Puget Sound has been investigated by Auburn's engineering consultants. It ,was determined to be unfeasible due to the high cost of tunneling plus the need to construct a new treatment facility on Puget Sound ��ith the capacity to handle the Auburn area's wasteload. J. Administrative Alternatives 1 . Description The effectiveness of technological sewage treatment alternatives are inherently de�endent upon the expression and implementation of public policies, comprehensive land use planning, and a clear understanding of urban growth objectives. Indeed, the success of the application of a technological solution can only be measured in terms of being an adequate manifestation of public policy goals and objectives. For example, the existence of a large unused capacity in an interceptor line can, in the absence of sound land-use planning and zoning, induce 2�5 � _ _ _ i i intensive development inconsistent with gaod iand use practices � ar�d even the public desire. On the other hand, in a rapidty ch�nging ar�a, reaiistic praject'tons of long-range future needs be- corr:e increasingly difficult. For areas af high anticipated grawth, design lives of interceptor sewers of mare than 20 to 25 years may nat be prudent» The mast desirabl� sc�lutian to sewage collectian and treatment needs 'is one which involves tha minimal commitment of I resources, allows for the greatest flexibility in choices for future ', generations, and is cost effective. To this end, policy rnaking and administrative alternatives must necessarily be considered in conjunction with technoiogical solwtions. . Within the Green River Sewerage Area, several specific administrative aiternatives could be implemented in order to ach'reve the �esired � coordinr�tion between public policy and te�hno�ogical alternatives. �! For ane, the demand for additional sewage facilities, either now or I after the implementation c�f a short-t�rm alternative or a long-term alternative, could be reduced by restricting or limiting development through the apptication or revision of regionai planning powers or through the enforcement andlar amendment of tocal and county zoning , ardinances, subdivision ordinances, and ptatting regulations. !n addition, variaus plans andlor schemes cauld be implemented tvhich , are designed to remove speculation and inequity from the �transfer , and develapment af land, thereby aiding the overall planning and I d�sign process. Far example, encouraging the use of existing open I space tax relief schemes ar the public acquisition of open space I could result in a diminished demand for sewerage facilities , and a- ' ', reductiqn in the volume of waste water requiring treatment . qther land use and planning measures, such as regicrna) tax revenue ' � sharing schemes could also affect the design af waste water cailectian and treatment systems, by lessening the importance of suck� systems with regard ta tax revenues. Presently, many 1oca1 governments vie wir_y � one another for a limited amount oF new industrial development in the � region. This development is desired by these local governments for a number of reasons , including the increased tax revenues �vhich are � usually anticipated in conjunction with such develapment. As demon- �strated in t�re Green River Vatley tn the eariier comparisan of the i relationship �f sewers and urban development in Kent ane! Auburn, [he iprpvision of sewerage facilities can profaundly inf1uence land use patterns, particularly if growth is desired by local governments as � • a me�ns to improve their tax base. Regional tax sharing schemes may � diminish this desire, eliminating the need for some planned sewerage � �acitities. � i l.and use pianniny schemes which direct grc�wth to the mast suitable areas cauld also affect t,rater quality managerttent pianning. If, for example, grawth ir� rural areas were directed to areas mast suitable For septic tanks, and aolicies were instigated, enforc+ng the regular ma+nten�nce of such �acilities, the r�eed for sewer service to outl.ying areas may be eliminated or at least postponed. Public policies encouraging the clustering of development would enhance the feasibility of smali tand disposai systems and community treatment plants. If development were encouraged upon the plateau areas , fqr examp}e, tlt� � �� ,��.�.��J rather than the valley bottom flood plains, the feasibility and, possibly, the cost-effectiveness of rural advanced waste water treatment facilities would increase. Development-rights transfer schemes also represent a possible admin- istrative alternative, which could potentially affect the need for and design of sewerage facilities in the sewerage area by influencing land use patterns. Such schemes, presently being investigated in , some portions of the United States, direct development to areas most suitable for such development through a complex system involving the exchange of development-rights, rather than land. In such schemes, land uses are assigned development-rights requirements, which vary with the magnitude and type of expected impacts. All of the various classifications of land (based upon natural systems) are also as6igned development-rights in relation to the land units inherent suitability for different land uses. As the development-rights are exchanged between landowners, land uses would hopefully be directed to areas mqst suitable for that specific use. Administrative alternatives could also involve the regulation of water use (amou�t and timing) and waste discharges to reduce the magnitude and occurrence of peak wastewater flows and the resulting concen- trations of wastes, which can cause upset conditions in treatment facilities. T'his would involve embarking on a substantial prograro . to educate the public to regulate periods of water consumption and tMe amount consumed, Flow equalization could, for example, be accomplished by utilizing programs restricting water use in portions of a community or the sewerage area on a rotating basis. Storm sewer separation programs, discussed previously, can be considered a flow equalization strategy, eliminating the burst of water created by infiltration/inflow. Reducing the quantities of water used could also be effectuated by the setting of actual physical limitations on the siz� of water-using appliances and facilities, as well as the creation of artificially- restricted facilities. The simple "brick-jn-the water-closet" s4heme, for example, can be an effective method to slightly reduce the quantity of water used in developed areas. Many other policies, regulations, and encouraged actions co41d be coupled with emgineering and design schemes to increase the feasibility of small treatmen� plants or loca) treatment systems. 2. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Alternative In as much as policy alternatives are relatively intangible, a documen- tation of specific environmental impacts is not possible. However, it is possible to include desirable environmental objectives within a consideration of policy alternatives. The inclusion of such environ- mental objectives within the early decision-making process could potentially result in greater overall environmental quality, as mitigative measures are planned for the unavoidable effects and every effort is made to minimize avoidable impacts. 217 L _ r 3. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided Should the Alternative be lm�lemented Conceivably, with caordinated land use and water resource planning pracesses tb implement the desired administrative altern�tives, the adverse impacts to the environment wauld be minimal or non- � existent. 4. Relafiianship Between Lacal Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity The maintenanc� and enhancement af long-term praductivity wilt occur as short-term uses of man's environment ar� minimized by adequate consideratian of various possible administrative alter�atives. The develqpment of far-sighted land use and water resource management policies, plans, and regulations would also maximize tne long-term overall environmental quality of the sewerage area. S. trreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would be invo)ved in the Proposed Action Should 1� be Implemented Shauld intelligent, rationai administrative alternatives be impie- mented, the irreversible and irretrievable comm'ttment af resources would be minimal . 6. Feasibility The feasibility of the daveiopment of land use and water use policies, plans and regulations, which couid be viewed as an atternative to the present policies, plans, and regulatians affecting the Green River Sewerage Area, is dependent upon the citizens and public officials af the sewerage area, as we} 1 as their regiona� , StatE, and Federal representatives. ! t is likely that the actions of these people, which may be affecfied by education and the complete disseminatinn of available information, wiil affect the future of the sewerage area to a greater extent than the feasibility of any of the land use and water use aiternatives firiefly described in this section of this assessment. The RIBG4 st�dy, while conducting its preliminary investigations of solutions ta expected prablems in the Green River Basin, considered restricting land development associated with large waste loads as a method of cantrolling wastes. The Preliminary RIBCO study for the Green River Basin notes, as a result of these investigations, that programs to reduce municipal and industriai water use (M � I use} through pricing, rationing, and water conservation should be a part af every water management pian. The impact of such pragrams, however, as noted previausly, is difficult to assess and shauld be given cantin- uing study. RlBCO studies to date indicate that pricing would probably have little effect in reducing M � I use in the Seattle Service Area, though high (perhaps 50 percent) surcharges to reduce lawn watering might reduce peak summer consumption. Rationing wauld probably be difficult to impose with the flexibility needed to lessen demand dur�ing dry periods, it wouid aiso be difficult to administer fairly 21$ — - -- - - - — - — �� -- -� and to document as to its effectiveness. Conservation, supported by an advertising campaign and perhaps a demonstration home using every available conservation device and technique, might, however, prove to have some effectiveness over the long-term. The RIBCO studies have noted that alternative solutions to quality problems can be approached by controlling pollution through land use restrictions and collecting and treating urban runoff. These approaches require further study, which has been undertaken by the METRO-directed Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage and Water Resources Management RIBCO studies. As a product of preliminary RIBCO studies , some RIBCO study documents urge that varied pricing, rationing , and water conservation measures, as well as land use restrictions and urban runoff collection and treatment measures, be tested in early pilot programs and, where proven effective, implemented as soon as practicable. 219 � — � K. A Comparative Evaluation of the Majar Alternatives, tncluding the Praposed Actian A detailed comparisan af the environmental and financiaT "cost differences among equaliy effective alternatives" and the "differences in effectiveness il � among equa} ly castly atternatives", as encouraged by EPA guidetines, is ( impassible to undertake at this time. Due to the intangible and unpredictable €actors affecting the future of the Green ftiver Sewarage Area, the results af such comparisons wauld be quite Sp�CU�dtiV@. A thorough investigatian of these factars should be comp3eted before a comparison of alternative waste I water management strageties far the sewerage area is undertaken» Such an ' investigation would be beyond the scope of this assessment. � The future land use patterns of the Green River Sewerage Area, for example, are not fuliy predictable at this time. Bath the rate of growth and the distribution of future urban development within the sewerage area are likely ta be affected by future palicies, plans, and regulations promulgated to preserve or enhance the qualsty of tha sewerage area's environment. Air quality planners, for e�cample, may be forced to instigate regulatary measures affecting the rate and distribufiian of development in the sewerage area, as I its present marginal air quality continues to be degraded and present air j quality standards continue to be broken, especially within the Green River Vatley. If the anticipated growth of the sewerage area were affected by air quaiifiy prabiems, the anticipated waste water vatumes generated within the . , sewerage area woutd also probably be affected. The proposad action, fo'r exampie, may not be as cost-effective as a smaller facility, capable of serving a slight ar moderate increase in devalapment within the sewerage arsa', I if the anticipated development af the area were to be slowed. New directions in land use planning, including the possible implementation of� state or national land use planning actions, could also affect the amount of growth and/or the distribution af additianal development within the Green River Sewerage Area. This would, af course, inftuence the need far and design of waste water collection and treatment systems serving the sewerage area. Fac- ilitias and systems which da nat appear to be cast-effective at this time may prove to be cast-effective if future urban growth within the sewerage area were to occur in a manner not typical of past urban development. Quantifying the costs and benefits and the anticipated performance and impacts of the various alternatives discussed within this assessment in a detaiied or graphic manner (e.g. a chart � iStin� the estimated canstructian costs of all alternatives versus the degree af treatment provided) is alsa complicated by the lack of consistent data relating to the alternative's economic feasibility. The cast estimates provided in the �iscussions of economic feasibility within this assessment, for exampte, vary with regard to the time horizon and interest rates utilized. The cost estimates provided for some alternatives are based upon 19$0 waste laads; others are cast estimates of faciiities serving the year 2000 or 2030 waste loads. The interest rates affecting same of the cost estimates also varied. As shown by tha camparison of P}ans A, B, and C of the Auburn finterceptor, even stight variations in interest rates can affect the cast- -effectiveness of aiternative facilities. tt is alsa quite difficult (perhaps impossible) ta ccxnpare the casts of callection facilities or systems directly against the costs of treatment systems. The proposed action, for example, does nat, by itself regionalize Auburn's existing sewerage system. An expansion af the Renfion Sewage Treatment Plant, costing over $35�00O,OOq, was also required 220 _ _ to adequately treat the waste water volumes created by the rapidly expanding Seattle metropolitan area. The fraction of the costs of expanding the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant attributable to the anticipated waste loads of a �I regionalized Green River Sewerage Area is unknown at this time. � The number of possible combinations of unit processes, treatment plant config- urations and locations, and collection systems which could be used within the sewerage area, particularly if existing policy constraints were removed, also complicates any direct economic comparisons of the alternatives discussed in this assessment. A detailed comparison of the unit processes, treatment systems, and collection systems, which comprise alternative waste water management strageties, is impossible to undertake until a waste water management stragety for the sewerage area has, in fact, been determined to be the most cost-effective and the least damaging to the natural systems of the sewerage area over an indeterminate period of time. Hopefully, the integrated environmental management plans resulting from the RIBCO study efforts will define such waste water management strageties. A detailed discussion of the relative costs of the alternatives to determine their comparative economic feasibilites, would, therefore entail an intensive study, far beyond the scope of an assessment. In a similar vein, this assess- ment has not been an engineering study; the full engineering feasibility of the collection and treatment alternatives discussed in this assessment should be addressed in a complete engineering study. New waste water treatment technologies and potential treatment and collection systems, not addressed in this assessment, should be reviewed. The economic, engineering, and environ- mental characteristics inherent to individual alternatives described in this assessment must be viewed as approximations, based upon the best available information, but not upon specific detailed engineering or economic studies. Based upon the investigations and studies conducted during the assessment process, it is certain, however, that: -There are many alternatives to the construction of a regional intercept�r sewer that would solve any existing and potential pollution problems relating to the existing and/or continued operation of the Auburn Sewage Treatment Plant. -There are feasible alternatives to the proposed action, which could also transport the Auburn area's waste loads to a regional treatment plant, if growth-controlling or growth-directing policies, plans, or regulations, not now in existence, were implemented. -There are potential collection and/or treatment systems which , would solve the existing health problems of the Black Diamond Plateau with�ut requiring large regional interceptor facilities in the Green River Valley. Construction of the proposed action will most likely preclude most alternative collection and treatment schemes for the Green River Sewerage Area, other than the implementation of amendments to the existing METRO Comprehensive Plan. Th� Auburn Interceptor' s construction will not immediately improve water quality problems throughout most of the sewage area. The implementation of some of the alternatives discussed in this assessment could, however, provide immediate relief for existing water quality problems. All of the alternatives described 221 by this assessment, with the exception of the "No-action" alternative, would in some way directly contribute to increaeed water quatity within the Green/Duwamish Rivers or the Green River Sewerage Area, disregarding the water quality impacts of potential sewer-stimulated urban growth. Many of the alternatives discussed in this assessment are equally effective with regard to their ability to solve both short-term and long-term water quality problems in the sewerage area. Many of the alternatives are also equally effective with regard to their capability to accommodate additional urban growth in the sewerage area. The proposed action, most assuredly, is not the only alternative that will serve the needs of an expanding urban area, as well as existing and probable water quality standards and requirements. Simitar to the problems encountered in comparing the costs and effectiveness of the alternatives described in this assessment, a detailed comparison of the direct impacts of the many alternatives is impossible to undertake at this time. Only after the completion of thorough engineering reports and design studies, would the direct impacts be known. It is likely, however, that many of the direct impacts of implementing the alternatives would be quite similar. It would be expected that slight disturbances to terrestrial ecosystems, temporary construction-related noise and air quatity impacts, and temporary inconveniences to the public (street ctosures, interference with utilities, etc.) would result from the implementation of most alternatives. Secondary impacts could vary considerably, however, as some alternatives, including the proposed action, could be expected to stimulate a rather large amount of urban growth within the sewerage area. Other alternatives evaluated in this assessment would allow only slight or moderate amounts of development , to occur. The large amount of urban growth encouraged by many of the alter- natives will probably degrade the long-term environmental quality of the area. Though some of the facitities capable of accommodating large increases in development within the sewerage area, including the proposed action, appear to be cost-effective water quality management strageties according to available information, the costs of urbanization have not been taken into account. These costs, including, but not limited to the following, should be considered when determinations of the cost-effectiveness of sewer proposals are made. -Uncontrolled urban growth often prematurely characterizes an area, as the development of housing, industrial , or commercial land uses subsequently makes the area unfavorable for anything but compatible uses. Such characterization is typically done quite unintentionally by those trying to avoid high land prices or restrictive regulations in other areas. -Uncontrolled urban growth frequently increases the costs or decreases the quatity of public services, as sewer, water, gas, and electrical services are extended (often wastefully) or are lacking. Similar high costs or inadequacies occur with regard to transportation, educational , fire, police, recreational , and other community services. -Uncontrolled urban growth may result in health problems, as poor quality subdivisions and trailer courts, for example, are develqped in areas where public agencies are not prepared or able to regulate decent subdivision, housing, building, and health codes. 222 -Uncontro] led urban growth typically wastes land resaurces in bypassed areas suitable for no economically productive use, either as housing, industry, agriculture, public recreation, or corrrmerce. -Uncontrolled urbar� growth often devetaps a iack of community identity and manotany, and provides inadequate saciai and cutturat opportunities. -Uncontrolled urban growth, of caurse, impacts all of natural sysCems, including the air and water resources of an area, productive biologica] systems, and productive or potentially productive land resources. Though cost-effectiveness may be a basicaliy sound cancept for evatuating a sewer propasal , it can hardiy be considered accurate if it daes not somehow linclude the )ong-range societai and anvironrnental costs resuiting fram i sewer-induced, frequently uncontralled, urban grow�h. If such secondary costs were considered, alternatives,which may not presently appear ta be cast-effective, may prove to be cost-effective water quality management strategies. � All of the alternatives evaluated in this assessment, with the exception af the "No-action" alternative, will require some commitment of time, energy, materials, human labar, and financiai resources. Most of these resource commitments would be irretrievabte and irreversible. At the same time. many of these resource commitments wauld nat be "last", ar wasted, for the alternative implemented would be a step towards the fulfi3lment of natianal water quality requirements and, often, gaa]s. It is certain, that with regard to present �PA requirements for secondary treatment, many alternatives cauld be implemented, which would I meet present water quality standards, as well as be easily incarporated into advanced treatment systems, which would meet future water quality standards. Since a direct camparison of alternatives is not passible presenfily, the function pf the discussion of alternatives within this assessment has been to demonsfirate �hat a number of feasible alternatives to the prapased alternative do exist and to give some approximation af impacts that couid be expected as a resuit of their impiementation. This analysis af alternatives, undertaken in the spirit af pursuing and describing all possible, and most af the suggested alternatives, has hopefully been af value to those evaluating the praposed action. Rather than conctude that certain alternatives are "better" than athers, under specific sets of assumptians, this assessment ha� attempted to stimulate thought and discussion by questioning and investigating as many conceivable alternatives as possible, while informing EPA of the likely impacts of the alternatives. The praposed action does, however, appear ta be justified, due ta the existing policies, plans, and regulatians affecting water quality management within the sewerage area. Feasible alternatives seem to be less cost-effective, based upon the criteria presently used to determine cost-effectiveness. The existing policies, regulations, and guidelines, as we11 as many additional factors, limit the possible alternatives ta providing adequate sewerage facilities for the Green River Sewerage Area ta the Auburn Interceptar. Though other facilities would salve existing problems and anticipated future problems, resource cammit- ments and decisions made during the past fifteen years have created a situation in which anly the Auburn Interceptar appears to fulfill all existing require- ments. Only the Auburn Interceptor or a similar large regianal interceptar sewer is likety to be funded, constructed, and placed in operation. 223 VIII . COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS RAISED BY FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES, AND BY INTERESTED PARTIES This section will include the comments and suggestions raised by federal , state, and local agencies, and by interested parties at the public hearing to be held in December, 1973, in Auburn, as well as any other public meetings at which the proposed action is the primary topic of discussion (e.g. Metropolitan Council meetings) . Region X EPA will utilize these comments in its environmental review process and in its decision to either issue a negative declaration or proceed to the impact statement stage. If a significant number of adverse impacts are indicated or if the proposed action appears to be "highly controversial", Region X EPA is required to prepare an environmental impact statement. . . , e : 224 REFERENCES The following is a selected listing of the references utilized in the preparation of this assessment: City of Algona, Algona Comprehensive Plan, April 1970. Black and Veatch, Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal , Kansas City, Mo. , October 1971 , (for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) . Brown and Caldwell , Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage and Drainage Survey, Seattle, March 1958. Burns and Roe, Inc. , Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal , Oradell , N.J. , October 1971 , (for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) . CH2M/Mill , Interim Wa�er Resource Management Report-First Round of Water Resource Man�9ement Alternatives, Seattle, May 1973, (for the RIBCO study) . CH2M/Hill , Interim Water Resource Management Report-Water Resource Problems in the Green River Basin, Seattle, April 1973� (for the RIBCO study) . Clark, Coleman, and Rupeiks, Inc. , Comprehensive Plan for Auburn Planning Area, Seattle, September 1968. Clark, John W. , Viessman Jr. , Warren, and Hammer, Mark J. , Water Suppty and Pollution Control , International Textbook f,ompany, Scranton, Penn. , 1971 . Consoer, Townsend, and Associates, Puyallup River Basin Sewerage General Plan for Pierce County, Washington, Tacoma, 1971 . . Cornell , Howland, Hayes and Merryfield, A Reevaluation-METRO Comprehensive Sew�rage Plan, Seattle, June 1971 • Cquncil on Environmental Quality, Preparation of Environmental Impact Stetements: Guidelines, (40 CFR Part 1500) , Federal Register, Vol . 38, No. 147, August 1 , 1973• Croke, E.J. , Cr.oke, K.G. , Kennedy, A.S. , and Hoover, L.J. , The Relationship Between Land Use and Environmental Protection, Argonne National Laboratory, Center 'for Environmental Studies, Argonne, Iltinois, March 1972• Culp, G.L. , and Hanse, S. , Extended Aeration Effluent Polishing bv Mixed-media Filtration, Water and Sewage Works, 114, No. 2, 1967. Culp, R.L. , and Culp, G.L. , Advanced Wastewater Treatment, Von Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1971 . Diaper, E.W.J. , Tertiary Treatment by Microstraining, Water and Sewage Works, 115, No. 6, 1969. Grasso, Anthony, Hoag, Susan, and Pancoast, John, Hydrologic Determinants for Residential Development, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1970. 225 Hill , Ingman, Chase, and Compan�, , . it,� �f Auburn Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, An Engineering Report for The �, ; ty o` Auburn on Sewage Collection, Treatment, and Disposal , Seattle, Ncvember 1y68. City of Kent, East Hill Plan, Kent Planning Department, June 1971 . City of Kent, Environmental Impact Statement (Final Copy) , Proposed Citv of Kent Zoning Code and Zoning Mapping, Kent P}artning flepartment, March 1973. City of Kent, Kent Comprehensive Plan (Revised) , 4ctober 1971 • City of Kent, Kent Sphere of Interest, Kent Planning Department, June 19�2. City of Kent, Kent Zoning Ordinance, Kent Planning Department, December t971 • King County, The Comprehensive Plan for King County, Washington, King County Pianning Department, �964. , King County, Summary Shoreline Inventory, King County Planning Department, Seattle, December 1972. King County, The Upper Green River Valley, An Ecological Study, King Coun.ty Planning Department, Seattle, Novemeber 1970. � Loehr, R. , and Stephenson, R. , An Oxidation Pond as a Tertiary Treatment • Device, Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, 91 , No. 3, 1965. Metropolitan Engineers, Auburn Study Area-Population and Flows, Seattle, ' June 1973- Metropolitan Engineers, Enumclaw-Black Diamond Regional Sewerage Study, Seattle, June 1970. � Metropolitan Engineers, METRO 71-1971 Report on Operations, Seattle, Apri : 1972. Metropolitan Engineers, Predesign Report on the Secortd Stage Construction of the Comprehensive Sewera�e Plan, Seattle, August 1970. Metropolitan Engine�rs, Preliminary Data-Soils Investigation, Kent-Auburn In�erceptor, Seattle, May 1973• Metropolitan Engineers, Preliminary Engineering Report-Auburn Interceptor= Green River Sewerage Area, Seattle, March 1�7�. Me.tropolitan Engineers, Report on Operations-Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle- 1970 Annual Report, Seattle, January 1971 . � Metropolitan Engineers, Sewage Disposal Project-Contract No. 72-11 , '� Seattle, SePtember 1972. Metropolitan Engineers, Study Analysis-Proposed Sewerage System, North Lake I Sar�nami5h Vatley, Seattle, 1971 . Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Comprehensive Plan (As Amended) , Seattle, April 1959• Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Environmental Assessment-Sammamish I Vaiiey Interceptor System, Seattle, 1971 • ' 226 ' Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Environmental Assessment-Retirement of the Rainier Vista Sewer District Treatment Plant, Seattle, July �973. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, METRO Enabling Act, Seattle, 1958• Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, METRO-The First Ten Years, Seattle 1968. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, METRO Monitor, various issues, Seattle, 1973T Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Six Month Report (October 1972-March 1973) , Water Quality Monitoring Review Board, Seattle, June 1973• Municipatity of Metropolitan Seattle, Special Green-Duwamish River Coliform Studies, Seattle, January 1972. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Water Quality Monthly Report, Seattle, October 1972 through March 1973. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Guidelines for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Interceptor Sewers, Trenton, New Jersey, September tg72. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-95 (Revised) , Washington, D.C. , January 1971 • City of Pacific, Comprehensive Ptan for Pacific, Washington, November 1969. Pierce County, Generalized Comprehensive Plan, Pierce County Planning Department, Tacoma, April 1962. Pierce, J. , Aerated Lagoons Treat Secondary Effluent, Water and Sewage Works, 117� No. 5, 1970. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Air Quality Data Summary-1972, Seattle, 1973• Puget Sound Governmental Conference, Conference Call , various issues, Seattle:, 1972 and 1973• Puget Sound Governmental Conference, The Interim Regional Development Plan, Seattle, August 1971 . Puget Sound Governmental Conference, A Land Use Suitability Analysis for the Cedar River and Green River Basins, A Summary Report, Seattle, October 1g72. � , Puget Sound Governmental Conference, Population and Employment Forecasts and Distributions for the Central Puqet Sound Region-1975-1990 (1972 Revision) , Seattle, July 1972. � Puget Sound Governmental Conference, 1971-72, Puget Sound Governmental Conference, Seattle, October 1972. Puget Sound Governmental Conference, Regional Water and Sewer Plan Update, (Preliminary) , Seattle, June 1973• City of Renton, Renton Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, March 1972• River Basin Coordinating Committee, A Coordinated Approach to Water and Waste Management Planning, Seattle, 1973• 227 � Smith, R. , Cost of Gonventional and Advanced Treatment of Wastewater, Journal af the WPCF, Na. 40, September lg6$. Smith, R. , and McMichael , W.F. , Cost and Performance Estimates for Tertiary Wastewater Treating Processes, U.S. Dept. of the interior, FWPGA Report No, TWRG-9, June 1969. G.T. Sparrow and Associates, Tr�wn �, F,i<��.k Diamond,The Comprehensive Plan, Beilevue, May 196$. Stevens, Thompson, and Runyan, lnc. , r;Eternative Waste Treatrnent Plant I le June l for the RIBCO stud ) . Canfi uratians, Seatt , 973t � Y �� . ' Stevens, Thompson, and Runyan, Inc. , interim Report of the RIBCO Water Quaiity, Management Study, Seattte, October 29, 1973, (far the RIBCO study} . Stevens, Thompson, and Runyan, Inc. , Land Disposal af Waste Water, Seattle, I ,Juty 1g73, (for the RtBCO study} . Stevens, Thompson, and Runyan, Inc. , Land Disposal of Waste Water-Discussian of Questions Rai�ed July 3, Seattle, July 1973, �#�r the RIBCO study) . I Stevens, Thompson, and Runyan, inc. , Staff Comments-Land Dispasal of Waste �. . Water, Seattie, June 1973, (for the RIBCO study) . Stevens, Thompson, and Runyan, Inc. , Water System Analysis and Master Plan for � the City of Auburn, Washingtan, Seattte, June i969• Thomas, Richard E. , and Hartin, Curtis C. , Experiences with Land Spreading '' of Municipal Effluents, Nationat Water Quality Control . Research Program, EPA, Ada, Okla, , June 1972. Thomas, Richard E. , Fate of Materials Applied, National Water Quality Control Research Program, EPA, Ada, Okla. , December 1972. U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, The Merrimacic: t}esigns far a Clean River, �urrn�ai-y Report, Washingtan D.C. , 5eptember 1971 . li U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Vegetatian af Oregon and � Washington, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Statian, Partland, Orc:. , l i969. (by Jerry Franklin and C.T. Dyrness} . � U.S, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Draft Environmental I Statement for the East Green R.iver Watershed Project, Spakane, March 1973- i I U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sail Conservation Service, Saii Survey of k,inc County, Washington, Series 193$, No. 31 , Seattie, September a952. + U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservaCion Service, Soil Surv ey-Kin� Caunty Area, Washington, (advanced copy) , Renton, June 1971 . U.S. Department of AgriculCure, Soil Conservation Servi.ce, Soil Survev of Pierce Caunty, Washington, Series 1939, Weshin9ton D.C. , Ju1y 1955- U.S. Deparfiment of Agriculture, Soil Conservatian Service, Revised 1972 Soii Survey of the P.ierce County Area, Washington, Puyaltup, 1972. U.S, Department af Nausing and Urban Development, Areawide Plannin9 Requirements, Washingtan D,C. , July 1970. 228 J L_- -' -. -._ -. _ _ -_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Handbook 1 , Comprehensive Planning Assistance Requirements and Guidelines for a Grant, Washington D.C, . March 1972. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Agricultural Utilization of Sewa�e Effluent and Sludqe, Water Quality Control Research Program, Ada, Okla. , January 1968. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration, Clean Water for the 1970's-A Status Report, Washington D.C. , June 1970. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, The Economics of Clean Water, Volume 1 , Washington D.C. , March 1970. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, As Amended, Washington D.C. , June 1970. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration, Federal 6uidelines-Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Waste Water Treatment Facilities, Washington, D.C. , September 1970. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Guidelines for Establishinq Water Quality Standards for I�terstate Waters, Washington D.C. , May 1966. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Hydrology for Urban Land Planning-A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 55�� Washington, D.C. , 1968. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Washington, Part 1 . Surface Water Records, Tacoma, 1972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Activity I Report, National Land i Use Task Force, Seattle, August 1972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Applicant's Environmental Ass�ssment (CG-47) , Seattle, February 1g72, (Revised March 1973) • IU.�. Environmental Protection Agency, Applying for Waste Treatment Facilities Construction Grants, Region X, Seattle, February 1972• U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, The Challenge of the Environment, A Primer on EPA's Statutory Authority, Washington D.C. , December 1972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cost Effectiveness Guidelines-Section 212(2)c, Summary Po1icy Statement, Washington D.C. , June 1973• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cost Effectiveness in Water Quality Programs, Washington D.C. , October 1g72. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Assessments for Effective Water Quality Management Plannin�, Washington D.C. , April 1972• U.S. �nvironmental Protection Agency, Environmental Impact Statements, (40 CFR Part 6) , Federal Register, Vol . 37, No. 13, January 20, 1972• i sues U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, �PA Bulletin, Washington D.C. , many s , 1972-1973• 229 � U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Water Pollution Control Act , Amendments of 1972, (Public Law 92-500) , Washington D.C. , October 1972• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Seweraqe Facilities, Richland, Washinqton, Seattle, October 1972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines-Water Qualitv Manaaement Planninq�, Water Quality Office, Washingotn D.C. , January 1971 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Institutional Arran�ements for Water Quality Management Planning, Washington D.C. , September 1971 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agenyy, Land Use and the Environment, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmenta� Studies Division, Washington D.C. , 1973• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Land Use and Environmental Protection, Draft Report, National Land Use Task Force, Washington D.C. , March 1973• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements, (40 CFR Part 6) , Federal Register, Uol . 38, No. 11 , January 17, 1973• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Primer on Waste Water Treatment, Water Quality Office, Washington D.C. , March 1971 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Process Desi4n Manual for Carbon Adsorption, Cincinnati , Ohio, October 1973• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Nation's Wetlands-Polic� Statement, Federal Register, VA1 . 38� No. 84, May 2, 1973• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Relationship Between Environmental Quality and Land Use, Washingotn D.C. , March 1972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report o� Interceptor Sewers, Washington D.C. , March 1973• � U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Secondary Treatment Information, (40 CFR Part t33) , Federai Register, Vol . 38, No. $2, April 3�, 1973• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State and Local Assistance, Grants for Construction of Treatment Work�, (40 CFR Part 35) � federal Register, Vol . 38� Np. 39. February 28, 1973• State of Virginia, Suburban Growth-A Case Study, Popuiation Resources Bureau, Richmond, 1972• Washington State Department of Ecology, Guidelines for Implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971,� fllYmpia, December 1972• Washington State Department of Ecology, Public Sewa�e and Industrial Waste Works, Chapter 372-20, Olympia, 1972• Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Pollution Control Laws, 0lympia, September 1971 (Revised) . Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Standards, Olympia, June 1973• 230 Washington State Department of Planning and Community Development, City of Auburn Informatyon Data, Olympia, 1971 . � v Washington State Department of Water Resources, Geology and Ground-water Resources of Southwesterq King County, Washington, Water Supply Bulletin No. 28, Olympia, 196g, (b�, J.E. Luzier) . Washington State Water Pollution Control Commission, A Regulation Relating to Water Quality Standards for Intrastate Waters of the State of Washington and a Plan for Implementation and EnforcemPnt of Such Standards, Olympia, January 1970. Washington State Water Pollution Control Commission, Water Quality Standards for Interstate and Coastal Waters of the State of Washington and a Plan for Implementation and Enforcement of Such Standards, Olympia, December 1967• Roy F. Weston, Inc. , Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existinq Wastewater Treatment Plants, West Chester, Penn. , October 1971 , (for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) . Wilsey and Ham, Inc. , The Mill Creek Answer Book, Renton, September 1970. Yukimura, JoAnn, Land Use Plannin� in Marion County, Oregon: Attempts at Controlling Urban Growth, Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, National Land Use Task Force Final Report, Seattle, September 1972, (unpublished) . The following agencies and offieials were consulted during this assessment' s prep�ration: i City of Algona; John Matchett. City of Auburn; Everett Effland, Stanley Kersey, Pat Nevins, George Schuler, and Marvin Seabrands. City of Black Diamond; Vic Weston. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul , and Pacific Railroad; Robert Butler. City of Kent; Robert Christopherson, Jim Harris, Isabel Hogan, Joe Street, ', and Jerry Ulett. King County; Margaret Blackburn, Robert Edmundson, Larry Gibbons, and William Gillespie. Metropolitan Engineers; C.J. "Red" Gallaher, Bill Steman, and Roger Wilcox. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle; Don Benson, John Buffo, Glen Farris, Dick Hibbard, Bert McHenry, Eugene McMaster, Peter Machno, Theodore Mallory, Robert Matsuda, and Cecil Whitmore. 23� � City of Facific; Jack Jahnsan, Pierce County; Nal Hagestad and William Tharnton. Puget Sound Air Pollution Cantrol Agency; Art Damnkaehler. Puget Sound Governmental Conference; Brian Beam, John Lampe, Jim Lindsay, . Ray Metsgar, Danaid Pethick, Michael , Sween�y, and Jim Tracy. ' 5t�vens, Thompson, and Runyan, Inc. ; Jim Malvorsen and Hal Murray. U.S. Army Carps of Engineers; Mr. Serg. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; Mr. Cokeley. U.S. EnvironmentaT Protectian Agency; pick Netherington, Ken Lauzen, Lynn Mc-Kee, and Dick Thtel , Washington State Department of Ecology; Peter Haskins, Tom McCann, Robert . � McGormick, Robert Ortblad, Reese Steriing, and Russ Taylar. Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game; Jerry Myers. Washington State Department of Highway�, Districfi t ; John Pevis. Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Merv Hawden. . 4 , . i � � In addition, several lacal draina e d#s ri I g t cts, sewer and water districts, and fTood control districfis were contacted and consulted durin the re aration of I � 9 P P � this assessment. The assistance of ail of the governmental and private agencies, which rendered invaivable assistance to Wilsey � Harn, Inc. , is gratefulty acknowledged. , C � � I 232 J STUDY PAR�ICiPANTS Program Director Jack Dovey, Vice President Project Manager Michael Braoks� ASLA Praject Staff Frank 8rown (Project Plartner) E. Michael Ferris Jim Henderson Llewellyn Matthews Praject Engineers Dave Millard Steve Mennet Kent Stepan Environmental Team Dr, James Albers-air quality Ed Solson-computer programmer Bob Burke-geologist Ellie D'Arms-biologist A.D. Horn-geoiogist Ron Zeytschel-water quality � II I� '� I 233 � _ - --.-. �1 . . . � , , , � .,. - . , , . .: ' , . , � . , . ' � . ,' . . � . ' °, , ` � , . . . . ' � � ' � � � ' � ' �rr . , , ,. . , r � •,,�.+ , , . � , , ' � . � - . ,� � >b'v .. ` � ' � � , t i� �. � . . ,. 'ry „ u4.j . , � . � i '��- - ...,.. . ;_ , , � ...,._-,...«..4.. ' 7 ,, , ' � �'� i� �', , � ., t � � � � o , �; �a ; .. , ..� �,,.. i y ., � , • ��J , • , . � �� r�. , �;' . ; ,� . � � � Y� � , - . � , < ;� �: � "' � ;. _ ' _ _ , .j ,; � � ;;=��A, +� ,� .,. 1 .. ;_: �� ; , i �. .� � , �_ �� + � . �:s . R , i , 1 , �� , � 6 � �. � ' � � .� r�- �'��.� s / . • d .{}. . a ;<_ , . ' . , N � • �>' �° _ , � � � . �• �. � rMA � �y� 'k ^��.— „ 1 v , � ' ..«�...� t: .. • . � y ', , � •�rw , � • ,�,..d . , . ��• �� , . ' , ." , ! ' �. :� ' ' � �, � ' •��N�� { � '" -r�� ... i ♦ -+"� j . / � � �p - �" •� . , ^�• , , . 0 , !�1 JI�M,� [t�r�: � �� ..�x< � � `� �+ rRN09'1r � , � + .�..�,. r'!'pp,.w..►..�«.,.�rf�{Y� ,�.� . . � ''``• � � ' - , - � ��, r'x. y . , `'""�:,; , . � a. . . �R�fR # ,�'. . _ , '"�•, �'"i� � � � p , :�� . ` " �� , �� , •'�"�` °k� °, T � "w. � � '�: � � . � � ` � -'r+r"'r"'� . _ ��110M'��wuNn� �....�� ' ' y � . � � • • , .r�u�'. • . � . „ - - -s' .. r.�„ .