E.P.A. 910/9-76-023
AUGUST 1976
EPA-10-WN-KING-W.D. 90-INT-76
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ORTON ROAD INTERCEPTOR
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
I
5
\
UJ
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
-------
EPA - 910/9 - 76 - 023
Grant no. C-530550-01
August 1976
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
ORTON ROAD INTERCEPTOR
King County, Washington
prepared by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
with the assistance of
NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
219 Madison Avenue South
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
Td P. Dubois"
Regional Administrator
Date
-------
PREFACE
On May 14, 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
released for public review a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
on a proposed action for King County, Washington Water District No. 90
(W.D. #90). The EPA action requiring an EIS is the potential funding
of a grant application from W.D. #90 for Step 3 construction grant
funding in which EPA would provide 75% of the funds required to construct
the interceptor, and the State Department of Ecology 15%. To complete
the environmental impact evaluation, EPA has prepared this final EIS,
which reflects further evaluation of this project.
In the period between the draft and final EIS, significant actions
have taken place which have influenced this project. They are: 1)
public comment on the draft EIS and at the public hearing; 2) the
adoption of W.D. #90 Resolution No. 318; 3) the adoption of a new
service area boundary; and 4) the addition of two schools to be served
by the interceptor. A map of the old and new service areas and a
copy of Resolution No. 318 immediately follow this Preface.
It is interesting to note that in spite of the history of citizen
opposition to this project, only 29 comments were received in response
to the draft EIS and of those only 6 were unfavorable to the project.
The public hearing was held on Wednesday, June 9, 1976. Both the
comments in letters and at this hearing identified some important issues
which have necessitated further research into this project.
A major issue is whether or not connections to the interceptor
would be compelled. In response to this concern, W.D. #90 adopted
Resolution No. 318, which essentially states that existing residences
will not be compelled to connect to the District's sewer system,
except for those connections under LID or ULID funding.
There remained the question of how Resolution No. 318 interfaced
with the State regulation (AC 248-96-060), which essentially compels
hookups of residences within 200 feet of an adequate public sewer.
However, in the case of the Orton Road Interceptor, this regulation
is not applicable because the State and County consider the inter-
ceptor to be a private sewer. A copy of the County Health Department
letter containing this finding follows this Preface. This definition,
however, is not the determinant of grant eligibility. The Orton Rd.
Interceptor is clearly a grant eligible project in accordance with
40 CFR Part 35.
The only agency that can now override Resolution No. 318 and
compel hookups is the Seattle/King County Department of Public Health.
They will compel hookups when a serious septic tank failure occurs
which is not cost-effective to repair. The Health Department considers
serious the condition where septic tank effluent surfaces.
-------
Another significant influence on this project is the alteration
of the service area boundary, which was officially adopted on October 7,
1975 by Resolution No. 306. The revised boundary appeared on Page A3-10
of the draft EIS.
EPA feels that this boundary change does not significantly alter
the impacts of the project, except for one major beneficial impact.
As can be seen in Figure A following this Preface, the new service
area incorporates the White Fence area in the northwestern corner.
This is an area of significant septic tank problems. Although this
area will not be immediately served by the interceptor; it can be
served in the future if LID's are formed.
Considering the need for the sewer in the District, and conformance
of the project with comprehensive planning, the fact that the already
built Liberty High School will not open in the fall of 1976 is not a
valid reason to drop this project. It is obvious that the high school
will be used in some capacity and that waste treatment will be needed.
In addition, the scope of this project has been expanded to include
Briarwood Elementary and Maywood Junior High. Both of these schools'
septic tank waste disposal systems have reached a saturation point,
and are considered to be a potential health hazard.
It is EPA's conclusion that this project, over the long term, will
beneficially impact the District, and that the project should be funded.
Concerns over the project have been mitigated; for example:
- Citizen opposition to having the project without a "yes" vote
should be mitigated by Resolution No. 318.
- The interceptor will alleviate septic tank problems at two
area schools, and prevent problems from occurring at a third.
- The interceptor will provide the opportunity for future sewer
service to those areas experiencing serious septic tank problems.
- The interceptor will eliminate the potential for ground water
pollution as a result of failing septic tanks.
- As nearly the same amount of growth is projected to occur with or
without this project, the presence of the interceptor will
allow a more planned and orderly growth to occur...rather than
random growth in areas that happen to be favorable for septic
tank use.
The primary impacts of constructing this project are not considered
to be significant; all necessary mitigative measures will be undertaken.
In view of the identified need for sewer service at Briarwood Elementary
and Maywood Jr. High Schools, any design or construction grant will be
conditioned on the water and school districts developing the necessary
implementing agreements.
-------
The State Historical Preservation officer identified the need
for an archaeological survey in the project area. The potential for
impacts on archaeological resources in the area will be covered by the
following grant condition:
"The grantee shall be responsible for completing the activities
necessary to evaluate the project's effect on cultural properties,
identified by a preliminary survey, in the primary impact area of
the project, and to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on these
cultural properties and on others identified during construction.
These activities shall be coordinated with EPA and the State
Historic Preservation Officer prior to initiation of construction
in the affected area(s)."
A new addition to the text of this final EIS is the inclusion
of a chapter entitled "Comments and Responses to the Draft EIS". In
this Chapter, EPA has reprinted letters providing substantive comments
on the draft EIS and has attempted to respond to all questions and
requests for explanation, correction, or revision where additional
evaluation proved the draft statement to be in error. All comments,
including, those in the Public Hearing, have been considered in EPA's
decision-making process.
The Environmental Protection Agency submits this final EIS for
a public review period of 30 days. Following this review period,
the Regional Administrator of EPA will make his final determination
concerning a grant for Water District #90.
-------
(Passed on Tuesday, June 15, in response to public
concern about hookups.)
KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90
RESOLUTION 110. 318
A RESOLUTION of the Board of Commissioners
of King County Water District No. 30 restrict-
ing in part the authority of the Commissioners
of the Water District to require connection to
sewer systems funded by Federal and State grant.
monies within the Water District area, .except
in certain circumstances.
WHEREAS KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 is a regularly
established, operating and active VJater District, formed under
the authority of RCW Chapter 57, statutes of the State of
Washington, and
WHEREAS, King County Water District No. 90 has, by
action of the Board of Commissioners, taken the 20th day
of Februarv, 1968, under Resolution No. 184, authorized trie
construction, maintenance and operation of severs within the
boundaries of the Water District; and
WHEREAS, King County Water District No. 90 has, bv.
action of the Board of Commissioners, taken the 3rd dav of
October, 1972, under Resolution No. 250, authorized, and a->r>rov-
ed the application for State and Federal grant funding re-
quired for water and sewer capital construction; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Conmissloners of King County
Water District No. 90 does desire to establish as a policv of
the District a limitation on the authority granted to the
District under RCW 57.08.0G5, as amended, to compel connect-
tions to the District's sewer system, except in the manner
iv
-------
specified herein,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is by the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90,
RESOLVED, that District policy is hereby confirmed to
rescind the power granted by RCW 57.08.065, as amended, and
as previously exercised under Resolution No. 134 of King County
Water District No. 90, and to limit the authority of the com-
missioners of Water District No. 90 to compel connections of
existing residences to the system of sanitary sewers construct-
ed by the District, except for those connections under LID or
ULID funding, and it is further
RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall in no way impair
the authority of the commissioners of Water District No. 90
to permit connections to the District's sanitary sewer system
for any private residence upon full payment of the cost of
connection as determined by the District from time to tine.
JliT W. ROHRiJR
AYE
NAY
RICHARD E.'STUTH
DOUGUiS HUMBLE
-------
Seattle-King County / DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Public Safety Building Seattle, Washington 9S1O4
(2O6) 583-255O
LAWRENCE BERGNER, M.D., M.P.H.
Director of Public Health
RECEIVED
July 20, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
I have reviewed existing state and local rules and regulations as well as
consulted with the King County Prosecutor's office. Based on these reviews
and consultations I offer the following:
King County Rules and Regulation #4 defines the term public sewer system the
same as the state regulations WAC 248-96-020. The term "public sewer system"
means:
A sewerage system which is owned or operated by a city, town, municipal corp-
oration, county, political subdivision of the state, or other approved owner-
ship consisting of a collection of necessary trunks, pumping facilities and a
means of final treatment and disposal and under permit from the Department of
Ecology.
As defined, a developer extension would not be a public sewer system. It is
our understanding that a developer extension is not included in the definition
of a public sewer system because it is not owned or operated by a city, town,
municipal corporation, county, political subdivision, or other approved ownership
and is not under permit from the Department of Ecology.
Under Section 7 R&R III and WAC 248-96-060 "Connection to Public Sewer System",
the owner or occupant of lands or premises shall connect the sewage wastes
pipes located thereon with the nearest accessible public sewer whenever, in
the case of platted lands there is a public sewer within one block thereof or
in the case of unplatted lands, within one hundred fifty feet thereof or in
either case where the dwelling or other facility to be served is within two
hundred feet of the public sewer.
DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS:
NORTH EAST
1SOO N. E ISOth
Seattle 9B155
363-4T>,5
156O7 Northeast Bellevue-
Redmond Road
Bellevue 98OO8
885-1278
SOUTHEAST
3OO1 N. E. 4th St.
Renton 98O55
228-262O
SOUTHWEST
1O821 8th Avenue Southwest
Seattle 98146
244-S4OO
-------
Richard R. Thiel
July 20, 1976
Page 2
The Director of Public Works or the Sewer Utility shall prescribe the manner in
which such connection shall be made.
2. Every plumbing fixture and every sanitary drainage system not connected to
a public sewer,- or not required by law to be connected to a public sewer,
shall be connected to a private sewage disposal system.
In answer to your specific questions, our definition of public sewer would not
include a developer extension. The Health Department has a policy of not
requiring connections to developers extensions.
Our legal counsel believes that the utility district may be able to require
connection if the developer extension was within the boundary of an operating
public sewer utility which assumes maintenance of the line.
We will continue to require connection to public sewer for those properties
meeting the criteria set forth in WAC-248-& KG R&R III & SV.
This Department cannot comment on the authority of WD#90 to pass resolution
#318. This would require an opinion from the State Attorney General. In order
to further clarify our position, on requirement to connect, we will propose
specific language to the Board of Health which will not mandate us to require
connection to a "developer extension" even if that extension is within a sewer
utility district and thus becomes part of the public sewer.
This Department always has the authority to require the safe disposal of sewage.
It is not, however, our intent to force connection on extensions of sewers
whose intent is to leave specialty parcels of land. If special conditions
warrant we would cooperate with the persons installing the extension and the
sewer utility to attempt to provide a public sewer system which would serve all
parties and ensure safe disposal of waste material.
I hope this helps clarify to you the position of the Seattle-King County Health
Department.
Sincerely,
Richkrd L. Wade, Ph.D., M.P.H.
ChiefV Environmental Health Services
RLW:rs
VII
-------
ORIGINAL ULTIMATE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
NEW SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
OLD AND NEW
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES
Figure a
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY S-l
CHAPTER I: PROPOSED PROJECT 1-1
Introduction 1-1
Project History and Relationship to Projects and Proposals . . . I-1(X
Public Participation and Citizen Concerns 1-11
Design Criteria 1-14
Relationship to Population and Growth Projections. 1-19
Relationship to Land Use Assumptions, Plans, Policies and
Controls 1-23
Relationship to Sewerage Plans, Laws, and Regulations 1-34
Summary 1-38
CHAPTER II: IMPACTS II-l
Introduction II-l
Population Density and Land Use Impacts II-3
Facilities and Services. ...... 11-22
Economic Effects 11-39
Economic Costs 11-46
Social Impacts 11-52
Cultural and Historical 11-56
Hydrology - Water Quality 11-57
Soil Suitability and Conservation 11-76
Plant Communities 11-64
Fish and Wildlife. . 11-90
Energy 11-98
Noise Level 11-99
Visual Impacts 11-105
Air Quality 11-107
Environmentally Sensitive Areas 11-115
Cumulative Impacts 11-122
Mitigative Measures 11-123
Unavoidable Impacts. . 11-123
Options Foreclosed, Uses Curtailed, and Resources Committed. .11-125
-------
CHAPTER III: ALTERNATIVES III-l
Introduction III-l
Potential Alternatives III-l
Environmental Impacts of Feasible Alternatives 111-10
CHAPTER IV IV-1
BIBLIOGRAPHY V-l
APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Appendix 5:
Appendix 6:
Appendix 7:
Project History
Methodology for Determining Indirect Impacts
King County W.D. 90 - Resolution and Comprehensive
Plan Changes
Historical Vegetative Patterns of the Study Area
Water Quality Data
Plants of the Study Area
Wildlife of the Study Area
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1 Vicinity Map 1-2
2 Study Area Vicinity 1-3
3 The Proposed Project 1-5
4 Issaquah School District 1-9
5 1970 Water District Land Use Assumptions 1-26
6 1975 Water District Land Use Assumptions 1-27
7 King County Comprehensive Plan 1-29
8 The King County Plan, Plan Map and Policies 1-31
9 Development Potential of Existing Zoning 1-32
10 Existing Land Use II-5
11 Development Potential with Orton Road Interceptor II-9
12 Development Potential with Sewers 11-12
13 Development Potential without any Sewers 11-14
14 Average Daily Traffic Volumes, 1974 11-25
15 Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes - 2025 11-35
16 Hydrologic Features 11-60
17 Average Depth, Seasonal High Water Table 11-68
18 Septic Tank Problem Areas 11-70
19 Soil Types 11-77
20 Soil Limitations for Septic Tank Use 11-80
21 Prime Agricultural Soils 11-83
22 Soil Erosion Hazards 11-85
23 Existing Habitats (Generalized) 11-86
24 Sound Level Estimates, Existing Conditions 11-101
25 Construction Equipment Noise Ranges 11-104
26 Slope Map 11-118
27 Jones Road Alternative III-ll
28 Potential Density Intensification Areas A2-10
29 Existing Zoning Classifications A2-11
30 Land Ownership Patterns A2-15
31 Existing Vacant Lots A2-17
32 Surficial Water Quality Sample Sites A5-13
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
1 Design Criteria 1-16
2 Population Growth Projections 1-20
3 Populations and Flow Projections 1-41
4 Land Use, 1975 II-4
5 Potential Population Density and Land Use 11-15
Impacts
6 Land Conversions with Sewers 11-16
7 Community-Related Jobs 11-41
8 Soil Types 11-78
9 Agricultural Soils Classification 11-82
10 Timing of Salmon and Sea-run Trout 11-93
Fresh Water Life Phases in the Cedar
River System
11 Emissions from Construction Related 11-111
Equipment
12 Minimum Lot Sizes 111-18
13 Existing Zoning Classifications A2-12
14 Land Area Summaries A2-19
xn
-------
SUMMARY
Orton Road Interceptor
EPA Project No. C-530550-01
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X, Water Division
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
1. Type of Statement: Draft ( ) Final (x)
2. Type of Action: Administrative
3. Brief Description:
Region X of the EPA proposes to award a grant for seventy-five
percent of the total eligible project costs for a wastewater treatment
works for W.D. 90, King County, Washington. The proposed project, a
2.1 mile long, 10-inch to 24-inch diameter interceptor sewer, would
provide sanitary sewer service to a new public high school and,
ultimately, a residential area of about 2395 acres. It is anticipated
that EPA financial assistance will be approximately $500,000. The
authority to award such grants is provided by Title II of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and implementing Federal
Regulations.
The proposed project, known as the Orton Road Interceptor, is
proposed to originate at a point of connection to a proposed W.D. 90 and
METRO interceptor sewer (the Cedar River Interceptor) and terminate
at the site of a new Issaquah School District high school (Liberty High
School, presently nearing completion). The Orton Road Interceptor is
proposed to be located within the public right-of-way (developed and
undeveloped) of Jones Road, Orton Road, and S.E. 144th Street. The
interceptor is also proposed to cross through some private land, a park
site owned by the King County Parks Division and the new high school site.
S-l
-------
The proposed project would also cross under the Cedar River.
4. Summary of Impacts:
Direct Impacts will mostly be minor, localized, and of short
duration during construction. Such factors as an increase in air pollu-
tant emissions, dust, turbidity of the Cedar River and surface and
near surface groundwaters, petroleum products, bacteria, organic matter,
soil erosion, reduction in aquatic life, traffic disruptions, and noise
levels are all anticipated temporary effects. Permanent changes are
expected by the removal of some existing vegetation; the displacement
and death of some wildlife due to habitat removal and construction
activities (approximately 4 acres would be affected), and possible
destruction and injury of some aquatic life. Solid wastes will be
generated and have to be disposed of. A permanent commitment of labor,
fuel, iron, steel, cement, aggregate, and other construction materials
will be necessary. Approximately 2.5 acres of land to be used as a
permanent sewer right-of-way will be required.
Some anticipated indirect impacts would be associated with the
opening of Liberty High School. Also, land use changes and population
density increases could occur as a result of zoning changes with sewers
in the area. The area could change from a low density, relatively
undeveloped rural community to one of an urbanized suburban area. The
biological communities would change. Increases in traffic, business,
capital investments, homes, noise levels, pollution levels, and crime
rate are anticipated. Community cohesion, flora and fauna species,
habitats, and productivity would decrease.
5. Alternatives considered:
A. No EPA Funding (alternative funding; EPA funding for alternative
projects; and continuing use of on-site systems).
B. Postpone decision of project implementation and EPA funding.
C. Undertake a partial solution (interceptor for schools only;
on-site storage and transport by truck to a sewage treatment
plant; on-site or near-site treatment using one of several
systems).
D. Alternative Locations (Issaquah and Renton connections; Jones
Road route).
E. Funding of the proposed project.
S-2
-------
6. Distribution:
The agencies, groups and individuals on the mailing list for this
environmental impact statement are as follows:
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Executive Office of the President
The Council on Environmental Quality
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Office of Architectural and Envir-
onmental Preservation
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Office of Review and Compliance
John D. McDermott, Director
Federal Energy Administration
Office of Environmental Programs
Environmental Impact Division
Ernest E. Sligh, Director
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Office of the Secretary
Coordinator of Environmental
Quality Activities
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Stanley I. Trenhaile, Regional
Representative
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Galen Bridge, State Conservationist
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Merle Britton, Area Conservationist
U. S. Department of Commerce
Regional Director
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bruce Blanchard, Director
Office of Environmental Project Review
U.S. Department of Transportation
Donald Samuelson, Regional Admin.
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Region X
John Merrill, Ass't. Reg'l. Admin.
for Community Planning & Management
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Region X
Regional Environment Officer
U.S. Department of Defense
Department of the Army
Colonel Raymond J. Eineigl
S-3
-------
STATE AGENCIES
State of Washington
Office of the Governor
Richard W. Hemstad, Director
Office of Community Development
State Clearinghouse Division
State of Washington
Office of the Governor
Office of Program Planning & Fiscal
Management
State Planning Division
State of Washington
Office of the Governor
Clause E. Lakewold, Program Coord.
Washington Future Program
State of Washington
Department of Commerce & Economic
Development
John S. Larsen
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Dennis L. Lundblad, P.E., Head
Environmental Review
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Michael H. Ruef
State of Washington
Interagency Committee for Outodoor
Recreation
State of Washington
Parks and Recreation Commission
State of Washington
Department of Social & Health
Services
Office of Environmental Health
Programs
Health Services Division
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Water Pollution Control Division
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Robert McCormick, Regional Manager
Northwest Regional Office
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Larry Ikenberry
Noise Abatement Specialist
State of Washington
Department of Fisheries
Ray Johnson, Fisheries Enivronmental
Coordinator
State of Washington
Department of Game
Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief,
Environmental Mgt. Division
State of Washington
Department of Highways
H.R. Goff, Asst. Dir. for Planning
Research & State Aid
State of Washington
Department of Natural Resources
Bruce Reeves, Executive Assistant
State of Washington
Department of Social & Health Services
Health Services Division
Environmental Program Section
Water Supplies & Waste Unit
State of Washington
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
David M. Hansen, Chief
S-4
-------
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Dr. Richard Page, Executive Director
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency
Art Dammfcoehler, Air Pollution Control
Officer
REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
King County Water District No. 107
King County Water District No. 108
King County Water District No. 121
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Mart Kask, Executive Director
Grand Central on the Park
City of Bellevue
Planning Department
City of Issaquah
Planning Department
Issaquah School District No. 411
Director Dorli Rainey
Dr. Clifton Johnson, Supt.
E.O. Neuman, Asst. Supt.
King County Department of Public Works
Jean L. DeSpain, Director
King County
Solid Waste Division
Richard Southworth, Director
King County Fire Protection
District No. 10
King County Soil and Water
Conservation District
King County Water District No. 90
Commissioner 0'Conner
King County Water District No. 58
King County Water District No. 78
King County Water District No. 82
King County
Police Development Commission
Ralph Colby, Coordinator
King County
Department of Budget and Program
Planning
Federal/State Relations Division,
EIS Group
Joseph McGavik, Director
King County
Long-range Planning Division
Robert Edmundson, Director
King County
Parks Division
King County
Department of Public Safety
King County Alcohlic Treatment
Center
Ron Fagan, Director
City of Renton
Planning Department
City of Renton
Engineering Department
Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health
Southeast District Health Center
Washington Flood Control Council
S-5
-------
PUBLIC GROUPS
The Audubon Society, Seattle Chapter
Thomas 0. Wimmer, President
Boy Scouts of America
Chief Seattle Council
Cedar Grange #534
Ms. Daisy Niemi, Secretary
Citizens Against Unnecessary Sewer
Expense
c/o Stanley Bauder
Friends of the Earth
Dale Jones, Northwest Coordinator
Issaquah Valley Grange #581
Ms. Esther Bergsma, Secretary
League of Women Voters
Lake Washington East League
Magnolia Community Club
Leslie W. Cowan, President
P.L.A.N.
King County
Christine Foulks, Chairman
Renton Chamber of Commerce
Kay Johnson, Director
Renton Fish and Game Club, Inc.
Sierra Club
Doug Scott, Chairman
Puget Sound Group
Steelhead Trout Club of Wash.
James W. Smith, Secretary
Seattle Chapter
Washington Air Quality Coalition
Janet Chalupnik, Executive Dir.
Washington Archaeological Center
Dr. Richard Daugherty, Director
Washington Environmental Council
Mike Galvin, President
Washington Environmental Council
Mrs. Dorothy Morrell
Washington for Pure Water, Inc.
Washington State Historical Society
Frank Green, Librarian
7- Availability:
Date this E.I.S. was made available to CEQ and the Public;
August 18, 1976
S-6
-------
PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) "Guidelines
for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements", and EPA's
Final Regulations governing the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements.
The purpose of the Federal EIS process is to build into agency
decision-making processes an appropriate and careful consideration of
the environmental aspects of proposed agency actions. EIS's detail the
potential environmental impacts of proposed agency actions, explain the
relative effects of alternatives to the proposed actions, describe
measures to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts and examine
techniques or actions which would restore or enhance environmental
quality where possible. The EIS process involves two documents, a
Draft EIS and a Final EIS. All Federal agencies proposing major actions
significantly affecting the quality of the environment must prepare a
Final EIS prior to actually undertaking the proposed action.
The necessity to prepare Draft EIS's stems from CEQ's develop-
ment of the administrative procedures to implement NEPA in 1971.
NEPA requires that, prior to completing a Final EIS, the responsible
agency must "consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency
which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved." The Federal agency comments, as well
as other comments, accompany the proposed action's documents through
the agency review process and are made public in the Final EIS.
The Draft EIS, therefore, serves as the primary means of informing
other agencies and the public about the environmental effects of a
proposed agency action and of possible alternative actions. The Draft
EIS consultation process allows other agencies with special interest or
expertise and the public to uncover errors or omissions in the original
environmental analysis. The Final EIS is a comprehensive, complete,
and provide accurate guidance to agency decision-makers. Only the Final
EIS is utilized as a "decision document". Of course, the Draft EIS
may remain unchanged if no comments come back during the Draft EIS
review period.
To enable all governmental agencies, public groups, and citizens
with special interest or expertise in a proposed action to make informal
comments, the CEQ guidelines require that Draft EIS's be circulated for
review for at least ninety days before the proposed action can be under-
taken. The Final EIS and comments on the Draft EIS must be made public
at least thirty days before taking action. When a public hearing is held,
the Draft EIS must be available for at least thirty days before the
date of the hearing in order to permit an informed discussion of environ-
mental issues at the hearing.
S-7
-------
In addition to fulfilling the statuatory and procedural require-
ments of NEPA, the CEQ guidelines, and EPA's EIS Regulations, Draft
EIS's serve as a record of compliance with the policies and procedures
and regulatory requirements of other Federal, State and local environ-
mental laws and regulatory ordinances. The process of preparing an EIS
also provides EPA staff with a framework for the systematic evaluation of
proposed actions. In this way, the preparation of a Draft EIS is valuable
to EPA even if few comments are received or if no project changes
result from completing the Final EIS.
So
—o
-------
I PROPOSED PROJECT
— -
1 »-
-------
PROPOSED PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
Region X of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
received a grant application from King County Water District No. 90,
King County, Washington, requesting that EPA participate in the fi-
nancing and construction of a 2.1 mile long, 10-inch to 24-inch diam- f\
eter interceptor sewer. The objective of the proposed project as
described by the Water District, is to provide sanitary sewer service
to a new public high school and ultimately, a residential area of
about 2,395 acres. The proposed project, known as the Orton Road Inter-
ceptor, is anticipated to cost about $696,000. EPA has been requested
to award W.D. 90 a grant for 75 percent of the total eligible project
costs, or about $522,000. The authority to award such grants is
contained in Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (FWPCAA) and implementing Federal Regulations.
WATER DISTRICT NO. 90
King County W.D. 90 is located immediately northeast of Renton,
Washington, south of Bellevue, Washington, southwest of Issaquah,
Washington, and north of the Cedar River, as shown by Figures 1 and 2.
Formed in August 1952 to serve approximately five square miles of the
East Renton Plateau, the District has grown considerably by annexations.
It presently serves most of the upland area between May Creek and the
Cedar River and the area between the City of Renton and Issaquah Creek.
A considerable portion of the lower slopes along the south side of May
Creek, the southwest slope of Squak Mountain, and some of the lower
slopes along the north side of the Cedar River are included within the
service area. At the present time the District serves a total area of
1-1
-------
RETT
DSEATTLE SPOKANE.
.COMA
0 50 100 200
SCALE OF MILES
LOCATION IN TH
STATE OF WASHINGT
Figure 1
VICINITY MAP
SCALE IN MILES
01234
IN
-------
ORTON R'OAtMNTERCEPTOR *
ULTIMATE
>•/"(•.*.• • ,, ,
Siiii;^^
WATER DISTRICT
NO. 108
WATER DISTRICT NO. 90
i WATER DISTRICT NO. 90
FUTURE SEWER SERVICE
AREA BOUNDARY
Figure 2
STUDY AREA VICINITY
IN
-------
approximately eleven square miles. The Future Service Area of the
District is envisioned to encompass approximately sixteen to seventeen
square miles of the East Renton Plateau. There are no public sewerage
facilities within the District at the present time.
THE STUDY AREA AND ULTIMATE SERVICE AREA
The Orton Road Interceptor could immediately serve an area of
approximately 1,050 acres, 1,000 acres within the south central portion
of W.D. 90 and about 50 acres within the adjoining King County W.D.
108. The 1,050 acre area is termed the Initial Service Area. The down-
stream portion of the proposed project is expected to serve an additional
1,345 acres within the south central portion of W.D. 90 by the year
2025. This additional area is termed the Planned Service Area. The
total area, 2,395 acres, is referred to as the Ultimate Service Area
throughout the remainder of this document. The Ultimate Service Area
and adjacent areas, which may be directly affected by future land use
and activity within the Ultimate Service Area, will be referred to as
the Study Area throughout the remainder of this document. The Study
Area's extent and boundaries are indicated in Figures 2 and 3.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The Orton Road Interceptor is proposed to originate at a point of
connection to a proposed W.D. 90 and METRO interceptor sewer (the
proposed Cedar River Interceptor) and terminate at the site of a new
Issaquah School District high school (Liberty High School, presently
under construction). The Orton Road Interceptor is to be located within
the public right-of-way (developed and undeveloped) of Jones Road,
Orton Road, and S.E. 144th Street, and would cross through some private
land, the new high school site, a park site
1-4
-------
MATE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
INITIAL
SERVICE AREA
PLANNED
SERVICE AR
LIBE
HIGH SCHOOL
XISTING
;EDAR RIVER
INTERCEPTOR
ROPOSED
RIVER
INTERCEPTOR/
/ PROPOSED MADSEN
/ ^ CREEK INTERCEPTOR
VALLtr HIGHWAY
SCALE IN FEET
THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Figure 3
-------
owned by the King County Parks Division, and under the Cedar River.
Permanent easements and construction easements have already been
obtained by the District from the affected private property owners.
Figure 3 displays the proposed route of the Orton Road Interceptor and
describes the interceptor's components.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The intial objective of the proposed project is to provide sani-
tary sewer service to the new high school. The construction of
Liberty High School was the immediate reason for W.D. 90's initiation of
the Orton Road Interceptor project. The District has stated that the
proposed interceptor would be utilized by existing and proposed resi-
dential developments along its route and the Issaquah School District's
Maywood Junior High School and, possibly, Briarwood Elementary School.
The School District's superintendent has stated that Liberty High
School would not have to remain closed if the proposed project were
not constructed.
INITIAL SERVICE AREA
Initially, the proposed project would serve only Liberty High
School. Maywood Junior High might connect later and private hook-ups
to the proposed project would be allowed, subject to the provisions of
the District's regulations and policies. In addition, property owners
could petition the Water District to form Local Improvement Districts (LID's)
along the proposed project's route, W.D, 90 would not be able to assist
such LID's in the financing or underwriting of bonds, for the District
has never obtained the authorization from residents to issue bonds
for sewerage facilities. Property owners could, however, seek and
utilize private sources of financing for any sewerage system projects
they wish to construct tributary to the Orton Road Interceptor.
COSTS
The District presently estimates that it would cost $696,103 to
1-6
-------
construct the proposed project. Pursuant to Title II of the FWPCAA,
EPA would contribute 75 percent of the total eligible costs of the pro-
ject. The State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) would grant
the District 15 percent of the total eligible costs, and the 10 percent
local share would be paid by the Issaquah School District. Within 15
years the School District would be reimbursed by W.D. 90 for the extra
costs incurred by the School District over those which would have been
incurred if a District-wide sewerage assessment were levied. W.D. 90
has estimated that the School District would have been required to pay
between $60,000. and $70,000. in sewerage area and frontage
charges for the Liberty High School site. Since the local share
of the proposed interceptor would be about $69,600, the Water District
would be required to provide about $12,600 to the School District. The
Water District would raise the required reimbursement fee for the School
District from connection charges of LID's and individual property owners
to the Orton Road Interceptor. W.D. 90 would be completely responsible
for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Orton Road
Interceptor and would acquire ownership of the interceptor upon its
completion.
1-7
-------
The District's estimated cost of the proposed project is based on
the quantities of material, the varied construction situations encoun-
tered along the project's routes, and appropriate unit construction costs.
A detailed breakdown of the estimated construction costs as estimated by
the District's engineer, reveals the following:
. 2980 lineal feet of 10-inch concrete pipe, in place,
including dewatering, clearing, and manholes
@ $30.00 lin. ft $ 89,400
. 5880 lineal feet of 12-inch concrete pipe; in place,
including street restoration, some very deep cuts,
and manholes @ $40.00 lin. ft 235,200
. 1120 lineal feet of 15-inch concrete pipe; in place,
including street restoration, and manholes
@ $42.00 lin. ft 47,040
. 1120 lineal feet of 24-inch ductile iron pipe; in place,
including dewatering, some very deep cuts, street
restoration and manholes @ $60.00 lin. ft.. 67,200
. Crossing of the Cedar River. 70,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 508,840
Contingencies (10% of the construction costs) 50,884
Sales tax (5.3%) 26,969
Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Fees 109.410
TOTAL COSTS 696,103
EPA Financial Assistance (75%) $ 522,077
DOE's Project Priority List describes the estimated total design
and construction costs of the proposed project as $649,500, of which the
estimated EPA assistance required to complete the project is $487,125.
This was the grant amount requested by the District for the project in
1974. The difference between this request and the current costs will be
compensated for by DOE.
TIME SETTING
W.D. 90 is hoping to construct the Orton Road Interceptor during
the Spring and Summer of 1976 in order to provide service to Liberty High
School by the fall of 1976. The Issaquah School District (Figure 4) is
hoping to utilize the new high school during the 1976-77 academic year.
I-f
-------
PLANNED ISSAOUAH HIGH
SCHOOL SERVICE AREA
PLANNED LIBERTY HIGH
SCHOOL SERVICE AREA
STUDY AREA
Jr. H JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
E ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
••JSSAQUAH.HIGH SCHOOI
•LIBERTY^HIGH SC
CEDAR
RIVER
School District Boundary
Figure 4
ISSAQUAH SCHOOL
SCALE IN MILES
IN
-------
PROJECT HISTORY AND
RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECTS AND PROPOSALS
The history of the Orton Road Interceptor is a complex one. Below
is a brief summary of the project thus far. For detailed information,
see Appendix 1.
In 1969, W.D. 90 adopted a resolution authorizing the construction,
operation, and maintenance of sanitary sewers. It received state certif-
, ication to proceed with planning of the sewerage system. A comprehensive
f ^ plan was prepared, and later approved by the State Department of Health
III and the State Water Pollution Control Commission. However, when the
sewerage facility bond issue was presented to the public in 1972 it
failed to pass.
Liberty High School was to be built in the area and needed
a permanent sewer system. Because of the bond failure, the School District
entered into a sewerage service agreement with W.D. 90, in which the
School District agreed to finance the sewer at its own expense if
W.D. 90 would be responsible for sewer operation and maintenance. Then,
W.D. 90 sent Pre-Application Notification forms for the Orton Road
Interceptor to the State Department of Ecology and the State and Regional
Clearinghouses.
In 1973, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC), now known
as the Regional Clearinghouse, passed on favorable project review
comments to the DOE and EPA. Subsequently, W.D. 90 submitted a grant
application with an attached Environmental Assessment for the Orton
Road Interceptor to DOE and EPA.
Public opposition to the District's proposals began in July of 1973.
This opposition became apparent at public hearings and in letters to
Congressmen, DOE, EPA, and local governmental officials. This led
State and EPA officials to believe that an EPA Environmental Impact
Statement should be prepared. A second attempt at receiving voter
approval of the bond issue failed by a two-to-one margin in November,
1973.
Since Liberty High School is nearing completion and is planned to
1-10
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND CITIZEN CONCERNS
Public opposition to the Orton Road Interceptor has existed since
July, 1973, following the review and public hearing of W.D. 90's initial
Environmental Assessment. Sporadic citizen opposition continued through
the fall of 1973, with letters of opposition sent to DOE officials.
Following the second defeat of W.D. 90's proposed bond issue for sewerage
facilities (by about a 2-to-l margin) in November 1973, citizen opposi-
tion grew somewhat more vocal. Letters protesting the proposed project
were sent to Congressmen and EPA officials as well as to DOE and King
County officials. Opposition was also noted at District meetings.
Following W.D. 90's second public hearing another flurry of
letters protesting the Orton Road Interceptor were received by EPA, DOE,
and the PSGC. Opposition to the proposed project by a small number of
residents continued through the summer and fall of 1974 and the summer
of 1975.
1-11
be used for the 1976-77 school year, an alternative means of sewage
disposal must be undertaken until a permanent wastewater system is
constructed.
Until recently there had been a problem concerning Water District
jurisdiction for the three area projects: Madsen Creek, Cedar River and f\
Orton Road Interceptors. EPA and DOE believed the three projects
should be considered to be segments of one grant application. DOE was
considering voiding all present listings of the three projects on the
Fiscal 1976 Project Lists, in order to eliminate the ambiguities associ-
ated with the projects. However, as it now stands, W.D. 108 will be m ^
the grantee for the Madsen Creek project and W.D. 90 the grantee for
the Cedar River Trunk extension. Funding of the Step 3 (construction)
grants for these two projects is expected soon.
-------
Proponents of the proposed project have also been heard during the
public hearings or during EPA's environmental review of the grant
documents. School District officials, property-owners with lands which
cannot be developed because they will not meet Health Department
percolation requirements, and residents residing in areas with frequent
wet season septic tank overflow problems have spoken out at each public
hearing and sent letters in support of the proposed project to
DOE and EPA.
Opposition to the Orton Road Interceptor has focused on the
following issues:
. The fact that the voters twice defeated sewer bond authorization
proposals. Some District residents believe the Orton Road Inter-
ceptor is an indirect approach to bringing in sewers in defiance
of the majority wishes of the residents. Some also believe that
the District has questionable authority to construct, operate, or
maintain sewers until bonding authority is approved.
. The possibility that sewers could lead to a change in the charac-
ter of the District. Some residents believe that sewers will
encourage urban development in those portions of the District
which cannot presently be developed due to restrictions governing
the use of septic tanks. In addition, they anticipate more in-
tense development in presently developed areas because the pro-
vision of sewers allows minimum lot sizes to be reduced. The
expected sewer-related urban development is subsequently antici-
pated to increase the demand for road and street construction,
road maintenance, schools, and fire and police protection.
. The potential for sewer-induced urban development to result in
increased environmental degradation. Some residents believe
that sound levels, auto traffic and congestion, auto-related
air pollution, drainage problems, flooding, landslides, stream
siltation, erosion, and wildlife habitat destruction will increase
if sewers are provided due to sewer-induced urban development.
. The water quality benefits of the proposed project are viewed as
questionable. Some residents believe that the Orton Road Inter-
ceptor will not abate or alleviate any of the existing water
pollution problems in the District, and therefore, the project
cannot qualify for Federal financial assistance.
. The project was proposed because of the new high school. Some
residents believe the need for the new high school at its pro-
posed location was never substantiated. Others believe the new
school and, therefore, the Orton Road Interceptor, is not
necessary. A need to relate the impacts of the proposed high
school to those of the proposed sewer has also been expressed.
1-12
-------
. The costs of providing public services for sewer-induced develop-
ments would affect residents. Some residents believe that the
costs of improving existing roads and constructing new roads,
schools, fire stations, and other public facilities will increase
their tax burden.
. Few alternatives to the Orton Road Interceptor were considered.
Some residents believe that the following alternative projects
or actions should be considered and/or implemented:
- The "no project" alternative
- Restricting use of the proposed project to the high school
- Use of aerobic septic tanks for the new high school and/or
those District residents with septic tank problems
- Locational alternatives (Some residents believe the proposed
route was chosen primarily to serve developable parcels of
land.)
- Size alternatives
- Combinations of the above
. Residents would be financially affected by the proposed project.
Some residents believe that the costs of connecting to a sewer
system could be difficult for many to bear. Others believe that,
if sewer hook-ups are required, the selling of rural properties
in the District would be necessary in order to meet sewer assess-
ment fees. Some residents believe they would be required to
hook-up to sewers even if their septic tank systems have always
performed satisfactorily.
. Construction impacts may be significant. Some residents believe
construction of the Orton Road Interceptor will be a nuisance and
inconvenience to the affected neighborhood and that the selected
route has environmental risks.
In addition, public opposition to the Orton Road Interceptor focused
on the need for EPA to complete an environmental impact study prior to
EPA making any decisions on the Orton Road Interceptor. Some residents
believe that an analysis of the effects of providing sanitary sewer
service to W.D. 90 should be completed before the first sewer (the Orton
Road Interceptor) is constructed. This would allow potential adverse
impacts to be identified and mitigative measures to be developed. These
residents believe that once the first portion of the District receives
sewers an irreversible trend may be established and that the momentum of
probable land use changes will leave little time for future analysis of
1-13
-------
III
OC
o
o
CO
Uj
Q
impacts.
Proponents of the Orton Road Interceptor have focused on the
following issues:
. Most of the District is likely to be eventually developed. Some
portions of the District are needed for development. Proponents
believe that such development will occur as the demand for housing
in the area increases, with or without publicly-financed sewerage
systems and that the least social and economic impacts on the
affected neighborhoods will occur if sewers are provided prior
to the development occurring. They feel it is beneficial to build
sewer systems at the present time for it will cost less to
construct such systems now than in the future. These residents
and property owners also suggest that it is prudent to build
sewerage systems that are capable of serving an area's expected
ultimate population rather than systems serving only one or two
schools or small subdivisions even though most of a sewer's imme-
diate service area may be relatively rural.
. Sewers are required to protect the health of residents and to
maintain an adequate and proper residential area. Some residents
claim that raw sewage flows through ditches beside neighborhood
streets, that potential disease factors are increasing, that
problems are "critical" in some areas, and that sewers offer the
only realistic solution.
. The new high school is necessary. Some residents and School
District officials note that the School District's voters were
in favor of constructing the school and that the school will be
completed without the need for any additional bond issue referen-
dum.
The remainder of this chapter will examine these concerns and
explore the relationship of the proposed project to EPA requirements and
guidelines.
DESIGN CRITERIA
The Orton Road Interceptor was designed to transport the estimated
volumes of wastewater generated by future levels of domestic activities
in its Ultimate Service Area, including infiltration/inflow.
Domestic sewage includes the sanitary wastes from toilets, kitchens,
and appliances. It varies greatly according to neighborhood character-
istics, lifestyle of the residents, timing of activities in households,
1-14
-------
the weather, and the season. Distinct daily and seasonal peak flows
result, which must be accommodated by wastewater collection and treatment
facilities. The Design was partially based on an assumption that
average per capita daily flows would reach a maximum of 100 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) during the life of the project, and that peak
flows of 270 gpcd would be likely. These are reasonable domestic flow
assumptions for sewer design criteria, as shown by Table 1.
Infiltration is the water which enters sewerage facilities from
the ground, through such means as defective pipes, joints,connections,
or manhole walls. Infiltration can vary greatly along a sewer's route;
where the ground water table is high, infiltration can become an impor-
tant factor. Infiltration also varies with the age and condition of
the sewer pipe used; old sewer pipe can allow significant volumes
of infiltration to enter a sewage system, particularly in areas
affected by earthquakes which may crack or break sewers during their
design life. Though the District's engineer assumed that only the
most modern concrete pipe with rubber-gasket joints would be used in
order to limit infiltration, an allowance of 525 gallons per acre per
day (gpad) for peak volumes of infiltration was considered likely during
the life of the project, and used for design. As shown by Table 1 this
is a somewhat conservative but valid infiltration allowance.
Inflow consists of water discharged into sanitary sewer systems
from such sources as roof, cellar, yard and foundation drains, cooling
water discharges, drains from springs or wetlands, manhole covers,
cross connections with storm sewers, catch basins, surface runoff,
or other surface water. Though illegal, it is difficult to prevent
all downspouts and similar drainage facilities from being connected
to a sanitary sewer, and consequently, an estimate of the flow which
may result from such illegal connections must be included in the design.
W.D. 90?s engineer assumed that most storm water flow, including flows
from surface, roof, and footing drains, would be prevented from entering
the Ultimate Service Area's eventual sanitary sewage collection system.
However, some allowance for inflow was considered prudent and a 275 gpad
peak inflow allowance was assumed.
1-15
-------
TABLE 1
DESIGN CRITERIA
Examples of domestic flow assumptions used to design equivalent new
trunk or interceptor sewers (gallons per capita per day):
AREA AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS PEAK FLOWS
Queets-Quinalt Basin, Wash. 100 400
Washington State DOE 120 330
Upper Chehalis River Basin, Wash. 100 300
Puyallup River Basin, Pierce Co., Wash. 120 300
Water District No. 90 (1975) 100 270
Willapa River Basin, Wash. 100 250
Dischutes River Basin, Wash. 100 250
Seattle METRO (RIBCO) 75 250
Kitsap County, Wash. 100 250
Cowlitz River Basin, Wash. 120 240
Chambers Creek Basin, Pierce Co., Wash. 95 190
Snohomish County, Wash. 80 140
Examples of infiltration/inflow allowances used to design equivalent
new trunk or interceptor sewers (gallons per acre per day)
INFLOW
AREA INFILTRATION ALLOWANCE TOTAL
Seattle Metro (wet weather) 600 500 1,100
Kitsap County, Wash. 600 500 1,100
Puyallup River Basin,
Pierce County, Wash. 600 500 1,100
Washington State DOE 600 500 1,100
Cowlitz River Basin, Wash. 600 500 1,100
Deschutes River Basin, Wash. 600 500 1,100
Lower Chehalis River Basin, Wash. 600 500 1,100
Upper Chehalis River Basin, Wash. 500 500 1,100
Water District No. 90 (1975) 525 275 800
Seattle METRO (dry weather) 300 125 425
1-16
-------
THE DESIGN PERIOD
Because land use and population growth changes are time-related,
sewer designers must estimate what design period is proper to use for
a specific sewer prior to projecting land use and population estimates.
It is necessary to determine how much land is likely to be sewered
within a service area in order to utilize the infiltration-inflow
criteria. An estimate of the population likely to be served by a
proposed sewer is necessary in order to utilize the domestic peak
flow criteria.
The design period is the length of time that a specific sewerage
facility will provide adequate service. It is influenced by the useful
life of the facility, the cost of increasing the size of the facility,
and the projected rate of growth in population within the facility's
service area. Facilities with a long or indefinite life and which can
be expanded only at great expense favor increased design periods. Low
population growth rates also favor the use of increased design periods.
Facilities with a relatively short useful life or which can be replaced
or expanded at a reasonable cost or for areas with very rapid growth
rates favor the use of shorter design periods. W.D. 90's consulting
engineer utilized a fifty year design period for the proposed project.
The Orton Road Interceptor was designed to have sufficient capacity to
transport the peak wastewater flows projected by the year 2025.
i
The use of a fifty year design period for sewers is standard
practice among most sanitary engineers. The State of Washington
informally requires sewer projects to be designed consistent with the
"Recommended Standards for Sewage Works" established by the Great
Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers. These
standards state that sewers should be designed for the estimated ultimate
tributary population and that consideration should be given to the
maximum anticipated capacity of institutions and industrial parks, etc.
No specific design period is noted.
The Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) does not encourage
1-17
-------
or require the use of any specific design period, but emphasizes the
need to design sewers consistent with the saturation population density
as set forth in the community's land use plan. The WPCF has noted that
in many instances 25 to 30 year design periods may not even be sufficiently
long to extend to the date of population saturation.
EPA has no design period requirement, but its regulations state
that the service life for sewers is 30 to 50 years. Other service
life periods are acceptable when sufficient justification is provided.
THE DESIGN PROCESS
W.D. 90's consulting engineer determined the size of the Orton
Road Interceptor in the following manner:
. The total acreage of the Ultimate Service Area was determined as
2340 acres.
. The average population density for the Ultimate Service Area
was determined. Though some developed portions have population
densities of about twelve residents per acre, the District's
engineer assumed that the overall Ultimate Service Area would
retain a low density residential character. Some portions were
assumed to eventually exceed six residents per acre; other por-
tions were assumed to continue to have less than three residents
per acre through the year 2025. The average density was assumed
to reach six residents per acre by the year 2025, for a total
population of 14,040.
. Domestic flow was determined by multiplying the 14,040
residents by the 100 gpcd design criteria. This resulted in a
domestic flow projection of 1.4 million gallons per day (mgd).
Multiplying 1.4 mgd by the assumed peaking factor of 2.7
resulted in an estimated peak domestic flow of 3.78 mgd.
. Infiltration/inflow was determined by multiplying the
infiltration/inflow allowance of 800 gallons per acre per day
by the Ultimate Service Area's 2340 acres. The estimated in-
filtration/inflow contribution equaled 1.87 mgd.
. The design flow calculated for the Orton Road Interceptor at
the crossing of the Cedar River, equaled the peak domestic
flow plus the infiltration/inflow allowance,or 5.66 mgd.
1-18
-------
The calculated design flow was checked by accumulating the
total flows from the terminus of the Orton Road Interceptor.
The accumulated flows suggest that 6.05 mgd would be an appro-
priate year 2025 design flow. This figure is slightly larger
than the 5.66 mgd calculated figure due to consideration of
flows contributed by existing and proposed schools. The
larger flow projection was used as the design flow for the
proposed project.
The ductile iron pipe proposed to be used for the Cedar River
crossing was assumed to have a Ha z en-Williams roughness co-
efficient of C=140. The slope of the proposed sewer was assumed
to equal 1.5 feet per thousand feet. Given these assumptions,
a 24-inch diameter interceptor was found to be required . The
proposed 24-inch interceptor will transport up to approximately
7 mgd. The next smaller size sewer (20- inch diameter) could
only transport about 4.3 mgd. The next larger size sewer
(30- inch diameter) could transport nearly 13 mgd, twice the
required quantity. If the proposed 24-inch interceptor were
surcharged by 12 inches, its capacity could be increased to
approximatley 9.4 mgd. This is its maximum possible capacity.
RELATIONSHIP TO POPULATION AND H
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
Q.
The most recent Office of Business and Economic Research Services
(OBERS) projections (the 1972 Series E projections), published in April
1974, reflect the national trend of declining population growth. While
the initial 1972 OBERS projection (Series C projections) estimated that
the population of the United States would increase by 96 percent, the
more refined Series E projections estimate that the population will
increase by only 44 percent from 1970 to 2020. The Water Resources
Council believes that the Series E projections better represent current
growth trends and that Series C projections should not be applied beyond
1990 for metropolitan areas. The Seattle-Everett Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA) (King and Snohomish Counties) is projected to
increase by 44 percent (1,429,280 in 1971 to 2,054,200 in 2020)
(see Table 2) .
Washington's official population forecasts are contained in its
Interim Population Forecasts, published in October 1972. These forecasts
1-19
-------
TABLE 2
POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS
AREA
SOURCE
1970-1990 1970-2000 1970-2025
United States
Washington State
Washington State
Puget Sound Basin
Puget Sound Basin
Puget Sound Region
Puget Sound Region
Seattle-Everett SMSA
Seattle-Everett SMSA
Seattle-Everett SMSA
King County
King County
King County
Non-Seattle Portion
of King County
Non-Seattle Portion
of King County ,
W.D. 90 Vicinity
W.D. 90
OBERS
OBERS
Washington State
OBERS
Washington State
Washington State
PSCOG
OBERS
Washington State
PSCOG
Washington State
PSCOG 3
King County Plan
PSCOG
King County Plan
PSCOG
W.D. #90 (1970)
18%
11%
22%
12%
24%
23%
35%
18%
24%
34%
25%
28%
48%
52%
85%
102%
229%
28%
16%
34%
20%
36%
35%
N.A.
28%
37%
N.A.
36%
N.A.
95%
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
397%
44%
26%
N.A.
33%
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
44%
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
903%
Ultimate Service
q,
Area Vicinity
Ultimate Service Area
Ultimate Service Area
Initial Service Area
Initial Service Area
Planned Service Area
Planned Service Area
PSCOG
W.D. 90
W.D. 90
W.D. 90
W.D. 90
W.D. 90
W.D. 90
(1970)
(1975)
(1970)
(1975)
(1970)
(1975)
91%
77%
60%
114%
65%
50%
57%
N.A.
230%
112%
278%
116%
195%
106%
N.A.
690%
308%
758%
321%
641%
300%
1. Series E OBERS (Office of Business and Economic Research Services)
projections.
2. N.A. indicates "None Available."
3. King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan projections - unofficial.
4. AAM Districts No. 3310, 3840, and 3850.
5. Water District 90 Comprehensive Sewerage Plan Projections.
1-20
-------
project a 34 percent increase in population for the State between 1970
and 2000. This compares with the 16 percent increase for Washington
State projected by OBERS for the same period. Washington's official
growth forecasts for the Northwestern Washington area, Puget Sound Basin,
and Seattle-Everett SMSA are approximately double those of OBERS. See
Table 2.
The set of population forecasts accepted by the regional Council of
Governments was created in September 1973 and January 1974 by an Activ-
ity Allocation Model (AAM), developed by the Puget Sound Council of
Governments (PSCOG). The AAM projections are based on the land use
assumptions and policies of the PSCOG's Interim Regional Development
Plan (IRDP). Accepted AAM population forecasts exist only for 1980 and
1990, and are often used by King County.
The AAM projections forecast a 35 percent increase in the Region's
population between 1970 and 1990. King County's population is pre-
dicted to increase by 28 percent during that time period. Two AAM
Districts containing portions of the Ultimate Service Area are pro-
jected to increase by 84 percent and 100 percent between 1970 and 1990.
These AAM District projections cannot be reliably accepted as repre-
sentative of the Ultimate Service Area, since it comprises less than
15 percent of the two AAM Districts. See Table 2.
W.D. 90 developed a set of population projections in 1970 while
completing its Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. In order to determine the
existing population within the District, its consulting engineers
conducted a house count survey which was converted to population esti-
mates by assuming an average of 3.34 residents per home. This process
resulted in a 1970 population estimate of 9,295 for the District and
3,439 for the Ultimate Service Area. Approximately 1,445 residents
lived in the Initial Service Area; the additional 1,998 lived in the
Planned Service Area.
In order to estimate the year 2030 population for comprehensive
sewerage planning purposes, the consultants referred to other agencies'
population studies to determine appropriate growth rates, which were
applied to the 1970 house count to obtain 1975, 1980, 1985, and 1990
I- 21
-------
population estimates. The year 2030 projections were then extrapolated
from the 1990 estimates. The year 2030 figures were considered to be
saturation level population projections; the District assumed that by
2030 all of the District would reach these saturation population
levels, varying from four to twelve residents per acre.
This process resulted in the projection of 93,220 residents for
the District in the year 2030 (a 903 percent increase over the 1970
population). The Orton Road Interceptor's Ultimate Service Area
population was projected to increase by 690 percent between 1970 and
2030 (from 3,439 to 27,180). The Initial Service Area's population was
projected to increase by 758 percent (from 1,445 to 12,398); the Planned
Service Area population by 641 percent (from 1,995 to 14,782) (See Table
2).
These projections were made during the economic boom of the late
1960's and reflected the optimism of that period. The present Orton
Road Interceptor proposal is based on growth assumptions which are
one-half to one-third as large as those made in 1970 and used for the District's
Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. The most recent year 2025 population
projections for the Ultimate Service Area were completed in June 1975.
These projections anticipate a 308 percent increase in the population
between 1970 and 2025 (3,439 residents to 14,070 residents).
EPA recognizes that the Ultimate Service Area is a relatively
small area where slight population increases can result in large
percentage increases; population projections can be accurately
compared only if the same geographic areas are involved. General
comparisons between population projections, such as those shown in
Table 3 at the end of this chapter, are useful in evaluating the realism
of any grant applicant's projections. Their use is required in SMSA's
in order to determine if grant applicants must submit additional infor-
mation documenting their reasons for departing from OBERS projections.
Compliance with State, regional, or local population projections is not
required for EPA financial assistance but compliance with OBERS popula-
tion projections is encouraged.
W.D. 90 has not submitted detailed information regarding its
departure from other agencys' population forecasts, though general
1-22
-------
information has been provided. Their Environmental Assessment suggests
that the dramatic growth anticipated by the District is because nearly V/J
all of the District is presently, or can in the future . be made,suitable
for residential use. The District feels that it eventually will be
utilized for residential uses. All Water District population projections
are based on the assumption that urban services, including sanitary
sewers, will ultimately be provided.
A grant applicant may depart from OBERS population projections, when
compliance with adopted local land use planning policies which would
encourage a considerable amount of new development in a sewerage service
area. EPA can often accept such projections. However, when the popula-
tion projections utilized to design a proposed treatment works do not
mesh with adopted land use plans and regulations, applicants may be
requested to complete new population forecasts. A review of the relation-
ship between the "needs" to be served as anticipated by W.D. 90's and King
County's planning policies affecting the Ultimate Service Area is, there-
fore, required before the evaluation of the District's population and
growth projections can be completed.
RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS,
PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS
EPA-assisted wastewater treatment projects must comply with all
applicable environmental quality objectives and Federal, State, and local
environmental laws and regulations, including land use plans, policies
and controls, where such plans, policies and controls have legal or
regulatory status. In addition, the design criteria for EPA-assisted
wastewater treatment projects must be consistent with existing local
land use plans, provided such criteria are consistent with all appli-
cable environmental quality standards and objectives.
The following section of this EIS will examine two principal,
relevant issues; (1) the relationship of the design criteria used by
the District's engineer to the adopted local land use plans, policies
and controls; and (2) the legal and regulatory status of the adopted
local land use plans. Subsequent sections of this document describe
1-23
-------
the relationship of the adopted local land use plans to relevant en-
vironmental standards and objectives and related Federal, State and
local environmental laws and regulations.
Unless otherwise noted, the analysis assumes that 3.3 residents
will occupy each home during the design period. The analysis of the
capacity of the proposed project and land use plans, policies, and
controls affecting the Ultimate Service Area assumes that the slope of
the downstream segment of the proposed project will be 1.5 feet per
thousand feet. A Hazen-Williams roughness coefficient of C=140 and a
peaking factor of 2.7 is utilized. Domestic sewage flows are assumed
to equal 100 gallons per capita per day; peak infilteation/inflow is
assumed to equal 800 gallons per acre per day.
THE WATER DISTRICT'S LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
The District's engineer assumes that the Ultimate Service Area
will retain a low density residential character through the design
period. Although some developed areas are expected to attain popula-
tion densities of about twelve persons per acre, others are not
expected to exceed three persons per acre. The District's engineer
assumes that the average density for the entire Ultimate Service Area
will reach six persons per acre by the year 2025 , resulting in a
projected population of 14,070, design flow 6.1 mgd, and an interceptor
size of 24 inches. Comparative projections are in Table 3, on page 1-41,
THE WATER DISTRICT'S COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE PLAN ASSUMPTIONS
The land use assumptions presently associated with the Orton Road
Interceptor assume that growth in the Ultimate Service Area will be less
than half that originally expected in 1970. The land use assumptions
associated with the District's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan anticipated
year 2030 population densities of 8 to 12 residents per acre throughout
the Ultimate Service Area, based on regional and local populations and
land use forecasts in effect in 1970. Those population forecasts were
developed during a period of great economic growth in the Seattle area,
and are now generally viewed as overly-optimistic by most planning
1-24
-------
agencies and governmental officials. The District engineer's familiarity
with land ownership patterns, subdivision and platting requirements, and
the Ultimate Service Area's residents led him to assume that the develop-
ment in the Ultimate Service Area will not be as dense as previously
anticipated, and the assumptions used for the Orton Road Interceptor
are more realistic. The District initially used a design
criteria of 85 gallons per capita per day for domestic flow and 1100
gallons per acre per day for infiltration/inflow (See Table 3).
Due to revised density figures, this has been covered from 1,100 gallons
per acre to 800 gallons per acre. The 1970 District land use assumptions
are illustrated in Figure 5; the more recent 1975 assumptions are shown
in Fugure 6.
In Washington, a Water District is not specifically required to
comply fully with an adopted Water District sewerage plan when design-
ing or constructing projects which do not involve the issuance of
revenue bonds. However, when EPA financial assistance is desired, EPA
1-25
-------
RESIDENTS
PER ACRE
mma OR 9 RESIDENT
RESIDENTS
RESIDENTS
VALLEY HIGHWAY
SCALE IN FEET
1970 WATER DISTRICT
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Figure 5
-------
WmiG RESIDENTS;
SPER ACRE
:::::::::::; S E 144t Iv Wiw
3.5 RESIDENTS
x:£PEB ACRES
VALLEY HIGHWAY
SCALE IN FEET
1975 WATER DISTRICT
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Figure 6
-------
requires projects to be in compliance with plans required by envir-
onmental laws. The District's 1970 Comprehensive Sewerage Plan was
required by a State environmental law (RCW Titles 56 and 57, Sewer
District and Water District laws), and was legally adopted by W.D. 90
resolution in April of 1970.
THE KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan for King County was adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners on October 13, 1964. Since that date two
revisions to the plan map and numerous "subject area" additions to the
Comprehensive Plan have been approved by the Commissioners. In addition,
several "Middle Plans" have been adopted for specific geographic areas,
under their general authority to prepare Comprehensive Plans.
The King County Comprehensive Plan consists of two major parts: a
plan map, and policies. The plan map indicates the general location
and extent of the principal land uses serving a population of 1,663,000
as they would occur through the application of the Plan's policies.
Within the Study Area, the plan map suggests that appropriate land uses
would include suburban residential, rural residential, open space, and
urban park uses, as illustrated by Figure 7.
Interpretation of the King County Plan without consideration of
its accompanying policies indicates that it would be appropriate to
provide facilities for an ultimate population of 51,000 within the
Ultimate Service Area. About 24,000 residents would be anticipated to
live in the Intitial Service Area; and 27,000 in the Planned Service Area.
The plan map of the Comprehensive Plan must be used in conjunction
with the policy portion, which presents the detailed locational criteria
for various land uses. In addition, the policy portion presents the
County's goals and objectives for various components of the environment,
including such areas as steep slopes, wetlands, highly erodible soils,
wildlife habitats, agricultural lands, flood hazard areas and shore-
lines. The consideration of the Plan's policies significantly alters
the general plan map and provides a detailed view of King County's land
use intentions for the Study Area.
I_28
-------
BEStDENTlAL
SCALE IN FEET
THE KING COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Figure 7
-------
Figure 8 illustrates the King County Comprehensive Plan population
density and land use projections for the Study Area. This figure
combines the Comprehensive Plan's policies with its plan map and con-
siders all Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted through October 1975.
In addition, the provisions and policies of the proposed King
County Shoreline Management Master Plan, developed pursuant to the
Washington State Shoreline Management Act, have also been incorporated
into Figure 8. It graphically displays the legally adopted existing
land use plans for the Study Area. If all the Study Area developed to
the densities allowed by the County Comprehensive Plan in 1985, the
population would be 31,080. Design flow would be 10.4mgd and inter-
ceptor size would be 30 inches in diameter. Comparative projections
are in Table 3, on page 1-41.
EXISTING ZONING
Land use controls may take many forms in Washington, including
zoning which designates the type and degree of permissible land uses
within a defined zone; subdivision, building code, and plat approval
regulations; official street maps; and other similar regulations and
controls. Zoning is the most relevant land use control for the purpose
of this document, since zoning has the most direct relationship to the
use of the land. In Washington, zoning codes and categories must
further the purpose, goals and objectives of comprehensive plans;
in essence, zoning is the means to achieve the goals and objectives of
comprehensive plans.
Figure 9 illustrates the potential density of land use allowed by
the existing zoning classifications for the Study Area. If the
development potential allowed by existing zoning classifications were
reached, population would be 24,250, design flow 8.7 mgd, and inter-
ceptor diameter, 27 inches. Comparative projections are in Table 3.
The existing zoning controls affecting the Ultimate Service Area
are legal regulatory measures, having been adopted by ordinance by the
King County Council. A more detailed analysis of the zoning controls
affecting the Ultimate Service Area is contained in the following section.
1-30
-------
Figure 8
THE KING COUNTY PLAN,
PLAN MAP AND POLICIES
SCALE IN FEET
0
2000
N
-------
A » Maximum Dwelt nti
IjLbjMHIG H WA Wx^t^^T
SCALE IN FEET
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
OF EXISTING ZONING
Figure 9
-------
REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES
The Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG), a voluntary asso-
ciation of local government and Indian reservation representatives from
King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, is the Federally recog-
nized regional planning agency for the Central Puget Sound Region. In
order to comply with Federal requirements, the PSCOG adopted an Interim
Regional Development Plan (IRDP) in August, 1971. This allowed the
PSCOG's member counties, cities, towns, and other governmental bodies to
remain eligible for Federal financial assistance for open space, recre-
ation, housing, transportation facilities, and sewer and water systems.
The IRDP basically integrates local governments' comprehensive land
use plans with a Regional Open Space Plan, adopted by most cities and
counties in the region in the mid-sixties. It also provides a compre-
hensive statement of goals and policies for the region and through its
various elements (e.g.Regional Land Use, Water Supply, Sewerage, Trans-
portation, Transit, and Housing Plans), it coordinates land use planning
with utilities planning and community development.
The IRDP has provided the foundation for most of the PSCOG
activities since 1971, including the PSCOG's Federal aid application
review responsibilities. The PSCOG's Regional Clearinghouse review
advises Federal agencies whether proposed programs and projects are con-
sistent with the regionally adopted IRDP and minimizes conflicting and
duplicative projects. This Clearinghouse review is only advisory.
Strict compliance with regional plans, policies, and objectives adopted
by local government representatives at PSCOG meetings is not required.
PSCOG plans are not legally binding documents, but rather, guidance
documents. If the growth potential expressed by the IRDP for the
Ultimate Service Area were achieved in 1990, the
population would be 22,370, design flow 7.6 mgd and interceptor diameter
27 inches. Comparative projections are in Table 3.
1-33
-------
OTHER REGIONAL LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
In 1970, the State of Washington requested King County and METRO to
assemble a plan for water pollution control and abatement for the Cedar
and Green River basins. To implement this major planning effort, King
County and METRO formed a committee of representatives from major
governmental agencies in the two basins, known as the River Basin Coor-
dinating Committee (RIBCO). The RIBCO project, which involved sixty
different agencies within the two drainage basins and which cost over
ffi four million dollars, has been essentially completed. Water qualtiy
f^ management, water resource and water supply, urban runoff, and solid
Uj waste management studies have been completed. Planned METRO waste-
*t water treatment works can be expected to be proposed in compliance with
QV the RIBCO project's recommendations. Consistency with the RIBCO pro-
ject's land use assumptions would, therefore, insure consistency with
C/J tne capacity and phasing of METRO'S proposed sewerage system. If the
^^ RIBCO assumptions were to materialize, population would be 10,155 in
^*> the year 2000, design flow 4.8 mgd and interceptor diameter, 21 inches.
ft Comparative projections are in Table 3.
This analysis utilized an infiltration/inflow factor of 1100
J"J gallons per acre per day and a domestic flow production factor of 75
^j? gallons per capita per day, consistent with the RIBCO project's year
ft* 2000 design criteria. The year 2000 population projections are con-
LM sidered "saturation" populations.
l|J RELATIONSHIP TO SEWERAGE PLANS, LAWS, AND REGULATIONS
THE WATER DISTRICT'S COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE PLAN
Before W.D. 90 could establish, maintain, and operate sanitary
sewers, it had to obtain written approval and certification of necessity
from DOE and the State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS).
In June 1969, these departments granted certification and the District
Commissioners adopted a comprehensive sewerage plan. In June 1970
1-34
-------
the plan was approved by DSHS and the Water Pollution Control Commission
(now DOE). King County Council approval occurred in the spring of 1975.
The District's comprehensive plan proposed a layout of sewerage
facilities, cost estimates and a construction program. Facilities were
planned to serve the Ultimate Service Area. Land use was anticipated to
range from residential in the eastern portion of the District to resi-
dential and light commercial in the western portion. The general topography
was believed particularly suited for residential use; the lack of sewerage
facilities was-not considered a major deterrent of development. The
consultants believed that by 2030 about 95,000 residents would be in the
District, representing a tenfold increase from the 1970 population of
9,300 residents. The planned sewerage facilities were sized to transport
the wastewater flows generated by the 95,000 residents.
Completing the proposed facilities cost $13 million (1979).
A Stage I construction program was proposed to be completed during 1971
through 1973. Stage I facilities, costing $3 million were proposed to
serve much of the Ultimate Service Area; the remainder was to be served
by Stage II facilities constructed between 1973 and 1975. The complete
sewerage system was planned to be completed by 1984. METRO was to be
responsible for the treatment and disposal of all wastewater.
Because the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan was adopted by resolutions,
approved by all appropriate agencies and required by State environmental
laws, EPA financial assistance should comply with the District's Sewerage
Plan. As noted earlier, EPA construction grants must comply with Federal,
State, and local environmental laws, regulations and ordinances, and
plans and standards. A comparison of Figure 3 with the District's 1970
Sewerage Plan indicates the proposed project was modified. In October,
1975, the District Commissioners initiated plan amendment procedures
(see Appendix 3) to insure consistency of the proposed project with the
District's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. These plan amendments are yet
to receive DOE and State Board of Health approval. Instead of following
Orton Road to its intersection with 156th S.E., the line will connect at
156th S.E. and S.E. 144th. Also, instead of going north on 160th S.E.,
it will go north to the high school by 168th S.E.
1-35
-------
THE METRO SEWERAGE PLAN
In 1959 the Metropolitan Council, METRO'S governing body, adopted
a comprehensive report on sewerage and drainage of the metropolitan
Seattle area as the official METRO Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. This
plan designated the existing Cedar River Interceptor (36" diameter),
and the proposed Cedar River and Madsen Creek Interceptors (33" and
12" diameters, respectively) as planned METRO facilities. Most of the
existing Cedar River Interceptor was included in the Stage I plan of
facilities to be constructed between 1960 and 1970; the proposed Cedar
River Interceptor extension was planned to be a Stage II facility
(construction between 1970 and 1980); the Madsen Creek Interceptor was
proposed to be constructed after 1980, as a Stage III facility. The
Stage I facilities were completed in October 1969.
The Metropolitan Council authorized the beginning of the Stage II
construction program in 1966 and issued revenue bonds to finance the
facilities. The extension of the Cedar River Interceptor to its present
terminus was an early Stage II project. The planned extension of the
Cedar River Interceptor to the terminus of the Orton Road Interceptor
would be consistent with the second phase of METRO's Stage II program
and the existing METRO Comprehensive Plan.
The recently completed RIBCO project essentially provides addi-
tional support for the system of facilities planned by METRO. The RIBCO
project recommended that the existing Cedar River Interceptor be extended
as a 30" interceptor between 1980 and 1990 and that the Madsen Creek
Interceptor be constructed after 1990. The existing METRO plan suggests
that the proposed Cedar River and Madsen Creek Interceptors be completed
prior to 1985.
SEWER-RELATED LAWS AND REGULATIONS
A review of State, regional, and local sewer-related laws and
regulations found that the proposed project generally complies with
all applicable requirements.
1-36
-------
State law requires the State Board of Health to adopt regulations
and standards concerning health hazards related to sewage disposal.
They are also required to adopt rules and regulations governing the
design, construction, and operation of sewage facilities. These
rules and regulations must be enforced by local officials.
Two sets of regulations adopted by the Board of Health relate
to the use of sewers: "General Sanitation" and "On-site Sewage Disposal
Systems." The General Sanitation regulations prohibit the construction,
maintenance, or use of septic tanks and cesspools wherever an authorized
sewerage system is at all accessible. Department of Public Health
officials generally consider a sewer to be accessible if it is within
200 feet of a septic tank. A King County Ordinance described sewers
as being "accessible" if they are within 150 feet of a septic tank.
"On-site Sewage Disposal" regulations require the connection of any
dwelling unit,or other structure where sewage originates, to a public
sewer system when there is an adequate public sewer within 200 feet, if
such connections are permitted by the sewer utility. These connections
must be made within two years after public sewer service becomes avail-
able unless the local health officer determines such connections are not
feasible.
The State's water and sewer district laws also permit (but don't
require) districts with sanitary sewer systems to compel connections
to sanitary sewers. Under State law, the Commissioners could compel
all property owners within those portions served to connect. This
general authority is also contained in the W.D. 90's Resolution No.
184.
The W.D. 90's engineer believes that those property owners
adjacent to the Orton Road Interceptor who request connection to the
Interceptor will be accommodated. At the same time, the District
cannot compel connections of existing residences, according to a
recently passed Resolution No. 318. Though the District has the
authority to compel property owners to connect, the Commissioners are
1-37
-------
not likely to utilize their powers of "forced connections",
according to the District's engineer, in view of likely citizen ob-
jections to such action and the absence of bond authorization.
SUMMARY
QC
-p The preceding analyses of the relationship of the land use assump-
tions and projections are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 indicates that the Water District's 1975 land use assump-
tions do not literally comply with the King County land use plan and its
policy amendments (an environmental law), the King County Zoning Code
classification affecting the Ultimate Service Area (an environmental
law), or the Water District's 1970 sewerage plan land use assumption
(a plan required by an environmental law). The proposed project's
capacity is less than that required to fully comply with the official
land use plans and controls affecting the Ultimate Service Area.
Even though such conflicts occur, EPA tentatively concurs with
the District's belief that the proposed project is properly sized.
EPA concurrence is based on the following facts:
1-38
-------
King County's 1964 Comprehensive Land Use Plan is rather optimis-
tic in its anticipation of the County's land use needs. For
example, the combined effect of the County's planning policies
and plan map is to designate enough land as being appropriate for
residential use to house at least 5,000,000 residents. This
planned capacity is capable of accommodating a King County
population increase ten times greater than that projected by the
PSCOG through 1990; nine times that projected by the State through
the year 2000; and nine times that projected by OBERS through the
year 2020. Region X believes that it is not realistic to require
construction of a 30-inch Orton Road Interceptor in order to
accommodate flows from the maximum potential Ultimate Service
Area development which could occur if the County's planning
designations were fulfilled.
The DOE, the State Department of Health, PSCOG, King County Coun-
cil, King County Department of Public Works, and Seattle-King
County Department of Public Health have at some time approved the
District's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan or the Pre-Application
Notification documents for the pending Orton Road Interceptor
grant. In every case, the downstream segment of the proposed
project was clearly identified as being a 24-inch interceptor.
Apparently the State, regional, and local agencies responsible
for reviewing the proposed project believe that proper design
criteria have been utilized, that it is properly sized, and that
it is needed.
An additional fact influencing EPA's approval of the size of the
proposed project is that strict compliance with the existing planning
and zoning designations for the Ultimate Service Area would ignore the
existing development in the area. This would not be realistic. It is
more realistic to assume that existing developed areas will remain in
essentially their present form but that vacant areas could, over time,
be developed in compliance with King County's Zoning Code and planning
policies. If this occurred, the population would be 16,650, the size
of the interceptor 24", and the design flow 6,4 mgd. (See Table 3.)
The Water District's population and growth projections are consid-
ered acceptable by the EPA. Although the District departs from OBERS
projections, the departure is due to adopted local land use planning
policies which suggest that the Ultimate Service Area is an appropriate
area for a considerable increase in suburban and urban development.
Because W.D. 90's projections generally agree with the County's
planning policies and regulatory measures, it will not be required to
submit additional population projection information.
1-39
-------
TABLE 3
POPULATIONS AND FLOW PROJECTIONS
Initial Service
Area Population
Planned Service
Area Population
Ultimate Service
Area Population
Peak Domestic &
Institutional Flow
Infiltration
and Inflow
Design Flow
Appropriate Inter-
ceptor Size
Population which
could be served
(if surcharged)
King Co.
Plan Map
24,000
27,000
51,000
14.5 mgd
1.9 mgd
16.4 mgd
36"
90,000
W.D. 90 King Co.
Assumptions Plan
6,090 15,550
7,980 15,530
14,070 31,080
4.2 mgd 8.8 mgd
1.9 mgd 1.6 mgd
6.1 mgd 10.4 mgd
24" 30"
25,000 68,500
Existing
King Co.
Zoning
13,7253
10,525
24,250
6.9 mgd
1.8 mgd
8.7 mgd
27"
38,000
PSCOG
IRDP
13,575
8,795
22,370
6 . 3 mgd
1.3 mgd
7 . 6 mgd
27"
38,000
RIBCO
Assumptions
5,6754
4,480
10,155
2.2 mgd
2.6 mgd
4.8 mgd
21"
20,000
Existing 5
Policies
8,900
7,750
16,650
4 . 7 mgd
1 . 7 mgd
6 . 4 mgd
24"
25,000
I
£-
o
1. Population is for year 2025.
2. Population is for year 1985.
3. Population is for year 1990.
4. Population is for year 2000.
5. These projections leave existing land uses intact through the design period and allow the remainder
of the Ultimate Service Area to develop according to the King County Plan and its policies.
-------
II
V
-------
IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines the characteristics of the Study Area's
environment and the environmental impacts of the proposed project.
It is the intent of this chapter to indicate whether the impacts
of the proposed project will contravene any Federal, State or local envir- f\
onmental laws and regulations or plans and standards required by such
environmental laws or regulations. If such a contravention is antici-
pated, EPA would withhold approval of the District's grant until it
revised its project plans, initiated steps to mitigate the adverse
effects identified, or agreed to grant conditions which would minimize
the adverse effects of the proposed project.
TYPES OF IMPACTS
Two types of impacts are normally associated with wastewater
treatment works: direct or primary impacts, and indirect or secondary
impacts. Direct impacts are those directly related to the construction
and operation of proposed works. Indirect impacts are those related to
changes induced by the project, particularly population and economic
growth and land use. The environmental effects resulting from such
induced changes are also considered to be indirect impacts.
This installation of sewers can cause growth in the area by allowing
for a change in land-use policy. Provided there is a demand for more
residences in the area, existing laws based on septic-tank systems
require more land per residence than a sewered area. If there is not
a demand for more residences due to population increase pressures, then
sewering an area would have little consequence. But, because the whole
II-l
-------
region around the Seattle metropolitan area is currently undergoing a
population increase and subsequently increased pressure to provide more
housing, land-use zoning for more residences per area is possible.
Having sewers in an area would eliminate an argument for low-density
zoning and provide developers utilizing population projection figures
to argue for a higher density zoning. Thus, one can expect sewers to
indirectly induce higher human population levels in the Orton Road area.
The potential consequences of an increased population in the Study Area
will be discussed.
IMPACTS TO BE DESCRIBED
Consistent with EPA's Environmental Impact Statement Regulations and
the Council on Environmental Quality's "Guidelines for the Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements," the following categories of direct and
indirect impacts of the proposed project will be described:
Population density and land use impacts
Facilities and services
Socioeconomic impacts
Historic, architectural, and archaeologic impacts
Water quantity, quality, and hydrologic impacts
Soil conservation impacts
Plant community impacts
Fish and wildlife impacts
Impacts on environmentally sensitive areas
Energy supply and natural resource impacts
Sound level impacts
Visual impacts
Because most of the impact categories are related to the land use
effects of the proposed project, it is necessary to first determine the
II-2
-------
project's potential population density and land use impacts. The other
impact categories will then be considered in the order in which they are i
listed above. f \
SC
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
It will be assumed that the rate of development within the Ultimate
Service Area will be constant through the design life.
CO
"Worst case" impacts will be examined wherever possible. Because the
Orton Road Interceptor may provide the potential for a suburban community
to develop where there is now primarily a semi-rural area, the impacts
of developing such a community will be emphasized.
Since indirect impacts cannot always be specifically and accurately
determined, most potential indirect impacts will be only generally de-
scribed. These indirect impacts should not be considered precise or to
be inevitable. Instead, they are intended to be reasonable estimates of
the proposed project's potential effects.
Unless otherwise noted, all monetary figures are given as 1973
dollars.
POPULATION DENSITY AND LAND USE IMPACTS
O
EXISTING LAND USE CONDITIONS
At the present time, the predominant land use in the Study Area is
open space or vacant land. Approximately 75 percent of the Study Area is
presently undeveloped. Most of this land cannot be considered natural;
with few exceptions, the undeveloped land in the Study Area has been
altered by human activity or is located adjacent to roads, railroad lines,
utility corridors, transmission lines, or similar facilities. Table 4
and Figure 10 display the existing land use within the Study Area.
The Ultimate Service Area is slightly more developed than the sur-
rounding outside areas; about 64 percent is presently undeveloped. Of
the 36 percent which has been developed, 92 percent is used for single-
family residential purposes. The remaining developed land is utilized for
II-3
-------
CATEGORY
Total Area
Surface Water Area
Total Land Area
Residential Land
Public and Semi-public Uses
(Schools, Churches, etc.)
TOTAL DEVELOPED LAND
Reserved Open Space (Parks, Camps,
Golf Courses, etc.)
Unreserved Open Space (Open Space,
Vacant Land, Farms, etc.)
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED LAND
TABLE 4
LAND USE, 1975
(Acres by use category)
Initial Planned
Service Service
Area Area
Ultimate
Service Study
Area Area
1050
0
1050
312
48
360
18
672
690
1345
0
1345
500
12
512
107
726
833
2395
0
2395
812
60
872
125
1398
1523
5975
75
5900
1390
110
1500
180
4220
4400
II-4
-------
Public Agency Lands
Reserve^ Open Sp<»ce
Existing DevelopedSLan
Unreserved Open Spa
E VALLtY HIGHWAY
SCALE IN FEET
t
0 2000
EXISTING LAND USE
Figure 10
-------
churches, schools, and a fire station. Of the undeveloped portion, eight
percent is presently reserved for parks or similar public open space, or
is used for recreational activities.
Over 38 percent of the Planned Service Area has been developed while
only 34 percent of the Initial Service Area is developed.
Only one industry is active within the Study Area; a small peat
mining operation located just north of the Ultimate Service Area and
south of S.E. 128th Street at 164th Avenue S.E.
One of the Study Area's publicly-owned parks and open spaces is
developed at this time. The privately-owned "reserved" open space lands
are not necessarily set aside as long-term open spaces. Though the Boy
Scout camp, Renton Fish and Game Club area, and Maplewood Golf Course
could be developed in the future, such development is unlikely during the
design period. Based on conversations with their owners or other per-
sonnel it will be assumed that the "reserved" open space will remain as
open space through the design period.
Table 4 summarizes the existing land use conditions
within the Ultimate Service Area and Study Area. It must be recognized
that the Study Area is a somewhat arbitrary designation; if it were to
include more of the developed areas to the north or west or the undevel-
oped lands to the south or east, the acreage noted below in the "Study
Area" column would change.
EXISTING POPULATION DENSITY
The Initial Service Area contains approximately 1,445 residents,
440 dwelling units, and 312 acres of residential land. The Planned Ser-
vice Area has 1,995 residents, 600 dwelling units, and approximately
500 acres of residential land. Existing population density conditions
can be summarized as follows:
II-6
-------
Initial
Service Area
Planned
Service Area
Acres per Home
In Residential Areas
.70 acres .83 acres
30,500 sq.ft. 36,000 sq.ft.
Acres per Home 2.4 acres
In the Total Service Area
Residents per Acre
In Residential Areas
4.6
Residents per Acre 1.4
In the Total Service Area
2.2 acres
4.0
1.5
Acres per Resident
In Residential Areas
.20 acres .25 acres
8,700 sq.ft. 10,900 sq.ft.
Acres per Resident .73 acres .67 acres
In the Total Service Area 31,600 sq.ft. 29,000 sq.ft.
Total
(Ultimate
Service Area)
.78 acres
34,000 sq. ft.
2.3 acres
4.2
1.4
.24 acres
10,300 sq. ft.
.70 acres
30,500 sq. ft.
The average residential lot within the plateau portion of the Ultimate
Service Area contains approximately 1.5 acres.
DIRECT IMPACTS
The proposed project's direct impacts on land use include the
permanent commitment of some very small parcels of land (about 2.5
acres) for use as a sewer right-of-way (methodology for determining
impacts in Appendix 2.). Wherever possible, the proposed project would
be located in developed or undeveloped existing public rights-of-way,
King County Parks Division land, or the Liberty High School property.
Approximately 1600 feet of interceptor would pass through privately-
owned land. The required sewer easements from the affected private
property owners have already been acquired by the District.
A buried pipeline of the type proposed utilizes negligible land
area, exerts little restriction on surface development (located pri-
marily in existing highway right-of-way), has little, if any, long-
term effect on natural habitat, and involves no appurtenant structures
that could not be abandoned and removed should the need arise.
Right-of-way along open space can be replanted, paved for a bike
path, or other surface public use. Any future digging along the inter-
ceptor route will require a permit from the Water District.
II-7
-------
The proposed project will not directly impact population densities.
No structures of any kind would have to be relocated or demolished.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
The proposed project's potential indirect population density and
land use impacts have been of great concern to many citizens. Due to
the interest in such indirect impacts, the process or methodology used
to determine the project's potential indirect impacts on land use and
population density is discussed in some detail in Appendix ii. The
following impact analysis results from that methodology.
Development Potential - With Only the Orton Road Interceptor
Figure 11 illustrates the future development within the Study Area
that could occur if the Orton Road Interceptor were constructed; it is
based on an analysis of County plans and policies, land ownership pat-
terns, the distribution and character of vacant lots, known proposed
developments in the Study Area, and State laws and regulations
associated with the provision of sanitary sewer service by water
districts. The information on Figure 11 reflects the fact that State
law requires the connection of any dwelling unit or other structure
where sewage originates to a public sewer system when there is an
adequate public sewer within 200 feet of the dwelling unit or other
structure.
Consideration of pending platting activity and the disapproval of
some recent plats by the King County Council due, in part, to the absence
of sanitary sewers in the Study Area also affected the information
placed on Figure 11. At least some of these proposed developments
are quite likely to be established as Local Improvement Districts
(LID's), which can then request sewer service from W.D. 90. The
District would not participate in financing of the local share of
cost of LID sewer facilities, since the District has not been authorized
to sell bonds on behalf of such LID's. These LID's would have to be
financed by development groups, banks, or other private institutions.
II-
-------
Existing Residential Land 8
Density Intensification
Areas
III|l New Development on
Sewers
New itatejopment on
Septic Ta
Public Areas
I I Open Space
Figure 11
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
WITH ORTON RD. INTERCEPTOR
SCALE IN FEET
0 2000
i
-------
It is important to note that residential development could occur without
sewers in many portions of the Ultimate Service Area. The Initial Service
Area would contain about 4400 new residents on 375 acres of newly
developed residential land. The Planned Service Area would contain about
1100 additional residents on 180 acres of newly developed residential
land. The distribution of this development potential by lot size would
be as follows:
Lot Size Total Homes Total Homes in the Total Homes in the
(sq. ft.) per Acre Initial Service Area Planned Service Area
8,400
12,500
15,000
20,000
35,000
Over 35,000
Development
4.5
2.5
2.0
1.75
1.0
Less than 1.0
Potential - With
1,091
51
60
112
18
0
Sewers Throughout
0
55
173
91
16
1
the Ultimate Service
Area
At this time, a major obstacle to the fulfillment of the County and
District Comprehensive Plans has been the failure of the District's
voters to approve bond issues. If the Orton Road Interceptor were con-
structed and private funding for proposed developments were obtained, the popu-
lation and voting patterns might change and a bond issue might be
passed in the future. If that occurred, residents of the new-develop-
ments would then already be connected to sewers and would have paid for
their sewerage facilities when they purchased their new homes. In
general, such new residents, already connected to sewers, vote for
sewerage bond issues because of their belief that if their neighbors
are on sewers, the neighborhood and community will improve, property
values will rise, and the environment will benefit. The new residents
would not be "double charges" unless they clearly received some new
additional benefit. Since only a relatively small increase in favor-
able votes would have reversed the bond issue defeats of 1971 and
1973, it is possible that the Orton Road Interceptor could, in an
indirect manner, play a role in bringing about land use changes
throughout its Ultimate Service Area.
11-10
-------
If sewers were constructed throughout the Ultimate Service Area,
the pattern of future development could be expected to resemble that dis-
played by Figure 12. It is based on an analysis of existing County poli-
cies and plans, land ownernship patterns, proposed development projects,
and the existing land use patterns. Other factors, including soil
types and the distribution of vacant lots, were also considered.
With sewers, the population of the Ultimate Service Area could be
expected to reach 19,430, an increase of 465 percent over its 1970
population. The Initial Service Area could contain 11,680 residents,
a 708 percent increase over its 1970 population. The Planned Service
Area could contain 7,750 residents, representing a 288 percent increase
over its 1970 population. Approximately 685 acres of existing vacant
land could be developed within the Initial Service Area during the
design period. About 605 acres of existing vacant land could be devel-
oped within the Planned Service Area during the design period. Using the
above figures the distribution of new homes by lot size could be as follows;
Lot Size
(sq.ft.)
8,400
15,000
35,000
Over 35,000
Total Homes
per Acre
3.5
2.0
1.0
Less than 1
Total Homes in the
Initial Service Area
2,938
128
31
0
Total Homes in
Planned Service
1,100
585
58
6
the
Area
These residential dwelling density figures represent the highest
densities expected for the areas. Thus, they are the "worst" anticipated
impacts on the study area. All following indirect impact descriptions
are based on this same level of population growth unless noted otherwise.
11-11
-------
Existing Residential LandS
Density Intensification,
Areas
I New Development
Open Space
"APLt VALLtY HIGHWAY
SCALE IN FEET
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
WITH SEWERS
Figure 12
-------
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
Table 5 summarizes a variety of potential population density and
land use impacts related to the proposed project. Some of the more
important potential impacts to the Ultimate Service Area resulting from
the construction of the proposed project and the formation of LID's
include:
. An increase in the development potential from 750 new dwelling
units to 4,850 new dwelling units.
. An increase in the amount of land used for residential purposes
during the design period from 303 acres to 1,113 acres.
. An increase in the Ultimate Service Area's added population from
2,460 to 15,990.
. A decrease in the lot size per home from 1.3 acres to 0.4 acres.
. An increase in density of residents per Ultimate Service Area
acre from 5.3 to 10.1.
These potential impacts are the difference between the development
potential of the Initial Service Area without sewers (Figure 13) and
the development potential with the proposed project and associated LID's
(Figure 12).
Were-these projected impacts actually to occur, the potential
indirect population density and land use impacts of the Orton Road Inter-
ceptor would include those listed in Ta.ble 5.
Development of a blanced potential Ultimate Service Area community
would convert amounts of vacant or sparsely developed land to more
intensive uses during the design period as shown in Table 6.
11-13
-------
New Development on Septic
Tank
Open Space
Existing Residential Land &
Density Intensification Area
VALLbY HIGHWAY
SCALE IN FEET
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
WITHOUT ANY SEWERS
Figure 13
-------
TABLE 5
POTENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY AND LAND USE IMPACTS
(Ultimate Service Area)
M
I
Population
Homes
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
3,440
1,040
YEAR 2025,
WITHOUT SEWERS
5,900
1,790
YEAR 2025, WITH
THE PROPOSED PROJECT
8,950
2,710
YEAR 2025,
COMPLETELY SEWERED
19,430
5,890
Acres of
Residential Land
Acres per Home,
In Residential Areas
Acres per Home,
Ult. Service Area
Persons per Acre,
In Residential Areas
812 ac.
.78 ac.
34,000 sq. ft.
2.3 ac.
100,000 sq. ft.
4.2
1,115 ac.
.62 ac.
27,000 sq. ft.
1.3 ac.
56,500 sq. ft.
5.3
1,280 ac.
.47 ac.
20,500 sq. ft.
0.9 ac.
39,000 sq. ft.
7.0
1,925 ac.
.33 ac.
14,000 sq. ft.
0.4 ac.
17,500 sq. ft.
10.1
Persons per Acre,
Ult. Service Area
Acres per Person,
In Residential Areas
Acres per Person,
Ult. Service Area
1.4
.24 ac.
10,300 sq. ft.
.70 ac.
30,500 sq. ft.
2.5
.19 ac.
8,200 sq. ft.
.41 ac.
17,700 sq. ft,
3.7
.14 ac.
6,200 sq. ft.
.27 ac.
11,600 sq. ft,
8.1
.10 ac.
4,300 sq. ft.
.12 ac.
5,400 sq. ft.
-------
TABLE 6
LAND CONVERSIONS WITH SEWERS
Potential Ultimate Service Area Land Conversions
From:
1,190 acres of vacant land
160 acres of sparsely devel-
oped residential land
53 acres of vacant land
To:
1,190 acres of new residential areas,
streets, and roads
160 acres of denser residential
development
6 acres of neighborhood businesses
9 acre elementary school
14 acres of neighborhood parks
6 acre community playfield
4 acre neighborhood playfield
6 acres of freshwater recreation areas
7 acres of religious facilities
Potential Conversions of Non-Ultimate Service Area
Lands Within the Study Area
From:
15 acres of vacant land
15 acres of sparsely
developed commercial land
282 acres of vacant land
To:
15 acres of commercial centers,
community and neighborhood businesses
15 acres of commercial centers,
community and neighborhood businesses
1 acre of nursery schools
32 acres of elementary schools
28 acres of junior high schools
38 acre high school
65 acres of major parkland
28 acres of community parks
12 acres of neighborhood playfields
52 acres of urban and nonurban trails
8 acres of bicycle paths
1 acre swimming pool complex
7 acres of freshwater recreation areas
7 acres of religious facilities
2 acres of governmental facilities
1 acre branch library
11-16
-------
In addition, some land would be needed for industries, commerce,
or service which would employ those new residents from other counties
and states who move to the Ultimate Service Area without a job or lose
their jobs soon after moving. If half ot the new households have two
employees and one-third of the new King County residents need a job,
anywhere from 1 acre of new offices (e.g. a ten-story office tower) to
70 acres of new warehouses or similar extensive industries would be
required. These employment centers will be assumed to be located outside
of the Study Area.
The potential indirect impacts of a sewerage system for the entire
Ultimate Service Area will be considered to represent the "greatest
likely" impacts or "worst case" population density and land use impacts.
The specific analysis of potential indirect impacts will, therefore,
consider the effects of 5,900 dwelling units (4,850 new units) housing
19,430 residents (16,000 new residents) on 1,925 acres of residential
land in the Utlimate Service Area.
11-17
-------
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
As a condition of any grant, EPA could require that the interceptor
be utilized only by the high school and those dwellings along its route
that have unusable septic systems. This would prevent an expanded
network of sewage lines throughout the Study Area and maintain much of
the rural environment conditions and population density now present in
the area. However, in view of currect planning projections, this would
not represent a cost-effective solution.
A mitigative measure not available to the EPA but available to
the citizens or residents of the area who consider population growth
and land-use changes negative would be to petition to change the
Water District's comprehensive plan and King County plan to preserve
open space and the rural character of the area.
The potential population and land use impacts related to the proposed
project all essentially result from adopted local public policies which
suggest that it is appropriate to encourage the urbanization of most of
the East Renton Plateau. Changing local public policies could probably
have the greatest mitigative effect on the preceding indirect impacts
and all of the following categories of indirect impacts, most of which
result from potential changes in land use patterns and the intensity of
land use in the Study Area. Because the basic public policies which
affect the land use of the Study Area are contained in the adopted King
County Comprehensive Plan and its amendments, the most effective means
to alter local public policies would probably be to amend or alter the
existing plan and its related policies.
King County is rather unique in Washington State in that it is
a "Home Rule County" with a Home Rule Charter, adopted in November,
1968. The Charter essentially outlines all governmental functions,
processes, and relationships of the County and is the County's basic
legal document. Included in its provisions is the authority for the
County Executive to prepare and present comprehensive plans to the County
Council by having the County Department of Budget and Program Planning
prepare comprehensive plans and plan amendments (Sections 320.20 and
920.20.70). The County Council can adopt such plans or amendments by
ordinance (a legislative act) or deny their approval. This is the
-------
manner in which plan amendments since 1968 have been adopted.
In fact, the County has a vigorous ongoing planning process in
which different areas in the County are studied in great detail with
extensive citizen involvement over, typically, a one to two year period,
resulting in the presentation of plan amendments to the County Council.
These detailed reviews result in adopted "Middle Plans" which provide
specific short-term planning policy and direction (usually for a ten-
year period). This compares to the long-term focus of the basic King
County Comprehensive Plan. To date, such "Middle Plans" have been
adopted for the Federal Way, Bear Lake Plateau, and Sea-Tac Airport
areas. Ongoing "Middle Planning" is underway in the Highline-White
Center, Northshore -Redmond-Kirkland, and Big Soos Creek Plateau.
Unfortunately, the East Renton Plateau has remained a low priority
area and the "Middle Planning" program for the Study Area
is not planned to begin until the Spring of 1977. A "Middle Plan" for
the W.D. 90 area would, therefore, probably be adopted sometime in late
1978 or early 1979. The delay in reviewing present planning policies
in the Study Area is primarily due to the fact that many other portions
of the County have already received or are presently receiving urban
services, including sanitary sewers, and are, therefore, in greater need
of specific planning direction.
Study Area citizens could intervene in the County's planning
process in three ways, if a more expedient review of existing planning
policies is desired. First, Study Area citizens could go to the County
Council to pressure prioritization of "Middle Planning" on the East Renton
Plateau. Secondly, the County's Charter (Section 230.50) provides
for citizen proposition of ordinances by initiative, if sufficient
signatures are obtained on the initiative forms (approximately
35,000 signatures would be needed). The County Council would have to
consider the proposed ordinance within ninety days after its presentation
and would have to hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. King
County officials, however, generally believe that the County Council would
not recommend approval of such a plan amendment presented by citizen
initiative without extensive staff, legal, policy advisory committee,
and citizen review.
11-19
-------
If disapproved or not enacted by the County Council, the citizens
supporting the plan amendment could still place the proposed ordinance
on the ballot of the next County election. If a majority of those
voting on the proposed plan amendment ordinance approve it, the
ordinance will be deemed approved.
A final technique available to citizens of the Study Area would
be to retain some planning and legal consultants to develop a new plan
for the area which they are concerned about. If a carefully considered
plan, in addition to a proposed plan amendment ordinance, is developed
with continual coordination with the County and demonstrated citizen
and property-owner involvement, the County Council may act more favor-
ably on the proposed ordinance. In other words, if sufficient interest
exists, citizens can carry out planning activities themselves, instead
of waiting for County staff to carry out planning activities for them.
It is important to clearly separate the relationship of sewerage
facilities in the Ultimate Service Area and subsequent land use changes
from the effect of planning policies on subsequent land use changes.
This is an important issue. While extending a sewer into an area may
be a factor in allowing that area to develop to its planned capacity, as
expressed by local adopted land use plans, extending a similar sewer
into an area planned for open space may have no land use effect. Local
adopted land use policies are the primary determinant of land use changes
and the effects of such changes. Sewerage facilities, like water, public
utilities, and transportation facilities, usually only determine when such
changes may occur. And, as noted above, the local adopted land use plans
are amendable. If citizens are alarmed by what changes might occur in
their neighborhoods, the local land use planning agencies, not the EPA or
other sewerage agencies, should receive their attention.
The EPA construction grants program is not administered primarily for
the benefit of land developers or County planning officials who wish to
direct suburban development to specific areas. The EPA does not assist
in the construction of interceptor or trunk sewers which only solve land
use-related problems by removing constraints on development or making it
less costly to develop land in a specific area. However, EPA recognizes
that land use problems may be inadvertently solved by interceptor or
trunk sewer projects which are part of an operable system planned to
11-20
-------
solve water pollution problems or constructed to restore water quality
to an acceptable level. If the potential land use effects of an EPA-
financed project are in compliance with the local land use plans which
regulate the use of the affected land, and no violations of Federal,
State, or local environmental or other laws, regulations policies or
plans result from such land use changes, EPA must view the land use
changes as being an acceptable consequence of solving the associated
water quality problems. It is important to note that EPA fully respects
the primacy of State and local governments in planning and controlling
land use. The EPA neither makes land use decisions directly nor prescribes
step-by-step procedures for states and local governments. The EPA
merely requires consistency of planning assumptions and design criteria
with adopted local land use plans and policies.
For example, if the adopted land use plan for a particular sewer
service area classified the area as being appropriate for open space
activities or agriculture or timber management, and the proposed project
was designed in anticipation of suburban uses, an alternative project
would clearly have to be developed, if any project were to be funded by
the EPA. Similarly, if an industrial area were planned for a proposed
service area and it could be shown that no environmental standards would
be violated if the industrial area were developed, yet the grant applicant
proposed a project with inadequate capacity for the proposed industrial
development, EPA would, in most cases, also require re-evaluation of the
applicant's project, for it would have too little capacity to serve the
planned development .
Within the Orton Road Interceptor's Ultimate Service Area, EPA
recognizes that land use changes are likely to occur if the proposed
project is constructed and that the density of development could increase
to the levels allowed by King County's planning policies. If the fulfilled
plan and expected land use changes do not violate or lead to violations
of environmental standards or the goals and objectives of Federal, State,
or local environmental laws, EPA cannot view these consequences as adverse.
The fact that King County has determined that it would be appropriate to
develop most of the Study Area to suburban densities, yet is unable to
because of the absence of sanitary sewers is viewed as neither good nor
bad by Region X, as long as no violations of environmental standards or
11-21
-------
laws result from the fulfilled plan.
EPA would not assist in financing the proposed project just to
allow King County to implement its policy of directing development to
the Study Area. Similarly, the fact that the proposed project was
certified as being necessary by the State and received priority over
other projects for EPA financial assistance is, by itself, insufficient
justification for granting the desired award. The EPA can, however,
consider funding the proposed project because the simultaneous completion
of Liberty High School and the Orton Road Interceptor (and completion
of the Cedar River Interceptor) could create an operable segment of a
waste water treatment works system which could be eventually extended
to solve existing water quality problems within the project's Ultimate
Service Area, and to preclude the occurrence of more serious water quality
problems in the future.
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Uj
INTRODUCTION
Community facilities, public services, and utility services may be
|j | affected either directly or indirectly by the interceptor's installation.
Primarily based on the "worst case"in conjunction with population
growth, land would be required for commercial, educational, recreational,
governmental, health care, library, religious, social and cultural,
and entertainment facilities. Typically, such support facilities
require one-third of the land allocated to residential use (including
L^ residential streets and roads) in metropolitan areas of the United
States. These facilities and people increases will also require an
f\ increase in utility and public services. The following pages will
present the existing conditions, projected direct impacts, and
projected indirect impacts of the proposed project on the facilities
and services within the Study Area.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Commercial facilities are located at the intersection of S.E. 128th
11-22
-------
Street and 164th Avenue S.E. containing a supermarket, service station,
dry cleaners, and other establishments and a small strip along S.E.
128th Street near 138th Avenue S.E. which contains grocery stores,
service stations, and other establishments.
Educational facilities and services are provided by the Issaquah and
Renton School Districts. Liberty High, Maywood Junior High, Briarwood and
Maplewood Elementary School are located within the Ultimate Service Area.
Maplewood, Apollo, Maple Hills, and May Valley Elementary Schools, although
located outside the Study Area, have pupils which reside within the Ultimate
Service Area.
Briarwood Elementary with 500 pupils and a 600 student capacity
along with Maywood Junior High with 750 students and a capacity for
900 can handle some population growth. Issaquah High School currently
is overcrowded with 2,200 students and a 1,232 student capacity.
»
Issaquah High School is utilizing portable classrooms and double
shifting. The school district plans to alleviate this problem by
transferring 880-890 students to Liberty High when it is completed.
The combined schools employ 320 persons: 100 at the three schools located
within the study area, 90 at three Issaquah School District Elementary
Schools just outside the Study Area, and 130 in Hazen High School,
located outside the Ultimate Service Area and run by Renton School
District.
Recreational facilities and services: The only developed park in
the Study Area is Coalfield Park, a 15 acre partially developed park
located west of 164th Avenue S.E. and north of S.E. 128th
Street. Recreational opportunities are also provided by the private
Renton Fish and Game Club (a shooting range), Maplewood Golf Course,
and the Boy Scout's Camp Freeman. Community clubs have developed some
recreational facilities at the lakes (clubhouses, docks, swimming floats,
etc.). The shorelines are generally not open to the public. Some portions
of sub-divisions have been deeded to the County. These areas are, for
the most part, tiny parcels of odd-shaped lots or steeply sloping
undevelopable land. Some of these areas are used for neighborhood
recreational activities.
11-23
-------
There are no developed parks in the Ultimate Service Area, though
the County has purchased a 16.5 acre site immediately south of Liberty
High School for future park or playfield development. Existing play-
fields adjacent to Maplewood Heights Elementary School and Maywood
Junior High are utilized for community recreational activities (e.g.
softball, soccer, etc.).
In addition to these areas, outdoor recreational activities take
place in much of the vacant land and open space in the Study Area.
Bicyclists, horseback riders, joggers, and motorcyclists on trail
bikes also use the Study Area's rural lanes and trails in its open
spaces. Fishing appears to be the most popular recreational activity
along the Cedar River. Except at school playgrounds, Maplewood Golf
Course, and the Renton Fish and Game Club, most outdoor recreational
activity in the Study Area appears to be dispersed and informal.
Based on data from the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission,
the Ultimate Service Area's residents presently demand approximately
33,350 recreation-days of non-water related recreation and 18,500
recreation-days of water related recreation. Regional data developed
during the mid-1960's indicates that the Ultimate Service Area residents
may annually demand up to 75,000 water related and 250,000 non-water
related activity days. The Study Area's existing recreational areas
probably satisfy only a small percentage of this demand. Ultimate
Service Area residents usually must travel to developed parks, play-
grounds, playfields, beaches, and pools to satisfy their recreational
needs.
Transportation Facilities and Services within the Study Area
are displayed on Figure 14. Available average daily traffic volumes
(1974) are also displayed. The majority of trips are carried by State
Route 169 (the Maple Valley Highway) and S.E. 128th Street, which are
major east-west arterials and the Maple Valley Highway which provides
access to Bellevue, the Valley Freeway (state Route 167), Interstates: 5
& 405 and the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. S.E. 128th Street
is indirectly linked to Interstate 405, but provides direct access to
downtown Renton. METRO Transit serves the Study Area with a week-day.
11-24
-------
1*1
CD
15,500
>-
>.
SE I44t
15,5001
SE 128th
4000
3150
CO
8000
3000
2200
3000 «^2500
650
3000
SE 144th
SE 128th 4000
< 800
HIGHWAY
13,400
Figure^4
AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES, 1974
SCALE IN FEET
2000
IN
-------
bus route along the Maple Valley Highway, linking Enumclaw and Maple
Valley with Renton.
The Issaquah and Renton School Districts use the Study Area's
streets and roads to collect and transport students to and from school.
The Issaquah School District operates school bus routes on S.E. 144th
Street, S.E. 128th Street, 177th Avenue S.E. and the Lake Kathleen Road,
196th Avenue S.E., and many other streets in the northeastern portion
of the Study Area. The Renton School District utilizes 140th Place
S.E., Jones Road, Orton Road, and 156th Avenue for transporting
elementary students, except on severe winter days when icy conditions
make Orton Road unsafe. Elementary students then travel through
downtown Renton from schools on the East Renton Plateau to and from
their homes in the Cedar River Valley. Older students from the Cedar
River Valley are bussed to Renton along the Maple Valley Highway.
At the present time the King County Department of Public Works
probably spends the equivalent of one man-year of labor (i.e. one
employee) on the operation and maintenance of Ultimate Service Area
streets and roads.
METRO Transit is essentially unaffected by the present Ultimate
Service Area community. Based on PSCOG and King County model split data,
only 10 to 15 Ultimate Service Area residents use METRO buses to
travel to work.
Governmental facilities and services are primarily provided
outside the study area locations. Except for mail delivery for the
residents, library and post offices are located elsewhere. The equiv-
alent of two full-time governmental administrative personnel are
presently supported by the taxes paid by the Ultimate Service Area
residents. There are not any Health Care Facilities and Services
in the Study Area to serve the residents.
Public Safety Facilities and Services: The Ultimate Service Area
is served by the King County Department of Public Safety (i.e. King Coun-
ty Sheriff). All of the East Renton Plateau lies within the jurisdiction
11-26
-------
of King County's Southeast Precinct, which operates out of a head-
quarters precinct office in downtown Kent. The Southeast Precinct
serves 990 square miles of unincorporated King County (195,000 residents)
with six to eight patrol officers per shift (six patrol cars) and a
supporting detective, administrative, and clerical staff. The
Precinct is divided into ten patrol districts,, but with its limited
staff only six can be served by patrols during each shift. The East
Renton Plateau area receives only limited service. Due to its present
low population density, no patrols are assigned to the East Renton
Plateau area although two patrol cars are assigned to the area from
adjoining patrol districts and periodic patrols are performed. In
1974, the Precinct received about 42.,500 calls for assistance. It is
estimated that calls in 1976 will total almost 52,000. This increase
in crime rate is thought by the Department of Public Safety officials
to be caused by increasing population and urbanization rates in the
Southeast Precinct's area. Crime rates are, in fact, less than the
national average and less than the crime rate of many King County
incorporated towns and cities where the number of patrolmen per
resident or area is much greater.
Some neighborhoods and community groups have patrolled their own
neighborhoods during periods of frequent burglaries and break-ins.
The Lake Kathleen Community Club, for example, developed and imple-
mented a volunteer neighborhood patrol and "block watch" system in
conjunction with the County Public Safety Department which was quite
effective in curbing an increased rate of crime in the neighborhood.
Citizen involvement has proven equally effective in other King County
neighborhoods.
Fire protection is provided by King County Fire District No. 25
which employs six firemen and staffs two fire stations in the area
between Renton, Bellevue, and Maple Valley Highway, and 181st Avenue
S.E. The District's Headquarters Station is located in the Initial
Service Area on 156th Avenue S.E., immediately south of S.E. 128th Street,
It is staffed by two firemen during the daytime hours and equipped with
two engine-pumpers, and a ladder truck,
11-27
-------
passenger car, pickup, aid car, and chief's car. The second station is
located approximately six miles north of the Study Area. It is equipped
with an engine-pumper, ladder truck, and aid car and also manned by
two firemen during daytime hours. A third "station" is located in the
Initial Service Area near Briarwood Elementary School, where an engine-
pumper is stored in a resident's garage. Forty-five volunteer firemen
provide fire protection services during evening hours and assist the
District's firemen when necessary. Neighboring Fire District
volunteers or the City of Renton's Fire Department are also available,
if needed.
Fire District No. 25's two fire stations were constructed during
the last two years, resulting in an increased level of fire protection
service for the East Renton Plateau. New equipment (pumpers and aid
cars) has also improved the level of protection and service provided
by the District. Presently the District has an insurance classification
of "5", about average for semi-rural or low density suburban areas in
Washington State.
Sanitary Sewerage Facilities and Services;
A W.D. 90-METRO contractual agreement places the responsibility
for the collection and transportation of the District's sanitary sewage
to METRO'S interceptors with the District. METRO is responsible for treat-
ment and disposal of the District's wastewater and associated sludge.
At the present time, only the administrative framework exists for
providing public sanitary sewerage services for District residents.
With the exception of a small sewer connecting Apollo Elementary School
to the City of Renton's sewerage system, no District sewerage facilities
exist. Section One described the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan and the
status of the METRO Cedar River Interceptor extension project.
W.D. 90 has four full-time employees (a manager, maintenance man,
secretary, and clerk) and two part-time meter readers. A part-time
clerical assistant and maintenance man are also employed. The District
Commissioners have utilized consulting engineers for essentially all work
related to the proposed project.
11-28
-------
Solid Wastes in the present Ultimate Service Area community generates
about 26 cubic yards of solid wastes each weekday. Annually, this
volume of solid wastes is equivalent to about 460 collection vehicle
loads, each of which requires approximately 1 1/2 hours to be filled
and transported to King County's Renton Transfer Station at 122nd Avenue
S.E. and S.E. 128th Street. The solid wastes are ultimately disposed at
the Cedar Hills Landfill. With three man crews, an equivalent of one
man-year is spent collecting and disposing the Ultimate Service Area's
solid wastes.
Storm Water Drainage in the Ultimate Service Area is accommodated
by a casual system of roadside ditches, culverts, poorly defined natural
streamways, and creeks. Those storm water drainage facilities which
have been deliberately constructed are either associated with County
streets and roads, recent sub-divisions, or rural homes in areas with
frequent ponding or flooding problems.
At the present time it appears unlikely that much manpower is
devoted to storm water management in the Ultimate Service Area. Though
many agencies and their consultants are presently involved in studying
urban drainage problems in the Seattle Metropolitan Area (e.g. METRO
and the Corps of Engineers), it is probable that no more than one-half
man-year is spent by King County employees (Public Works Department) in
the maintenance of existing facilities and evaluation and approval of
new facilities related to proposed plats and subdivisions.
Energy is supplied to the Ultimate Service Area by the Puget
Sound Power and Light Company (electricity), and the Washington Natural
Gas Company (gas), as well as private heating oil distributors.
Essentially all of the Study Area is served with electricity. All
residential areas are accessible to heating oil distributors and natural
gas service is available to almost all Study Area residential areas on
the East Renton Plateau. Residential service lines branch off the S.E.
128th Street feeder along almost every important street. The installed
capacity of the existing lines is generally consistent with the level of
development expressed by County planning policies and zoning. No
11-29
-------
natural gas service is presently provided to the Cedar River Valley
or valley walls.
Water for most Ultimate Service Area residents is provided by W.D.
90's public water supply system. A few homes still utilize private wells
and some utilize springs and seeps along the north wall of the Cedar
River Valley. The W.D. 90 water supply system is not based on local
sources; the District purchases its water from the City of Seattle.
The preceding discussion of "Sanitary Sewerage Services - Existing
Conditions" described the District's present level of staffing. In
addition, the City of Seattle Water Department spends the equivalent of
one-half to one man-year of labor in providing water for the District.
DIRECT IMPACTS
Very few direct effects are anticipated. The high school would
connect with the interceptor causing additional sewage loads to
METRO. Temporary impacts are possible, such as traffic congestion when
construction equipment is on Orton Road, Jones Road, and S.E. 144th
Street water and electrical lines might be inadvertently cut off. Such
events are unlikely and could be quickly corrected.
Reconstruction of culverts which handle storm drainage will be
required. Trench spoils of up to 500 to 1000 cubic yards can be
expected. The control, collection and disposal of all construction-
related wastes will be the responsibility of W.D. 90 and its contractor(s)
After installation of the interceptor a maximum of one man-month of
maintenance would be required annually. W.D. 90's employees will
perform any required work.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
Commercial; Future commercial development has been planned by King
County for the East Renton Plateau. This planned area lies outside the
Ultimate Service Area on S.E. 128th Street. This EIS will assume that
two neighborhood commercial areas would be developed within the Ultimate
11-30
-------
Service Area requiring 6 acres of Ultimate Service Area land for
neighborhood businesses and 20-30 acres of land outside of the Ultimate
Service Area for commercial centers, community and neighborhood
businesses.
High Schools; When the development potential of the Ultimate Ser-
vice Area is achieved, an expanded Liberty High School could probably
serve only the Ultimate Service Area or the western portion of the
Ultimate Service Area and adjacent areas.
With sewers throughout the Ultimate Service Area, a potential
increase of 23 Liberty High School students per year would occur,
disregarding probable development in the remainder of the School's
service area. .Planning for the expansion of Liberty High School would,
therefore, probably begin soon after the Orton Road Interceptor is
constructed. An expanded Liberty High School's capacity would be
reached during the mid or late 1990's.
For this environmental impact statement it will be assumed that no
additional land would be required for high schools in the Ultimate
Service Area. Development of the potential Ultimate Service Area
community would lead to the probable utilization of 35 to 40 acres of
land for a new high school in the vicinity of the Study Area.
Nursery Schools; One nursery school is already located in the
Study Area and two new schools will be assumed to be constructed during
the design period. They will require about one acre of land.
Elementary Schools; The existing elementary schools in and
adjacent to the Ultimate Service Area could accommodate its potential
population increases for short periods of time. Briarwood and Maplewood
Heights Elementary Schools could accommodate a limited number of
additional students during the next few years. Eventually four new
elementary schools would be needed (the first new school would be needed
about 1980). Four elementary schools would require about 35 to 40 acres
of land.
11-31
-------
Junior High Schools; Maywood Junior High would be able to accom-
modate half of the potential Ultimate Service Area community's junior
high students. A modest number (150+) of new students would be able to
attend Maywood Junior High before it reaches its capacity. This is
equivalent to the immigration of 600 new families to the Ultimate
Service Area. At a constant rate of growth, a new junior high serving
the Ultimate Service Area would be needed in the early 1980's.
Eventually, one new junior high school would be required. For this
environmental impact statement it will be assumed that it would be loca-
ted on 28 acres of land outside of the Ultimate Service Area.
Recreational; Twenty-four acres of parks and playgrounds in the
Ultimate Service Area and about 105 acres of parks and playgrounds out-
side of the Ultimate Service Area (at new schools, etc.) should be
developed during the design period.
It is difficult to assess the prospects for fulfilling the pot-
ential Ultimate Service Area community's trail and bikeway demands at
this time. However, it appears that if the King County Trail Plan were
implemented, the new community's trail demands would be at least
partially fulfilled. An insignificant amount of Ultimate Service Area
land would be utilized. About 60 acres of land outside of the Ultimate
Service Area would be needed to supply the urban and non-urban trails
and bikeways for the potential Ultimate Service Area community.
Some freshwater recreational opportunities will be assumed to be
provided by small parks in the Study Area and Ultimate Service Area
along the Cedar River.
Governmental; It is reasonable to expect that, as the Ultimate
Service Area community population increases, additional land will be
required for governmental facilities (e.g. Water District shops, City
Light substations, fire stations, and one library). Two acres of Study
Area land along S.E. 128th Street will be assumed to be required for
such uses. No Ultimate Service Area land would be affected.
Due to the variation in the size and number of central post offices,
bulk mailing facilities, postal sub-stations, and shared facilities, and
11-32
-------
the amount and type of equipment used, it is impossible to estimate the
potential Ultimate Service Area community's impact on postal services.
Because the existing community is of such low density and structured in
an inaccessible, inefficient manner (many dead-end streets, etc.) its
further development may increase the efficiency of postal service to the
area. One or two new postal service employees would probably have to be
hired.
As the Ultimate Service Area develops, an increased level of fire
protection services may have to be provided. It is difficult to deter-
mine what level of fire protection would be appropriate for the potential
Ultimate Service Area community. Fire protection service requirements
are determined by a complex set of variables, including the availability
of water supply, value of facilities to be protected, population of the
service area, distance or time required to answer calls, and the type
and density of development. This analysis is further complicated by
the fact that fire protection services can be provided by part-time
firemen. For communities of the size of the potential Ultimate Service
Area community, it is not uncommon for a major portion of the fire pro-
textion services to be provided by volunteers, with only small staffs
employed full-time.
The potential Ultimate Service Area community would generate about
57,100 cubic yards of solid wastes annually if present waste generation
rates continue to be valid. Eighty-six percent of the wastes would be
generated by residences, and eight percent by new commercial establish-
ments. The schools would generate the remaining six percent of the Area's
non-construction-related solid wastes. Approximately 2,850 collection
vehicle loads would be generated, requiring six man-years of labor for
collection and disposal, if three-man crews are used. Disposal of the
potential community's solid wastes in a traditional landfill would
annually require space equal to eleven acres filled to a depth of three
feet or one acre filled to a depth of about thirty feet. Though King
County's long-range solid waste management plans emphasize resource
recovery activities, even the most efficient resource recovery pro-
cesses require landfill disposal of process residues and unsalvagable
wastes. Usually about 30% of initial solid waste volumes must be disposed
11-33
-------
of in landfills following resource recovery processes. Therefore, at the
least, a space of four acres filled to a depth of one yard, or one acre
filled to a depth of twelve feet, would be required for disposal of the
potential Ultimate Service Area's solid wastes, given present resource
recovery technologies. It is not known where the necessary landfill will
be located in the year 2025. The County's present Cedar Hills Landfill
is planned to be filled to capacity by 2002.
Since it is not known how storm water will be accommodated during
the design period, an assumption will be made that half of the potential
Ultimate Service Area would be served by a storm sewer system (18 to 23
miles of sewers) and the remainder would be served by other storm water
management facilities and techniques. This would require between one
and two man-years of labor for operation, maintenance, and administration.
It will be assumed that METRO and King County would share these responsi-
bilities.
About 31 miles of sanitary sewers would serve the potential Ultimate
Service Area. This probably would require an additional District main-
tenance employee. Four additional District employees would probably be
required for customer service and administration of the sewerage system.
METRO would also be affected by the potential Ultimate Service Area
community's development and its daily production of up to six million
gallons of wastewater (average flows of 3.5 mgd). Treatment of 3.5 to
6.0 mgd of wastewater at an activated sludge facility, such as METRO'S
Renton Sewage Treatment Plant, generally requires two to four man-years
of labor annually. Treatment and disposal of the sludge resulting from
the treatment process would require one to three man-years of labor
annually, depending on the sludge treatment and disposal processes
utilized.
The potential Ultimate Service Area community would require much
greater quantities of energy than the existing community but only a
b
limited number of new facilities or services. Existing electrical trans-
mission and distribution lines serve almost all areas which would develop
during the design period. Only about two additional miles of electrical
distribution lines would be required. Similarly, existing residential
service natural gas lines might be extended slightly if the number of
11-34
-------
new customers increased significantly.
Tr ansp or t at ion; Figure 15 displays projected traffic volumes
associated with the potential Ultimate Service Area. Although traffic
volume projections available from the King County Public Works Depart-
ment and State of Washington Department of Highways were used to develop
Figure 15, the traffic volume estimates were not computed by professional
transportation engineers and should be considered as only rough esti-
mates. Traffic generated by development within the Ultimate Service
Area and a proportional increase in "through" traffic volumes on the
Study Area's major arterials were considered in making these traffic
volume projections. If development occurred throughout the East Renton
Plateau rather than just in the Ultimate Service Area, the projected
traffic volumes on the major arterials would be too low. It was assumed
that seven trips per day would be generated by each dwelling unit and
that the use of automobiles would not change significantly during the
design period.
It was also assumed that the projected 1990 travel desires developed
by the PSCG and displayed in the King County Interim Transportation Plan
(KCITP) would be valid through the entire design period. Because the
planning districts used to project travel desires do not conform to the
Study Area's boundaries, some interpretation of the PSCOG and King County
data was necessary. This interpretation resulted in the travel desires
shown below:
PROJECTED ULTIMATE SERVICE AREA TRAVEL
DESIRES - TRIPS GENERATED WITHIN ULTI-
MATE SERVICE AREA.
MAY CREEK AREA
«-2
RENTON, 1-405, 1-90
SEATTLE, BELLEVUE, "~". t1% ~* ISSAQUAH, NORTH BEND
W.D.4-'
90
12% INTERNAL
*
RENTON, TUKWILA* " MAPLE VALLEY,
GREEN RIVER VALLEY BLACK DIAMOND
11-35
-------
< i 4500
m 45,500
SE 128th
34,000
76,000
30,000
SE I44t
42,000
5500
3000
36,000"
14,000'
12,500
9000 (
11,500
3000
1500
>31,000 SE 128th
7500
25,000
i.7500
«•
SE 144th
3000
i "4000
2000
7000
6500
3500
M2,000
VALLtY HIGHWAY
20,000
2500
* Completely Sewered
Figure 15
PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES- 2O25*
SCALE IN FEET
2000
IN
-------
The potential traffic volume projections illustrated by Figure 15
only consider traffic generated by residential development, even though
other community facilities would be significant traffic generators. The
Commercial Center at S.E. 128th Street and 164th Avenue S.E. would for
example, attract an average of approximately 3500 trips each day at the
end of the design period. Similarly, Liberty High School would attract
between 250 and 300 vehicles per day and between 800 to 1200 vehicles
for occasional evening activities. If evening activities occurred three
times each week,the average daily traffic of the streets serving Liberty
High would be increased by 525 to 725 just by use of the school.
The traffic generated by the residential development of the poten-
tial Ultimate Service Area community would not cause significant conges-
tion problems for most Study Area transportation facilities, although a
substantial increase in traffic volumes would occur as the Ultimate
Service Area develops. Most Initial Service Area streets and roads would
be anticipated to serve three to four times their existing traffic
volumes when the development of the potential Ultimate Service Area
community is completed. The future potential traffic volumes would still
be less than the planned capacity of the secondary and collector
arterials serving the Initial Service Area. Similarly, the major streets
and roads of the Planned Service Area are planned for traffic volumes up
to fifteen times their present level, yet only eight to nine times the
present traffic would be generated by the potential Ultimate Service Area
residences. Traffic volumes on S.E. 128th Street would increase by three
to six times; Maple Valley Highway traffic would increase by a factor of
two to four.
The greatest relative change in traffic volumes would occur in the
Planned Service Area and eastern portion of the Study Area. The only
serious potential capacity problems would occur in the western portion
of the Study Area on the Maple Valley Highway, S.E. 128th Street, and
144th Avenue S.E., which was assumed to serve half of the developable
land in the extreme western portion of the Ultimate Service Area.
Some new Study Area transportation facilities or improvements to
existing facilities (e.g. widening) would be needed in order to serve
the potential Ultimate Service Area community. The most significant
11-37
-------
Impacts are likely to occur outside of the Study Area where already
crowded facilities would be affected by the increased traffic generated
in the Study Area. For example, King County's Interim Transportation
Plan notes that, by 1990, capacity restrictions and increased travel
demand will probably result in congestion problems on Interstate 405,
Interurban Avenue, the West Valley Road, Benson Road, 140th Avenue S.E.,
Houser Way, Logan Avenue North, Southwest Grady Way, and Empire Way
South, in the Renton vicinity, and the Maple Valley Highway in the Study
Area. Although the Ultimate Service Area residents may experience great
relative change in the traffic volumes on their streets and roads,
traffic would still flow smoothly if the streets and roads are improved
to comply with their planned functional level of service.
The amount of County-maintained roadway would probably increase
slightly as the Ultimate Service Area develops. In addition, the greater
traffic volumes traveling on the Ultimate Service Area's streets
and roads would result in more rapid roadway deterioration and increase
the need for roadway maintenance. One additional Public Works Depart-
ment employee may be needed, particularly if other areas on the East
Renton Plateau develop during the design period.
As increased congestion occurs on the auto routes to the Seattle,
Bellevue, and Green River Valley employment centers, express buses may
attract many Study Area residents who now drive personal autos to work.
The energy crisis and incentives planned for bus transit in the Seattle
area (e.g. exclusive transit lanes on freeways, new buses, etc.) makes
an increase in suburban bus ridership even more likely. METRO'S success-
ful advertising and public relations campaign also concentrates on
increasing suburban ridership. If buses continue to provide the basic
form of public transit in the Seattle area, the potential Ultimate
Service Area community's increased bus patronage would require 20 to 25
new buses and between 10 and 20 new METRO employees.
Public Services; Development of the potential Ultimate Service Area
community would require the provision of increased public services,
particularly if general advisory national and planning standards of
service are to be achieved. Disregarding utility agencies, the following
public agencies would be most affected by development of the potential
11-38
-------
Ultimate Service Area community. They will be assumed to increase their
staffs by the following number of new employees or man-year equivalents
by the end of the design period:
Public Agency New Employees
Issaquah School District 240 to 300
King County (General Administration) 9
King County Dept . of Community and Environmental 45 to 54
Development, Parks Division
King County Dept. of Public Safety 18
King County Dept. of Public Works, and private
contractors for the Solid Waste Mgt. Division 6
King County Fire District No. 25 6
King County Library 8 to 10
METRO Transit 10 to 20
U.S. Postal Service 1 or 2
Health Care; It will be assumed that major medical facilities for
the Ultimate Service Area will continue to be provided at Renton. About
30 to 40 new hospital beds should be added to serve those new Ultimate
Service Area residents who come from outside of King County or Washington
State. Local medical/dental clinics would be required within the Study
Area. Three or four small clinics would proably locate in the commercial
centers along S.E. 128th Street.
The health care facilities which would be provided to serve the
potential Ultimate Service Area community would support between four and * ^
twelve doctors, dentist, optometrist, and other medical professionals I. .
and their staffs. All increases in health care services for Ultimate jj
Service Area residents will be assumed to be provided by private
practitioners; public hospitals would not be affected.
Religion ; The potential Ultimate Service Area community would _
require three to seven new churches. If five churches are constructed, ^^
4 to 25 acres of land would be required. For this environmental impact
statement, it will be assumed that 14 acres of land would be used for
religious structures during the design period.
O
ECONOMIC EFFECTS O
Uj
Development of the potential Ultimate Service Area community which
could be facilitated by construction of the Orton Road Interceptor would
11-39
-------
have four general economic effects:
(1) It would increase the amount of private and public capital
investment in the Ultimate Service Area and Study Area vicinity.
(2) It would increase the costs of operating and maintaining the
Ultimate Service Area community.
(3) It would change the distribution of expenditures by public
agencies and District residents for the Ultimate Service Area
Community.
(4) It would increase job opportunities.
The following pages will describe these potential effects in greater
detail. It is important to remember that only rough estimates of
potential economic effects can be made. Different land use patterns
would result in different economic effects. All monetary values are
presented as 1973 dollars. It must also be remembered that the presence
of sewers is not the only factor which must be present to permit
development to occur.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Disregarding the cost of private household maintenance, private
automobile operation and maintenance, and support of Federal and State
social services, defense, foreign aid, and similar activities, it costs
almost $2,320,000 to operate and maintain the existing Ultimate Service
Area community and the public and private facilities and services which
serve the existing community. Educational facilities are the most
costly service which the existing community must pay for each year
(47 percent of annual community operations and maintenance costs).
The community spends at least 22 percent of its annual operations and
maintenance costs on energy.
The value of the property and investments made in the Ultimate
Service Area is approximately $59,000,000. Residential structures,
improvements, property, and lots have attracted the greatest investment,
almost $41,500,000 (over 70%) along with $9,510,000 for schools (in-
cluding furnishings, recreational equipment, etc.), $4,250,000 for
streets and roads, and $2,100,000 for the water supply system serving
11-40
-------
the Ultimate Service Area. The Washington Natural Gas Company has
invested about $600,000 for gas lines in the area. About $120,000 has
been invested in phone lines and $85,000 in electrical service lines.
Religious property evaluation is $500,000. Fire District No. 25's
share of investment in the Ultimate Service Area is approximately
$150,000, while parks and recreation investment is about $35,000.
The existing Ultimate Service Area community supports at least 190
full-time equivalent jobs. Over three-quarters of these jobs are
related to public education, retail sales, and personal services. An
estimate of the distribution of existing Ultimate Service Area commun-
ity-related jobs are listed in Table 7.
TABLE 7
COMMUNITY-RELATED JOBS
Full-time Equivalent Annual Jobs Job Category
Existing New (1)
75 265 School District
70 255 Retail Sales,
Personal Services
13 38 Health Care
8 195 Construction
6 111 Public Service
4.5 21 Communications
3 10 Religious
2.5 10 Energy
2 7.5 Water Supply
2 9 Government
4 6.5 Miscellaneous
0 12 Sewage Treatment
TOTAL 190 940
(1) Based on average numbers of employees needed to fill positions
created by the additional facilities and services that an
increased population would require. Refer to text for more
information.
11-41
-------
DIRECT IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of
public capital investment in the Ultimate Service Area by approximately
$700,000. This would increase the total value of all investments within
the Ultimate Service Area by slightly over one percent. The investment
in the proposed project would increase the amount of public investment
within the Ultimate Service Area by 4.36 percent, from $16,040,000 to
$16,740,000. If a one-third share of the Cedar River Interceptor
extension's costs are also considered, the total public investment
related to the proposed project would equal about $850,000. This is
approximately five percent of the value of the existing investments by
public agencies for facilities and equipment which directly support or
serve the Ultimate Service Area community.
Construction of the proposed project would create the equivalent of
17 to 18 man-years of on-site construction employment. At its peak,
Or ton Road Interceptor construction would require the services of
between 30 and 40 construction workers. No estimate of off-site
generated employment can be made.
The hours of construction-related employment created by building
the Orton Road Interceptor would be approximately equivalent to the hours
of construction-related employment created by building ten or eleven
typical suburban homes. Because an average of only six or seven new
homes have been constructed annually in the Ultimate Service Area since
1971, the amount of construction-related employment created by the
Orton Road Interceptor would be essentially twice that presently
generated annually in the entire Ultimate Service Area.
Maintenance costs related to the proposed project would probably
average about $930 per year. Administrative and legal costs related
to the connection of homeowners to the proposed project, collection of
connection fees from Water District residents, and payment of fees to
METRO for sewage treatment and sludge disposal services should average
about $6,000 annually.
The operations and maintenance costs incurred by METRO for treating
and disposing sewage collected by the Orton Road Interceptor should range
between $23,000 and $27,000 per year. This estimate assumes that
11-42
-------
Liberty High School, existing residents adjacent to the proposed project's
corridor, and the large potential LID in the western portion of the
Initial Service Area would be served. Such use of the Orton Road Inter-
ceptor would produce average dry weather sewage flows of about 620,000
gallons per day and peak flows of approximately 1.3 mgd. The estimated
METRO annual operations and maintenance cost related to the proposed
project is based on average dry weather flow volumes and existing METRO
wastewater treatment and sludge disposal processes. It was also assumed
that the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant would be expanded from its
existing capacity of 36 mgd (average dry weather flow) to 190 mgd
(average flow) by the end of the design period.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
Development of the potential Ultimate Service Area community would
represent a substantial private and public capital investment. Over
$226,000,000 would be invested within the Ultimate Service Area during
the design period as the potential community develops. Most new
Ultimate Service Area investment would be associated with residential
development and the public and private utilities required by the new
residential development.
Outside of the Ultimate Service Area new investments would be
required for new commercial development on S.E. 128th Street; new
health care, recreational, library, religious, and governmental facili-
tiles; new schools; and new public and private utility systems and
public services. At least $32,000,000 in new investment would be
required.
The community which could develop with the provision of sanitary
sewerage facilities (Figure 12 ) would require a considerably greater
capital investment than the community which could develop without any
sewers (Figure 13 ). The potential Ultimate Service Area community's
development would require over $175,500,000 additional private invest-
ment during the design period than the community resulting from "no
action." An additional $2,100,000 in private utility investment,
$33,800,000 in public facility investment, and $3,900,000 in religious
11-43
-------
and health care facility investment would also occur. These differences
in design period investment represent an increase of approximately 350
percent in public facility investment, 400 percent in private utility
investment, 510 percent in religous and health care investment, and 560
percent in private residential and commercial investment. Private
investment would be most stimulated by provision of sanitary sewerage
facilities throughout the Ultimate Service Area; public investment would
be least affected.
New development would require an annual expenditure of approximately
$10,600,000 for public and private services, material, resources, and
energy at the end of the design period (private home and auto maintenance
costs, insurance, and Federal and State program social services, defense,
etc. were disregarded). The rise in total community operations and main-
tenance costs would apparently be almost the same as the change in
community population (a 457 percent increase versus a 465 percent
increase). The distribution of expenditures for services and facilities
supporting the Ultimate Service Area community would, however, be changed.
Construction of the potential new residential development anticipated
during the design period would require at least 7500 man-years of labor.
Construction of the commercial establishments, schools, churches, sanitary
sewers, storm drainage systems, utilities, and other facilities required
to serve the potential Ultimate Service Area community would require an
additional 2250 man-years of labor. If construction of the facilities
and structures related to the new Ultimate Service Area development
occurred at a constant rate throughout the design period, an average of
195 man-years of construction employment would be generated each year.
This represents an increase in Ultimate Service Area construction job
opportunities of over 2400 percent.
New job opportunities would also be created by the new public
facilities serving the potential community. By the end of the design
period, approximately 490 additional man-years of employment in public
facilities, public services, hospitals, religious facilities, and pri-
vate utilities would be required (an increase of over 400 percent).
New retail sales and personal service jobs would also be generated.
Approximately 255 new man-years of employment in these areas would be
required (an increase of 365 percent).
11-44
-------
If development of the new community and its facilities does occur at a
constant rate throughout the design period, new jobs related to the new
community could be expected and are listed on Table 7.
Development of the area should not be misconstrued to be totally
dependent upon sewerage. Population increase pressures brought on by
regional growth of King County also would act as a growth stimulant.
But because of restrictions to development by septic tank ordinances,
the full developmental potential of the area can reasonably be slower and
of a lesser magnitude than a fully sewered area.
11-45
-------
ECONOMIC COSTS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
It is very difficult to distribute the costs of operating, main-
taining, and constructing community facilities and providing public
services. This is due to the great variety of financing mechanisms and
funding sources available. For example, school, fire, and water districts
derive much of their revenues from levies and property tax assessments.
Other services are funded from the King County general fund and some
services receive funds from sales taxes or "user" charges. Funding
sources for most local services usually include a mix of Federal, State
and local funds. Schools receive varying percentages of Federal and
State funds. Local governments (including budgeted services such as
parks and police) may receive considerable Federal "revenue-sharing"
assistance. New local streets may be primarily financed by property-
owners and local governments, yet new major arterials may be entirely
financed by State and Federal funds. The proposed interceptor would be
financed by a mix of local, State, and Federal funds. The complexity of
financing community facilities and services makes it nearly impossible to
specifically trace the costs of such facilities and services to individual
residents.
It is possible to generally analyze the ratio of service and
facility costs to households or private capital investments in particular
areas. For example, the existing Ultimate Service Area community includes
approximately $47,000,000 of taxable property. This is supported by
approximately $21,000,000 of public facilities, private commercial and
utility investments, and charitable (religious) facilities. With an
assumed ten percent debt service, eight percent commercial burden, and
twenty-five year amortization period, an average existing Ultimate Service
Area household would pay approximately $700 per year in sales, income,
property, and other taxes and service charges for community facilities.
The average existing Ultimate Service Area household must also pay
about $2,400 each year through Federal, State, and local income, sales,
property and other taxes and charges for the operation and maintenance of
the community and facilities serving the community (about $1,000 for
11-46
-------
schools, $500 for energy, $450 for health and communication services).
DIRECT IMPACTS
Few existing households will be economically
affected by the construction or immediate operation of the Orton
Road Interceptor. The local share of its financing will be provided by
the Issaquah School District, which will be partially reimbursed as
connections to the sewer are made. Such connections may be made by
private developers, or LID's formed subsequent to the District receiving bond
authorization. In this case, the cost of the sewer line will be
passed on to the purchasers of the new homes which will be constructed in
the LIDs. Other connections may result from requests for sewer service
by residents in the sewer's corridor. This would be costly, for the en-
tire costs of connection to the sewer would have to be paid in one or
two immediate payments (with an LID, connection costs can be spread over
a longer time period). Requests for connections are also rather unlikely,
since no existing homes in or near the sewer corridor have reported any
septic tank-related problems. This is probably due to the fact that most
of the corridor passes through suitable areas for septic tank use.
Other connections may be compelled. Washington State law
requires the State Board of Health to adopt rules and regulations for the
prevention, control, and abatement of health hazards and nuisances related
to the disposal of liquid and solid wastes, including sewage (RCW 43.30,
010(8), RCW 43.20.050). Among the rules and regulations of the State Board
of Health adopted pursuant to RCW 43.20.050 are the State General Sanitation
Regulations (adopted March 11, 1960). These rules and regulations are
the basic State regulations governing water supply systems, ice sold
for public use, bottled drinking water, ground water pollution, garbage
disposal, nuisances, piggeries, and many other subjects, including stream
pollution and the disposal of human excreta (WAC 248.50.100). In addition
to establishing the illegality of constructing, maintaining, or using
septic tanks which directly or indirectly drain or discharge over or upon
the surface of the ground or directly or indirectly into any water of
the State unless subjected to recognized sterilization treatment, the
11-47
-------
regulations establish the illegality of constructing, maintaining, or
using septic tanks where a sewer is at all accessible, if the sewer
transports sewage and lawfully discharges it into the waters of the State
[WAC 248.50.100(3), WAG 248.50.100(6)]. King County has defined
"accessibility" to mean "septic tanks within 150 feet of the sewer"
in local Seattle-King County Department of Public Health ordinances.
The State has further established sewer connection requirements
in WAC 248-96, the State Board of Health's "On-Site Sewage Disposal
Systems Rules and Regulations," adopted pursuant to RCW 43.20.050-
In WAC 248.96.60, these regulations require the connection of dwel-
ling units or other premises where sewage originates to public sewer systems
where there is an adequate public sewer within 200 feet of the dwelling
or facility to be served, and such connection is permitted by the sewer
utility. Connections must normally be made within two years after public
sewer service becomes available.
The District's Administrative Code and Operation Ordinance, adopted
on June 16, 1970, also requires the use of public sewers. Specifically,
the owner of each lot or parcel of property with a house, building, or
structure for human occupancy, employment, recreation, or other purpose
or use which abuts any street, alley, easement, or right-of-way in which
the Orton Road Interceptor or other planned sewer is located or may be
located must connect to the sewer if the sewer is within 300 feet of the
house, structure, or building, and sewer service becomes available. The
connection must be made within 90 days after notification by the Commis-*
sioners and must be made at the property-ownerfe expense. If the connection
is not made within ninety days or in the specified manner, the Commissioners
may make the connection and file a lien against the affected property.
All property in the District is deemed capable of being served by the
sewers. The power to compel connections to sewers, if property-owners
do not voluntarily comply, is consistent with State Water and Sewer
District laws (see RCW 57.08.065 and RCW 56.08.010, for example).
Compliance with the State laws, State Board of Health regulations,
County ordinances, and Water District resolutions noted in previous
11-48
-------
paragraphs is required if the EPA provides financial assistance to the
District for the proposed project (see, e.g. 40 CFR 35.925-14,
40CFR 35.935-14). In addition, the Water District Commissioners must
comply with State Board of Health Regulations or be subject to civil
penalties.
As sewers are extended from the Interceptor corridor into adjacent
neighborhoods and LID's, as they must in order to comply with State and
local laws, additional residential areas will become accessible to
sewers or meet the distance criteria requiring them to connect. In
this manner, extensions of sewers, in compliance with the District's
Comprehensive Sewerage Plan from the Orton Road Interceptor will
probably affect many more homes. As sewers reach these portions of the
Ultimate Service Area with large lot rural residential households,
connection assessments will be substantially higher. Typical one acre
parcels, which are quite common in the Ultimate Service Area, may be
required to pay connection fees of $4,000. The direct economic impacts
of the proposed project on individual households could be significant.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
The development of the potential Ultimate Service Area community
would affect the costs for services and facilities incurred by each
household. By the end of the design period, about $250,000,000
of taxable property would be supported by approximately $70,000,000
of public facilities, private, commercial and utility investments, and
religious facilities. Assuming that debt service amounts to ten
percent, and that new public service investments are amortized over
a twenty-five year period, the average cost per household for local
Ultimate Service Area services would be approximately $425 per year.
This represents a forty percent decrease from the existing situation.
11-49
-------
For comparative purposes, if a no action alternative were implemented,
approximately $32,000,000 in new private capital investment would be likely.
New public facility, private utility and religious investment would be
minimal ($10,500,000). Utilizing the same assumptions, the average new
residential household would pay about $500 per year for community
services and facilities. This is less than the existing households pay,
but more than the fully developed potential Ultimate Service Area
community household's would pay. Without sewers, the burden of payment
for community facilities would probably be lowered from $700 at present to
about $625 per year for an average household. Full development of the
Area would lower the costs per average household to an even lower
level (to about $500 per year).
This is not really an unexpected finding, for when greater urban
development occurs, the number of households to be taxed increases at a
greater rate than new services and facilities are developed. The Study
Area is somewhat unique in that considerable public capital investment
has been made in the area while the population has remained relatively
stable. Essentially, many urban services have been installed in a
semi-rural area in anticipation of future urban development. Existing
households are served by considerable public investment, and many new homes
could be constructed before significant new public investment would be re-
quired. The new residents would not only share in the burden of payment
of past public capital investments, but also provide many new households
to share in the burden of paying for a smaller precentage of new
community facilities and services. New commercial development would also
be attracted to the area and would increasingly share in paying for
public services and facilities. It is estimated that existing commercial
development in the Study Area pays for eight percent of the public services
and facilities serving the area. By the end of the design period, this
should increase to slightly over nine percent.
Of course, if sanitary sewers, for example, were installed throughout
the Ultimate Service Area and subsequent development did not occur, the
costs per household of such local services would be greatly increased over
the estimate provided in the previous discussion. In the case of little
new development and considerable new public capital investment, the costs
would be primarily placed on existing residents.
11-50
-------
The potential new Ultimate Service Area community households would,
amazingly, pay approximately the same amount as existing residents per
household for their operation and maintenance and the operation and
maintenance of community facilities.
An additional indirect impact of the development would be to
dramatically shift the emphasis of new investment in the area. As
previously indicated, new development during the design period would
make use of many existing installed facilities. Relatively little new
investment would be needed for schools, roads, water supply systems,
etc. New investments would be needed for nursery schools, parks,
sanitary sewers, and storm water drainage and treatment facilities.
More specifically, there would be an approximate relative decrease
in capital investment from existing levels for the following categories:
Natural gas lines 100%
Fire stations and equipment 90%
Water supply systems 90%
Streets and roads 85%
Postal service 80%
Solid waste management 45%
Schools 45%
Commercial development 40%
Hospitals and health care
facilities 35%
Electrical delivery system 15%
Capital investment through the design period would show a relative
increase in the following categories (over existing levels):
Storm drainage and treatment facilities +42,000%
Sanitary sewers and sewage treatment +41,000%
METRO Transit facilities and equipment + 1,200%
Parks and recreational facilities + 540%
Police and public safety facilities + 500%
Nursery schools, Day care + 185%
Governmental administrative facilities + 55%
Communications facilities and services + 30%
Library facilities and services + 25%
Residential development + 25%
Religious facilities + 20%
11-51
-------
The preceding discussion does not indicate changes in specific or
general tax rates for individual households. It is an incomplete
evaluation of the costs of operating the Ultimate Service Area community,
for it excludes consideration of household maintenance, operating private
automobiles, support of State and Federal Health and Welfare programs,
foreign affairs and defense, and countless other programs. It is only a
comparison of the ratio between taxable property and the cost of local
services.
SOCIAL IMPACTS
The task of assessing social impacts involves the consideration of
f the effects of changes in accessibility, land use, residential densities,
CO
l_ and population characteristics. Most methodologies used for assessing
f\ social impacts analyze these changes in relative isolation from each
other. A social unit or community is, however, more than the sum of
its parts; evaluating each part in isolation from all others will not
result in an assessment of community impacts.
The term "community" for our purposes is defined as follows:
. Behavior patterns which individuals or groups of individuals
hold in common. These behavior patterns are expressed through
social interactions, the use of local facilities, participation
_ in local organizations and concern about issues of local interest;
C/) and
. Shared perceptions or attitudes. These perceptions or attitudes
are expressed through individuals' identification with, commitment
to, and attitude toward a particular identifiable area.
A community is primarily defined by the intensity of interactions
by a group of individuals and not by clearly delineated geographic areas
or boundaries.
The degree of attraction among the parts of a community is termed
cohesion. The level of interaction and interdependence present within
a community is termed cohesivenes. High cohesiveness is found in
communities with high levels of social interaction, considerable
11-52
-------
participation in local events, and strong community identification.
Examples of areas within the Study Area with high cohesiveness might
include the portion of the Lake Kathleen neighborhood involved with
the Lake Kathleen Community Club and the Heather Downs neighborhood.
Social Interaction Index (SII) will be used for this E.I.S.
It was created for the Federal Highway Administration's use in predicting
the community cohesion impact of highway improvements. The SII is
unique in that it links intangible community values (e.g. community
cohesion) with tangible descriptors (e.g. mobility of community
residents, percent of residential land, net housing density within
residential areas, etc.). The SII measures present levels of community
cohesion and, if a community growth rate percentage changes in Residen-
tial land, and housing density changes can be projected or assumed,
future levels of cohesion can be predicted.
The measurement or estimation of social interaction or the poten-
tail for social interaction can also indicate changes in community
cohesion. At the least, estimates of social interaction potential
can be used to verify community cohesion impact estimates.
Social interaction can be measured directly utilizing survey
techniques, or indirectly by estimating the potential for social inter-
action in a community. Three techniques which can be used to measure
the potential for social interaction will be used in this discussion,
the General Pedestrian Index (GPI), School Pedestrian Index (SPI), and
Local Shopping Pedestrian Index (LSPI).
These indices were developed to identify and compare areas for
their relative sensitivity to transportation improvements. A greater
potential for social interaction occurs in communities which cannot
or do not rely on automobiles for transportation. The GPI, SPI, and
LSPI can, therefore, indirectly indicate social interaction potential
and community cohesion. High pedestrian indices would indicate a
relatively higher potential for social interaction and greater community
cohesion. Lower pedestrian indices occur in communities with low spatial
interaction potential and relatively low community cohesion.
This portion of this document will examine the potential community
cohesion impacts of the proposed project. Some other more specific
11-53
-------
social impacts (population characteristics, crime, income levels, etc.)
will also be described.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Ultimate Service Area's present Buckhardt's SII indicate a
relatively high level of community cohesion. Community cohesion is
slightly higher in the Initial Service Area than in the Planned Service
Area, ranging between 22 and 58 and 19 and 55, respectively, given the
two extreme mobility assumptions.
Based on the estimates of the percentage of Ultimate Service Area
households having no automobile, average number of persons per Ultimate
Service Area household, median Ultimate Service Area household income,
and the average household income of the entire East Renton Plateau, the
existing Ultimate Service Area GPI was found to range between 16.3 and
18.3. Zero indicates no pedestrian dependency, low potential inter-
action, and probable low cohesion. The GPI can reach levels of 175
to over 200 in some communities, particularly low-income and/or ethnic
urban communities.
The existing Ultimate Service Area's SPI is 0.20. SPI numbers can
range from 0.00 to 1.00. Higher SPI ratings indicate a greater depend-
ence on routes of pedestrian access to school and greater interaction
between elementary and kindergarten students. Presumably, this leads
to increased friendships and subsequent interaction between families
in the community.
The LSPI of the existing Ultimate Service Area community is
estimated to range between 0.130 and 1.33. The LSPI is primarily based
on the number of households without automobiles, the average number of
persons per household, and the number of residents 65 years of age or
older, and may range between 0.00 and 2.00. Higher values indicate
greater pedestrian dependence for local shopping, greater opportunities
for social interaction, and probable increased community cohesion. Very
low values, such as the Ultimate Service Area's indicate great dependence
on personal automobiles for local shopping trips and a decreased
potential for social interaction in the community.
11-54
-------
Based on national averages and crime rates applicable to semi-rural
suburban areas, about 135 crimes occur annually in the Ultimate Service
Area and adjacent commercial areas. Over 800 calls for police assistance
are probably made annually from the Ultimate Service Area.
DIRECT IMPACTS
None anticipated.
INDIRECT IMPACTS - COMMUNITY COHESION
Community cohesion would decrease as the potential Ultimate Service
Area developed, according to Burkhardt's SII. Computations show that
the Area's year 2025 SII would range between -2.5 and 33.5, significantly
lower than today's levels. Year 2025 Ultimate Service Area community
cohesion levels would still be higher than those found in many portions
of King County at the present time.
The analysis provides only a rough estimate of the existing level
of community cohesion in the Ultimate Service Area on that likely to
result from its further development. It appears that development of the
potential community would decrease the average level of social inter-
action. The relative level of participation in local organizations and
concern about local issues would probably decrease.
The potential Ultimate Service Area community's year 2025 GPI was
estimated to range between 6.3 and 15.8, depending on the assumptions
used. Six year 2025 GPI estimates were made, utilizing different house-
hold size, household income, County household income, and auto avail-
ability projections. The average value of these six estimates was 13.1.
Year 2025 SPI levels are estimated to equal .17. This is lower than
the present SPI value, indicating less dependence on pedestrian routes
of access to elementary and kindergarten schools.
The estimated LSPI of the potential Ultimate Service Area
community, .095 to .120, is also less than the present LSPI for the
area (.130 to .133). This indicates that the type of community antici-
pated to develop during the design period will be even more dependent
on private automobiles for local shopping.
11-55
-------
All three pedestrian indices show likely declines as the
potential Ultimate Service Area community develops. Though these
are only rough estimates, their consistency supports the preceding SII
analysis findings. As planned and projected, the potential Ultimate
Service Area community would apparently increase its dependence on the
automobile for general purposes (24 percent increase), school access
(15 percent increase), and local shopping (18 percent increase).
The potential for social interaction would decrease and interest in the
community (cohesion) would probably decline. The greater relative
decline in the SII (a 59 percent decrease) is not unexpected, since
social interaction is only one of the variables considered by the SII.
The number of crimes per area generally increase with increasing
population density. Changes in the physical, social, and economic
character of the area would also influence its crime rate, as would the
decline in the cohesion of the community. Based on national averages
and crime rates, the potential Ultimate Service Area community should
experience about 770 crimes annually at the end of the design period
(a 470 percent increase). Over 4,650 calls for police assistance
would be likely, based on King County averages.
K«» CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL
CO
^^ No significant cultural, historical, or archaeological artifacts
or sites are known to be located in the Ultimate Service Area or within
ofl
^* the proposed project's construction corridor. In compliance with the
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historical and Archaeological Data
Preservation Act Amendments of 1974, Executive Order 11593 (requiring
the "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment"), and
related regulations and guidance memorandum, a field survey of the
f* proposed project's corridor and Ultimate Service Area was undertaken
by Region X staff. It is the belief of Region X that no properties
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
are located in the Ultimate Service Areas. Most Ultimate Service
Area structures are less than twenty years old. Evidence of historical
artifacts could not be found.
11-56
-------
In addition, Region X staff consulted the National and State
Registers of Historic Places, and other documents describing potential
and known archaeological sites in the State of Washington. Only one
document, the Corps of Engineer's "Washington Environmental Atlas,
Second Edition", published in January 1975, noted any potential
historical, cultural, or archaeological in the Study Area. The Corps'
Atlas describes the entire Study Area as ''probably containing large
numbers of [archaeologic] sites". This is a general category, however,
which the Corps applied to much of the State of Washington in its
Atlas.
Though Region X has tentatively concluded that no historical,
cultural, or archaeological artifacts or sites are likely to be affected
by the proposed project's construction or the development of the
potential Ultimate Service Area Community, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officer, and Secre-
tary of the Interior will receive an opportunity to comment on this
preliminary conclusion. If they determine that significant historical,
cultural, or archaeological data or artifacts might be irrevocably
lost or destroyed, Region X will require any surveys, mitigative
measures, consultations, or other necessary actions. At this time, no
direct or indirect impacts are anticipated.
HYDROLOGY - WATER QUALITY
A major argument for sewerage and associated treatment facilities
is to abate existing water quality problems.
However, the stimulating effect on population growth and land-use change
of providing sewers may inadvertently cancel out and even create a
situation worse than the original condition. This sub-section will
address these implications to water resources.
Because the proposed project may have the indirect effect of
inducing urbanization within the Study Area a "best possible" analysis
of the Orton Road Interceptor effects is required. Leopold (1968)
mentions that urbanization is by far the most forceful of land-use changes
affecting hydrology. Four interrelated but separable effects of land-use
11-57
-------
changes on hydrology can be expected. They are: changes in peak water
flow characteristics, changes in total runoff, changes in water quality,
and changes in hydrologic amenities. Hydrologic amenities are considered
aesthetic properties such as the appearance of impression which a river,
its channel and its valleys, leaves with the observer.
Peak flow characteristics shift in two ways: a decrease in lag
time between rainfall time and peak flow of water in streams; an
increase in water quantity reaching a stream during the peak flow
period.
The total runoff or quantity of water reaching streams is increased
with urbanization. Primarily becuas,e of the increase in non-permeable
surfaces in urbanized areas, such as roads, builidngs, and parking lots,
less water is absorbed, held, and transpired out of the soils. Because
the water flows over surfaces that often have petroleum by-products,
trash, and other debris on them, the quality of the water decreases.
Water quality is also decreased due to an increase in soil particulate
matter within the waters. The silt comes from recently devegetated areas
that are associated with construction during urbanization. The combina-
tion of the first two effects of urbanization on hydrology lead to more
water within collecting systems such as streams, rivers, and lakes.
This generally increases the frequency and severity of flooding within
the collecting systems much like the changes in peak flow characteris-
tics. A common rule is that 10 year floods become two year floods with
an increase in the amount of flooding. Flooding per se will be further
discussed in the sub-section on environmentally sensitive areas.
The combination of the effects discussed above tends to decrease
the present quality of hydrologic amenities. Turbid, trash laden, and
overflowing streams, rivers, and lakes become a common sight. The
inconvenience and possible harmful effects of flooding become more
pronounced. Because the total amount and type of urbanization possible
within the area cannot be accurately predicted, the following discussion
will primarily deal with water quality of existing waters within the
Study Area. A lack of data dictates only briefly mentioning specific
hydrologic and water quantity problems along with the water quality.
11-58
-------
discussion. The more important water quality data is.;summarized in Appendix 5,
As illustrated by Figure 16, the Study Area is drained by the Cedar
River, May Creek, Mason Creek, and their tributaries. The following
pages will briefly describe the use and existing quality of these waters.
Existing water quality problems will be highlighted.
THE CEDAR RIVER SYSTEM
i
Use; The Cedar River flows from the crest of the Cascades through
forested and rural land for fifty miles to its outlet to Lake Washington
at Renton, draining an area of about 188 square miles. The upper reaches
of the Cedar River are closed to public use by the City of Seattle which
utilizes the upstream 143 square miles of the Cedar River Basin as a
municipal watershed. The watershed area is heavily forested and managed
under a sustained yield timber harvesting program by the City of Seattle,
the U.S. Forest Service, and several private timber companies. The
City of Seattle water supply intake is located at Landsburg, approximately
ten river miles upstream from the eastern boundary of the Study Area.
Dams have been constructed on the Cedar River within the City of
Seattle's watershed; Chester Morse Dam, which provides 56,000 acre-feet
of storage for water supply and hydro-electric power generation;
Masonry Dam with 4,000 acre-feet of storage; and a small crib dam. A low
dam has also been constructed at Landsburg, to divert water from the
Cedar River into the Seattle water supply system. The diverted water is
transported to Lake Youngs which provides 11,000 acre-feet of storage.
The Cedar River presently supplies almost 250 mgd of water to the City
of Seattle and is its primary water supply source.
The Cedar River is also an important spawning and rearing area for
anadromous fish, including chinook, sockeye salmon, and some coho and
chum slamon, steelhead, searun cutthroat trout, and searun Dolly Varden.
Though fishing pressure is relatively light along the Cedar River
upstream of Renton, an important fishery has developed at its mouth in
Lake Washington. Most salmon spawn downstream of Maple Valley, including
some portions of the Cedar River within the Study Area.
Recreational use of the Cedar River is quite limited. Boating use
11-59
-------
I
Perennial Streams
Seasonal Streams
Wetlands
Major Springs & Seep
Lakes, Ponds, Rivers
We Us „
V \ ^-^^
*••-*• mm+~
ULTIMATE SERVICE
AREA BOUNDARY
\
Figure
HYDROLOGIC FEATURES
SCALE IN FEET
0
2000
N
-------
is light and water contact (swimming) use is very limited. The
relatively low environmental aesthetics of the Cedar River's banks
and limited public access to the river probably contribute to the low
recreational use of the river.
Wildlife use of the Cedar River has been categorized as moderate.
Most wildlife use occurs within the City of Seattle's watershed.
Very little,intensive agricultural use of the Cedar River occurs,
though pasture land borders the river for many miles. This is
particularly true upstream of the Study Area in the Maple Valley vicinity,
where many cattle and horses graze in fields adjacent to the river.
The Cedar River is also used to flush saltwater from Lake
Washington and Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal system.
Saltwater from Puget Sound enters these water bodies during the operation
of the Chittenden Locks in Ballard and builds up during the low inflow
period (April-November). During the December-March period, the salt-
water is flushed out by the winter flows of Lake Washington's tributaries
including the Cedar River. This prevents a salinity wedge from entering
Lake Washington.
Existing Water Quality: In general, the water quality of the Cedar
River is excellent. Phosphate and nitrate concentrations, for example,
are among the lowest of all Puget Sound rivers. The Cedar River does,
however, frequently not meet State water quality standards.
Temperature violations occur during the summer months and there are
indications that the State dissolved oxygen standards may also be violated
during the same period. Stream temperatures have reached 19°C (66°F)
and are generally attributed to the shallow depths of the Cedar River.
Low flows and the lack of shading in some places also affects the
temperature of the river.
The dissolved oxygen standard violations generally occur during the
same time period as the temperature violations due to the excessive
temperatures combined with increased oxygen consumption by benthic
(bottom dwelling) organisms. Even though not specifically measured, it
is likely that dissolved oxygen concentrations also periodically drop
below standards during the night.
The bacteriological quality of the Cedar River also periodically
11-61
-------
violates State standards. Although the quality is excellent upstream
of Landsburg, there is evidence that coliform bacteriological
standards are occasionally violated in lower reaches of the river (coliform
bacteria indicate potential pollution). Non-point sources of
contamination (urban runoff, agricultural activity, etc.) are believed
to be the contributing source. Although historical records for
coliform bacteria are inadequate, it appears that coliform standards
may be violated at any time during the year.
Suspended sediment concentrations are not a problem in the
Cedar River, although some of its tributary streams in the Study Area
have been observed to be quite turbid. The turbidity of these small
streams is usually associated with excessive soil erosion resulting
from land clearing and construction activities, or from the cut and
fill areas of roads traversing the Cedar River Valley walls.
Cedar River has its flood problems as exemplified by this
winter's (1975-1976) flooding after increased water entered it due
to heavy rains and a mid-winter snow melt. The flooding was considered
a natural occurring 35 year flood. The 100 year flood plain is indicated on
Figure 16.
THE MAY CREEK SYSTEM
Use: May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen, located
at about the 500-foot elevation in the Study Ar,ea, and flows westerly for
8.6 miles to its confluence with Lake Washington, near the Kennydale
neighborhood in Renton. The creek generally follows a narrow valley
that parallels the Issaquah-Renton Highway near Coalfield, then flows
northwest and west along the northern Renton City Limits and into the
Kennydale area.
Twelve short tributaries, including Honey Creek and the outlet
of Lake Boren, flow into May Creek. The lower three miles of May Creek
are associated with moderate to heavy residential development. From
its outlet to Lake Washington to approximately one mile upstream, the
creek lies in a flood plain, but from that point to about three miles
upstream, it flows through a broad steep ravine with a gradient of
approximately 159 feet per mile.
11-62
-------
May Creek and its tributaries are used principally for anadromous
fish production and for aesthetic enjoyment. Some agricultural use of
May Creek occurs in those areas where horses and cows have access to the
creek. Salmon spawn in almost all accessible regions of May Creek.
Coho salmon are the dominant salmon species. Sockeye and some chinook
salmon are also present in the creek during the freshwater phases of
their life cycle. Searun cutthroat and steelhead have also been noted
in May Creek.
Recreational use of May Creek is apparently limited to infrequent
fishing by juveniles. Historical plantings of rainbow trout in May
Creek date back to 1936, with the most recent planting by the
Washington State Department of Game, occurring in 1972.
Existing Water Quality; Limited water quality data is available for
May Creek from U.S. Geological Survey data.
The data generally indicates that the water quality of May Creek is
relatively good. May Creek has, however, exceeded EPA's proposed water
quality criteria for ammonia and nitrate concentrations at a Coalfield
sampling site at least once (3/22/72). Near its mouth, May Creek has
exceeded proposed EPA water quality criteria for ammonia, nitrate,
nitrite-nitrate and phosphate. The State coliform standards are also
apparently exceeded periodically in the lower reaches of May Creek. At
least one violation of the State temperature standard has been recorded.
Generally acceptable turbidity levels have also been exceeded in
May Creek. Erosion and sedimentation takes place downstream of 136th
Avenue S.E. on May Creek. Though natural erosion processes would be
underway on May Creek, the problem has been intensified by the uncontrolled
discharge of storm drains and by the increased runoff flows from the
large areas of impervious surfaces within the urban development in the
May Creek basin. These higher runoff rates have accelerated the erosion
process. An estimated 3,000 cubic yards of eroded material is deposited
in the lower reaches of May Creek annually, just before it enters Lake
Washington, forming a. large delta. During and after periods of
moderate or heavy precipitation, May Creek has often been highly turbid
and muddy in appearance, due to the presence of large amounts of silt.
11-63
-------
Even with clear weather and no previous rainfall May Creek continues
to carry fine silt, although the creek bottom substrate becomes
visible in areas less than two feet in depth.
LAKE KATHLEEN
Use: Lake Kathleen is a shallow 39 acre lake, fed by about a
half dozen poorly defined small seasonal creeks and drained by May
Creek. Lake Kathleen is about eight meters (26 feet) deep at its
deepest point and much of its perimeter has filled in with organic
matter and peat. Well over twenty percent of the lake is presently
covered by a peat bog. Much of the lake bottom is also composed of
peat.
Lake Kathleen is relatively heavily used for recreational purposes.
Fishing, non-motorized boating and rafting, and swimming occurs, though
water contact recreation is not as common as boating and fishing. No
public access to the lake is presently available. Most of the Lake
Kathleen shoreline has been developed at a moderately-high density. Most
lots with lake frontage are very narrow, but deep, maximizing the number
of lake front lots. The lake is significant as an aesthetic element
of the environment for the surrounding residential area.
Existing Water Quality: Four METRO sampling sites on Lake Kathleen
and occasional bacteriological sampling conducted by King County Public
11-64
-------
Health Department staff provide the limited water quality data available
for Lake Kathleen. METRO'S data (three to twelve samples per sampling
site) was gathered between August 1971 and May 1972. The Department
of Public Health bacteriological data (three samples) were gathered in
July and October 1973. This data shows that Lake Kathleen appears to
occasionally violate the generally acceptable levels of nitrite-nitrate
and ammonia-nitrogen. The data also show Lake Kathleen to be a
relatively warm somewhat acidic lake, occasionally violating pH
standards and always in violation of alkalinity criteria. Occasional
dissolved oxygen violations also occur. Coliform counts are rather
variable; at this time, Lake Kathleen is generally considered to have no
serious bacteriological contamination problem.
Lake Kathleen does experience algae blooms on a rather regular basis
each spring. Natural discoloration of Lake Kathleen's waters from
underlying and adjacent peat deposits and bogs is also sometimes apparent.
Cryptamonas and Volvox were found to be the dominant algae in Lake
Kathleen by METRO during their 1971-1972 small lakes study. The Volvox
are responsible for rust-red colored algae blooms in the spring (April)
which remain until zooplankton (primarily Rotifers) comsume and nearly
eliminate the algae colonies.
METRO has classified Lake Kathleen in the lower third of the overall
rating of the 34 Seattle-area lakes studied in 1971-1972, indicating
that it had relatively few problems and was not in an advanced eutrophic
stage. METRO recommended that nutrient input to Lake Kathleen should,
however, be reduced and that peat removal (to deepen the lake) should
be undertaken-as a pollution abatement technique, if economically
feasible. The final RIBCO water quality report notes that Lake Kathleen
is not considered to have a nutrient excess, but that an oxygen deficit
does occur at times. Minimum oxygen saturation levels between 20 and
29 percent have been recorded in Lake Kathleen's bottom waters in May.
LAKE MCDONALD.
Use; Lake McDonald is quite similar in appearance to Lake Kathleen,
though only about half (18 acres) of Lake Kathleen's size. Lake McDonald
11-65
-------
Is also surrounded by peat bogs and peaty soils, and is also quite
shallow.
Lake McDonald is used for recreational and aesthetic purposes.
Non-motorized boating and fishing is popular and some swimming occurs.
Much of the Lake McDonald shoreline is developed, though the intensity
of development is less dense than that surrounding Lake Kathleen. All
of the land adjacent to Lake McDonald has been platted, generally as
long narrow small lots. Most lots are undeveloped.
Existing Water Quality: The available water quality data for Lake
McDonald is apparently limited to two samples collected by the King
County Department of Public Health. These samples were tested for
bacteriological contamination. State standards and proposed EPA
total and fecal coliform criteria were not violated by the two samples
analyzed. No conclusions regarding the quality of Lake McDonald's
water can be made from the limited available data.
GROUND WATER
Use: The East Renton Plateau's ground water resources are used
for a number of individual and community (i.e. two to twenty residence)
water supply systems (see Figure 16). The W.D. 90 water supply system
is not based on ground water; the District purchases its water from the
City of Seattle.
Of known wells in the Study Area, about 80 percent were utlized
for domestic or public (i.e. community) water supply systems in
1969. Within the Ultimate Service Area only a few wells serving homes
in the Renton suburban neighborhood and the wells in the Cedar River
Valley are presently used as a water supply. Those homes on the East
Renton Plateau with ground water-based water supply systems have W.D. 90's
public water supply system available in most cases. Essentially all
of the plateau portion of the District is served with the District's
water supply system.
The nature of the ground water resources tapped by wells varies in
the different portions of the Study Area. In the Cedar River Valley,
11-66
-------
with the exception of one very deep (665 feet deep) well, all wells are
shallow (21 to 39 feet in depth) and tap shallow ground water contained
in the sand and gravel alluvium of the Cedar River. With this exception,
*
the depth to water in the Cedar River Valley wells ranges between one and
twenty-two feet, (see Figure 17). Ground water yields
generally range between ten and thirty gallons per minute (gpm).
Three of the Cedar River Valley wells within the Study Area serve groups
of homes. Two provide water for livestock as well as human consumption.
The wells in the vicinity of Orton Road on the plateau range
between 50 and 90 feet in depth and tap ground water contained in
gravelly aquifers at a depth of about 30 to 60 feet. Yields are low,
averaging about 10 gpm.
Most other wells drilled in the plateau portion of the Study Area
range between 70 and 140 feet in depth. The surface of the water column
within these wells is variable, ranging between a depth of 20 to 120
feet and averaging about 50 to 80 feet in depth. A few shallow wells,
20 to 30 feet in depth are located in the northwestern portion of the
Study Area near Lake Kathleen. These wells utilize the ground water
immediately beneath the "hardpan" layer of compacted till. Yields from
the wells on the plateau, other than those near Orton Road, average 15
to 20 gpm.
Three deep wells on the plateau have also been drilled. These wells,
between 165 and 380 feet in depth, provide water for the City of Renton
and a small sub-division. Deeper aquifers are utilized and the level
in these wells is maintained at a depth of about 150 feet. Yields range
between 200 and 1,000 gpm.
The many wells in the May and Issaquah Creek Valleys and the
Coalfield area include shallow wells (15 to 30 feet in depth) at Coal-
field and moderately deep wells (30 to 90 feet in depth) in the Upper
May Creek-Upper Issaquah Creek Area. The only deep wells have been drilled
at Coalfield (two wells). The Coalfield wells contain ground water at
depths of about 15 to 30 feet. Yields of 10 to 20 gpm are typical.
Existing Water Quality; Water quality data for the wells in and
adjacent to the Study Area is quite limited. Data is available for only
seven of the wells and only two wells have been sampled more than once.
Only two of the wells have been analyzed
11-67
-------
WATER AT SURFACE
Figure T7
AVERAGE DEPTH,
SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE
SCALE IN FEET
0 2000
I.
-------
for bacteriological contamination; all other water quality data only
analyzes physical and chemical parameters. The wells analyzed for
bacteriological contamination include a typical Upper Issaquah Creek
Valley well and a relatively deep well in the northwestern portion of
the plateau. The well on the plateau has been studied by County
health officials since 1966. No bacteriological contamination of the
ground water is indicated by the available data for these two wells.
However, the lack of data for other Study Area wells makes it impossible
to conclude whether or not the groxmd water of the Study Area is
polluted. At this time well contamination problems are not apparent.
SEPTIC TANK FAILURES
Between 1000 and 1100 septic tanks are presently used within the Ulti-
mate Service Area. During the past ten to fifteen years Ultimate Service
Area residents have reported 33 septic tank "overflows" to local...health
officials. This figure probably represents 20 to 25 percent of all
actual septic tank filter field failures, in the opinion of local health
officials. Consequently, within the area it is very likely that
between 120 and 150 of the 1000 and 1100 septic tank filter fields
have become saturated, at least once during the past ten to fifteen
winters. In addition, some of the septic tank "overflows" may have been
reported numerous times; however, the Health Department only records one
septic tank overflow per lot. Once reported a septic tank "overflow" is
never removed for the Health Department records, even though measures may
be taken to eliminate the problem.
Septic tank overflow problems are more pervasive in some areas of
the W.D. 90 immediately north of the Ultimate Service Area and in the Lake Mc-
Donald-Maple Hills area immediately east of the Service Area, as shown
by Figure 18. In some cases, home loans for prospective new owners have
been disapproved because of the history of septic tank failures associated
with the property. Almost all lending institutions require approval from
the local health officials that the septic tank for a loan applicant's
property will function satisfactorily and is not likely to create an
unsanitary condition; that sewage has not been discharged on the surface or
11-69
-------
Reported septic tank
failures and overflow
•BPD Building Permit
denied until
sewers provided
Areas with most
erious septic tank
roblems
MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY
SCALE IN FEET
SEPTIC TANK PROBLEM AREAS
Figure 18
-------
the ground; the septic tank has been properly maintained; and that no
septic tank failures have occurred near the property under consideration,
due to Federal Housing Administration and Veteran's Administration regu-
lations. If any lot within a plat has experienced septic tank "overflow"
problems or similar failures, all lots and properties in that plat
are usually affected with regard to home loans.
Much of the Study Area can not physically accommodate the use of
septic tanks. At least three plats within the Study Area have been
disapproved, due primarily to the inability of each site to be developed
on septic tanks. County records also show that at least four building
permits for homes within the Study Area have been disapproved by Health
Department officials, due to the probability that the home's septic
tank systems would overflow or fail.
No health problems related to overflowing or failing septic tank
systems have been documented within the Study Area. Some W.D. 90 residents
and property-rowners have stated at public hearings that aesthetic problems
_exist within the neighborhoods affected by septic tank overflows. In
addition, the Water District's consultants photographed yards with
surfacing sewage flowing into roadside drainage ditches during the
preparation of the 1970 Comprehensive Sewerage Plan for the Water District.
These consultants noted that the areas photographed had strong sewage
odors and, in some cases, suds. Water District residents have stated that
small children play in such roadside ditches. Water quality data is located
in Appendix 5 .
SPRINGS AND SEEPS
Use; Seven of the springs along the north valley wall of the Cedar
River Valley are utilized for public water supply purposes. Each of these
springs serves more than one single family residence. The most heavily
used spring serves 24 residences; another serves five homes, an eight
unit apartment, and the clubhouse of the Maplewood Golf Course.
Existing Water Quality; The Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health has sampled the flow from the Study Area springs and seeps on
a random basis for a number of years. All samples collected are tested
for total coliform bacteriological contamination. One sample from
11-71
-------
one spring was analyzed for a full range of chemical and physical para-
meters. The results of the analysis of all samples collected between
November 1963 and September 1974 were reviewed by Region X staff during
the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement. Figure 16
shows the general location of each major spring utilized as a public
water supply. The samples were collected in the spring or seep or,
sometimes, at taps of residences utilizing the spring water.
The data generally indicates that little bacteriological contami-
nation occurs, though at times, significant coliform counts are found.
No relationship between the water quality of the springs and seeps and
septic tank use in the Ultimate Service Area can be established. First,
too little is known about the ground water flow and geo-hydrological
characteristics of the East Renton Plateau to do more than make crude
guesses of where the ground water contributing to the springs and seeps
enters the ground water system. In addition, since the coliform data
has not been referenced to fecal coliform contamination, the source of
the coliform bacteria cannot be identified. It is possible that the soil
at the spring or seep or water supply reservoir contributes the coliform
bacteria to the water (soil contains large numbers of coliform organisms).
Similarly, the coliform contamination may result from surface water
runoff carrying organic matter and soil into the water supply reservoirs
or from a passing bird, nearby mouse, rabbit, coyote, or deer. Based on
the available data it is not possible to relate any ground water pollution
to the sources of the seven sampled springs and seeps or to septic tank use
in the ground water's recharge area.
DIRECT IMPACTS
The only direct effects of interceptor construction will be on the
Cedar River system. Destruction, injury, or temporary reduction of
aquatic life in the Cedar River within the corridor of the proposed
river crossing and downstream of the proposed river crossing could
occur. Light penetration may be temporarily reduced, temperatures
11-72
-------
and pH changed, and aquatic productivity decreased in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed river crossing trenching activities. Food organ-
isms may be smothered and spawning beds may be filled immediately down-
stream of the proposed river crossing. Upstream migrating anadromous
fish will probably not be significantly affected.
The elimination of possible ground water pollution due to
faulty septic tanks will be a beneficial effect to water quality -
Provided the sewer is properly maintained the interceptor could help
reduce any possible health hazards and eutrophication of natural waters
in the Study Area.
Soil erosion and surface runoff during construction activities
may adversely affect 'water quality.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
As with the other indirect effects the increased population density
could affect water quality. For example more wells in the area could
lower the ground water table. More pavement which would be impervious
to rain water would reduce waters available to resupply the groundwater.
Sediment from land development could cause siltation, turbidity and
eutrophication in stream and lake waters. Also, increased human usage
of recreational water could reduce fish stocks and increase the litter load
and number of oil slicks from boating activities. In general, unplanned
urbanization will produce several types of interrelated impacts on
watercourses. These impacts are primarily due to the increased runoff
from impervious surfaces as with higher density developments. Urban-
ization can affect hydrology by altering: 1) the quantity of runoff,
2) the peak flow characteristics of streams, 3) the water quality, and
4) the aesthetic value of water courses.
How much runoff results from precipitation depends on the infil-
tration characteristics of the land. These in turn, depend on the slope,
the soil profile permeability, the vegetative cover, and the percentage
of land covered by impervious surfaces, as streets, roofs, and parking
lots.
Peak flows from rapidly draining impervious surfaces can have
11-73
-------
several adverse effects. With increased urbanization, these peak flows
in small streams tend to be higher than under natural conditions. The
total quantity of runoff is also greater, because more of the rainfall
runs rapidly over impervious areas without infiltrating into the soil.
As a result, increased storm runoff can severely affect the small
streams, eroding and widening the banks and destroying aquatic habitats.
The high level of pollutants that washes off the urban areas and the
increased sediment load from erosion create further problems for aquatic
life, such as siltation of spawning beds and smothering of bottom
organisms. Also, overbank flooding becomes a more common occurrence.
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Construction activities will remove some of the vegetative cover
and some wind or water erosion will occur before such cover can be
restored. The construction contractor will be required to exercise
construction practices which will limit this erosion and will also be
required to reseed and restore the vegetative cover as soon as possible.
Long-term, adverse impacts on groundwater or surface water
should not occur along the interceptor corridor because special constru-
ction techniques can minimize infiltration, conduction, exfiltration,
and bank and streambed erosion in order to comply with applicable
regulations, grant conditions, and construction contract specifications.
Crossing watercourses may have short-term adverse impacts but
no significant ones are expected either in the long- or short-term.
Short-term impacts that may occur include pollution from oil and
grease, siltation, and erosion. However, contract specifications
and compliance with the requirements of regulatory agencies will
minimize impacts on water quality and aquatic life. For example, the
crossing of the Cedar River will follow the stipulations imposed by the
Department of Fisheries to protect spawning conditions and the Department
of Ecology will make routine construction inspections.
Where high water tables persist during the construction season, the
trenches dug for the interceptor installation will probably fill with
water. The water must be pumped out of the trenches and disposed of.
11-74
-------
Disruption of the soil during construction will create turbidity
problems in the groundwater locally and in the water which must be removed
from the'trench. These waters must be properly disposed of to prevent
adverse effects on the receiving streams. What controls are used in each
instance will depend on associated regulations. Controls that could be
used include screened wells to prevent intake of soil particles by the
dewatering pumps, sedimentation basins to remove suspended solids before
discharge to streams, effluent monitoring, and pipe outfalls and diffusers to
reduce soil erosion and ditch bank slumping. The construction contract
should state that spawning channels will be protected by using sediment-
ation basins, and by periodic monitoring of dewatering.
With careful planning, however, the potentially adverse impacts
of urbanization can be reduced. Trapping runoff in offstream holding
ponds to even out peak flows and reduce the floatable and settleable
loadings can partially mitigate the effects of urbanization. Other
measures include land use controls, restrictions on structures in the
stream, special detention and treatment of runoff from large paved areas,
and restrictions on the sale and use of pesticides, fertilizers, and
toxic materials. Proper cleaning of streets and catch basins and regul-
ation of construction activities can also reduce potentially adverse
impacts on water quality.
The quality of urban runoff may adversely impact water quality if
controls are not instituted. For example, there may be a long-term
increase in nutrient input to lakes from fertilizers and other consti-
tuents of urban drainage. The increased loads from urban runoff with
the anticipated population growth would essentially negate any improvement
from septic tank discontinuation.
Urban runoff can also contribute to unsanitary conditions. High
concentrations of coliform bacteria are found in some urban streams
which traverse sewered areas. Paved surfaces generally contribute
significant coliform loads.
If major developments install conventional storm drain systems with-
out proper planning, the Cedar River basin may experience increased
erosion and flooding with damage to the salmon productivity and aesthetic
values of the stream.
Problems of urban drainage are being recognized by local regulatory
authorities; new regulations may help prevent the secondary adverse
11-75
-------
impacts from urbanized development which will be accommodated by the
proposed action. For example, King County recently passed an ordinance
requiring submission of drainage plans for any substantial development
and, in general, requiring that peak flows not exceed those which would
have been observed under natural conditions. Although additional
controls may be necessary to prevent water quality problems, such
measures indicate a recognition of the potentially adverse impacts.
Another approach to problems of storm drainage has recently been
instituted by the City of Bellevue. For the first time in the State
of Washington, a storm and surface water utility authorized to charge
fees for drainage was created. Authority for this utility approach
is found in Chapter 35.67 of the Revised Code of Washington.
SOIL SUITABILITY AND CONSERVATION
C/) EXISTING CONDITIONS
For the purpose of determining indirect impacts of the proposed
project, it will be assumed that local health officials will continue to
interpret, administer and enforce the County's septic tank use ordinances
and the State's "On-site Sewage Disposal Rules and Regulations" in a
manner consistent with their actions in the Winter of 1974 and Spring
of 1975. Though some discretion is associated with the interpretation,
administration, and enforcement of the County and State regulations,
conversations with Seattle-King County Health Department officials indi-
cate that there is a growing tendency to utilize the recently completed
U.S. Soil Conservation Service soil survey of the King County area as a
primary but general source of information regarding the suitability of
any specific area for use as a septic tank filter field. The new
(November 1973) "Soil Survey of the King County area" names, describes,
and locates the soils of the King County Area. Figure 19 shows the soil
types for the Study Area. In addition, the relative suitability or
degree of limitation of each soil for many specific purposes is provided.
The relationship between the King County soils and agricultural
productivity, timber production, and wildlife is also described in the
document.
n-76
-------
ULTIMATE SERVICE
AREA BOUNDARY
Figure 19
SOIL TYPES
•'See Table 8 For Legend )
SCALE IN FEET
0
2000
IN
-------
TABLE 8
SOIL TYPES
(see Figure 19 )
SYMBOL SOIL TYPE
AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
AgD Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
AkF Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep slopes
Bh Bellingham silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
EvB Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes
KpB Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
M Ma Mixed alluvial land, 0 to 2 percent slopes
M
.Ij Ng Newberg silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
CD
No Norma sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
PC Pilchuck loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Py Puyallup fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Rh Riverwash, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Sk Seattle muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Sm Shalcar muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Su Sultan silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Tu Tukwila muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Ur Urban or filled land, 0 to 1 percent slopes
-------
In its discussion of the relative suitability of King County's soils
for uses as septic tank filter fields, the 1973 Soil Survey classifies
the soils of King County into three categories; those with none to
slight limitations; those with moderate limitations, and those with
severe limitations. Figure 20 displays the relative limitations of the
Study Area's soils, as described by the U.S. Soil Conservation (SCS)
in the 1973 Soil Survey. This is the map that local health officials
utilize as one of their general references for determining whether or
not septic tanks may be used on specific properties.
The SCS notes that soils with rapid percolation rates are not
necessarily always acceptable sites. Adjoining soils that have a very
slow percolation rate or proximity to streams or ponds can make the
installation of septic tank filter fields inadvisable. In addition, the
soils may have such rapid percolation rates that the movement of
effluent from drainfields is not impeded and the effluent may
contaminate nearby water supplies. The SCS notes that in many parts of
the King County Area soils such as those found in the Study Area may have
a rapid percolation rate to a depth of four or five feet and meet the
minimum requirements established by health codes. However, impervious
layers of consolidated glacial till or silty glacial lake deposits may
occur at a depth of 5 to 15 feet. The SCS notes that even though
effluent may readily move downward through the sand and gravelly layers
of the soil, it might then move laterally over the impervious layers
and, subsequently, come to the surface in the yard of a neighbor or in
a ditch along a road.
The SCS defines the degrees of limitation for septic tank filter
fields illustrated by Figure 20 as:
None to slight. This rating indicates that the soil has all of the
following features: Hydraulic conductivity is more than 1 inch per hour,
and the percolation rate is faster than 45 minutes per inch. The depth
to the seasonal high water table is more than six feet. There is no
flooding. Slopes are less than eight percent. The average depth to
bedrock or consolidated glacial till is greater than six feet.
Moderate. This rating indicates that the soil has one or more of
the following features: Hydraulic conductivity is 1.0 to 0.63 inches
per hour, and the percolation rate is 45 to 60 minutes per inch. The
11-79
-------
Proposed
Interceptor Route
Figure 2O
SOIL LIMITATIONS
FOR SEPTIC TANK USE
SCALE IN FEET
2000
N
-------
depth to the seasonal high water table is four to six feet. Flooding
is rare. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. The depth of bedrock to consoli-
dated glacial till is four to six feet.
Severe. This rating indicates that the soil has one or moire of
the following features: Hydraulic conductivity is less than 0.63 inch
per hour, and the percolation rate is slower than 70 minutes per inch.
The depth to the seasonal high water table is less than four feet.
Flooding is occasional to frequent. Slopes are more than 15 percent. The
depth to bedrock or consolidated glacial till is less than four feet.
A comparison of Figure 20 with the King County Comprehensive Plan
(Figure 7) or the existing zoning affecting the Study Area indicates
that development of the Study Area in compliance with the adopted land
use policies affecting the Area would require sanitary sewers.
The Study Area currently has some prime agricultural areas with
class I, II, and III soils. A list of agricultural uses versus classes
are listed on Table 9. These areas are primarily located along the
river beds and wetland areas (Figure 21). These areas are generally
flat lands and become a source of conflict of interest between
agriculture requirements and construction sites in urbanized areas.
DIRECT IMPACTS
The principal potential direct impact that could be expected
during construction is soil erosion. Proper wetting of soils and con-
tainment during construction should keep erosion to an acceptable
minimum.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
A major indirect effect would be increased erosion and loss of
surface soil due to vegetation removal, bulldozing and other
activities associated with construction during the development of the
area. The amount of soil erosion could be high because most of the
11-81
-------
TABLE 9
AGRICULTURAL SOILS CLASSIFICATION
CAPABILITY
CLASS
I Good for common crops on a year to year basis, requires no con-
servation.
II Reduced crop choice; some conservation required.
Ill Severe crop limitations; requires special conservation methods;
timing critical.
IV Marginal for crops; best for pasture or range.
V Tillage excluded; pasture, woodland, wildlife area, recreation,
watershed.
VI Limited to pasture, woodland, wildlife area; recreation, and
watershed.
VII Require major reclamation; restricted to grazing, woodland, or
wildlife area.
VIII Scenic value; wildlife use; watershed; some recreation.
11-82
-------
Class I Hand III Soils
(Suitable for Cultivation!
PtherASoils
Figure 21
PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS
SCALE IN FEET
2000
IN
-------
area has a moderate to severe soil erosion rating (Figure 22) . The
total quantity cannot be determined at this time because future develop-
ment is unceratin. If erosion does become a problem, then it can also
be expected that water quality problems due to increased sediment load
would occur. Because little agricultural land within the Study Area is
planned for development, agricultural impacts will be minimal.
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Proper monitoring and soil erosion abatement measures will be
required during construction. Construction should be conducted
during the drier summer months to avoid erosion due to rain on exposed
soils. As soon as possible after refilling in the trench at previously
vegetated areas, revegetation should be initiated.
PLANT COMMUNITIES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
|
^* The Study Area is located within the western hemlock (Tsuga
5** hetepophylla) vegetational zone, as described by the U.S Forest
^!^ Service. This is the most extensive vegetation zone in Western Wash-
^^ ington and the most important in terms of timber production. The
western hemlock vegetational zone is best known for its communities of
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga mensiesii) and its western hemlock and
western red-cedar forests. Figure 23 shows habitat types.
Nearly all remaining vegetated areas within the Study Area are
within one stage or another of early second-growth regeneration, with
Douglas fir and red alder (Alnus rubra) dominating the existing plant
communities. Remnant large conifers and woodlands of mixed deciduous
species (including big-leaf maple, Aoev macTophyllim; and black cotton-
wood, Populus triahocarpa) are also found in the Study Area, though
they are of lesser importance. Very wet depressions and low-lying
areas are presently dominated by grassland and shrub communities. Very
acidic bogs are covered with Douglas spiraea (hardhack) (Spiraea
douglasii) and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and a variety of willows,
11-84
-------
Figure
SOIL EROSION HAZARD
SCALE IN FEET
0
2000
IN
-------
SCALE IN FEET
EXISTING HABITATS
(GENERALIZED)
Figure 23
-------
reeds, and sedges.
The plant communities of the Study Area have, in general, only
recently been disturbed by human activity. Though much of the Cedar
River Valley was logged between 1875 and 1900, the first East Renton
Plateau forest stands were logged in about 1910 and most were not
removed until the late 1920's and early 1930's. Small stands of the
original forest cover remained until after World War II. Today, no
original forest stands remain in the Study Area. (See Appendix 4
for a graphic representation of the vegative history of the Study Area).
Riparian communities include streamside thickets of vine maple,
willows, salmonberry, ladyfern, skunkcabbage, elderberry, cascara,
bittercherry, and devilsclub, where black cottonwood, red alder,
big-leaf maple, and willow trees dominate the community. The
riparian communities are of relatively high wildlife significance and
many of the more unusual plant species (e.g. piggyback plants,
grand fir, etc.) found in the Study Area are found in riparian areas.
The bog plant communities .are a wetland plant community
adapted to the very acidic and cold environment of sphagnum peat bogs.
It is dominated by spiraea, labrador tea, and salmonberry, with associated
willows, reeds, and sedges. The bog community is the first shrub plant
community which advances into water and will eventually fill the water
body with organic debris. The bog at Lake Kathleen is quite important
for wildlife, as are the other Study Area wetlands, which are prevented
from reaching a bog plant community by human interference or activity.
Approximately a third of the Study Area is classified as urban and
suburban plant communities which are typically composed of scattered
individual native and ornamental specimen trees, ornamental shrubs, and
lawns. Natural climatic conditions, soils, and drainage patterns have
often been altered in these plant communities, adversely affecting the
reestablishment both of desirable and undesirable native plant species.
Generally the plant communities in the urban and suburban areas are
poorly developed (e.g. lacking a shrub layer, etc.), simple, and provide
fewer niches for wildlife than natural plant communities.
A list of the more common non-ornamental plant species found in the
Study Area is presented in Appendix 6. No endangered or threatened
11-87
-------
plant species, as designated by the Endangered Species Act and
Smithsonian Institution, were observed in the Study Area. Only cursory
field surveys were conducted, however.
DIRECT IMPACTS
Construction of the Orton Road Interceptor would result in the
removal of approximately four acres of existing vegetation near the
Cedar River, near the junction of Orton Road and S.E. 144th Street.
and on the King County Parks Division lands and Liberty High School
site north of S.E. 144th Street. Half of the vegetation to be
removed would be brush and meadow plant communities (near the Cedar
River, in the Cedar River Valley, and near the junction of Orton Road and
Southeast 144th Street). The remaining vegetation to be removed (on the
King County Parks Division property and high school site) would be
composed of mixed forest and Douglas-fir forest plant communities.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
Development of the potential Ultimate Service Area community would
primarily affect the Ultimate Service Area's existing plant communities
by the clearing and cutting, filling, scraping, and grading usually
necessary for large-scale residential development. In addition to those
plant communities directly removed, surrounding vegetation would also be
affected as drainage characteristics and climatic conditions changed.
The more concentrated runoff typical of dense suburban communities can be
particularly damaging to surface rooted plants and those prefering drier
sites, such as Douglas-fir, salal, oceanspray, and hemlock. Loss of
plant life due to the introduction of light into normally shaded under-
stories and a significant increase in the windfall of trees left in small
scattered stands or as individuals would probably occur as the Ultimate
Service Area community developed. Soil erosion, compaction of soils
from construction equipment, and siltation of surface soil voids would
also adversely affect those plant communities which remain after the
potential Ultimate Service Area community develops.
11-88
-------
Plant succession would continue in those areas undisturbed or
relatively unaffected by the development of the potential Ultimate
Service Area community. Generally, the Study Area's existing plant
communities would pass from mixed forests of Douglas-fir and red alder
to Douglas-fir forests during the design period, where conditions are not
too moist. In the very moist sites, the existing mixed forests would
probably become mature red alder woodlands. However, because red alder
is relatively short-lived, eventual Douglas-fir regeneration in the
moist sites would be likely, though such regeneration might be delayed
until after the design period ends. The existing Douglas-fir communities
would probably remain essentially unchanged in composition during the
design period, where undisturbed by human activity, though some hemlock
regeneration may occur in shaded cool sites if a seed source remains.
Similarly, some red-cedar regeneration may begin in very moist sites,
ravines, or very shaded areas, if seed sources remain. Big leaf maple
would be likely to successfully invade many of the red alder and black
cottonwood stands during the design period, and those wetlands and moist
depressions which are in an advanced stage of filling could develop forest
communities of red alder, cottonwood, and willow. New wetlands with
spiraea, labrador tea, and salmonberry plant communities would develop,
if man doesn't interfere in present water bodies such as lakes Kathleen
and McDonald.
Approximately 450 acres of existing meadow or brush plant
communities would be changed to urban/suburban plant communi-
ties if the Study Area develops as planned. Similarly, 175 acres of
existing brush and shrub plant communities, 275 acres of existing mixed
woodland and mixed forest communities, 900 acres of existing mixed
forest, 1000 acres of existing Douglas-fir forest, and 50 acres of
existing riparian woodlands and forests would be changed to urban/
suburban plant communities during the design period. The existing
major bog plant community would remain essentially unchanged, except for
natural plant changes.
11-89
-------
FISH & WILDLIFE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Fish. The most significant fish populations in the Study Area are
found in the Cedar River and May Creek. The Cedar River is an important
spawning and rearing area for many species of anadromous fish, including
chinook and sockeye salmon, and some coho and chum salmon, steelhead,
searun cutthroat trout, and searun Dolly Varden. Though fishing pressure
is relatively light along the Cedar River upstream of Renton, an impor-
tant fishery has developed at its mouth in Lake Washington. Most
salmon spawn downstream of Maple Valley. Some spawning occurs within
Ul the Study Area.
A major use of May Creek is anadromous fish production. Salmon
generally utilize all accessible portions of May Creek. Coho salmon are
the dominant salmon species in May Creek; however, sockeye salmon and
some chinook salmon are also present in the creek during the freshwater
phases of their life cycle. Searun cutthroat and steelhead have also
been noted within May Creek.
Recreational use of May Creek is apparently limited to infrequent
fishing by juveniles. Historical plantings of rainbow trout in May
Creek date back to 1936, with the most recent planting by the Washington
State Department of Game, occuring in 1972.
Wildlife. Because of the various habitats within the Study Area
(Douglas-fir forest, mixed forest, riparian and bog, brush, shrub and
meadow, urban/suburban) numerous animals can be or are expected to be
found in the Study Area. A list of those species versus habitat are
listed in Appendix 7. This information was based on field survey,
personal observations, and literature reviews.
11-90
-------
The riparian environments offer a source of food and shelter for
migratory bird species as well as associated vegetative area. Two
Federally-designated endangered species — The Canada goose and
peregrine falcon — may occur in the Study Area. At the present time,
the Washington State Department of Game has no official adopted state-
wide list of rare or endangered species. Actual species abundance is
not known at this time, but can be considered at natural densities.
Literature reviews indicate that the greatest abundances of reptiles,
amphibians, birds and mammals occur at riparian, forest, and mixed
forest areas.
Certain habitats can also be particularly valuable because of
their sensitivity to disturbance. Such areas may include migratory
routes, important breeding areas, and habitats of rare or endangered
species. Other sensitive areas include those plant communities such as
wetlands which are of primary importance as food sources for wildlife
species.
DIRECT IMPACTS
Fish. Construction of the Orton Road Interceptor in the channel
of the Cedar River may injure or reduce aquatic life, including fish,
within the corridor of the proposed river crossing and downstream of the
proposed river crossing. Light penetration will be temporarily reduced,
temperatures and pH changed, and aquatic productivity decreased in the
immediate vicinity of the river crossing trenching activities. Food
organisms may be smothered and spawning beds may be filled immediately
downstream of the river crossing.
The effect of the proposed river crossing will be mitigated by
restricting the timing of in-river construction activity to the period
between July 15 and September 15. This is required by the conditions of
a Hydraulics Permit which the Water District has obtained from the Wash-
ington State Department of Fisheries. If construction of the river
crossing occurred near the end of this period, after completion of this
environmental impact statement process , few if any upstream migrating
anadromous fish will be significantly affected. As illustrated by
Table 10 > only summer steelhead, sea-run cutthroat, and chinook and
11-91
-------
coho salmon would be migrating upstream at that time. All of these adult
salmon can tolerate heavy silt loads for several weeks. No migrating
juvenile salmon would be affected.
Additional direct impacts on fish may result from constructing the
porposed interceptor in the streambed of the small stream which drains
the Liberty High School site. Minnows, bullheads, and crayfish have
been observed in the stream.
Wildlife and other organisms will be disrupted, displaced, and
destroyed by the activities and noise and commotion associated with the
construction of the proposed project. Habitat destruction will probably
be insignificant; only about four acres of existing meadow, brush,
riparian and mixed forest, woodland habitats will be removed. The
remaining portions of the proposed projects corridor will be located on
existing street and road rights-of-way.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
Fish. The fish populations of the Study Area would probably be
adversely affected by development of the potential Ultimate Service
Area community. Increasing population throughout the Study Area and
beyond can ultimately, through water use, decrease the water in the
Cedar River System to the extent that stream productivity will be
affected.
The channeling of the creeks which drain the Ultimate Service Area
for storm water control and drainage would directly affect the fish
populations inhabiting the streams. The filling or partial filling of
streams for commercial, residential, community facility, or transportation
land uses would adversely affect aquatic life. Stream shading would likely
be removed in many instances. Pollution from urban runoff could also, of
course, affect the existing fish populations, particularly in the smaller
streams and lakes of the Study Area.
11-92
-------
TABLE 10
TIMING OF SALMON AND SEA-RUN TROUT FRESH WATER LIFE
PHASES IN THE CEDAR RIVER SYSTEM
Species Fresh Water Life Phase
Chinook Upstream Migration
Spawning
Intragravel Development
Juvenile Rearing
Juvenile Migration
Coho Upstream Migration
Spawning
Intragravel Development
Juvenile Rearing
Juvenile Migration
Chum Upstream Migration
Spawning
Intragravel Development
Juvenile Rearing
Juvenile Migration
Summer Upstream Migration
Steelhead Spawning
Intragravel Development
Juvenile Rearing!
Juvenile Migration
Winter Upstream Migration
Steelhead Spawning
Intragravel Development
Juvenile Rear ing 1
Juvenile Migration
Sea-run Upstream Migration
Cutthroat Spawning
Intragravel Development
Juvenile Rearing!
Juvenile Migration
J
-
ZJ
.
F
. J
M
•.--... " •.———-«
A
Month
M
J
J
;
i
j
J
Zl
XVTni-M*
•"— \
r~
\"
,
J
1
i — ' — '
i
U _j
L
L I
r~^ \
i
' i
]
!
A
S
0
r
\
i
N
r*
J
L
D
M
1
, a
i
1
r1
1
i
1
_„ ,JO .„ ,i ' , „.
f ' 1
J
"n
zzi
• - ii .1
=3
Normally extends over a two-year period.
11-93
-------
The accelerated erosion process which is likely to .accompany the
development of the potential Ultimate Service Area community, without
new land development controls, would probably have the greatest effect on
the water quality of those Study Area water bodies which remain physically
unaltered as development occurs. Sediment from erosion can result in
significant salmon and trout egg mortality due to egg displacement or to
the covering of the eggs or developing fry (young fish) with silt.
Moderate to heavy siltation, due to urbanization and natural causes,
such as land-slides, bank cutting, and bed erosion, may adversely affect,
and cause mortality to, buried eggs or fry in creeks by denying water
interchange and smothering food organisms. Though female salmon or trout
wash silt from gravel in the spawning area during pre-spawning activity;
if excess silt is later deposited on the spawning area, an interference
with the proper upward water percolation through the nest, loss of dissol-
ved oxygen, and lack of proper removal of waste products will result.
The smother effect also prompts fungal growth among the eggs. Generally
salmon or trout eggs suffer a mortality of about 85 percent when 20
percent of all spawning area voids are filled with sediment.
Mature salmon and trout can survive high concentrations of suspended
matter for short periods; however, prolonged exposure to some types of
materials in most species results in a thickening of respiratory cells
and gill damage. Fish do not have gill cleaners and must rely on water
flow through the gill chambers, mucous production, and intermittent
"coughing" to remove foreign material. Evidence of gill irritation in
salmon and trout fingerlings held in turbid water has frequently been
observed by scientists. Such irritations can result in subsequent
infection by fungi and bacteria.
Juvenile salmon and trout can also be adversely affected by
general water quality deterioration, decreased water supplies, and
general habitat deterioration. Low summer flows and high summer temper-
atures may often be critical and even prohibitive to juvenile salmon
rearing.
Fish may, of course, also be affected by structures, such as culverts,
11-94
-------
which can block migrating adult salmon and trout. Spawning in the
upstream portion of Honey Creek, for example, ha's already been eliminated
by a culvert at N.E. 27th Street. Spawning areas in May Creek have
reportedly also been seriously affected by the operations of a drainage
district in the upper portion of the creek and the removal of gravel
from the Creek. As urbanization of the East Renton Plateau increases,
it is probable that spawning areas and sutiable fish habitat will
continue to be decreased in quantity and quality.
Wildlife. Because of the complex trophic interaction of
ecosystems the destruction or changes to plant communities during
urbanization would also affect the wildlife species and vice versa.
More specifically, the present populations of amphibians and
reptiles in the Study Area would be primarily affected by the modifi-
cation of habitat during the design period. Cover, water and soil
types, food, breeding areas, and hibernation areas would be altered.
Species with specialized site requirements may disappear and the more
adaptable species would probably occur in reduced numbers. Urbanization
would also affect the relative humidity and temperature of most of the
Study Area. This would adversely affect the microclimate, water balance,
and preferred temperature of the cold-blooded amphibians and reptiles.
Predation of amphibians and reptiles and other mortality factors usually
also increase with urbanization. Salamanders, snakes, and toads will be
most affected by the removal of underbrush and ground-cover, silt from
construction activity, loss of spawning sites due to lowered ground
water tables, urban drainage projects, removal of bank cover, decreased
water quality (especially increased sediment, lowered dissolved oxygen,
and oil pollution) and other affects of urbanization. Snakes will be
most affected by increased road kills. Salamanders and snakes would
also both be quite affected in a different manner by increased road
improvement, construction and use, in the Study Area, since roads,
particularly if sidewalks parallel the roads, become barriers
to seasonal movements and population dispersal. Garter snakes, for exam-
ple, have been found to avoid crossing roads with sidewalks to colonize
new territories. Increased pesticide and herbicide use in the new
11-95
-------
community would also adversely affect existing reptile and amphibian
populations.
In a general sense, bird species would be affected by urbanization
of the Study Area, for urbanization both excludes and favors bird
species and populations. Those most excluded are narrow niche species,
such as marsh wrens, herons, wood ducks, snipe, grouse, meadowlarks,
owls, many hawks, and savannah sparrows. Opportunistic and broad niche
species, adaptable to many conditions, are most favored. Such species
include starlings, crows, robins, house sparrows, bushtits, and many
swallows. Usually urbanization will increase bird abundance (excluding
intensely developed commercial or industrial development). This is
probably due to energy subsidy by man. It is, therefore, probable that
as the Ultimate Service Area community develops, a greater number of a
fewer species of birds will be attracted to the area. If the community
developed in a manner which retained some of the structural characteris-
tics of the existing habitats, the impacts on existing bird populations
would be lessened. It would be particularly important to retain each
stratum (tree canopy, shrub, bush, used ground cover) of the existing
forest habitats, for only when all strata of a habitat are retained
will bird diversity be retained. Typical suburban areas can support an
immediate diversity of bird population if shrub and tree layers are
retained. However, all too often suburban developments retain only lawns,
patchy small arrangements of shrubs with low wildlife value, and scattered
tall specimen trees with no continuous canopy. These areas will support
a bird population with low diversity. Many of the existing developments
in the Study Area are, unfortunately, of this type.
Mammals will be significantly impacted by urbanization as habitats
are eliminated or cut up into such small areas that they cannot support
normal populations. They will also be affected by human activity, which
will eliminate those intolerant mammal species. In all probability, as
the potential Ultimate Service Area community develops, a marked decline
in the less common mammal species, the larger mammal species, and most
carnivores will occur. Even the deer and coyote of the Study Area,
which are presently quite common, would decrease in numbers through the
design period.
11-96
-------
Pertinent literature indicates that in general the greatest
abundance of reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals would be found
in the riparian forest or mixed forest habitats of the Study Area.
Only two endangered species may occur in the area (Canada goose and
Peregrine falcon) with only the falcon having been observed.
Because of the transitory nature of these species, the project should
not have a significant effect on either species.
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
There is little wetland areas within the Study Area. However,
some measure of preservation of the wetland areas could be achieved
through the imposition of constraints on development in the wetlands.
In addition to the imposition of such controls by the local agency of
government, other preservation measures could include the acquisition of
wetlands and other sensitive areas by conservation agencies. Existing
zoning for wetlands are generally in residential zoning classifications.
11-97
-------
ENERGY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing Ultimate Service Area community uses approximately
350,000 gallons of heating oil, 28,000,000 kilowatt hours of electrical
energy, and 630,000 therms of natural gas annually. Approximately
2,000,000 gallons of gasoline are used by the existing community for
private automobile use, assuming an average gas consumption rate of
fifteen miles per gallon for Ultimate Service Area automobiles.
DIRECT IMPACTS
(3
*t Energy would be required to extract the resources used to construct
LJJ
JT" the proposed project, fabricate the project's construction materials, and
^^ transport materials and men to and from the construction site. It is
difficult to estimate the actual quantity of energy which would be used
to construct the proposed project. However, it is possible to roughly
estimate the amount of diesel and gasoline fuel needed for construction
equipment. With an average of four pieces of equipment operating
continaully during the construction period, approximately 30,000
gallons of fuel would be consumed.
In addition, a direct energy impact would result from treatment of
the waste water from Liberty High School and the homes within the corridor
of the Orton Road Interceptor which abandon the use of their septic tanks
to comply with State, County; and Water District laws, ordinances, and
regulations. At first, this should result in average sewage flows of
approximately 60,000 gallons per day. This would require an additional
60 kwh of electrical energy each day at METRO'S Renton Sewage Treatment
Plant and 6 to 9 kwh of additional energy for sludge treatment at METRO'S
West Point Sewage Treatment Plant.
11-98
-------
When the potential Ultimate Service Area community is fully developed,
approximately 1500 kwh of electrical energy would be needed daily to
treat the community's wastes at the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. An i..
additional 400 to 750 kwh would be required for sludge treatment each __ I
day. The quantity of electrical energy required for treatment at exist-
ing treatment levels would be approximately equivalent to the amount of fj?
electrical energy consumed by thirty-five suburban residences each (at
the end of the design period). If higher levels of treatment are
provided, the demand for electrical energy in the treatment process
would likely increase significantly. No local shortages of these energy
supplies are expected during the life of the project.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
The Ultimate Service Area community should consume approximately
250,000,000 kilowatt hours of electrical energy at the end of the
design period, even if the community reduces its rate of energy consum-
ption and the new homes constructed and patterns of human activity are
more energy efficient. Approximately 3,500,000 therms of natural gas
and 500,000 gallons of heating oil would also be consumed. Depending on
the efficiency of automobiles in use at the end of the design period,
between 5,000,000 and 8,000,000 gallons of gasoline would be used to
power the community's automobiles. The significant increase in energy
consumption by the potential Ultimate Service Area community over present
levels of consumption results from both the growth of the Ultimate Service
Area community and the pattern of development encouraged by public policy
in the Ultimate Service Area. Again, no local shortages of these energy
supplies are expected.
NOISE LEVEL
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Noise is generally described as destructive or unwanted sound.
Its intensity is measured in units called decibels (db), A scale
of 0 to 140 db is representative of the range of sound pressure levels
from the threshold of hearing to the threshold of pain, for a normal
11-99
-------
hearing person. As judged by the average listener, an increase in the
sound pressure level by lOdb is approximately equal to a doubling of the
loudness. An increase of 20db is judged to be a four-fold increase in
loudness, etc.
Decibels, being logarithmic, are not numerically additive. The
total effect of combining two noise sources is a function of the decibel
difference between them. A zero db difference (that is, two sources
with the same SPL - Sound Pressure Level) will create an overall
increase in the SPL of 3 db. Intensity frequency and phase are the
major physical components of noise. The human ear is capable of detecting
frequencies which range from 20 to 20,OOOHz. (cycles/second). A
relatively accurate measurement of the sensitivity of the ear to intensity
and frequency of sound has been incorporated into the sound level meter
which measures sound on two parameters by weighing the intensities of
various frequency components differently. The A-scale (dbA) is most
commonly used in traffic, industrial and community noise assessment for
it empirically approximates the response of the human ear to environmental
noise sources. The A-scale discriminates against energy content at low
frequencies (below lOOOHz) where damage is most likely to result and where
annoyance is greatest.
The fluctuating character of noise necessitates reporting more than
simple average levels. Such is the purpose of the Lin, L,.-., and Lqn
noise levels. These values reflect the noise levels exceeded ten percent,
fifty percent and ninety percent of the sample time. These levels can
be interpreted to indicate the magnitude and frequency of the loudest,
average, and quietest noise events during specified times of the day.
The amount and range of the fluctuations are important considerations in
determining impacts, as a steady noise is judged more acceptable to people
than is a noise of the same average level which fluctuates erratically;
the greater the fluctuation the greater the annoyance.
Noise evaluation also requires consideration of psychological
variables. Noise annoyance is a function of location (urban, rural,
etc.), time of day and time of year (morning, evening; summer, winter),
and individual differences in the listener. It has been found that about
10 percent of the population is so sensitive to noise they would complain
of any noise not of their own making. Another 25 paercent of the
11-100
-------
population is almost imperturbable and almost never complain of noise.
It is the middle two-thirds of the population that most noise control
measurements are designed for and to which the predictions of this
report were directed.
To check the accuracy of the sound level estimates (Figure 24).
a series of twenty-five five minute sound level measurements were made
during three weekday afternoons with hand held sound level meters
(75 total recordings, three at each location). Section corners and
centers were arbitrarily selected as the vicinity of for each recording
site. All section corners and centers in the Ultimate Service Area were
included in the survey. Sound level measurements were usually made at a
location twenty to fifty feet from the shoulder of streets and roads,
though some sampling sites were in the more remote portions of the
Study Area. This insured a representative range of sound level data.
At the end of each five-minute sample, the minumum and maximum sound
levels were recorded. In addition, unusual peak sound level events,
such as the use of a nearby chain saw, low flying aircraft, or a passing
school bus, were also noted. The average sound level recorded during
the five minute period was also estimated. Wind conditions were calm
during the first two afternnons of sampling. During the third afternoon,
a constant light breeze occurred, which effected all samples equally.
Results of the sampling, though very crude and of little scientific
significance, generally support the sound level estimates for a rural
area (Figure 24). If anything, the samples indicate that the estimated
existing sound levels depict a noisier environment than that in existence.
Much of the Study Area is surprisingly quiet, particularly those areas
somewhat removed from S.E. 128th Street and the Maple Valley Highway.
The larger tracts of undeveloped land (e.g. west of Lake Kathleen)
consistently averaged about 40dbA, even on Saturday afternoons when
outdoor activity (motorbikes, lawn mowers, etc.) was greatest. Most of
the less dense suburban areas averaged between 45 and 50dbA , except those
near S.E. 128th Street, where averages between 55 and 60dbA. In
the S.E. 128th Street corridor, average sound levels of 55 to 65
dbA were most common. Peak noise events included passing school buses and
11-101
-------
Figure
SOUND LEVEL ESTIMATES
EXISTING CONDITIONS (dba)
SCALE IN FEET
-------
trucks at twenty to fifty feet (90-95dbA), passing auto traffic (70-80dbA) ,
distant gunshots, mowers and chainsaws (70-75 dbA) , nearby dogs (70-80 dbA)
and low flying aricraft (90 dbA) . Auto traffic was the most common
noise source.
DIRECT IMPACTS
Construction noise sources, despite the variety and types of equip-
ment used, has similarities which permit its grouping into a limited
number of categories. These categories are described below and shown
graphically in Figure 25, together with the corresponding noise levels
associated with their use.
The most prevalent noise source in construction equipment is from
the prime-mover (i.e., the internal combustion engine, usually diesel)
used to provide motive or operating power. Within these categories,
engine noise predominates with exhaust noise being most significant and
with inlet and structural noise being secondary.
Engine-powered equipment may be categorized according to its mobility
and operating characteristics, as:
earth moving equipment - highly mobile
handling equipment - partly mobile
stationary equipment
A decibel increase of greater than 5 db above ambient is generally
considered unfavorable. Construction activity can get up to 95 db or
25 db above ambient levels in the noiser portions of the Study Area,
and thus would be annoying to the human ear.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
Federal noise policy may exert some influence on development. The Depart-
ment of Housing and Development has a Noise Abatement Policy which precludes
their participation in new residential construction in areas having a noise
level exceeding 65 dbA 8 hours per 24 hours.
11-103
-------
Figure 25
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE RANGES
nois« level (dBA) at 50 ft.'
60
70
80
90
100
110
engine
combustion
a
C.
o
c
>
TD
0
£
0
0
F
O.
D
CJ
c*
c
earthmov
-T en
a c
U i_J
I 2
>-
i_
c
c
O
o
tx
c
" r
o h
a. a
E "5
O
l_
O
O
COMPACTORS (ROLLERS)
FRONT LOADERS
BACKHOES
TRACTORS
SCRAPERS, GRADERS
PAVERS
TRUCKS
PDNPRFTP MIYFRQ
i^ui^L^nci c iviiAcno
CUrvLnhTE PUMPS
CRANES (MOVABLE)
CRANES (DERRICK)
PUMPS
GENERATORS
COMPRESSORS
PNEUMATIC WRENCHES
JACKHAMMERS, ROCK DRILLS
PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS)
VIBRATORS
SAWS
-.-I
:•:
>:
•:•:•:-:-:-:•:•:•:•:
•.-.-.•.•.-.•/
mmm
mmi
mm
mmm.
mm
— , —
Source: EPA (NTID 300.1, 1971)
'Based on Limited Data Samples
11-104
-------
Putting aside noises associated with construction of new homes,
roads, sewers, and business building in the area greater than 40% of
the area could expect an increase greater than 5db" during the conversion
from a rural area to an urban area. This increase would be primarily
brought on with the anticipated traffic increase. This level would be
at variance with Washington law (WAG 173-60-040); essentially the area
would be a Class A area (residential) and should not have decibel
levels higher than 57. An increase of greater than 5dB would place f ^
approximately 50 percent of the area over the legal level. There are no
Federal laws presently having jurisdiction in this area.
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
The construction of the pipe line should be completed prior to
the high school opening so that classroom disrpution is avoided. If
the pipe line will have construction activities overlapping the high
school operations, then it might be better to start construction at
the high school end. In this way, the interceptor's terminus at the
high school may be completed prior to its opening and thus curtail
construction related noise levels in the area of Liberty High School.
Also, construction should be during mid-day hours when the annoyance
of high noise levels to people would be lessened primarily because
many of the residents would be out of the area and/or awake and be less
bothered at those hours. Significant noise levels during construction
would be mitigated by requiring construction equipment to be muffled and
would include the option of building temporary barriers to reduce the
noise impact on nearby residences.
VISUAL IMPACTS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Study Area is currently of a rural nature of forested and farm
lands. Some homes and an old commercial facility are in the area. This
sort of setting is regarded by most people as having a high visual
quality. However, there are also those persons who feel change to a more urban
environment would represent a visual improvement.
11-105
-------
DIRECT IMPACTS
Construction of the Orton Road Interceptor would primarily cause
temporary localized changes in the visual character of its corridor.
Construction equipment, scattered piles of sewer pipe and other constru-
ction material, pavement rubble, trench spoils, and, possibly, trench
backfill material would occasionally be stored in small quantities along
the route of the interceptor or near the construction corridor. In
addition, temporary and localized increases in soil erosion, dust
emissions, and surface water turbidity caused by project construction
would be unsightly and affect the Ultimate Service Area's visual quality.
After project construction, the sewer corridor should appear almost
identical to its present character, except for those areas where large
trees or other vegetation had to be removed for the pipeline or
construction equipment access roads. Two areas would be most affected
by vegetation removal; the floor of the Cedar River Valley and the King
County Park - Liberty High School area north of S.E. 144th Street.
Visual impacts created by the half mile sewer corridor through
the existing forest on the park and high school properties would be
localized, for the sewer is planned to be routed up a creekbed in a
small enclosed basin with very little topographic relief. As long as
trees are left beside the sewer corridor, its visual impact should be
minimal, for there are few properties with views into an area of the
sewer corridor. However, the planned intensive use of the properties
through which the corridor is routed would potentially make the project's
visual impact apparent to many people. The potential visual impact on
the King County park site is particularly important to recognize.
The proposed project's quarter-mile sewer corridor across the
Cedar River Valley floor would have insignificant visual impacts even
though the proposed corridor is viewed by residents of the valley and
the rim of the valley walls. Since only a half dozen trees and an acre
of brushy and low vegetation would have to be removed, it is unlikely
that residents, other than those immediately adjacent to the sewer's
corridor, would notice any change in the valley floor's visual character.
This belief is made more likely by the fact that most of the valley
floor is presently characterized by a great textural and tonal variety
11-106
-------
of shapes, scale of forms, and colors, as well as a great variety of
man-made and natural elements. In such poorly defined "cluttered"
landscapes, small changes to existing conditions can often be made with
little or no effect on the overall landscape character. As long as
the dominant attractive features of the Cedar River Valley (e.g. those
remaining undisturbed tree masses along portions of the valley walls and
river-related tree masses in the flood plain) remain undisturbed, the
overall visual quality of the valley within the Study Area will be
retained.
II-106A
-------
INDIRECT IMPACTS
The proposed project's potential indirect visual impacts would be
slight. Since the character of the Ultimate Service Area changed
so dramatically during the past 15 years , even extensive new development
during the design period would not have significant new visual impact.
The greatest relative change in visual quality would occur in the
Planned Service Area. Other changes would be likely along S.E.
128th Street, the 138th Avenue S.E. corridor, and in those portions of
the Ultimate Service Area where existing tree masses or individual
trees would be replaced by structures.
AIR QUALITY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Three air pollutants are of greatest concern within the Puget Sound
Region; carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particulates (TSP), and
sulfur dioxide (S0_). Each will be discussed below:
Carbon monoxide, the most common air pollutant, is of concern
because it reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. Short-
term exposures to CO have been shown to cause changes in cardiovascular
functioning and impairment of visual and time-interval discrimination.
Carbon monoxide emissions within King County are generated almost entirely
by area sources; point sources account for less than one percent of the
total CO discharged into the King County atmosphere. Of the area sources,
motor vehicles are credited with 93 percent of the total King County CO
emissions. Other CO contributors include off-highway sources such as
industrial oil use, aircraft, slash burning, foundaries, and other
combustion operations, including the burning of woody refuse at lumber
mills and fires. These other CO sources are minor by comparison to motor
vehicles and are related to few problems because the contaminant is either
discharged to the atmosphere at some elevation above the ground or is
11-107
-------
468
1
469
365
1
366
320
1
321
258
1
259
discharged in the more remote portions of the County. Carbon monoxide
is a fairly stable compound and tends to remain in the atmosphere
unchanged although it is diluted and dispersed by wind.
The motor vehicle emissions of CO become a problem because they are
discharged at street level, in large quantities, and continuously
throughout the working day, peaking during the morning and evening rush
hours. According to National Emissions Data System (NEDS) data,
the emission of CO from motor vehicles totalled about 468,000 tons in
King County during 1971. Projected emissions in 1,000 tons per year are
shown below. Vehicle emissions will decrease due to the effect of
emission control devices.
1970/71 1972/73 1975 1977
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total'CO Emissions
The National Standards, not to be exceeded more than once per year
3 3
are: 10 mg/m (8-hour average); and 40 mg/m (1-hour average).
Carbon monoxide emissions are not presently a problem in the Ultimate
Service Area. Air quality modeling conducted for this environmental
impact statement indicates that the highest estimated one-hour CO concen-
3
trations within the Ultimate Service Area reach levels of about 4mg/m ,
well within the applicable standard. The six points for which CO
concentrations were estimated were along the boundary of the Ultimate
Service Area as close to major traffic arterials as possible. If the
Ultimate Service Area had included the Maple Valley Highway or the
heavily traveled portion of S.E. 128th Street, CO standards might have
been exceeded at points on or near the shoulder of the arterials.
Total suspended particulates (TSP's) are of concern because they
have been shown to increase the incidence of respiratory illness,
especially in chronic conditions. Some particulate matter is toxic,
and a number of substances are carcinogenic. Particulates can also
cause visibility reduction, odors, and soil buildings and other property.
Particulate emissions are generated by both area and point sources in
11-108
-------
17.6
8.7
26.3
11.0
5.5
16.5
10.6
5.3
15.9
10.6
3.8
14.4
King County. In 1973, area sources contributed 67 percent of particulates
while point sources contributed 33 percent of King County's particulate
matter. Area sources included motor vehicle emissions (27 percent of
total emissions), residential heating (7 percent of total emissions),
dust from dirt roads, industrial combustion, slash burning, house, forest,
and other fires, aircraft and vessels, and construction activity.
Point sources of particulate emissions in King County are generally
located along the waterfront and in the Harbor Island-Duamish area.
Other point sources include quarries, lumber mills, gravel pits, and
cement plants. Projected King County TSP emissions are shown in 1,000
tons per year below:
1970/71 1972/73 1975 1977
Area Sources
Point Sources
Total TSP Emissions
The area source emissions are not projected to change significantly
through 1977 since the expected emissions increase due to growth will be
offset by expected emission reductions resulting from increased paving of
roads and decrease in incineration and open burning.
The Regional TSP standards, which are more stringent than the National
Standards, are:
3
60 Mg/m , annual geometric mean, never to be exceeded.
3
150 Mg/m , 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than once per year.
Data from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)
indicates that no serious total suspended particulate problems are now
in existence within the Study Area. PSAPCA data indicates that the
annual geometric mean TSP values within the Study Area range between
3
25 and 35 Mg/m . However, at the Southeast District Health Center,
approximately one mile west of the Study Area, 17 of 90 24-hour TSP
3
observations in 1972 exceeded 60 Mg/m . In 1973, 6 of 61 24-hour TSP
3 3
observations exceeded 60 Mg/m ; one observation exceeded 150 Mg/m at
3
the Health Center. In 1974, 11 of 60 observations exceeded 60 Mg/m .
The annual geometric mean TSP value for the Health Center in 1974 was
3
33 Mg/m . The TSP trend on the East Renton Plateau, based on data from
11-109
-------
the Health Center sampling station, appears to be toward decreasing TSP
levels.
Sulfur dioxide is associated with a variety of respiratory diseases
and increased mortality rates, particularly when inhaled with small
particulate matter. SO- also reduces visibility and can cause
extensive damage to materials and vegetation. The major King County
area SO emissions result from the combustion of coal and oil and certain
industrial operations, including smelters and pulp mills. The Regional
standards, which are never to be exceeded, are:
.02 ppm, Annual Average
.04 ppm, 30-day Average
.10 ppm, 24-hour Average
.40 ppm, 1-hour Average
These S0? standards are more stringent than the national standards.
PSAPCA data indicates that no sulfur dioxide problems are likely
within the Study Area. The nearest sampling stations are, however, in
Tukwila and Burien. These stations, which occasionally exceed the
Regional SO standards, may not indicate the SO™ conditions of the
Study Area. However, if conditions differ, the Study Area, j.-t is likely,
experiences even fewer, if any S09 violations.
DIRECT IMPACTS
The direct impacts of construction and operating the Orton Road
Interceptor will be relatively insignificant. Emissions from the Orton
Road Interceptor's construction equipment and the private automobiles
utilized by construction employees are shown on Table 11 (pounds per
construction period).
The emissions described above assume that the construction of the
Orton Road Interceptor will involve one backhoe, one front-end loader,
six dump trucks, two flatbed trucks, one grader, one roller, one air
compressor, two pieces of miscellaneous equipment, and four pumps. The
flatbed trucks, pumps, and ten employee automobiles were assumed to be
gasoline-powered; all other equipment was assumed to be diesel powered.
11-110
-------
TABLE 11
EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION RELATED EQUIPMENT
H
M
1
M
H
\~*
SOURCE
Backhoe
Front-end loader
Dump Trucks
Flatbed Trucks
Grader
Roller
Air Compressor
Misc. Equipment
Pumps
Employee Autos
Total Emissions
CO
48
157
754
1,425
64
34
43
207
2,800 to
1,620
8,150 to
PARTICULATES
17
16
44
9
18
9
14
70
20,000 7 to 38
28
24,350 230 to 260
SULFUR
OXIDES
23
21
89
3
26
12
13
71
6 to 28
7
270 to 290
HYDROCARBONS
10
53
126
174
16
10
16
78
215 to 1,025
176
875 to 1,650
NITROGEN
OXIDES
175
684
1,256
98
315
192
200
1,135
16 to 520
221
4,350 to 4J
Pounds per Day
100 to 300
3.5
11 to 21
1. Units in pounds per total construction period.
54 to 60
-------
Because the size and number of pumps required for dewatering is not
known, a range of probable emissions is provided.
In addition an insignificant amount of dust will be created by
construction activities and at cement and pipe manufacturing plants.
Though localized problems may occur they are expected to be minor. A
maximum of about nine to ten tons of particles smaller than 30 mm will
be generated from constructing the Orton Road Interceptor. A maximum of
about 160 to 200 pounds of dust emissions per day would be expected.
Dust will be controlled by protective provisions in the contract specifications.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
The potential development related to the Orton Road Interceptor will
have two primary effects on air quality. First, heating new structures
would result in new pollutant emissions. Secondly, the use of automobiles
by new residents of the Ultimate Service Area would also result in new
pollutant emissions. The increase in air pollutant emissions due to heat-
ing the potential Ultimate Service Area Community would be:
Carbon Monoxide 1 to 2 pounds per day
Particulates 40 to 50 pounds per day
Sulfur Oxides 1 to 2 pounds per day
Hydrocarbons 90 to 100 pounds per day
Nitrogen Oxides 280 to 290 pounds per day
The additional traffic generated by the new residents of the potential
Ultimate Service Area community would add the following pollutant
emissions within the Ultimate Service Area:
Carbon Monoxide 600 to 2400 pounds per day
Particulates 6 to 25 pounds per day
Sulfur Oxides 3 to 8 pounds per day
Hydrocarbons 80 to 290 pounds per day
Nitrogen Oxides 40 to 280 pounds per day
Approximately one percent of these estimated emissions would be
attributed to the commercial development likely to occur within or
adjacent to the Ultimate Service Area community in order to serve the
potential new residents. The great variation in emissions from auto-
mobiles indicated above is due to the variety of automobile age, average
11-112
-------
speed, and development rates used to evaluate the air quality impacts
of the proposed project. For example, if the Ultimate Service Area
developed completely by 1980 and an even mix of 1970 - 1980 automobiles
traveled the area's streets and roads at an average speed of 20 mph,
almost five times as many emissions would be produced than if the
area developed fully by 1990 and all cars were 1980 models or newer, and
the average traffic speed is 25 mph. For impact analysis, the worst
case assumption (1980 full development, existing autos, slow speed)
was used.
The total emissions from potential Ultimate Service Area community's
air pollutant sources, including existing traffic and development would,
under the worst case, equal about:
Carbon Monoxide 3000 pounds per day
Particulates 110 pounds per day
Sulfur Oxides 25 pounds per day
Hydrocarbons 510 pounds per day
Nitrogen Oxides 750 pounds per day
This compares to existing worst case Ultimate Service Area related
emissions of about:
Carbon Monoxide 600 pounds per day
Particulates 30 pounds per day
Sulfur Oxides 15 pounds per day
Hydrocarbons 115 pounds per day
Nitrogen Oxides 180 pounds per day
Air qualtiy modeling indicates that the quantities of emissions
which could result from the proposed EPA action will not lead to
violations of the applicable carbon monoxide or sulfur dioxide standards
within the Ultimate Service Area. Even when fully developed, the
potential annual increase in CO emissions will be approximately thirty
percent of the quantity of increased CO emissions which would result in
violations of the annual CO standard. The potential annual increase
in sulfur dioxide emissions will be only two percent of the increment of
increased SO emissions which would cause violations of the SO-
standard in the Ultimate Service Area. Though the local air quality
will be reduced if the Ultimate Service Area were completely urbanized,
11-113
-------
the air quality will not be lowered to levels which present hazards
to human health or welfare. The Ultimate Service Area and Study Area
air resources appear to have the capability to accommodate the planned
increases in urban development.
Localized violations of the total suspended particulate standard
could occur in areas adjacent to construction sites. Frequent areawide
violations of the PSAPCA's annual TSP standard are not likely, however,
if the amount of residential construction in the Ultimate Service
Area is limited to less than 150 acres per year.
TSP modeling is difficult to perform in suburban areas where
construction activity, unpaved roads, and agricultural activity fre-
quently contribute variable quantities of particulates. TSP modeling
for the Ultimate Service Area utilized a variation of an emission calculation
procedure developed for EPA analysis of residential construction sites and
aggregate (gravel) storage piles. It was assumed that the period of
active construction would be six months per acre, including two months
of no activity, two months of moderate activity, and two months of
considerable activity involving trucks and earth-moving equipment
on the site. It was also assumed that watering would be applied twice
daily at a rate of .5 gallons per square yard on extremely dusty days
and when heavy construction activity occurs.
Additional assumptions included the assumption that the 1500 acres
of potential development would be developed subsequent to the provision
of sanitary sewers in a manner consistent with King County's land use
planning policies, regulations, and subdivision ordinances, and that
it would take fifty years for full development to occur. Therefore,
if new development and construction occurred at an even pace during the
fifty year period, thirty acres per year would be developed.
Based on these assumptions Ultimate Service Area's annual TSP emissions
were estimated to be slightly more than 1.5 times the increment of TSP
emissions which would cause localized violations of the PSAPCA's TSP
standard. However, when the surface moisture content of the Ultimate
Service Area's soils was also taken into consideration as an additional
variable in the TSP evaluation process, the estimated annual TSP
11-114
-------
to
emissions are computed to be slightly less than twenty-five percent ^*
^
of the permissable increment of additional TSP emissions. The . ">
consideration of soil moisture content in evaluating emissions from Q_
residential construction sites has not been officially approved by rf
EPA as an appropriate variable to consider when evaluating the air
pollution effects of construction activity. It is, however, un-
offi cially accepted for use in correcting the emissions data from
construction sites in temperate areas such as the Puget Sound Region.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ^
Uj
CO
Within the Study Area are areas that because of their inherent
properties will require special conservation and management considerations.
These areas encompassing flood plains, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas,
steep slopes and landslide hazard areas are discussed below.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
UJ
Flood Plains. The Cedar River is often subject to flooding; as
recently as this winter, this river flooded significantly. The 100-year
flood plain is shown in Figure 16. Flooding is to various degrees, a
natural process which can be beneficial for agricultural use of flood lands.
For many other uses, such as residential, the floods represent potential
hazards. Land management programs related to the Study Area consider
this potential hazard. King County plans generally designate the Cedar
River flood plain as Open Space in the Study Area.
Wetlands. There are several wetland areas in the Study area; they
are now generally zoned residential. These areas, shown in Figure 16,
represent a total cumulative area of about five percent of the Study Area.
Most of the wetlands are located outside of the Ultimate Service Area.
Wetlands on the plateaus do not receive as intensive use from migratory
waterfowl as do those in the valleys. Most of the plateau wetlands are
probably Types I, II, VII, and VIII:
Type I Wetlands: These are seasonally wet, but are dry during most
of the growing season. Much of this land is covered with grasses or is
farm and pasture land. Type I wetlands serve as resting and feeding
areas for waterfowl during migratory periods and during winter.
11-115
-------
Waterfowl (primarily pidgeons, mallards, green-winged teals and
pintails) use these temporary wetlands during migration periods and in
the winter. Type I wetlands are of importance in the Pacific Flyway.
Type II Wetlands: These are inland fresh meadows which are without
standing water during most of the growing season, but are waterlogged
within a few inches of the surface. Sedges (Carex spp.) are the indicator
plants. The Type II wetlands are not generally utilized by waterfowl.
Type VII Wetlands: The soils of this type are waterlogged to within
a few inches of the surface during the growing season. These areas are
covered with a grox^th of trees — red alder, willows and Western hemlock —
and can have up to a foot of standing water. They are used for nesting
and feeding by waterfowl and as nesting habitat for hawks, owls and
songbirds.
Type VIII Wetlands: These areas are all peat bogs. The acid conditions
of these bogs provide specialized habitat for plants such as Labrador tea,
swamp-laurel, sundew, and hardback. Relatively little waterfowl use occurs
but they can support large bird populations; species diversity is often limited,
Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifers are water bearing strata of rocks
or water saturated gravel or sand deposits of porous material. Water
enters aquifers at aquifer recharge areas, which are the points of
interchange between surface water and the aquifer. Aquifer discharge
areas are the points where the saturated aquifers are exposed as springs,
seeps, or surface water bodies. Aquifers are important in retaining
precipitation and delaying runoff. They also contribute to the flow of
rivers and streams during periods of low flow. Aquifers are the source
of ground water for domestic and industrial water supplies.
Within the Study Area,'aquifers discharge along the walls of the
Cedar River Valley and the saturated valley floor. Groundwater movement
through the Study Area is generally toward the Cedar River Valley from
May Creek and the northern portion of W.D. 108. Deeper aquifers, probably
including those which discharge at the surface of the Cedar River Valley
floor, are probably recharged in the middle and upper portions of the
Cedar River Watershed and upon the Big Soos Creek plateau, far to the
southeast of the Study Area. Localized recharge of shallow aquifers
11-116
-------
probably does occur in the gravel deposits within the Study Area.
Surface water and precipitation which reaches or falls on the Study Area
outwash gravel deposits flows down and through the terraces until imperm-
eable galcial deposits or compacted glacial lake deposits are reached.
The goundwater then flows along the surface of such impermeable layers,
until emerging as springs or seeps along the Cedar River Valley wall.
While ground water is not a major source of domestic water supplies
in the Study Area, it is still used by approximately five percent of
the residents. About ten to twelve homes still utilize private wells
in the Ultimate Service Area. Another dozen homes use groundwater for
domestic purposes in other portions of the Water District. Others
(about 45-50 residences) utilize springs and seeps along the north wall
of the Cedar River Valley as the source of their water supply.
Steep Slopes and Landslide Hazards. The steep slope areas along
the Cedar River Valley walls are generally considered to have severe
landslide hazards (Figure 26). Areas composed of Alderwood-Kitsap,
very steep, soils and their parent geologic material present the
greatest hazard (Figure 19) . These areas are composed of unconsolidated
material, primarily sand, silt, and clay underlain by layers of consol-
idated and unconsolidated glacial deposits of alternating permeability,
which often leads to slides or slumps if the friction between the layers
is reduced. The most common agent for reducing this friction is water.
Water acts by both increasing the weight of the soil material and by
lubricating soil particles. As water surrounds and flows among the soils
of low shear strength, bonding and cohesion may be reduced to the breaking
point and slippage can occur. Soil slippage is also accentuated in the
Puget Sound region by the construction of structures upon unstable slopes,
such as those slopes found in the Study Area. This increases the weight
of the slope and, when combined with increased runoff from development
on plateau areas, the bonding of the various geological units may be
decreased enough to generate slippage.
Potential landslide problems may not occur as long as the natural
environment is not disturbed. Under natural conditions, soils and
geologic units of King County's slide-prone steep slopes usually remain
11-117
-------
ULTIMATE SERVICE
AREA BOUNDARY
Figure 2B
SLOPE MAP
(In Percent)
SCALE IN FEET
IN
-------
stable under the protective cover of trees, shrubs, mosses and grasses.
Root masses of trees and shrubs further protect the slopes from slippage.
When vegetation is removed, landslides and slumps may result. Alterations
of hydrologic conditions probably play the major role in causing land-
slides within the glacial geologic limits of the Puget Sound region. It
is believed that the disruption of natural drainage systems by filling
ravines, streams, and wetlands and by channelization of increased quantities
of storm runoff to the top of steep slopes contributes to an increased
frequency of landslides along many King County valley walls.
Landslides have been particularly troublesome in the Cedar River
Valley and most, including the serious landslides of the winter of
1971-1972, were probably caused by changes in drainage patterns on the
bordering plateaus rather than actual slope disturbance. Landslides in
the Lake McDonald area during the winter of 1975-1976 similarly appear
to have resulted from hydrologic changes (increased peak runoff flows
causing ravines to enlarge and undercut slopes). No lives were lost in
these landslides; however, a number of homes were damaged. The average
damage to private structures per landslide event in'the central Puget
Sound Region has been estimated to equal about $45,500.
DIRECT IMPACTS
Flood Plains. The proposed project would cause no measureable increase
in floods in terms of direct impacts. As existing septic tank and drain
field sewage disposal systems are phased out of operation with connections
to the interceptor, the potential for precipitation to infiltrate the
ground would increase. Increased infiltration would actually reduce flooding
slightly. In terms of indirect impacts, the increased land development
associated with the proposed project would tend to increase flooding. This
impact is discussed under the heading Indirect Impacts. Where the inter-
ceptor crossed the flood plain, it will be buried beneath the shifting
river bed. The potential for damage or breakage will, therefore, be very
small.
11-119
-------
Wetlands. The wetland areas in the Study Area lie well outside of
any direct effect of the proposed project. Indirectly, devegetation,
increased siltation, and surface runoff associated with urbanization
could impact wetlands as is stated under Indirect Impacts.
Aquifer Recharge Areas. Although sewers and sewer tenches can
act as drains causing localized lowering of groundwater tables, the
proposed project would probably not have a significant effect on
groundwater quantities; seepage testing will lead to control of excessive
exfiltration and infiltration. Connecting sewers to the interceptor
rather than to septic tank and drain field systems will improve local
groundwater quality. Dewatering during construction will, of course,
cause localized lowering of groundwater tables in the proposed project's
construction corridor.
Steep Slopes and Landslide Hazards. According to the Water District's
engineers, construction of the proposed project should not significantly
increase the potential for landslides in the Study Area. Cautious
construction techniques and utilization of pipe which is somewhat flexible
where steep slopes might mean slight land shifts or settlement will
minimize the direct impact of the project. Proper design consideration of
steep slopes is essential; a broken line would result in release of
untreated sewage and a disruption in service to the Study Area.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
Floodplains. Increased runoff associated with urbanization will
have an impact on local drainageways although the impact on the Cedar River
will be very small. On small drainageways and creeks, the higher peak flows
increase scour and local flooding. Pollutants associated with urban areas
(such as oil, nutrients and sediment) can cause a decrease in aesthetic
values in a small creek. It should be noted that existing wetland areas
increase in their value as a runoff quantity and quality control as an area
is urbanized.
Wetlands. Wetlands are very fragile ecosystems with characteristic
flora and fauna influenced both by erosion/sedimentation and by inflow
11-120
-------
of potential pollutants. Pollutants contained in urban runoff could
change the ecosystems of the wetlands and diminish their quality and
utility to animals which rely on wetlands. Construction directly upon
wetlands is unlikely because existing King County planning policies
designate most of the Study Area wetlands as open space (see Figure 8).
Aquifer Recharge Areas. Development of the Ultimate Service Area
community would affect the aquifers of the Study Area in two ways. Because
all aquifers depend directly or indirectly upon the infiltration of sur-
face water, either from seepage from wetlands, lakes, and streams or the
percolation of precipitation for recharge, the potential community,
with its high percentage of roofs, roads, and other impervious surfaces
will eliminate many recharge opportunities. This will primarily
affect those shallow locally-recharged aquifers. The deeper aquifers would
not be affected by localized Study Area development.
The development of potential Ultimate Service Area community could
also affect the quality of the shallow aquifers. Even though groundwater
is usually relatively pure, salts, petroleum products, and other
chemicals often pass relatively intact into an aquifer even after
percolating through soil and transmitting geologic units. Increased
urban runoff, fertilizer used by Ultimate Service Area residents, and even
leaks or cracks in sanitary sewers may adversely affect the quality of
the Study Area's shallow aquifers. Of course, the continued use of
improperly sited or maintained septic tanks in the Study Area (i.e.
the no project alternative) could allow sewage effluent to enter the
ground water without adequate filtration and bacterial contamination
could result.
Steep Slopes and Landslide Hazards. King County planning policies
discourage the use of the Alderwood-Kitsap, very steep, soils for non-
open space uses and encourage the low density use of the other steeply
sloping portions of the Study Area. It is still possible that without
specific controls, development of the potential Ultimate Service Area
community would increase the frequency of landslides along the Cedar
River Valley walls.
The Federal government has recognized the landslide problem in
i.iii," County by implementing an emergency program under the provisions of
11-121
-------
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (which also applies to land-
slide-prone areas) in October 1972. This program allows owners of
existing structures within slide hazard zones to apply for subsidized
Federal insurance up to a designated amount. In this manner victims
of slides will be reimbursed for property loss and damage.
Similarly, because the District must obtain Federal flood
insurance for the Orton Road Interceptor (a standard condition of
EPA grants), it would probably be reimbursed for any damage to the
interceptor caused by landslides in that portion of its route which
passes through landslide hazard zones. Though there is little
probability of any damage to the proposed project occurring, there have
been occasions where sewers in King County have been damaged by soil
movements when installed in similar soils. Three hundred feet of
METRO sewer line, for example, were damaged by a soil slide in
Carkeek Park in 1970. It cost METRO about $150,000 to install a new
line and took three days to resume service to the affected area.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts must be evaluated when an agency is taking a
number of minor, environmentally insignificant actions that are similar
in execution and purpose during a limited time span and in the same
general geographic area. As applied to the project, cumulative impacts
are not a factor. Within the project, a cumulative effect due to required
sewer connections could occur.
11-122
-------
W.D. 90 requires that dwellings (and other sources of sewage)
connect to sewers if the sewer is within 300 feet of the dwelling.
Approximately 90 homes would be required to connect to the Orton
Road Interceptor if this ordinance is entered. If "stub" sewer lines
are installed to facilitate connections, the dwellings within 300 feet
of the stub line would in turn be required to connect. If "stub" lines
are used again, a new set of dwellings could be within 300 feet of a
sewer, and so on. Such a situation could produce a cumulative effect
on land use development. It could encourgae higher densities on "stub
routes" through the economic forces of utility assessments. Where con-
nections from existing dwellings used only single-facility connection
lines, and no "stub" lines, this cumulative effect would not occur.
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Wherever mitigative measures were found to be necessary and
feasible, they were presented at the end of specific sections which
discussed their need. They will therefore not be repeated here.
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS "*
Hi
This section describes those adverse impacts resulting from the
proposed action which cannot be mitigated. Also discussed are potential
adverse indirect impacts.
ADVERSE DIRECT IMPACTS O
Adverse primary impacts include those of short term, occurring
during construction, and long term, related to construction and operation
of the interceptor and related facilities.
11-123
-------
Short Term Impacts During Construction. Construction activity will
result in some noise, dust and erosion, with temporary lowering of air
and water quality and temporary disruption of traffic along the roads.
Unavoidable adverse impacts on terrestrial communities within the
construction corridor include the removal of vegetation, disturbance of
soils, and temporary loss of habitat.
ADVERSE INDIRECT IMPACTS
Adverse indirect impacts essentially are those associated with
growth and development permitted by local land use plans. These impacts
are discussed in the context that a lack of sewerage facilities can be
one of many constraints to growth and the construction of the proposed
interceptor will reduce that particular constraint. However, as previ-
ously noted, the key factor in avoiding severe environmental degradation
as a result of land development is developing sound local land use
planning programs and controls.
Water Quality Impacts. As urbanization of the Orton Road Ultimate
Service Area continues, surface water quality can be expected to decrease,
stream flows probably will decrease during dry weather and increase
during wet weather, and the potential for flooding will increase. Also,
urbanization will reduce the amount of pervious surface, available for
recharge of groundwaters. Implementation of certain mitigative measures
will depend on actions by local authorities, as many mitigation techniques
cannot be pinpointed until later in the development process.
Land Use Impacts. Installation of the Orton Road Interceptor could
lead to the conversion of many areas of vacant or relatively unde-
veloped land to commercial and residential uses. The availability of sewer
service will increase the capacity of the area to accept development and
could permit it sooner than otherwise might occur. However, that portion
of the entire area which feasibly could be served initially would be
relatively small. Service to the remainder of the area would require the
construction of additional extensions to the system.
As noted previously, decisions as to whether development occurs, and
11-124
-------
Sj
C/j
•
the areas in which it takes place, are the province of local government.
The assurance that sewer service and other utilities and services would
be available could be of assistance to local government in achieving
more orderly development than might otherwise take place. I
Socioeconomic Impacts. Increased urbanization will result in
increased costs for the expansion and improvement of community facili-
ties and services necessary to accommodate growth and development. In
developing areas, the availability of sewer service could eliminate the
duplication of cost involved if septic tanks and drain fields were
installed initially only to be followed a few years later by a sewer
system.
O
OPTIONS FORECLOSED, USES CURTAILED, AND RESOURCES COMMITTED
The proposed action will involve the commitment of renewable
and nonrenewable resources. Some of these resources will be affected
in and along the proposed route. During construction, some existing
soil and plant communities inside the pipeline corridor will be
destroyed or disturbed. The corridor itself covers approximately «^
2.1 miles and involves the permanent commitment of about 2.5 acres lii
for use as right-of-way. This action is not, however, entirely f/\
irreversible because after construction is completed the corridor could
be replanted with native vegetation or even utilized for agricultural
purposes. Road crossings will require resurfacing.
A permanent commitment of about $700,000 will be required of W.D. 90, the
Issaquah School District, the State of Washington and the EPA if the
project is constructed. The permanent commitment- of about 17 1/2 ^~
person-years of labor, 36,000 gallons of fuel, iron, steel, cement
aggregate and other resources would be required for construction.
The interceptor will probably commit future generations to specific
actions and resource uses in managing water quality in the Orton Road
Study Area. The establishment of regional wastewater collection and
treatment systems, of which the proposed action is a part, could result
in a commitment of resources that is essentially irreversible.
11-125
-------
Alternative wastewater collection and treatment systems serving
the sewerage area could be precluded by the presence of the Orton Road
Interceptor. Though technology may develop new wastewater collection
and treatment systems, new facilities within the sewerage area will
probably continue to be built around the proposed interceptor facility
and the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant.
The present character of much of the Ultimate Service Area is
likely to be altered as a consequence of its urban development. As new
developments begin to locate in the Orton Road Sewerage Area,
increased amounts of land will be permanently committed to residential
and other urban uses.
Without the Orton Road Interceptor the area would probably
develop on a piecemeal basis. More septic tanks and violations will
lead to groundwater, septic tank, and surface water problems. This
disorganized development and associated sewerage problems would prolif-
erate and eventually force acceptance by the voters of a sewerage
system. Provision of a sewerage facility now would preclude water quality
problems, save increased construction costs (including the School
District's expensive dependence upon interim hauling of sewage), and
permit a more orderly and controlled growth pattern.
11-126
-------
ALTERNATIVE
L "
*.'-•' -»
.
-
/ 9HH
-------
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to review alternatives to the
proposed project which achieve all or a portion of the project's
objectives. The objectives of the project are to provide sanitary
sewer service to Liberty High School and, possibly, to Maywood Junior f\
High and Briarwood Elementary School, and to anticipated residential
developments in the Ultimate Service Area. Alternatives related to
these objectives are identified and their feasibility is evaluated in
this chapter. Alternatives are discussed even though they may not be
qualified for funding within the grant application under consideration.
The environmental impacts of feasible alternatives are discussed
briefly.
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
The potential alternatives related to the Orton Road Interceptor
are: 1) no funding by EPA; 2) a postponement of final decision regarding
funding; 3) a group of solutions termed partial solutions for serving
only the public schools; 4) location alternatives; and 5) funding of the
proposed action. These alternatives represent the major options;
there are several specific courses of action within these alternatives.
Only those courses of action (and alternatives) which are feasible are li •
•^^^
examined in the next section; this section discusses the alternatives
to the proposed action, their feasibility and economic impact.
NO EPA FUNDING, ALTERNATIVE 1
One alternative which must be considered is that EPA could make a
determination not to fund the Orton Road Interceptor project. Within
III-l
-------
this alternative, several courses of action exist which are discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Obtain Alternative Funding for the Project. Obtaining alternative
funding is a potential alternative. Funding could be generated locally
through various routes available to the School District and Water Dis-
trict 90. The possibilities (and some of the constraints and complexi-
ties) of this course of action are illustrated by past events described
in the detailed project history.
The construction and operation of the Orton Road Interceptor is
technically feasible. Administrative feasibility, at least for local
funding avenues, rests largely with the voters in the service area.
Even though previous bond issues related to local funding have been
defeated, alternative funding will be considered feasible for purposes
of the environmental analysis in this chapter.
Economic impacts on the local area may change if local funding
support were required. Because the project would be physically the
same as that analyzed in this impact statement, the environmental
impacts would remain substantially as presented in Chapter II. Impacts
of other physical alternatives, should they be funded, are discussed
under the titles Alternative 3 and Alternative 4.
Attempt to Obtain EPA Funding for Alternative Projects. Alterna-
tive projects to serve only Liberty High and adjacent schools are poten-
tial alternatives to be considered. These alternatives are termed
partial solutions; their identification and potential for EPA funding
are discussed under the Alternative 3 title.
Enforce Proper Use of On-Site Systems. Currently, septic tank and
drain field systems are utilized in the service area for sewage disposal.
These systems can provide satisfactory service for residential and other
land uses where soil, geology, groundwater and surface water conditions
are acceptable for such systems. Enforcing proper design, construction,
maintenance and, therefore, land use densities where these systems are
to be used would provide acceptable sewage handling facilities for the
area in general. It is possible, however, that some failing septic tank
systems are due to conditions that cannot be practically remedied.
An individual facility serving Liberty High and, possibly the two
III-2
-------
other nearby schools would require special design and evaluation.
Within the objectives addressed in this impact statement, systems serving
only the schools are considered partial solutions. These solutions are
discussed as Alternative 3.
Summary of No EPA Funding Alternative. Because use of holding tanks
and transport of sewage to METRO'S Renton sewage treatment plant (as well
as other partial solutions) for Liberty High School are feasible, and
because on-site septic tank and drain field systems are currently the
approved sewage-treatment method, the no funding alternative is consid-
ered feasible. The use of on-site systems is subject to Health Depart-
ment regulations and is, therefore, related to soil, geology, ground-
water, surface waters and existing wells and the location of other on-
site systems. The proper use of these systems will have an impact on
existing land use plans for the area, which might need modifications
reflecting the lower density developments which would be permitted.
Local financing may be required for the partial solution selected
to serve Liberty High School. Additional discussion of funding and of
other aspects of the partial solutions is included under Alternative 3.
POSTPONE DECISION ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, ALTERNATIVE 2
Postponing the decision on project implementation would provide time
for residents in the service area and agency officials to pursue at least
two courses of action. First, the partial solutions which are feasible
could be developed and their funding pursued. Second, land use plans
could be re-evaluated.
Postponing action would have an economic impact in that costs for
construction and services escalate. Also, with the opening of Liberty
High School, the interim holding tank and hauling operation would have
to be continued. (The holding tank will be required as an interim
measure even if the Orton Road Interceptor is constructed.) Hauling is
estimated to cost about $2,750 per month.
Approved land use plans for the service area show increased
residential development over that which exists now. Providing acceptable
III-3
-------
sewage treatment will undoubtedly require systems other than the septic
tank and drain field systems now in use within the service area. If
funding is used to provide sewerage systems for the service area, the
system provided must effectively serve its service area. Systems serving
only the schools, termed partial solutions in this impact statement,
would not effectively serve the area as it is developing, and could not
be considered by EPA as being cost-effective in view of current plans.
Revising current land use plans so that special sewage handling systems
were not required would reduce the present need to provide such special
systems under EPA funding. A "partial solution," depending on its
specific characteristics, might then become eligible for EPA funding.
A new grant application and processing sequence would have to be initi-
ated, presenting the details of the proposed system.
UNDERTAKE A PARTIAL SOLUTION, ALTERNATIVE 3
Partial solutions would provide sewage handling facilities only
for Liberty High and, possibly, adjacent schools. Partial solutions
would not provide service to existing and planned residential develop-
ments. Such developments would require separate systems, perhaps using
septic tanks and drain fields as previously described or using commun-
ity facilities requiring special financing.
Partial solutions are: 1) an interceptor to serve only the schools;
2) on-site storage and transport by truck to a treatment plant; 3) on-
site or near-site treatment using one of several systems.
Under current land use plans for the area, many partial solutions
for the high school would serve areas where existing and planned residen-
tial developments would be included in the system's service area. A
partial solution which did not provide acceptable service to meet the
needs of its entire service area would not be considered to be an
effective solution for the service area. A project which was not cost-
effective for meeting planned needs of the entire service area would not
qualify for EPA funding.
Interceptor for School(s) Only. An interceptor for serving Liberty
High and possibly the adjacent schools is a feasible alternative, from a
III-4
-------
technical standpoint. Reductions in pipe sizes would be possible,
reducing materials required and project costs. A preliminary design has
not been prepared for this partial solution but an approximate savings of
$60,000 could result from the use of a 10" diameter interceptor (this
facility has not been formally sized).
The direct environmental impacts of this partial solution would be
nearly identical to the direct impacts of the Orton Road Interceptor
proposed. Reductions in materials used and reductions in equipment
operation would result from use of the smaller pipe size.
On-Site Storage and Transport by Truck. Liberty High School is
developing this system to handle sewage as an interim measure. It is
physically feasible to continue this method of sewage handling indefi-
nitely. The cost to continue the operation is estimated to be about
$7,000 per month.
The annual cost for storing and hauling would be about $84,000.
This figure is nearly equal to the annual cost of the Orton Road Inter-
ceptor (considering capital recovery, depreciation, operation and
maintenance) which is about $81,800.
On-Site or Near-Site Treatment. There are several on-site systems
which are potential alternatives. The potential alternatives can be
grouped into the following categories:
1. Non-discharging Units.
a. Holding Tanks.
b. Recycle Systems.
2. Discharge Treatment Units.
a. Septic Tank and Drain Field Systems.
b. Mechanical Oxidation Systems.
c. Lagoon Systems.
d. Chlorination and Filtration Systems.
e. Other Physical-Chemical Systems.
3. Disposal Systems.
a. Mounded Disposal Beds.
b. Evapotranspiration Beds.
III-5
-------
c. Surface Spreading.
d. Discharge to Surface Waters.
The use of holding tanks has been discussed. This alternative is
a feasible one and will be used by Liberty High School, at least on an
interim basis.
A physical-chemical recycling system has been tested for a total of
approximately seven months at two highway rest areas in Utah. The system
described used screening, sedimentation, and the Pepcon electrolytic
conversion process to reduce organics, suspended solids, and pathogens.
The initial carrier fluid used was 1,200 gallons of water containing two
percent sodium chloride. Solids are incinerated in an oil-fired combus-
tion chamber, and ash is hauled away. Residual chlorine in the unit was
very high over the last six weeks of the first test, and no coliform or
virus were detected in the recirculating flush fluid. Power consumption
was 80 kwh per 1,000 gallons treated. Labor required for the treatment
process machinery was about 30 minutes per day. The average daily
electrical bill amounted to about five dollars per day for use by 300
to 800 persons per day. Another prototype nonaqueous treatment system
was tested at the Mount Rushmore National Monument in South Dakota for
five months during the summer of 1972. A recirculated mineral oil was
used as the collection and transport medium in the demonstration, which
achieved a waste volume reduction of 98 percent in comparison with conven-
tional water carriage systems. There was a small amount of effluent from
this system which required final treatment and disposal. Bacterial
populations in the mineral oil flush medium were effectively controlled
with a commercial biocide, but odors from the system presented an esthe-
tic problem. System redesign was judged necessary to prevent organic
accumulations before the system can be suitable for high-use. The
recycle systems could be feasible. Special design is required and spe-
cial approvals by various health departments must be obtained. Cost
estimates would require preliminary design and review with appropriate
agencies.
Conventional septic tank and drain field systems require acceptable
soil, geology, groundwater and surface water conditions. Liberty High
III-6
-------
School and adjacent schools are located in an area which is classified
as having a severe limitation on use of septic tank and drain field sys-
tems. The "Soil Limitations for Septic Tank Use" figure (on page 11-80)
shows that the nearest land with slight limitations for septic tank and
drain field systems would require a sewer line of at least 1,200 feet,
perhaps longer depending on land availability. Again special design and
special approvals from health departments and other agencies would be
required to implement this alternative. Based on very preliminary infor-
mation, this alternative appears technically feasible, providing regula-
tory agency approvals could be obtained.
Mechanical oxidation systems treat wastewater in much the same way
as large municipal treatment plants. A variety of units are available,
all of which fall into one of three sub-categories. The common charac-
teristic of all systems in the category, however, is that each brings
sewage in contact with air by some mechanical means to permit aerobic
decomposition by oxygen-dependent (aerobic) organisms. For this reason
these systems are quite often called aerobic units. Three basic mechani-
cal oxidations systems are presently on the market in the small scale
waste treatment field. These are extended areation, biological or
trickling filtration, and rotating biological disks. For the basin
containing the Study Area (the Lake Washington Basin), current policies
would discourage use of a treatment plant at Liberty High School. In
addition, discharge from the plant must not be to any surface waters in
the basin. Because of regulatory requirements, this alternative is not
considered feasible.
Waste treatment lagoons, also known as stabilization ponds, are
artificially created bodies of water constructed to retain wastewater
flows until natural biological processes render them unobjectionable.
The theoretical minimum retention time is that which allows stabilization
of organic matter and die-away of pathogenic organisms. Lagoons are,
in effect, a body of raw sewage on the ground surface. Lack of reli-
ability in maintaining acceptable health and aesthetic (odor) conditions
and the remaining discharge problems make this type of treatment system
appear infeasible for the high school.
III-7
-------
Chlorination and filtration are two physical-chemical systems which
perform different functions. Neither is capable of performing indepen-
dently as a treatment unit, but must be used together with other treat-
ment systems to produce an effluent suitable for disposal. There may
be no practical purpose to the use of chlorination or filtration for
treatment if the effluent is discharged to a subsurface disposal system;
these systems are not feasible for the situation under consideration.
Four groups of physical-chemical processes developed for small
scale wastewater sources in the aerospace and ocean exploration programs
include change of phase processes, membrane processes, electrolytic
processes, and miscellaneous processes. In addition, systems involving
a combination of coagulation, absorption, clarification, and filtration
have been studied for treatment of wastewaters. Physical-chemical
systems in this category are evaluated as presently unacceptable due to
lack of proof of reliability and adequate life expectancy of the multiple,
complex components required, and due to the highly technical nature of
operation and maintenance.
Mounded disposal beds consist of specially selected soil placed on
top of the original ground surface. The use of fill in this configura-
tion is solely for the purpose of achieving complete subsurface disposal
in areas where the native subsurface soils are not suitable by themselves
for accepting treated sewage. Operationally, treated wastewater is
discharged to the mound interior, percolates through the interior fill,
and eventually infiltrates into the original top-soil. Existing
Washington State Board of Health regulations for on-site sewage disposal
systems require that fill be allowed to stabilize such that site condi-
tions and soil tests show the site to be satisfactory to allow full
compliance with provisions of the regulations. Generally, the use of
fill for absorption trench placement is not allowed. Favorable sub-
surface conditions must still exist and an area must be reserved for
replacement beds. This system is considered infeasible for Liberty High
School because of existing soil conditions.
Evapotranspiration (ET) is the name given to the net combined effect
of evaporation of water from soil and transpiration by plants.
III-E
-------
Transpiration is the process of water transfer from the plant root zone
to the atmosphere. ET actually takes place to a greater or lesser extent
in all subsurface disposal systems, with conventional disposal fields
benefiting relatively little and mound systems perhaps somewhat more.
Neither conventional disposal fields or mound systems, however, rely on
ET for proper operation. The systems discussed here are those which by
design rely on evapotranspiration for disposal of wastewater, with or
without soil infiltration. The performance, and therefore design, of
evapotranspiration beds obviously depends on the season and weather
conditions. This system must be regarded as being in the development
stage. Design criteria are not yet well defined and certain long-term
operational aspects have yet to be resolved. This system is considered
infeasible at this time.
Surface spreading is not permitted by Washington State Board of
Health regulations. The regulations (WAG 248-96-050, paragraph 1) state
that "Effluent from any on-site sewage disposal system shall not be
discharged to surface water or upon the surface of the ground." This
alternative is not feasible.
Discharge to surface waters is, as stated in the preceding para-
graph, not allowed and is therefore not feasible.
ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS, ALTERNATIVE 4
Three different alternative locations are considered within this
alternative. The first two involve installation of interceptors to
different collection/treatment systems. The first alternative involves
connection to the Issaquah system; the second, to the Renton system.
The third alternative is an alternative route for the proposed project
called the Jones Road Alternative.
Issaquah and Renton Connections. The distance from Liberty High
School to the Renton City Limits is about three miles; to the Issaquah
City Limits, over three miles. Using an average cost per foot from the
Orton Road Interceptor cost estimate of $63, the cost for a three mile
line would be about $1,000,000. An interceptor to Issaquah would require
III-9
-------
lift stations to cross drainage basin boundaries, adding to both capital
and operating costs. An interceptor to Renton would require increased
pipe sizes within Renton to accept the increased volumes, again adding
to costs. Neither the Issaquah or Renton Alternatives are considered
economically feasible for accomplishing the objectives of the proposed
project .
Jones Road Alternative. The location of the Jones Road Alternative
is shown in Figure 27. The Jones Road route was evaluated by the
consulting engineering firm which did the preliminary engineering on
the Orton Road Project. The firm found that the Jones Road Alternative
is not as cost-effective as the Orton Road route (that is, the ratio
of the service provided by the Jones Road route to its cost is less than
the ratio for the Orton Road route). In addition, the engineer for
W.D. 90 has stated that the route was in the original Comprehensive Plan
but was not recommended for construction because additional easements
would be required and because it was felt environmental damages would
be greater because of steep slopes. Given the objectives of the project,
III the Orton Road route is more cost-effective than the Jones Road route.
The Jones Road route, as an alternative location, will therefore not
be considered further.
< ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
From the previous section of this chapter, the following alterna-
tives are feasible:
1. No EPA funding.
2. Postpone decision on project implementation.
3. Undertake a partial solution.
LT 4. Fund the proposed project.
The environmental impacts of the feasible courses of action within
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are discussed in this section. The previous
chapter of this EIS discusses the impacts of the proposed project in de-
tail.
111-10
-------
INITIAL
SERVICE AREA
PLANNED
SERVICE AR
xisting
EDAR RIVER
INTERCEPTOR
EDAR RIVER
INTERCEPTOR/
I PROPOSED MADSEN
/ < ^ CREEK INTERCEPTOR
__
VALLEY HIGHWAY
SCALE IN FEET
JONES ROAD ALTERNATIVE
Figure 27
-------
Alternative 1, No EPA Funding. Within this alternative, two
courses of action are feasible. One is to obtain funding from other
sources. The other currently feasible course of action is to enforce
proper use of on-site systems.
Obtaining funding from other sources for the same (Orton Road
Interceptor) project would result in the same environmental impacts
detailed in Chapter II. Delays resulting from alternative financing
procedures would cause project costs to escalate and require hauling
of sewage from Liberty High School for a longer length of time.
Obtaining funding from other sources for other projects discussed
as partial solutions in this impact statement would result in the
same environmental impacts as discussed under Partial Solutions.
Enforcing proper use of on-site systems throughout the service
area would have two important results. First, the environmental condi-
tions in the service area are such that the residential land use
densities proposed in current planning documents would probably have
to be reduced, or at least could not be achieved. Second, providing ser-
vice to Liberty High School would require use of a partial solution.
Environmental impacts of partial solutions are described under Alterna-
tive 3. Environmental impacts resulting from proper use of on-site
systems are discussed under the main heading "NO SEWERS IN THE SERVICE
AREA" on page 111-15.
Alternative 2, Postpone Decision on Project Implementation.
Postponing a decision on the project would allow at least two courses
of action to be pursued. First, feasible partial solutions for the
high school could be developed. Second, land use plans could be
re-evaluated. (See the sub-section entitled "Population Density and
Land Use Impacts - Mitigative Measures" in this EIS.) The environ-
mental impacts associated with partial solutions are discussed under
Alternative 3, following.
Re-evaluation of land use plans, implicit in achieving proper use
of on-site systems for homes in the service area, might allow EPA
funding of alternatives termed partial solutions. Such funding would
III-12
-------
depend on the revised land use plans and on the particular partial
solution selected. The impacts on land use planning based on capabil-
ities of on-site systems to serve residences are presented under the
main heading "NO SEWERS IN THE SERVICE AREA."
Alternative 3, Undertake a Partial Solution. Partial solutions
provide sewer service to Liberty High School and, perhaps, adjacent
junior high and elementary schools. Providing a collection system for
the residential areas through funding sources other than the Environ-
mental Protection Agency would result in impacts similar to those
described in Chapter II. More precise predictions would require addi-
tional knowledge of the proposed systems and decision-making agencies
would be required to develop appropriate environmental statements.
Partial solutions determined to be technically feasible are:
1) an interceptor to serve only the school(s); 2) on-site storage at
Liberty High and hauling by truck to the Metro Renton sewage treatment
plant; 3) a special septic tank and drain field system near the school
but within acceptable soil; and 4) recycle systems.
All partial solutions serving only the high school would have
environmental impacts as described under the heading "NO SEWERS IN THE
SERVICE AREA." In addition, environmental impacts would result from
each of the four feasible partial solutions. These impacts are discussed
under the following four main headings.
INTERCEPTOR SERVING ONLY THE SCHOOL
An interceptor, following the same route as the proposed interceptor,
to serve only Liberty High School and, possibly, adjacent schools is a
technically feasible alternative. A "schools only" interceptor would
require smaller diameter pipe saving about $200,000, plus some installation
costs and correspondingly less materials and energy. Other direct environ-
mental impacts would be nearly identical to those described in Chapter II.
Indirect impacts would be nearly identical to the impacts described under
the heading "NO SEWERS IN THE SERVICE AREA" for two reasons. One reason
is that use of the high school is not contingent on this alternative.
111-13
-------
The other reason is that a smaller diameter interceptor would not have
capacity to provide service for residential developments. The reduced-
diameter system would probably not qualify for funding by EPA with land
use in the service area as currently planned, since it would not repre-
sent a cost-effective design to serve projected growth, and would be
inconsistent with locally adopted land use plans, policies and controls.
ON-SITE STORAGE AT LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL
On-site storage, in holding tanks, and transport to METRO'S Renton
Sewage Treatment Plant by truck is a feasible alternative. Interim use
of this system is now required with any alternative including "no pro-
ject." The alternative under consideration here is, therefore, continued
use of the "storage-and-haul" alternative. The direct impacts of con-
tinued hauling would result from the indefinite use of the holding tanks
and hauling trucks. Direct impacts would be the noise, energy use,
exhaust fumes and physical presence of the tank trucks hauling the sewage.
Minor spills will probably occur at the holding tanks during sewage
transfer requiring immediate mitigative measures.
Cost estimates and sewage quantity estimates vary. A reasonable
cost estimate based on information available at this time would be
$7,000 per month for continued hauling. Using this figure and cost
increases of 8 percent per year, the cost of this alternative would be
$492,795 over the first five years and $3,844,000 over the twenty-year
evaluation period used for the Orton Road Interceptor proposal. The
Issaquah School District is not a qualified grant applicant under EPA
construction grant regulations, even if this alternative were financially
feasible.
SPECIAL SEPTIC TANK AND DRAIN FIELD
The use of a septic tank and drain field system for the school(s)
would require special approvals and the system would require proper
design and siting. Proper design and siting would require that the
drain field be located in acceptable soils. The soils in the high
TTT-14
-------
school site are shown as having severe limitations for septic tank
drain fields. An area shown as having none-to-slight limitations for
drain fields exists beginning about 1,200 feet south of the high
school. Although no preliminary design has been developed, it appears
that this alternative would consist of a, sewer line to a site in
suitable soil and a special septic tank and drain field.
Based on this probable system, the direct environmental impacts
would result from temporary construction activities, from use of mater-
ials installed and from energy utilized for construction. The septic
tank would require periodic pumping, the site of the drain field could
not be used for structures or parking and would be subject to other
use restrictions. Indirect impacts would include the situation created
wherein the school district would probably not wish to help finance a
sewer system to serve the general area. The situation where no sewers
would exist in the general area is descrived in Chapter II and in this
chapter
RECYCLE SYSTEM FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL
Recycle systems, as indicated in the general discussion, are in a
developmental stage. Full-scale prototypes are being tested and it may
now be possible to develop a special system for the high school. Hauling
of final waste products would be required with these systems and inciner-
ation, if part of the treatment process, would add some products of
combustion to the atmosphere. A specific preliminary feasibility and
design study would be required at this stage to determine costs and
direct impacts. Indirect impacts would be very similar to those for the
special septic tank and drain field system just described.
NO SEWERS IN THE SERVICE AREA
Several of the feasible alternatives result in a situation where no
sewers would exist in the service area. Septic tank and drain field
systems would continue to be the sewage handling method. To provide
111-15
-------
proper service, these systems require certain environmental conditions
related to: the soils and their percolation rates; the depth to season-
ally high ground water; general topography and drainage characteristics
of the site; distance of the proposed system to water supplies, surface
water, banks or cuts, property boundaries, and structures; and other
factors. The Soil Conservation Service rates soils in terms of their
limitations for septic tank filter fields. Three groupings are used:
slight, moderate, and severe. Figure 20 shows that in much of the
service area soils present a severe hazard for filter fields. The
"severe" category represents a limitation which, in many cases, can be
overcome with proper consideration. Methods which can be used to
overcome limitations for filter fields depend on specific situations
but, in general, include:
1. Use of cover material (maximum depth: 18 inches).
2. Use of fill material (requires time to stabilize, special
approval and compliance to all other conditions).
3. Surface water and/or groundwater diversion.
4. Site re-grading and/or alternative site planning.
5. Increased lot size and/or, in the case of subdivisions,
alternate lot arrangements.
Soil limitations on filter fields must be seriously considered.
Figure 18 shows reported septic tank failures and related problems.
Lot size is, therefore, an important factor to analyze in general land
use planning and analysis. Factors that must be considered when deter-
mining minimum lot size include the following:
(a) Soil type and depth.
(b) Area drainage, lot drainage.
(c) Protection of surface and groundwaters.
(d) Setbacks from property lines, water supplies, etc.
(e) Source of domestic water.
(f) Topography, geology and ground cover.
(g) Climatic conditions.
(h) Availability of public sewers.
(i) Activity or land use, present and anticipated.
(j) Growth patterns.
(k) Individual and accumulated gross effects on water quality.
(1) Reserve areas for additional subsurface disposal fields.
(m) Anticipated sewage volume.
111-16
-------
Table 12 shows one method (three methods are available) for
determining minimum lot size as specified by the Washington State
Board of Health.
Based on the considerations just listed and other variables
(existing land ownership, planning policies, land use plans and zoning),
the 50-year design period development potential without sewers has been
projected. This development potential is shown in Figure 13. This
figure represents land use development for the "no project" alternative.
The development of this map is explained further in Appendix 2. The
land development potential without sewers can be compared to Figure 10
which shows existing land use. It can be seen that many areas "fill in"
with new development (each small square represents nearly one acre).
The areas shown with diagonal cross-hatching on Figure 13 show areas
which would receive new development (on septic tanks) during the 20-
year planning period. Many areas would remain as vacant areas and open
space. It should be noted that the existing new Liberty High School
requires use of one of the partial solution alternatives discussed as
Alternative 3 if no sewers are brought into the Ultimate Service Area.
111-17
-------
WATER SUPPLY
Public
1* acre
12,500
sq. ft.
TABLE 12
MINIMUM LOT SIZES
SOIL TYPE
3 4
15,000
sq. ft.
18,000
sq. ft.
20,000
sq. ft.
M
H
M
H
00
Individual
Each Lot
Soil Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
2* acres
Drainage
Excessive
Good
Fair
Poor
Marginal
Unacceptable
1 acre 1 acre
Percolation Rate
Less than 1 minute/
inch
1-4 minutes /inch
5-9 minutes /inch
10-19 minutes /inch
20-29 minutes /inch
Over 30 minutes/inch
1 acre
2 acres
General Soil Classification
Gravel, coarse sand, cobbles
Sandy soil, some loam, some gravel
Finer sand and/or silt, few gravels
Mostly silt or clay, some sand and shot clay
Silt or clay
Gumbo, rock, hardpan, clay pan
* Lot sizes for soil type 1 can be reduced by the health officer if engineering justification can be
provided that shows significant adverse effects on ground water quality will not occur;
however, in no case shall the reduced size be less than that for soil type 2.
-------
Ct)
RESPONSE!
•-r...
O TUtE DRAFT E.I.S
-------
VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIS
This section contains letters of comments from individuals and
groups to the Orton Rd. Interceptor draft EIS. Those letters which
commented directly upon the draft EIS have been reproduced in this
document. Wherever a response is required of EPA to the letter, a
response page follows that letter.
The following table is a listing of the comment letters received
during the 45-day review period, the page in this chapter on which they
can be found, and a general category listing of their contents. Comment
categories are shown in an attempt to indicate those aspects of the
proposed action about which the commentors were most interested and
concerned. This may serve to direct the interested reader to those
sections of the document which he may wish to restudy.
On June 9, 1976, at Briarwood Elementary School, EPA held a public
hearing on the Orton Rd. Interceptor draft EIS. The hearing was
attended by approximately 60 people of which 2 read testimony into the
official record. A question and answer session, after the presentation
of testimony, was also a part of the hearing and is included in the
hearing record. Because of the length of the official hearing record
and the costs involved, we have not reproduced the document for the
final EIS. Letters received at the public hearing have been included
into the hearing record. A summary of the testimony follows. The
Public Hearing Record is available for public scrutiny at the Renton
Public Library, the office of Water District No. 90 and EPA's Region X
Office, Seattle, Washington.
The Environmental Protection Agency Region X wishes to express
its appreciation to all commenting agencies, groups and individuals
for the time and effort spent in reviewing the draft EIS. All comments
were presented to the Regional Administrator and were considered by
him in EPA's decision making process.
IV-1
-------
t
COMMENTS RECEIVED.
Date
Rec'd
5/20
6/24-
6/14
6/30
6/2
6/9
5/26
7/1
6/2
6/28
7/7
6/18
6/29
6/24
6/22
. 6/28,
• 5/27
From
'USDA - Soi-1 Conservation Service
U.S. Dept. of Interior
Corps of Engineers
Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Parks & Recreation Commission
Highway Commission
Dept. of Ecology
Dept. of Fisheries
Dept. of Game
King Co. Dept. of Planning and
.Community Development
City of Renton
Issaquah School District
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
' Aqency
Versie Vaupel
Joseph F. Korbecki
Leon Harris
.EIS
PAGE
NO.
rv-5
IV-6
IV-9
IV-11
IV-14
IV-16
IV-19
IV-20
IV-21
IV-23
IV-26
IV-28
IV-32
IV-35 .
IV-37
IV-43
IV-48
POP. PROJECTION-GROUT.
X
x
X
X
EXCESS CAPACITY
•.
X
X
CD
•z.
1 — 4
2:
<
_l
0-
LU
CO
rD
Q.
z:
-
h-
t— i
_i
-
i—
i— t
_i
c£
ID
c-
CtL
t— i
-
, <->
h-^H
_1
O
Q-
X
CULTURAL
X
X
X
•
RECREATIONAL USE
X .
X
UJ
CO
»— I
o
•z.
•x
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
X
X
,
-------
COMMENTS RECEIVED.
Date
Rec'd
6/21
6/15 •
6/28
! 6/22
6/29
6/25
6/28
7/2
6/15
'6/3
5/17
6/23
From
Steven L. '& Dorothy K. Jessen
Larry L. Griffith
Mr. & Mrs. K. W. Marshall '
Paul & Charlotte Cooper ••
Ed & Erika Regis
John D. & Barbara A. Swenson
Mrs. Robert V. Emerson
Pete Hetland
Leonard Steiner - Seattle Audubon
Sorietv
D. J. Colasurdo
Sharon L. Gathmann
E. Ne'uman
J. W. Morrison, Inc.
,
.EIS
PAGE
NO. •
1V-59
IV-62
IV-63
IV-65
IV-66
IV-67
IV-68
IV-70
IV-71
IV-72
IV-73
IV-74
IV-75
POP. PROJECT ION-GROUT
X
X
EXCESS CAPACITY
'
CO
H-l
<£.
O-
UJ
CO
o.
__l
1—
LU
CJ
1 — 1
00
ID
X
X
X
•
CO
X
X
WATER QUALITY •
X
FISHERIES/WILDLIFE
• '
IV-3
ALTERNATIVES
,
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
UJ
a;
ID
CO
LU
2:
LU
1 — 1
CO
(—1
1—
1 — 1
5:
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
,
i—
i — i
ID
cr
a:
i — i
CJ
i — i •
_i
0
a.
CULTURAL
•
'UJ
CO
ID
_!
O
i— i
1—
LU
CJ
LU
LU
CO
h— 1
0
o
1 — 1
1—.
D_
i — i
CJ
1— (
o:
«=c
Q_
CJ
1— 1
_J
CO
ID
Q_
X •
•
X
'
-------
SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
On June 9, 1976, EPA held a public hearing to offer an opportunity
to citizens to respond publicly to the draft EIS. At this hearing,
EPA invited testimony from the attendees. Two people testified, Versie
Vaupel and Fanny Ulsch. Ms. Vaupel's concerns included the project's
conformance with 208 planning, whether alternatives were adequately
considered, the costs and taxes associated with urbanization, that
sewers will come to the District even though citizens twice rejected
them, and whether connections will be compelled. Ms. Ulsch expressed
concern over the odor problems and potential health hazard from failing
septic tanks.
The remainder of the hearing was devoted to a question and answer
period where a panel consisting of representatives from the engineering
firm, W.D. #90, and EPA fielded questions from the audience. The major
issues discussed during this period included: whether the Orton Rd.
Interceptor is a public or private sewer, whether connections to it
can be compelled, that sewers and a school will come to the area in
spite of voter rejection of bond authorization, and the change in the
character of the area from rural residential to suburban as a result
of sewers.
Discussion of these issues can be found in the Preface and this
comment section.
IV-4
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Room 360 U.S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201
May 18, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft environmental impact
statement for Orton Road Interceptor, King County, Washington. It would
appear the concerns of the Soil Conservation Service have been met and
we have no comment to offer at this time.
Sincerely. RECEIVED
Galen S. Bridge
State Conservationist
IV-5
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208
ER-76/448
Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
June 22, 1976
RECEIVED
JUN 241976
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the Orton Road
Interceptor, King County, Washington and offer the following comments
for your consideration in preparing the final statement.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Fish and wildlife resources and project effects upon them are satisfacto-
rily treated in the Draft EIS and the selected alternative is considered
acceptable from the standpoint of fish and wildlife.
There appears to be no direct effect on the Indian community by land oc-
cupancy in the project area. The project area does drain into several
anadromous fish spawning and rearing waterways. Protection of these water-
ways must be insured to maintain fish stocks for Indian and other fishermen.
It would be helpful to identify and indicate the qualifications of the
archeologist who conducted the field survey for cultural and historical
sites. Archeological sites are often undetectable by personnel not speci-
fically trained for such activity. If the survey was not conducted by
trained personnel, we suggest a professional archeologist be consulted.
We urge close cooperation with King County Parks and Recreation to incor-
porate recreation concerns into the project plans. Sewage collection
lines often need little additional work to serve as pedestrian/bicycle
trails. Collection lines for this project might be included as compo-
nents of the King County Trail Plan. Also, we suggest that prime sites for
park development be identified in the project area so that collection
lines can be located near them. This would ease development of these fa-
cilities later on.
IV-6
-------
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
know if we can provide further assistance.
Please let us
Sincerely, yours,
Charles T. Hoyt
Special Assistant to the Secretary
IV-7
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
1. See our response to the Advisory Council Comments.
2. EPA, in cooperation with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, will
suggest to the grantee to investigate the feasibility of recrea-
tional use of the interceptor route.
IV-8
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX C-3755
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124
NPSEN-PL-ER
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443 RECEIVED
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue MUI i A iqy
Seattle, Washington 98101 JUM L * 'J
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on the Orton
Road Interceptor, King County, Washington, with respect to the Corps of
Engineers' areas of responsibility for flood control, navigation and
hydropower.
We would like to remind you that under the provisions of Section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Department of the Army permits
are required for the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable
waters.
Also, please refer to page 11-62, second complete paragraph, second
sentence. The 1975-1976 winter flood was considered a 35-year flood,
not a 10-year. In the last sentence of this same paragraph, we suggest
that the term "100-year" be inserted between "The" and "flood plain" to
avoid implying that the boundary is that of the 1975-1976 flood.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this statement.
Sincerely yours,
R. P. Sr'^LEVOLD
Division
IV-9
-------
RESPONSE TO
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1. The text has been changed accordingly.
IV-10
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING, 1321 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
June 28, 1976
REGION X IN REPLY REFER TO:
Office of Community 10D M/S 317
Planning & Development
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P- E.
Chief, Environmental Impact Section RECEiVtD
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue J'JN
Seattle, Washington 98101
cpA "'"~~
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Orton Road Interceptor
King County, Washington
We have reviewed the Statement dated April 7, 1976 and supplementary
material dated June 2, 1976.
The proposed project is a 2.1 mile long, 10-inch to 24-inch diameter
interceptor sewer, which will provide sanitary sewer service to a new
public high school, and ultimately a residential area of about 2,395 acres.
Our concerns are that the proposed project is consistent with local and
areawide plans, and that potential adverse impacts are identified so that
local government can plan accordingly. Your statement indicates that the
sizing of the interceptor is not consistent with the comprehensive plan;
however, this does not impact the land use plan. Thus we see no objection
to the capacity proposed.
Potential high noise areas are identified on Figure 24. We believe that
your statement should note that HUD does have a noise abatement policy,
and we will not participate in new residential construction in areas having
a noise level which exceeds 65 d B (A) 8 hours per 24 hours.
iv-n
AREA OFFICES
PORTLAND, OREGON. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Insuring Offices
Anchorage, Alaska • Boise, Idaho • Spokane, Washington
-------
Page 2.
We also bring to your attention that King County is participating in the
National Flood Insurance Program, and is committed to enacting land use
control measures to minimize losses from future floods.
Thanks foq the opportunity to comment.
Robert C. Scalia
Assistant Regional Administrator
V
IV-12
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
1. This comment has been added to the text on Page 11-103
IV-13
-------
Advisory Council
On Historic Preservation
I 522 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
May 28, 1976
Mr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Region X ' j -M o '.r-y
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ""j;: " IJ'
1200 Sixth Avenue rrv/v _.„
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in response to your request of April 29, 1976, for comments on
the draft environmental statement (DES) for the Orton Road Interceptor,
King County, Washington. Pursuant to its responsibilities under Section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation has determined that this DES appears to
demonstrate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preserva-
tion Act of 1966, but that it is inadequate because is does not demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of Executive Order 11593, "Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment" of May 13, 1971, as implemented
by the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties"
(36 C.F.R. Part 800).
It is noted on page 11-57 of the DES that although no properties included
in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
proposed undertaking that Corps of Engineers in its "Washington Environ-
mental Atlas" identified a high probability of finding archeological sites
in the study area. Given this probability and without additional
information, it is difficult to accept Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) conclusion "that no historical, cultural, or archeological arti-
facts or sites are likely to be affected by the proposed project." EPA
is required to determine the existance of cultural resources within the
area of project impact. This should be accomplished through a
comprehensive cultural survey of impacted areas conducted by competent
professionals in cultural disciplines. Any cultural properties located
IV-14
-------
Page 2
May 28, 1976
Mr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr.
Orton Road Interceptor
by the survey must be evaluated for inclusion in the National Register.
If properties found to be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register will be affected by the proposed undertaking, then EPA is
required to afford the Council an opportunity to comment prior to the
approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking.
Until the requirements of Executive Order 11593 are met, the Council
considers the DBS to be incomplete in its treatment of historical,
archeological, architectural, and cultural resources. To remedy this
deficiency, the Council will provide substantive comments on the under-
taking's effect on those cultural properties found to be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register. Please contact Brit Allan Storey
of the Council staff at (303) 234-4946 to assist you in completing this
process as expeditiously as possible.
Sincerely yours,
Louis S. Wall
Assistant Director, Office
of Review and Compliance
cc: Mr. Sheldon Meyers, Director, EPA
IV-15
-------
GOVERNOR
DANIEL J. EVANS
COMMISSIONERS:
JEFF D. DOMASKIN
THOMAS C. GARRETT
KAY GREEN
BEN HAYES
RALPH E. MACKEY
EUSTACE VYNNE
WILFRED R. WOODS
DIRECTOR:
CHARLES H. ODEGAARD
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON STATE
PARKS & RECREATION* COMMISSION
LOCATION: THURSTON AIRDUSTRIAL CENTER
P. O. BOX 1128
June 4, 1976
PHONE 753-5755
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504
IN REPLY REFER TO:
36-2650-1320
Draft EIS -
Wastewater Treatment
Works Proposed by
King County Water
District No. 90
Orton Road Interceptor
(E-592)
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
RECEIVED
JUN D 1976
EPA-EIS
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed
the above-noted document and can find no adverse impact on existing or
proposed recreational areas under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
We have reviewed the above-noted document in regard to archaeological/
historic sites. There is a statement on Page 11-56 that a field survey
of the proposed project's corridor and Ultimate Service Area was undertaken
by Region X staff but gives no indication of the qualifications of the
staff personnel to conduct such a survey. We also question the statement
that "Most Ultimate Service Area structures are less than twenty years old".
Are there any fifty years or older?
We do not consider the Corps of Engineers Environmental Atlas as
enough in respect to archaeological resources in an area such as
definitive
the Cedar
River that has not been surveyed for archaeological resources. We find that
the tentative conclusions reached are inadequate to insure that there are
no archaeological resources in the area that may be eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and recommend that a
cultural survey of the proposed route be made prior to construction.
Thank you for the opoortunity to review and comment.
IV-16
-------
Mr. Thiel
-2-
June 4, 1976
Sincerely,
Arthur M. Skolnik
State Conservator
David W. Heiser, Chief
Environmental Coordination
IV-17
-------
RESPONSE TO
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
+
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
A preliminary survey of the cultural resources within the primary
impact area of the project will be conducted by a qualified professional
archaeologist. This survey will include a review of any available
recorded information on cultural resources in the primary impact area
and a field survey of the primary impact area only to the extent neces-
sary to determine the existence of above-ground cultural resources and
the existence of areas within which it is highly probable that excava-
tion would reveal cultural resources. The report of this survey will
be made part of the Facility Plan. If resources are discovered or
areas of high probability are defined, the report will include recom-
mendations for further investigation or methods to mitigate project
impact on the cultural resources.
The findings of the survey will be reviewed by the grantee, The
State Historic Preservation Officer, and EPA. If it is found that
further investigation; evaluation, for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places; or mitigative measures are required,
the Step 3 grant offer will be conditioned on the grantee's satis-
factory compliance with such requirements prior to commencement of
construction in the affected areas.
The project engineer will instruct the grantee to arrange for
the preliminary survey as soon as possible, in order to have reviewed
the completed survey report before approval of the Facilities Plan.
IV-18
-------
vVASHINCTON STATE
HIGHWAY COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Highway Administration Building
Olympia, Washington SB5O4 (2O6) 753 -6OO5
May 24, 1976
Daniel j. Evans-Governor
W. A. Bulley Director
RECEIVED
EPA-L
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region X
Seattle, Washington 98101
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Orton Road Interceptor
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Statement for the
above project, as requested in your letter of April 29.
The proposal does not appear to conflict with existing or planned
highway facilities in the area.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this information.
Sincerely,
H. R. GOFF
Assistant Director for
Planning, Research and State Aid
By: R. B. DAVIpSON
Environmental Planner
HRG:eh
RED/PEN
cc: W. C. Bogart
IV-19
linker l-'crgus»n. Clu:nniun
Wullii Walla
A. II. Parker
Bremerton
Howard Svrcti.wn
Ellensburg
I'irginia K. (/
Seattle
Julia Butler 1/anxc'i
Cathlami't
llai-olil I Hn
SeruHarv
-------
June 30, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X -- 1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
SUBJECT: Draft EIS on Orton Road Interceptor
King County, Washington
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. The coverage on
most areas of the statement appears quite complete and thorough, indi-
cating considerable forethought in preparation. Considering the magni-
tude of the project, you should be complimented on the preparation of
this draft EIS. We're sure your efforts in preparing the EIS will be
of considerable benefit to assist interested citizens and agencies to
a better understanding of the project.
After review by our regional staff, they have indicated satisfaction
with the status of the proposal and EIS.
We appreciate the opportunity to have reviewed your statement. If we
can be of further service to you, please contact me at 753-6892.
Sincerely
R. THOMPSON
Environmental
DRT:cls
.E.
View Section
RECEIVED
JUL 1 1S7G
cc: Mark Premo,
Northwest Regional Office
IV-20
-------
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504
Phone: 753-6600
DANIEL J. EVANS DONALD W. MOOS
GOVERNOR ^y 2g 1 QTg DIRECTOR
Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RECEIVED
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue ^H 2 1S7S
Seattle, Washington 98101
t" P A,. TV'
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Orton Road Interceptor
King County, Washington
The above referenced Draft EIS has been perused by personnel from the
Washington Department of Fisheries. The section on Fish and Wildlife,
page 11-90 (listed as 11-85 in Table of Contents) gives a good general syn-
opsis. In Table 10 it is suggested super-script 1. be added to juvenile
rearing of both summer and winter steel head.
Juvenile rearing of Chinook does occur to some extent throughout the
year. The direct and indirect effects are adequately covered with the ex-
ception of addressing the indirect loss of fish production when water is
diverted from an upstream site to users by pipes or conduits. Removal of
water during low flow periods from upriver sites can reduce the fish-
carrying capacity downstream in relation to the streambed exposed. The
direct and indirect displacement of certain parts of our environment by
civilization is a natural outgrowth of population growth.
Alternative means of fish and wildlife enhancement, replacement or
mitigation should be addressed in all Environmental Impact Statements.
Mitigation (to make less severe) is not adequately discussed in this
Draft EIS and it is recommended that greater effort and thought be given
to this section. It's especially urged that when a project eliminates
certain elements of the physical environment that enhancement of these
elements in other areas be given consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft EIS.
Sincerely,
:ichard E. Noble
IV-21 Fisheries Biologist
sc
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
The Department of Fisheries recommends as a mitigative measure
in the construction of the sewerage system, that the Grantee
contact the Department of Fisheries to determine what wildlife
losses have been incurred during the project, and that the
Grantee replace these, losses with equivalent resources at another
suitable location. Though it is not within the jurisdiction of
EPA to require this action by the Grantee, EPA does concur with
the objectives of this action and recommends that the Grantee
follow this course of action.
IV-22
-------
600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504
Game Commission
Claude Bekiiis. Seattle. Chairman
Glenn Galbraith, Vf'ellpinit
Frank L. Canidy, Jr.. Vancouver
Arthur S. Coffin. Yakima
lilizaheth II". Meadowcraft. Tacomd
Archie II. i\\ilh. Wciutchec
Director / Ralph \V. Lannn
Assistant Directors / Jack S. Wuyland
John Douglas
June 25, 1976
RECEIVED
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443 JUN 28 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue EPA-17'0-
Seattle, WA. 98101
Your draft environmental impact statement—Orton Road Interceptor, King
County, Washington—was reviewed by our staff as requested. Comments follow
below according to the appropriate section headings.
Impacts
Hydrology-Water Quality; Mitigative Measures—According to this section, "The
construction contract should state that spawning channels will be protected by
using sedimentation basins, and by periodic monitoring of dewatering". We are
,in concurrence. Please say whether this measure would or would not be re-
quired, if the proposal is approved (11-75).
Problems of urban drainage are discussed (11-75, 11-76). New regulations at
the local level are cited as a possible means to minimize adverse impacts of
the urban development accommodated by the proposed action. What options are
open to EPA? As the primary funding authority, what responsibility does EPA
take for such secondary adverse impacts?
Soil Suitability and Conservation; Mitigative Measures—To mitigate adverse
impacts on soils, the draft notes that "Construction should be conducted
during the drier summer months..." and "As soon as possible after refilling
in the trench at previously vegetated areas, revegetation should be
initiated" (11-84).
Will these things be done? Who has authority over such decisions?
Plant Communities—We could find no discussion of "Mitigative Measures".
Please specify what will be done to restore disturbed areas, especially
Cedar River shoreline (11-84 through 11-89).
IV-23
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
Page 2
June 25, 1976
Fish and Wildlife—This section should acknowledge the National Audubon
Society's Blue List. According to the Corps of Engineers, Washington
Environmental Atlas (1975), 23 species of birds which are present in Washington
State were included on the Blue List for 1973. Of the birds listed in Appendix 7,
the following were cited among the 23--great blue heron, sharp-shinned hawk,
sparrow hawk (American kestral), Cooper's hawk, marsh hawk, barn owl, Bewick's
wren. Fishing pressure is characterized as relatively light upstream from
Renton (11-90). That section of the river receives angler use worthy of
mention; steel head during winter and rainbow trout in summer months.
The Washington Environmental Atlas (page 33) makes the following statements
about marsh shrew (Sorex bendirei) and Townsend's mole (Scapanus townsendi),
species which are also named in Appendix 7: "The marsh shrew (Sorex bendirei)
has been strongly reduced in Western Washington because of the 'reclamation1
of numerous sphagnum bogs to which this species is strongly restricted. The
presence of this shrew, as well as of a number of ecologically unique insects
and plants, requires careful management and preservation of sphagnum bog
areas." "Extention of 'urban sprawl' into open meadow!and and river bottoms
in the Puget Sound area poses a threat to the Townsend's mole (Scapanus
townsendi) in such places."
The report maintains that the effect of the proposed river crossing on fish
"... will be mitigated by restricting the timing of in-river activity to the
period between July 15 and September 15 " Although valid for migratory
species, this statement wouldn't hold true for resident fish (11-91).
We assume a joint hydraulics approval would be acquired for work within the
streambed of the small stream which drains Liberty High School (11-92).
On one hand this section says, "No Federally-designated endangered species are
known to use the Study Area." (page 11-91). Later it is said that "Only two
endangered species may occur in the area (Canada goose and peregrine falcon)
with only the falcon having been observed," (page 11-97). Clarification is
needed. Also, Threatened Wildlife of the United States USBI, 1973, specifies
Aleutian Canada goose.
Visual Impacts—This section says "... the sewer is planned to be routed up a
creekbed..." in the half-mile corridor through the park and high school prop-
erties (11-106). Please explain these plans in more detail and describe
adverse impacts.
Thank you for sending your draft. We hope our comments will be helpful.
Sincerely,
TH| DEPARTMENT OF GAME -
-). U "'' < / \ M e
' Eugene S. Dziedzic, Deputy Chief
Environmental Management Division
ESD:jt
cc: Shockman IV-24
Agencies
1
-------
RESPONSES TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF GAME
1. This measure is an integral part of any construction grant
contract, and is considered normal procedure,
2. EPA does not have any authority in drainage control; this is
essentially a State and local matter.
3. These two mitigative measures are an integral part of any
construction grant contract, and are considered normal pro-
cedures.
4. Areas disturbed as a result of project construction will be
revegetated to natural conditions. As mentioned before, this
is the usual procedure and is a requirement of construction
specifications.
5. The additional information in this area is appreciated.
6. Because of mitigative measures in the construction techniques
used, stream crossing will not significantly impact resident
fish.
7. Yes.
8. The statement on Page 11-91 has been changed to agree with that
on Page 11-97.
9. More specifically, the sewer will be routed along a creekbed,
more on the side of the hill. The interceptor route will not
enter the creekbed at any point, and in most cases, will remain
at least 100 feet away from it. Furthermore, construction will
take place in the spring and summer months, at which time the
creek is usually dry. Following construction, reseeding and
restoring disturbed areas will be required to prevent the flow
of sediment into the creekbed.
Although the sewer line is going through undeveloped park land,
it will not be very noticeable. The trees that are cut will not
be obvious, since the interceptor route lies between a forested
area and pastureland.
IV-25
-------
(ing County State of Washington
bhn D. Spellman, County Executive
Department of Planning
and Community Development
Thomas M. Ryan, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
IRVING BERTEIG, ACTING MANAGER
W217 King County Courthouse
516 - 3rd Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
206-344-4218
July 1, 1976
RECEIVED
JUL 7 1S76
Mr. Richard R. Thiel EP,VF'~
Environmental Impact Section MS/443
1200 - 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Our recent review of the Orton Road Interceptor has revealed
an error in basic assumption concerning the ultimate popula-
tion density and land use impacts within the service area.
This error concerns the anticipated housing density based
upon lot sizes of 8400 square feet. The King County Zoning
Code (21.20.030) permits a reduction in lot size within SR
zones served by sewer to 7,200 square feet. Therefore, a
greater number of homes, additional population and corres-
ponding increases in all recognized environmental impacts
would probably result from this action.
Additional increases in density could also result from multi-
family residential use adjacent to neighborhood business
areas likely to be developed within the service area.
The final EIS should consider these basic relationships.
Sincerely,
Irving Berteig
Acting Manager
IB:CVF:jk
cc: Edward B. Sand, Manager, Building & Land Development
B1Young Ahn, Transportation Planning Section
Ralph Colby, Community Planning Section
IV-26
-------
RESPONSE TO
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The text has been changed on pages 11-10 and 11-11 to reflect the
corrected lot size. This change, however, should not influence
the impacts of the project. As noted in Table 5, the population
growth of the service area will be similar with or without the
project. The corrected lot size may only result in revised
densities but not overall population numbers or significant
impacts.
IV-27
-------
£ A o THE CITY OF RBNTON
r && f\ "]
_ ^^ ^ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
2 _J) O
O —- ^ CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT
"\ ^ 235-255O
June 16, 1976 RECEIVED
JUN 1 8 1976
FEPA-Fl.S
Ri chard R. Thiel , P.E.
Chief Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ORTOM ROAD INTERCEPTOR
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. Thi el:
The city of Renton Planning Department has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Orton Road Interceptor
Project. We have a number of concerns about this project, and
feel that the following items need to be clarified in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
1. The Environmental Protection Agency in the Water Pollution
Control document section 35.917 FACILITIES PLANNING (b)
requires that..."Faci1ities planning will demonstrate the
need for the proposed facilities and, by a systematic
evaluation of feasible alternatives, will also demonstrate
that the prooosed measures represent the mos t cost-effective
means of meeting established effluent and water quality
goals, recognizing environmental and social consideration."
What is the documented need in terms of water quality deg-
redation in the Cedar River related to pollution problems
beginning in this drainage basin that justifies EPA funding I
this project? Also, a more detailed systematic evaluation I
of the feasible alternatives needs to be presented in terms
of cost-effective means of meeting established water quality
goals for the Cedar River. Finally, what are the specific
water quality goals for the Cedar River?
2. Environmental Protection Agency Water Pollution Control
document section 35.917-1 CONTENT OF FACILITIES PLAN, (d)
(1,2 & 3) require..."A cost-effectiveness analysis of
IV-23
-------
Richard R. Thiel , P.E.
Chief Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
June 16, 1976
Page Two
alternatives for the treatment works and for the waste treatment
system(s) of which the treatment works is a part. The selection
of the system(s) and the choice of the treatment works on which
construction drawings and specifications are to be based shall
reflect the cost-effectiveness analysis. This analysis shall
include:
(1) The relationship of the size and capacity of alterna-
tive works to the needs to be served, including reserve
capacity.
(2) An evaluation of alternative flow and waste reduction
meas ures.
(3) An evaluation of improved effluent quality attainable by
upgrading the operation and maintenance and efficiency
of existing facilities as an alternative or supplement
to construction of new facilities."
From our study of the alternatives presented in the Draft Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement it appears that a more detailed ^
analysis of each of the various alternatives will need to be
undertaken to more exactly determine their relative cost-effec-
tiveness to the proposed interceptor.
3. The EPA document on Water Pollution Control also requires
that the following rules shall be adheared to in the sizing
of a sewage collection system to meet EPA funding require-
ments. 35.925-13 (a) . . . "Replacement or major rehabilita-
tion of an existing sewer system may be approved only if
cost-effective and must result in a sewer system design
capacity equivalent only to that of the existing system
plus a resonable amount for future growth. A community for
purposes of this section, would include any area with sub-
stantial human habitation on October 18, 1972. No award
may be made for a new sewer system in a community in exis-
tance on October 18, 1972 unless it is further determined
by the Regional Administration that the bulk (generally
2/3) of the flow design capacity through the sewer system
will be for waste waters originating from the community
(habitation) in existence on October 18, 1972."
Is the proposed sewer system sized for a community in exis-
tence in October 18, 1972 plus one-third growth? We feel
that the calculations that demonstrate the direct relation-
ship of the size of the interceptor to the human population
in existence in this area on October 18, 1972 needs to be
shown in the Final EIS.
IV-29
-------
Richard R. Thiel , P.E.
Chief Environmental Impact
June 16, 1976
Page Three
Section, M/S 443
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. We also request that a copy of the Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement be sent to this office.
Very truly yours,
Gordon Y. Ericksen
Planning Director
Wi11i am C. Turner
Planning Technician
WCT/vb
IV-30
-------
RESPONSE TO
THE CITY OF RENTON ,
1. The need for this project is documented more with a potential
for health problems than with water quality problems. There are
areas in the District with significant septic system failures,
resulting in surfacing of effluent. In addition, there is
always the potential for groundwater pollution. This project
ranks high on the Department of Ecology's Priority List. The
water quality criteria and goals for the Cedar River are
given in the 303(e) Basin Plan document for the Cedar-Green
Rivers.
2. EPA's construction grant regulations which you quote refer to
the contents of a facilities plan, not an EIS. It is true
that the Water District's facilities plan (Comprehensive
Sewerage Plan) contains a limited discussion of alternatives.
However, the analysis in the Plan and in the Draft EIS is
sufficient to identify the proposed project as the most cost-
effective. This assumes that the existing legally-adopted
comprehensive plans are valid and that sewerage service is
needed to serve the growth that is not only projected, but
already occuring.
3. This relates only to collection systems and not to interceptors.
IV-31
-------
Clifton Johnson,
Superintendent
Stanley Volwiler,
Assistant Superintendent
Harvey T. Hand,
Business Manager
Albert R. Haugerud,
Director of Curriculum
Thomas W. Lehning,
Director of Pupil Services
DIRECTORS
Fran Theodorson
Elaine Wolf
Robert R. Parker
Alan Paxhia
Gary McGlocklin
22211S.E. 72nd STREET o ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027
TEL. 392-7571
June 25, 1976
P. 0. BOX L
Mr. L. Edwin Coate
Deputy Regional Administrator
Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Richard R. Thiel, P.E.
RECEIVED
JUN 29157C
rr o " ^ """
Reference: Orton Road Sewer
Gentlemen:
Thank you for the chance to be heard at the Orton Road E.I.S. hearing
on June 9, 1976.
It would appear that Liberty Senior High will not be opened for regular
classes this September due to our levy loss. However, since the build-
ing does represent an extensive investment on the part of the School
District some activities will be carried out during the next school year.
Additional construction and site work have been authorized and security
patrol will be initiated. A sanitation system is crucial to these
operations.
We would like to call your attention to two other conditions related to
this sewer line. Our Briarwood Elementary will still be operating at
full capacity. The septic tank system there has caused problems in the
past and could fail again. It would be very desirable to hook this
school up to a sewer system as soon as possible. I
The second potential problem is our Maywood Junior High School. This
school has been operating at full capacity since its construction and
the load going into the drain field could be reaching a saturation
point.
IV-32
-------
Issaquah School District No. 411
Page 2
June 25, 1976
We feel that the three buildings are a part of the community and
should be considered as a public use with the sewer service a part
of the requirement.
Thank you for your consideration of this problem.
CJ/js
Clifton Johnson
Superintendent
IV-33
-------
RESPONSE TO
ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT
EPA concurs with the need to provide corrections to the inter-
ceptor for Briarwood Elementary and Maywood Junior High schools
Any grant made to the Water District will be conditioned on the
Water and School district developing the necessary implementing
agreements.
IV-34
-------
410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344-7330
Seattle, Washington 98109
June 23, 1976
SERVING:
KING COUNTY
410 West Harrison St.
P. 0. Box 9863
Seattle, 98109
(206) 344-733O
KITSAP COUNTY
Dial Operator for Toll
Free Number Zenith 8385
Bainbridge Island,
Dial 344-7330
PIERCE COUNTY
213 Hess Building
Tacoma, 93402
1206) 383-5851
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
506 Medical-Dental Bldg,
Everett, 98201
(206) 259-0288
Richard R. Thiel, P. E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X M/S 443
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Subject: Orton Road Interceptor
Draft E.I.S.
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement for King
County's proposed Orton Road Interceptor sewer project. Specific
comments related to air quality are as follows:
Pages II - 112 and II 113 present a discussion of, and
estimate of the amounts of, pollutants which will be
generated by construction. A statement covering the
usual mitigative measures which are normally taken to /
minimize construction dust release should be added. The
table of contents does not correctly locate the section
on mitigative measures.
Page II - 113 states that air quality modeling indicates
no CO or S02 standard violations will occur within the J
service areas. It would be useful if some of these data £••
could be presented so as to indicate the magnitude of
the increased concentrations.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this statement.
Very truly yours,
RECEIVED
JUN ^4 1S76
A. R. Dammkoehler
Air Pollution Control Officer
ARD:JRP:mh
IV-35
iOARO OF DIRECTORS
CHAIRMAN: Everett Foster, Alternate for Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County;
o&ert C. Anderson, Mayor Everett; Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton;
Harvey S'. Poll, Member at Large; John D. Spellman, King County Executive;
VICE CHAIRMAN: N. Richard Forsgren, Commissioner Snohomish County;
Gordon N. Johnston, Mayor Tacoma; Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County;
Wes Ublman, Mayor Seattle; A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer.
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
1. A sentence has been added to the text and the contents have
been corrected.
2. In an effort to simplify the EIS presentation for the public,
some air quality modeling data has been omitted. Air quality
impacts as a result of this project should not be significant
because this project is not predicted to cause a significant
amount of population growth which would not otherwise occur.
IV-36
-------
June 20, 1976 RECEIVED
JUN 22 1S76
Memo to Mr. Thiel. EPA
Regarding the proposed Orton Road Interceptor Project, these appear to be some of
the most pressing matters to be answered satisfactorily as to the impact on the
environment if sewering proceeds:
1. The environment of the area more adversely affected by sewering than by not
sewering.
2. Economic needs of the area vs. environmental needs, realizing that most of
these sewering gra-nts were origins 11 yJiiMr ttf help stimulate the economy.
3. The right of "federal money" to be used to usurp the right of the citizens
who have twice rejected sewer bonds.
Ii. The question of whether or not residents near the line should be required to
hook up to sewers. Too many people are vague on this point.
£• 'Whether or not this project is truly an abatement of pollution when there is
very little septic tank problem in the area to be served by the interceptor,
being reminded that these funds were originally appropriated for abatement only.
6. Alternatives to the proposal^ including but not limited to:
• a. • Forced main.
b. The former "Alternative B" shown in the Post-Hearing Addendum.
c. The local health department made variance to begin with, to allow building
of the school without an approved disposal plan—could they not now make
another unusual variance to allow other systems?
d. Aerobic system.
e. A "miniature,." limited-capacity sewer facility, with a capacity load for
the school only.
7. The cost now, not the figure used from the inception some years ago. A recent
headline in newspaper states that, because of inflation, construction costs
are now beginning to increase some 20 per cent per year.
8. A discussion in full of the difference between a "public" line and a "private" line.- /
9. Consideration of page.-s 32 to 3h of "Final EIS, Agricultural Open Space Policies g
for King County," re Ordinance 1839.
10. Section 208 of the federal water pollution law. /
11. DOE's ranking on its priority list.
12. Possible lot size change to 7200 square feet (related to item 1 above)j air II
quality guidelines, etc.
Thank you.
Versie Vaupel
07 221 Wells N.
Renton, WA
-------
June 7, 1976
Mr- Richard R. Thiel, P.E.
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
Region X, EPA
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA .98101
Re: M/S
Draft, EIS, Orton Road Interceptor
EPA 10-Wn-King-V.D. 90- In t- 76
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Thank you for the copy of the above referenced draft. The report is a very
commendable effort to cover many of the points raised by objectors to this
proposed project.
I don't have the time at this stage to address all of the objections but
will concentrate on a few. One of the most pressing problems, of course (which
your report admits to some extent) is the adverse impact on the environ-
ment, i.e., that sewering will have a greater impact potential than no sewer-
ing 3t all. Obviously, an even greater "nay" vote on sewers would be cast
if this truth (smaller lot potential, greater population density), plus other
previous, misleading information were given to the public. By creating ad-
ditional problems, including the increased population density and the result-
ant pollution, the EPA is thus creating and contributing to the very prob-
lems the agency was theoretically created to eliminate.
Ve realize that the economy had been an over- emphasized facet in pushing these
types of construction grants. You realize the economy has recovered consider-
ably, and locally the construction business was never lagging as it may have been
elsewhere. Anyway, tho^e pressures should not override consideration for the
quality of the environment if possible. It seems, though, that the multiple con-
struction interests have more representation in D.C. and elsewhere than do cit-
izens who have little time or money to put forth pressure on officials.
A point oblinuely referred to in the second paragraph above is the fact that
voters have twice rejected sewering in the District. I feel there is a possi-
bility of a legal challenge (to which I would gladly contribute) based on
other aspects as well as on this attempt to circumvent the will of the resi-
dents; this is a clear abrogation of the citizens' right to, at least some. ex-
tent, be in control of their lives and environment. The Vater District and
other special interests have no moral or legal right, I feel, to force quick,
drastic changes on the population at large.
At past public hearings, citizens were told repeatedly that no one would be
forced to connect to the interceptor line; yet, per the EIS, laws and con-
flicting Water District 90 resolutions seem to show that connection to the
interceptor is mandatory of nearby residences. Because of this and the fact
IV-38
-------
Page 2 - EPA letter
that the citizens feel they voted to defeat sewers, no doubt many people in the
area will feel "secure" and won't now appear to make their wishes known. Also,
too many people feel it's futile to try to fight governmental entities like the
Water District intent on doing what they want to do in spite of the wishes of
the majority.
Ordinary citizens do not have an arsenal of facts and figures worked out by paid
staffs even if those citizens had the time (which they don't) to constantly fight
these brush fires all over the countryside. (I still say the EPA should get out
of the sewer business.)
You are strongly reminded of the basic intent for the use of these EPA funds:
These governmental funds were appropriated solely for the abatement of severe
pollution, not to create that pollution. There was no evidence that there was
at any time ever any substantial pollution problem at all in the area covered
by the proposed grant 1 If you are thinking that the high school partially com-
pleted (it has only four or five classrooms now, I understand), kindly permit me
to remind you that the citizens had been objecting to the sewering propositions | /
considerably prior to the construction of school. Allow me to further suggest
that the school is a problem of the Issaquah School District; yet it is creating
problems adverse to the interests of Biany citizens in the Renton School District
because of the ill-chosen site of the school so close to the Renton School Dis-
trict line. The entire matter of that school should be subjected to close in-
vestigation by some unbiased, authoriative source.
I would like to suggest that alternatives should be given greater credence. And
incidentally, no-.consideration was given that I found to what was originally
denominated "Alternative B" (I believe that was its designation); this was the
proposal that the line, if it had to be built, could be constructed in a line
almost due south, to go directly over the hill to the line running near Cedar
River, instead of going down SE lUhth Street in an easterly direction and then
winding down the Orton Road area. Obviously, this latter route (down Orton)
would accommodate more developers, than would that Alternate B or whatever its
designation is.
Further, I understand that Section 208 of the Federal water pollution law says that
no Federal funds should be awarded unless in conformance with the 208 planning.
What has happened to such planning? It seems that this planning is in the future;
yet, here the EPA has the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse and is
awarding or thinking of awarding grants prior to planning.
There are so many objections to this proposal, and I don't have the staff, as you
did, to write a book. Suffice it to say, even though I respect your office's
fine attempts to be objective and to answer the protests (anr5 you yourself have
graciously admitted to the soundness of some objections), nonetheless, there
are too many conflicts and problems with no possible resolution that I feel con-
fident that good judgment will prevail and that the EPA will eventually withdraw
the grant funds.
By the way, going back to the problem of the school (problems created by of-
ficials with no foresight and planning and without a mandate from the public),
let me also remind everyone concerned that the King County Health Department
issued a building permit without insisting first that this area have an accepted
sewer system. Thus, why should everyone in the area, including people outside
that school district, have to pay a great price in money and in environmental
IV-39
-------
Page 3 - EPA letter
deterioration possibilities for the miserable incompetence and abject foolish-
ness of the school, health and water department officials? The whole scheme is
so ludricious to me that It :is difficult to understand that the heretofore
respected EPA could now step in to perpetuate the situation and try to, -in effect,
save face for the incompetents. That is not the reason for the existence of the
EPA, or at least, it shouldn't be.
You will remember that some citizens previously hired a lawyer to help repre-
send them in this matter, and I understand that this will happen again. In
view of this fact and the fact that it is highly questionable that the EPA should
have entered into negotiations on this proposal, to begin with, then surely it
is desirable that the EPA now retreat from this dubious proposal.
Again, I want to thank you for your consideration and courtesy in forwarding me
a copy of the expansive EIS report. Please pass my comments on to the compiler/s
also. The report, as so far scanned by me, appears to be well done. I will no
doubt be making further comment on the report as I have the time.
Versie and Warren Vaupel
221 Veils N.
Renton, WA 98055
cc: Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, B.C.
EPA, Office of Federal Activities, Washington, B.C.
Congressman Brock Adams
Senator Henry M. Jackson
Senator Warren Magnuson
Councilman Mike Lowry
Chairman, King County Council
Washington Environmental Council
President, GREEN for Tomorrow
State Department of Ecology (2)
State Senator Gary Grant
State Senator K^nt Pullen
IV-40
-------
RESPONSE TO
VERSIE VAUPEL
1. It is the conclusion of the EIS that the environment of the
area will not be more adversely affected by this sewer because
the sewer will accommodate growth, not cause it. As indicated
on Table 5, nearly the same amount of growth will occur with
or without the project. In addition, a significant potential
health problem exists in certain portions of the study area,
as a result of septic tank failures.
2. EPA's construction grant program does not exist to serve
economic needs, although economic needs may be served as a
result of the program.
3. Citizen's rights are not being infringed upon by this sewer.
According to Resolution No. 318, which was recently adopted by
Water District No. 90, existing residences will not be compelled
to connect, except where the County health department determines
that it is necessary. See the Preface for more information.
4. The answer to this question is also explained in the Preface.
The new service area boundaries include more areas of serious
septic tank failures, particularly the White Fence Area.
5. a) A forced main is prohibitively expensive if there is no
gravity flow.
b) See our response number 39 to the Leon Harris letter of
comment.
c) Probably, yes.
d) Aerobic systems, which we take to mean composting systems
are not grant eligible because they are considered as
individual or private systems. In addition, a composting
system is not suitable for the amount of waste load from a
large facility like a school. In addition, there are some
general problems with this system e.g. reliability, health
and safety.
e) A limited-capacity sewer would not be cost effective considering
the need for sewer service in some parts of the District and
for two other schools, Briarwood Elementary and Maywood Junior
High.
6. The current estimated eligible cost of this project, including all
stages of design and construction is $690,000. This figure is
within 10% of what price might be if bids go out within 2 months.
7. A discussion of "public" and "private" sewer can be found in the
Preface.
IV-41
-------
8. This project is consistent with the County's Open Space policies.
The interceptor should not adversely impact agricultural lands
in the area because these lands comprise only about 2% of the
total land use. In addition, since growth will occur in this
area with or without the interceptor; the interceptor will serve
to increase the authority and choice in land use. Growth, with-
out a sewerage system, would tend to occur in those areas which
can accommodate a septic system.
9. It is generally EPA's policy not to hold up construction grants
while initial 208 plans are being completed. It is the responsi-
bility of the 208 planning agency to review all projects in
progress with regard to their consistency with 208 planning goals.
The results of these reviews are evaluated by EPA. Projects not
consistent with 208 planning goals would not be allowed to con-
tinue. Once 208 plans are completed and adopted, all construc-
tion grants must be in conformance with these plans.
10. This project is ranked as 711 on the State's 1976 priority list,
which is relatively high (in the top half of the list).
11. Recent development trends in the area show a tendency to decrease
density rather than increase. As a result, the capacity of the
Orton Rd. Interceptor had been decreased to be more consistent
with density expectations in the area. Some lots will be sized
down to 7200 square feet; however, the overall number will not
be significant and will not adversely impact the area.
12. According to the County health department, there is a serious
pollution problem, resulting'in a health hazard, in some portions
of the District. This is particularly true of the White Fence
area which has now, subsequent to the revised boundaries of the
service area, been incorporated into the service area. As to
the school, see response number 20 to the comments of Leon Harris.
EPA has no jurisdiction in matters of education.
IV-42
-------
15066 Maple Valley Hwy.
Renton, Wash. 98055
June 25, 1976
Environmental Impact Section M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
RECEIVED
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement; Orton Road ||,., 9p ,,,_„
Interceptor; King County, Washington; JUi'' ^° '"/b
Document No. EPA-10-Wn-King-WD90-Int-76 Fpft r,^
Gentlemen:
I wish to commend you on the content and detail of the subject document
and have found it very informative and provocative. My comments regarding
the Orton Road Interceptor are as follows:
1. I disagree with the appraisal that the Orton Road Interceptor
will not have any measurable increase in flooding in the area
of the Cedar River. I base this on: (a) the Fairwood develop-
ment which did not provide for storm drainage has caused almost
an annual flooding of Madsen Creek, much to the physical and i
mental anguish of the local residents. True that this situation I
is now being rectified, but once again at the penalty of the
local residents who must give up land for the storm channel.
This situation was sanctioned by bureaucrats who were incapable
of developing an overall systematic growth plan for the area.
I see a very similar situation in the proposed project. First
build a school, then realize that you need a sewer. Next, allow
expansion by big land developers. Where is the storm channel
going in and at whose expense? (b) the proposed pipeline is
scheduled to cross the Cedar River approximately fifteen feet
upstream from my property. I have reviewed the Shoreline
Management Application No. 008-75-SH for the proposed project
and also the statements contained within subject document and
have found them inadequate to prevent flood damage to my property.
My property is currently protected by willows firmly embedded in
the river bank that allows flood water to flow through but yet
discourage floating objects (i.e., trees, etc.) from leaving the
Cedar River channel during flood conditions. The proposed
ripraping over the underground pipeline will minimize erosion
but no consideration was given to the seventy foot swath of
willow removal which will allow floating objects to enter my
property, become lodged and cause erosion of my property.
During the development and maintenance of my pasture along the
Cedar River, I have been consistently advised by the King County
Division of Hydraulics, Washington State Department of Fisheries
and U. S. Soil Conservation Agency not to remove the willows
since it may alter the Cedar River channel. It appears that what
applies to private citizens does not apply to WD 90.
IV-43
-------
Environmental Impact Section M/S 443
June 25, 1976
Page 2
2. I disagree with the statement that the sewer corridor would
have an insignificant visual impact as viewed by residents
of the area. There is no way that one can hide a seventy
foot wide swath of tree removal, especially since the main
view would be by motorists coming down Orton Road looking
directly into the sewer corridor. This would be a grim
reminder to them every time they come down the hill, that even
though they twice voted down the project, WD 90 shoved it down
their throats anyway. Government for the people, by the people?
Who's kidding whom?
3. I challenge the statement, "Right-of-way along open space can
be replanted, paved for a bike path, or other surface public use".
Federal grant money for a sewer cannot be legally used for a
nature trail. Besides, part of the sewer corridor lies in the
Big Soos Creek Plateau area of the King County Planning Council,
whose participants at the "Middle Planning" sessions have expressed
grave concern over the placement of nature trails adjacent to
private property. This is a definite infringement of the rights
and privacy of private property owners who are once again tormented
under the guise of public needs.
4. I take note to the statement, "With sewers, the population of
the Ultimate Service Area could be expected to reach 19,430,
an increase of 465 percent over its 1970 population". I took
note of this because once again it appears to pattern itself after
the Fairwood Development (reference 1 (a) above). Motor traffic
to and from Fairwood is very substantial along 140th Ave. S.E.
which is nothing more than a paved winding cow path ending at
the death trap intersection with Maple Valley Highway. The same
situation exists in the Orton Interceptor area with the culprit
being Jones Road. Which private citizen will be the sacrificial
lamb in the name of "Eminent Domain" to make room for a super-
highway to provide adequate access to the Orton area? Once again,
hodge podge planning.
5. Regarding public participation and the statement, "Opposition
to the proposed project by a small number of residents continued
through the summer and fall of 1974 and the summer of 1975". Your
statement of no opposition should be rescinded in light of the
recent failure of the Issaquah school levy. Incidentally, the
only way I became aware of the Orton Road Interceptor (by the way,
I didn't even know it was called that until I received subject
document) was when the project engineer, Mr. Doneshvar contacted
me for easement privileges. I was under the misconception that
the project was approved and had the backing of the residents.
IV-44
-------
Environmental Impact Section M/S 443
June 25, 1976
Page 3
I subsequently submitted a request in writing to the Shoreline
Management Agency for a copy of the application and permit if
issued. To date, I have not received a copy from that agency.
However, because Mr. Doneshvar and I have been working together
on this project, he sent me a courtesy copy of the application
and advised me of the EPA statement. After several calls, I
located your agency and subsequently received a copy of subject
document. I received no notification as to the date of the
hearing nor have I seen any public notice in the Sunday issues
of the Renton Chronicle where I thought it surely would be
published. The point I am trying to make is that how can
anyone be for or opposed to anything if they are not made aware
of what is going on?
If I had the time I could write more objections to the proposed project
not because of the sewer line itself, but because of the inadequate
planning that has taken place. I cannot help but get the feeling that
the real reason for the sewer line is not to service the school but rather
to satisfy the needs of big land developers with public funds. This same
feeling has been rather strongly expressed at the Big Soos Creek Plateau
Middle Planning meetings by other citizenry regarding Fairwood.
Facing the fact that the proposed sewer line will be constructed, I would
like the EPA to concentrate on the aforementioned items 1 (b), 2 and 3.
Items 1 (b) and 2 can be solved by preventing indiscriminate removal of
trees by the contractor, restoration of the landscape to its original
profile and by replanting trees in the sewer corridor. Use of the
pipeline corridor for a nature trail is illegal and should so be stated
by the EPA. It would also have a detrimental social impact to residents
along the right-of-way who have already made great concessions by granting
construction easements. They should not be asked to further endure the
nuisance, vandalism, noise, littering, trespassing, etc., related to a
nature trail. Nor should they have their privacy or property rights
infringed upon.
Regarding the remaining items, the EPA should reprimand the various agencies
involved for letting this situation develop in the first place. Without a
master plan that has the approval of the people, this situation can only
reoccur and further degrade the citizenry's confidence in government.
Once again I would like to commend your agency regarding the content of
subject document. It has made me more aware of the need for overall
community planning. Thank you=
Very truly yours,
IV-45
F. Korbecki
-------
RESPONSE TO
JOSEPH F. KORBECKI
1. At the time of the Fairwood development, King County had no
regulations regarding storm drainage. Within the past year,
King County has adopted a regulation to contain storm water
resulting from development of properties presently undeveloped.
Review of drainage plans is the responsibility of the plat
approval agency. Flooding along the Cedar is principally due
to heavy snowmelt runoff and short time of concentration in
the upper basin.
2. The removal of some willows upstream from your property should
not appreciably affect the area in front of your property
because only about 10% of the willows in the area will be
removed. The "swath" will be considerably less than 70 feet
wide. Willows will be left to prevent floating debris from
washing onto your property. There is no way an interceptor
can be stabilized on the riverbed without removing some of
the vegetation at the shore crossings. Construction, however,
will be done in accordance with the environmental protection
specifications of the Shoreline Management Permit and the
State Department of Game, and the State Department of Fisheries.
3. The "swath" again will be considerably less than 70 feet wide
and should not be very noticeable. The interceptor route will
not go through the trees but along side of them, between the
forest and pastureland. Replacement of vegetation will be re-
quired.
4. Adjacent to the interceptor right-of-way is a 15 acre area which
is in the process of being purchased for a park by the County Parks
and Recreation Department, who will be responsible for recreation
development. EPA has no plans for any bike paths or nature trails.
In no case would these be forced on private property owners.
5. Any highway expansion or improvements is under the jurisdiction
of the State Department of Transportation. EPA's EIS can only
highlight problem areas. EPA has no jurisdiction over the
activities of other agencies activities and programs. This inter-
ceptor is designed to accomodate growth, not cause it. In any
developing area public services must keep pace with growing
demands. The State Highway Commission commented that "The
proposal does not appear to conflict with existing or planned
highway facilities in the area".
6. Although it is probably the case that some people used the school
levy to express their opposition to the Orton Rd. Interceptor it
cannot be concluded that all those who voted against the school
levy are also against the project. On the-contrary, the public
IV-46
-------
hearing held by EPA showed principal concern to be for the require-
ment of hook-ups when septic tanks are operating satisfactorily.
The hearing certainly did not give evidence of major opposition
to the project.
7. Notice of EPA's public hearing was included in the letter of
transmittal for the Draft EIS, which was mailed to approximately
150 agencies, groups and citizens including all the area news-
papers. 30 days' notice was given. Also, a legal notice was
published in the Seattle Times,Post Intelligencer, and Renton
Chronicle.
8. If you do grant the Water District an easement for the inter-
ceptor crossing of your property, you are free to negotiate with
them whatever stipulations you consider necessary to the protec-
tion of your property, such as surface restoration and revegetation.
IV-47
-------
Leon R. Harris
14210 West Lake Kathleen Drive SB
Renton, Washington 98055
May 24, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, P.E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443 RECEIVtD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X „,„,. 0 - -,
1200 Sixth Avenue l-:^' '•> ' '^
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel,
This letter is my comments to the Environmental Impact Statement
prepared for the Orton Road Interceptor Project.
I would first like to commend your department for the very comprehensive
study of our area. All areas should have this kind of a review
performed during the initial planning stages before zoning comes
about, le are rather sheltered in our community and really do not
know what is happening a mile away. I think the local government
is basically at fault for not informing the populace, so that they
can help guide the development of a community. Again, the individuals
involved in the preparation of the EIS deserve a pat on the back.
Basically, I have my comments in two parts. The first portion is
an overview of the EIS and the second part is page by page, I have
tried to remain objective in my review, but some of ray comments
were words which I felt must be said.
Overview Comments:
(1) There is to much information taken from the Water District as -^
fact. The water district is basically a group of people looking C/
out for their own interests and not that of the people who are
being served.
(2) A deficiency exist in the requirement for roads. What will .
be the areas needs for other four lane arteriels and other I
acesses to Renton? If so, where might these roads be located?
Does the increase in population require the reinstitutions of
the 1-605 project?
(3) Since many areas similar to ours are having sewers installed, 5
information pertaining to their cost should be included.
(4) Do individuals who live near an interceptor financed by the
Federal and State government get a much cheaper assessment than
those who do not?
Page by Page Comments:
(l) Page S-2 - should change from indirect to direct the fact that
developments will occur since they have been platted and are
only awaiting on sewers.
-1- IV-48
-------
(2) Page 1-7 - if 90 residences must connect at an average of 2,000
dollars per residence, why would the school have an obligation?
Does the excess money provide capital to the W.D. for promotion
of sewers?
(3) 1-11 - what were the ambiguities of the project which concerned
the DOE?
(4) 1-12 - should mention that the proponents at the hearing who
had septic tank problems, were not located in the service area.
(5) 1-18 - why should a service period less than 30 years be found
to be acceptable?
(6) 1-22 - if there are 3.34 residents per home and an acre can O
contain 5 residences, then the last line of first paragraph /
should be changed from 12 to 18,
(7) 1-23 - 2nd para; why should the EPA be assured that there will
be significant growth before giving a grant? The line size is
not significantly large,
(8) 1-25 - 1st sentence; To much is based upon the Districts Engineers
knowledge. It is best to gain information from other areas
which have gone through this kind of development. Information
of this nature is very important and it is extremely necessary
to obtain information from similar growth patterns. Must also
recognize fuel shortages and that people may move back to city.
(9) 1-28 - 1st para; if a comprehensive sewer plan gives license
for a water district to have sewers, then it should require j
?& vote of the people and not be accepted by resolution,
(10) 1-41 - with respect to line sizing and population growth, one
should not worry about population growth in 2025 if the line
may be only guaranteed for 30 years or less.
(11) II-5 - map could be deceptive in that it does not indicate ///
that some developed land is several acres per residence and / *f~
that subdivision would occur when sewers come through,
(12) II-6/7 - it is hopeful that the data presented here was obtained
from some other source than W.D. 90,
(13) 11-15 - it would appear that the 2025 population projection
would indicate that the land would not be saturated by sewerage
and most existing residents would be able to live out their
life without infringements.
11-18 - the money provided to W.D. 108 seems not to be very
cost effective. I would guess that the EPA has funded ma$y
projects which are less cost effective and will problably //
fund others which are not as beneficial. The major problem f O
is that only a few will benefit from such a project. Those
that live here can never possibly recover from the cost of
the sewer and related projects which come along with devel-
opment, A recent article in the Renton Record Chronicle
stated that a resident near Kent was being assessed for sewers
at the rate of 30# per square foot of land area. The net assess-
ment for the 40,000 sq ft is 12,000 dollars, less connection IV-49
charges. When cost effectiveness is to be determined, it should
-2-
-------
(14) consider the end result to the existing residents. If
the burden of supporting schools and cost for other assess-
ments become too large for the resident, he must then move, i M
He will search for a place which will significantly lower / /
his standard of living and will not be representative of
the small things in life that seem to be ••jorth^hi.lft, Tl.VE,
who is the EPA serving with its grant if the end result, is
the migration of the people away from an area in which aid
is being orovided»
*o ~
(15) 11-18 - since the alternative of paragraph two is now disclosed,
citizens should have sufficient time to study the corarehensi-ro
plan and to make necessary changes in order to preserve the
area. I IO
(16) 11-18 - 4th para; if the EPA will allow us a fair amount of
time to resolve the comprehensive plan, we will take immediate
action through our representative of the King County Council
to reconcile changes.
(17) 11-19 - 2nd para} what are the boundaries of the East fienton IQ
Plateau? It must be a very large area to require 35,000 / /
signatures.
(18) 11-23 - 3rd paraj only 550 students are to be transferred this
coming school year. The school only has five regular class-
rooms, one which will be used as a library. Six portable
classrooms will be moved to the new site, with an additional
three the following year.
(19) 11-28 - last paraj should be clarified that manager may be
listed as a full time employee, but does have a business of
his own plus some other moonlighting jobs which occur during
the working day.
(20) 11-31 - Elementary Schools; enrollment of elementary schools
have continued to decrease over the past few years in spite
of population increases. The 1980 estimate does not appear
to be in line with current trends.
(21) 11-35 - traffic is very congested now. What other major
arteriels are being considered besides 128th?
(22) 11-39 - how can such a small area as defined by the Ultimate
Service Area support an additional 375 jobs? That would
amount to over 4 million dollars per year.
(23) 11-45 - the advantage of slow growth is the building of cus-
tomized houses which are free from the urbanized look of tract
housing.
(24) 11-46 - 3rd paraj is this stating that it will cost an additional
700 dollars per year to have sewer privileges?
(25) 11-47 - 1st para; states that households along the sewer line
need not connect. This is contrary to the statement on page 1-37
(26) 11-48 - if the State and County require connection, what option
does the sewer utility have but to connect unless it overloads
the system? ry gg
-3-
0|
J
-------
(27) 11-49 - It appears that the water district figures cost are very
deceptive. I have conversed with many individuals wha have had
to pay much higher assessments, I assume that each of the
ninety residences that would be affected have been notified.
It may be that the assessment for forced connections as a result
of a public facility requirement, ends up being a cheaper rate
than for situations where no public facility is involved. I
would think that the Water District should give exact figures
and that all residences within the district be charged at the
same rate. This of course would change with the inflation rate.
(28) Every family who moves into this district with two school age
children which attend public school, automatically becomes an
additional expense to the community. The cost of education
is phenomenal. Families of one child can exist in the community
without being a liability. One child in fourteen qualify for
free meals in the Issaquah School District. This is a stag-
gering number, which indicated the general wealth of the res-
idents. 11-50
(29) 11-81 - under direct impacts — the statement regarding soil
erosion appears to be speculation. With all the knowledge
regarding soil conditions and construction techniques, there
should be no guessing.
(30) 11-81 - under indirect impacts — it would appear that the
possibilty of having severe erosion condition and water
quality problems, that some alternate method must be considered.
(31) 11-94 - what kind of guidelines does the Fish and Game Depart-
ment have in establishing the minimum acceptable loss of fish
and wildlife?
(32) 11-97 - who can impose constraints and how effective are they?
(33) 11-99 - what was the basis for determining energy consumption? <* J
It doesn't appear to be in agreement with the projected popu- •>* C*
lation growth.
(34) 11-105 - last sentence under Existing Conditionj I do not know
of anyone who believes that an urban environment provides
visual improvement. If that is what an individual wants,
then he is welcomed to move to the city.
(35) 11-107 - izriirect irapactsj the conclusions drawn with regard
to character are highly subjective.
(36) 11-108 - 2nd paraj a recent study has shown that older cars
are emitting less pollutants than the latest models. The
systems on cars are only good if inspected and serviced on a
regular basis.
(37) 11-114 - 1st para) "air resources appear to accommodate" -
does this mean that it must be tried and tested to determine
if true?
(38) 11-119 - under direct impact) building reduces infiltration
and causes a more rapid runoff which can cause severe flooding.
-4-
IV-51
-------
(39) 11-120 - 2nd para; how will lowering of the water table affect
vegetation, tree growth,etc?
(40) 11-120 - 3rd paraj how qualified are the Water District engineers
to determine land slide potential? Hopefully, other sources
were querried.
11-123 - 1st paraj "stub" line installations should be questioned,
11-126 - last para; thifc paragraph is exceptionally negative. As
previously stated, custom homes are much more aesthetic than what
is offered by tract housing. Nothing is mentioned about the
illegal perc tests that are continually madec The interim hauling
of sewage is under contract for 1,000 dollars per month„ If project
costs 700,000 dollars — 700 months is a very long time.
(43) III-3 - figure for hauling sewage is 1,000 per month according
to Dr. Clifton Johnson in a recent school board meeting.
(44) 111-10 - Jones Road Alternative; the statement of cost effective
of one route over the other is not valid. Statements at a "rt.D.
meeting indicated both were the same. Politics was more involved
in the decision than engineering.
(45) Al-2 - Water District resubmitted second levy due to pressures
from developers.
(4.6) last item - it is my understanding that only a dozen existing
houses could benefit from the Madsen Creek Interceptor in
Water District 108. I believe we should only deal with truths.
If developers in Fairwood caused to much pressure on public
officials, then the EIS should say so. Is it not the purpose
of the EPA to fund projects such as this for the sole purpose
of creating jobs and business activities? Al-10
(47) AL-10 - should expand on why Boise Cascade and Burlington I* f
Northern are willing to provide funding,,
U8) AI-13 - How can W.D. 90 go out for bids for a project that has U.2.
not been funded? *
(49) M-l - once the Ultimate Service Area was defined for the
purpose of the EIS, no change in the boundary should be made
without a revision to the EIS and resumraitted to interested
parties for review.
(50) A5-11 - why is Mr. Doneshvar getting reports on water samples?
Isn't that the job of the Health Department.
(51) A7-1 - The bald eagle is present and it is considered rare.
Hopefully, many of the items that I have discussed above, will be
considered valid and will be incorporated in the final EIS.
Sincerely,
IV-52
Leon R. Harris
-------
RESPONSES
TO
LEON R. HARRIS
0. A comment of this nature is of no help to us. If you can show us
specifically where erroneous Water District information is used,
the appropriate correction will be made.
1. Note on page 11-37 of the EIS the conclusions reached by using
the Puget Sound Council of Government's 1990 travel projections
and the King County Interim Transportation Plan. Using these as
a base, we have projected that although a substantial increase
in traffic volumes would occur as the Ultimate Service area
develops, this would not cause significant congestion problems
for most Study Area transportation facilities. Furthermore,
the major streets and roads of the Planned Service Area are de-
signed for traffic volumes up to 15 times their present level; only
8 to 9 times the present traffic would be generated by the poten-
tial Ultimate Service Area residences. The only serious poten-
tial capacity problems would occur in the western portion of the
Study Area on Maple Valley Highway, S. E. 128th Street, and 144th
Ave. S. E. It is beyond the scope of this EIS to do the detailed
transportation planning you are requesting.
2. Including costs of other projects in the Orton Rd. EIS would not
be appropriate or informative because each project has a highly
individual set of circumstances which will affect cost. Some of
these circumstances are construction conditions, environmental
conditions, and mitigative measures necessary. In addition,
the sewer would be constructed as a result of a competitive
bidding process. The cost of the project would be the price pro-
posed by the lowest bidder, which would reflect the going rates
at that particular time. Furthermore, cost to users has not
been shown to be a significant adverse impact.
3. No. Construction grant regulations (40 CFR § 35.935.99) stipu-
late that a system of user charges must be developed "to assure
that each recipient of waste treatment services within the appli-
cant's service area will pay its proportionate share of the
costs of operation and maintenance"... Proportionate share means
that equal classes of dischargers, e.g. residences, will pay
equal assessments. The only discrepency in cost may be in hook-
up fees which may differ depending on the necessity and extent
of non-Federally funded collection systems.
4. The use of the work "indirect" is correct since indirect impacts
always refer to the nature and extent of development and the
changes in land use as a result of this development, not the
project itself. To label these "direct" would cause confusion
and misunderstanding.
IV-53
-------
un-
5. As there are no LID's or ULID's in the proposed service area, no
residences will be required to connect unless septic tank failure
creates a significant health hazard and reparation of this failure
is impossible or prohibitively expensive. See the Water District's
new Resolution No. 318 passed on June 15, in response to public
concern about hook-ups. The project initially is intended to
serve only Liberty High School. The Issaquah School District has
assumed responsibility for paying the 10% local share. Any excess
funds generated for the Water District in its contract with the
School District is a matter for their concern.
6. The ambiguity was the jurisdiction of the 3 area projects: Mad-
sen Creek, Cedar River, and Orton Rd. Interceptors. This was
solved by making W.D. 108 the grantee for the Madsen Creek project
and W.D. 90 the grantee for the Cedar River Trunk extension.
7. As you will note from the Preface and the map following the Preface,
the service area for the interceptor has been revised and now
includes a significant area of failing septic tanks in the north-
west corner. Those persons still had every right to voice their
concerns.
8. An explanation to your question can be found on page 1-17. The
proposed interceptor has a 50-year design life. A design period
of less than 30 yr. is appropriate in areas of rapid or highly u
certain growth projection.
9. The last line of the paragraph is correct. See the chart on page
11-15, which shows an existing condition of 4.2 residents per acre
and a saturation figure of 10.1 residents per acre in the year
2025 if the area is completely sewered. In addition lot sizes
vary from 1.0 homes per acre to 3.5 homes per acre.
10. Your question is not understood. EPA does not require assurance
that significant growth will occur, but rather that project design
is adequate and projections appropriate.
11. Each project is unique and has its own peculiar set of circum-
stances. It is basically invalid to generalize from other projects.
Again, our response No. 1 applies.
12. State law requires that water or sewer Districts adopt a Compre-
hensive Sewerage Plan after approval by the State Pollution control
commission and the State Dept. of Health, With this requirement,
State law allows the District to operate and maintain sewers under
the Comprehensive Plan. Theoretically, this means that the entire
District could be sewered without a vote of the people, but only
when this sewer is financed by private interests. This is unlikely
for W.D. #90, since there is expected to be only a minimal amount
of private developments; construction on a major scale is not
imminent.
IV-54
-------
For any public financing of a sewer, however, public input and
a public vote is necessary. A bond issue is floated and, if
passed, LID's could be formed.
13. See our response, number 8, to your previous question.
14. Even though land use densities are not given in Figure 10, they
are described in Table 5, on page 11-15. See also Table 6.
15. This listing of densities was developed by EPA staff utilizing
PSGC data and County Assessor records.
16. Many have the opportunity to benefit from the Orton Rd. Inter-
ceptor if LID's are formed. The interceptor will have capacity
to serve all the residents in the service area.
17. The ability to pay for a sewer system must be weighed against
many other factors, including the need for the system. A
sewer system will always burden some and reward others. Some
residents will appreciate a sewer system because it will raise
their property values. From the tone of your comment, it is
doubtful that we could present an answer acceptable to you.
18. The Orton Rd. Interceptor is consistent with the goals of the County's
Comprehensive Plan. This plan was developed in 1964 and 1965 and
3 or 4 public hearings were held to discuss the Plan. In
addition, in 1965 an "area zoning" action took place to bring
zoning into agreement with the plan. Public hearings on this
action were also held. Although it is possible to alter the
Comprehensive Plan, it is difficult to do so. It is likely that
the County Council would not recommend approval of a plan amend-
ment presented by citizen initiative without extensive staff,
legal, policy advisory committee, and citizen review.
It is the conclusion of this EIS that a similar amount of popula-
tion growth will occur with or without the project (See Table 5).
The interceptor may only influence the rate at which this growth
will occur. In any case, there should be ample time for your
efforts to revise the County Comprehensive Plan, since the
project has yet to be built and the growth and development re-
sulting, takes time to evolve.
19. The approximation of 35,000 signatures is correct since any
initiative of this sort involves the entire County; this number
of signatures is based on the necessary percentage of County-wide
population.
20, If the school had opened this year, it would have accommodated
approximately 600 students in 28 teaching stations. The 28
teaching stations include 9 general classrooms, 3 commercial
classrooms, 1 arts & crafts room, 3 group instruction rooms,
IV-55
-------
3 science labs, 2 home ec. labs, 1 woodshop, 1 metal shop, 1
electrical shop, 1 mechanical drawing classroom, 1 music room
and 2 physical education rooms. As you mention; 6 portable
classrooms were to be added, with additional ones the next year.
21. The manager's job used to be by the hour; but now is a full-time
salaried position.
22. The elementary school enrollment has decreased in the last 2 or
3 years because of annexation to the Bellevue School District.
This however, does not reflect a lack of growth in the study
area. As indicated in the EIS, this area is slated for a signi-
ficant amount of growth with or without the project.
23. According to the State Department of Highways, no major roadwork
is planned for the service area in the immediate future. There
will be several projects involving minor road reconditioning and
resurfacing.
24. On page 11-39, a table describes in detail how the new employees
might be employed.
25. The statement on page 11-46 indicates that this $700 would
include sales, income property, and other taxes and service
charges for community facilities, which would include sewer
service.
26. The statement on page 1-37 has been corrected, in accordance with
the recently adopted Water District Resolution No. 318, which
essentially makes connections optional for existing residences.
Consult the Preface for further information on this subject.
27. See Preface for information concerning the elimination of forced
connections. As to cost, the basic approach of the Water District
is a conservative one. At this time, there is no equal cost
system for the District, but at the same time connections cannot
be compelled of existing residences and no LID's have been
formed. Once LID's are formed, costs will be equalized. Exact
figures cannot be presented until assessment rules are formed.
28. The direct impact section on page 11-81 has been rewritten.
29. As indicated on Table 5, nearly the same amount of development
will take place with or without the project. The existence of
the project will not alter the indirect impacts, which are the
result of population growth and not of the project.
30. The impact on fish and wildlife is not defined in that manner.
By virtue of State law, the Department of Fisheries has the
responsibility to preserve and protect wildlife and under these
conditions, there really is no acceptable minimum. Construction
would have to be in accordance with the terms of the required
Hydraulics Permit.
IV-56
-------
31. In accordance with the Shoreline Management Act, The County
Planning Commission, in cooperation with the Department of
Ecology, identify wetlands areas within their jurisdiction.
the county, then, is responsible for enforcing the protection
of these wetlands.
32. Sources used for the energy figures on page 11-99 include a
report by the Council on Environmental Quality "Cost of Sprawl"
and two reports by Hittman Associates, "Residential Energy
Consumption Multi Family Housing Data Acquisition", and Resi-
dential Energy Consumption Phase I Report". The apparent
discrepency between energy projections and population figures is
accounted for by the fact that energy is consumed at a some-
what greater rate than population growth.
33. Yes. According to air quality modeling studies, air resources
should accommodate the planned increases in urban development.
The word "appear" is used because not all of the many influen-
tial parameters within the study area may evolve as predicted.
A forecast such as this must always be qualified.
34. Any lowering of the groundwater table should be localized and
not have a significant effect on vegetation.
35. It is not within the jurisdiction of EPA and not within the
purview of this project to pass judgement in the capability
of registered professional engineers.
36. This comment is not understood. The subject of required
corrections is discussed in the Preface.
37. EPA is unaware of any illegal perc tests.
38. The latest figure quoted for hauling sewage is $2750 per month.
The text has been changed to reflect this correction.
39. The Water District carefully considered both routes, the Jones
Rd. and the Orton Rd., and selected the project recommended by
the Districts' engineer. The basis of the engineers recommen-
dation of the Orton Rd. route is that the Jones Rd. route has
greater potential environmental impact, with which EPA agrees.
The Jones Rd. route would result in major clearing and erosion
problems and construction would be particularly difficult from
Jones Rd. to Maywood Jr. High. In addition, there would be
little frontage on that line; most of the area is not even annexed
to Water District #90.
40. No. See the Preface of this document for an explanation of why
EPA feels this project should be funded.
41. Burlington Northern and Boise Cascade were involved in a portion of
an earlier grant which was a joint effort between 108 and W.D. 90
and involved, as far as W.D. 90 was concerned, only the Cedar River
IV-57
-------
Interceptor. Subsequently, the joint venture was dissolved, and
W.D. 90 made an independent grant application, without the
participation of Burlington Northern and Boise Cascade.
42. This has been deleted.
43. See Preface for a detailed explanation of boundary change. The
resulting damages in adverse impacts are insignificant.
44. Doneshvar & Associates contracted for this survey to augment
existing data.
45. Only two endangered species are known to occur in the area,
Canada goose and peregrine falcon, with only the falcon having
been observed.
IV-58
-------
13026 163rd Ave. S. E.
Renton, WA 98055
June 17, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443 RECEIVED
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue JUN 21 197fi
Seattle, WA 98101
PP A _•-•'•«
Dear Mr. Thiel;
We are residents of an area that definitely could use sewers I
We moved here during a building spree in September, 1967. At that
time, although it wasn't a major concern, we asked the Real Estate
agent when we could expect sewers, and were told they felt it
would be about 5 years.
Since that time, it has become a major concern with us. A
house 2 doors away from us was finally condemned and boarded up.
Septic tank problems existed for years, complaints were made to
the Health Department, but the house was not condemned until the
family moved from the area. The same was true of another house
one block away.
In the first house mentioned above, there was, and still is,
water continously in the ditch, apparently fed from an underground
spring. When the family used the washing machine, the water
bubbled up in the front yard, and when the Health Department
flushed dye through the toilet, it immediately showed up in the
ditch.
Both of these houses have made varied attempts at correcting
the drainage problems, and both houses are now occupied. In the
meantime, we still have some concern whether the problems are
eliminated, or just lessened.
We would strongly support sewers being brought into this area
as we feel it would eliminate health hazards, and would enhance our
community. As things stand now in our neighborhood, we have the
choice of having homes that do not function properly, or boarding
us these homes. The vandalism to these homes during their "con-
demned" period was unbelievable, and created quite an eyesore.
We are personally concerned for our home, but we are. also
vitally interested in Liberty High School having a long term
method of waste disposal. A temporary "hauling away" system would
only result in a high unnecessary expenditure of school district
funds. With levies" failing 3 years out of the last 4 years,
every dollar that has to be spent for "Maintenance" just further
deteriorates the educational programs for our children.
We would like to go on record as not opposing further
developement of our area.
U cn
v~59
-------
RE: Orton Road Draft EIS
See Appendix 1, page 4
RE: March, 19.7 6 _ - The statement that the voters approved this
special levy is incorrect, and conflicts with the correct
statement made under March 30, 1976.
RE: Spring 1976 - An addition should be made that a $1.15 Million
Bond (not levy) issue to complete construction of Liberty
High School, and purchase books and equipment was passed
by voters on February 10, 1976. See also page I 14 -
paragraph beginning "The new high school is necessary --- "
Comments;
A drastic decrease in the rate of growth in the area delayed
construction after the original 1969 voter approval, and the
inflation since that date necessitated the extra amount needed
to complete construction,
An update could also be made that the June 8, 1976 Maintenance
and Operation levy (second!976 attempt) failed, receiving a 59$
favorable vote, when a 60$ favorable vote was required.
The Issaquah School District, not having big business and
industry to contribute to its' tax base, must ask twice as much
per $1000 of assessed value as other districts to provide one-
third less dollar per student amount.
With levies failing 3 out of the last 4 years, largely due
to taxes, the people who have always supported the community,
are now moving from the area, and that's IMPACT!
A minority of voters are defeating our levies, and I would
hate to see a minority of the people halt the sever to Liberty
and to our community.
Sincerely,
^
Dorothy K. Jessen
IV-60
-------
RESPONSE
DOROTHY K. JESSEN
1. These two comments refer to the same bond issue. Corrections
have been made on page Al-4..
IV-61
-------
June 14, 1976
RECEIVED
JUN ] 5 197C
Environmental Protection Agency EPA-crr*
120" 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98191
Dear Sir:
This is in reference to the Environmental Import statement for the
Oeton Road Interceptor, King County Washington Environmental Import
Section MIS443.
I attended a hearing on June 9, 1976 at 7:3n p.m. at Briarwood
Elenentary School that really upset me. I am a principal in the
Issaquah School District and know how important this is for our
Liberty High School and also in the future will be needed for the
area .
The point Hi at bothered me most was almost every ant i -person making
the most noise were citizens of other areas.
If you will check their addresses - Mr. Swaggart, M.r. Vickers and
the lady representing some Green Grass Club doesn't even exist, at
least not in the Renton Highland's area. The tv;o gentlemen live in
Maplewood Heights which is outside the designated area. Others
participating were East of the same area, the Maple Hills are-a.
I feel these are professional objectors.
Our area and school district (possibly three different schools)
would benefit from this sewer line tremendously. I am in full
support of this being approved.
Sincerely ,
APOLLO JZlEMENTAfLY S
Lar/y L. Griffith, Principal
ns
Residence Address: 14217 SE 146th Street
Renton, HA. 98055
(flap! ewood Heights Area)
IV-62
-------
,(^~-
RECEIVED
JUN 28 1976
">.'///»/
/U^t-^d-e-t^-J-^
.^L^U *-AJ
/ (7
-*yfc-
I
UL,
IV-63
-------
•K-"-
_^£/-o
-------
June 20, 19?6
Richard R. i'hiel
Project Engineer Chief
Environmental Impact Section
M-S M-3 RECEIVED
U.S.E.P.A. Region X
1200 6th Ave. JUN 22 1976
Seattle, Wa. 98101
ERA _r'r-
Mr. Thiel:
I would like to add -JOt? name to those who are in
support of providing sewers for the newly built Liberty
High School in our area,
Ihe advent of sewers in our area is one long overdue
project that should be completed as soon as possible. Even
though the High School will not open this fall due to levy
failure, it appears to me that longer delay will make it
even more expensive at a later date. Any further delay in
bringing sewers into our area is just evading the Inevitable
issue that they must someday come into this area.
i'hank you,
Mr. & Mrs. ^aul R. Cooper
17329 S.E. 135th
Renton, Wa 98055
226-9285
IV- 6 5
-------
L .
-V
O£Ws^^\
« 3
M>u
'J
a
RECEIVED
2 9 1S76
EPA- PI VuQ Ox
-------
John D. Swenson
16U26 S. E. 1U5
Renton, Wa. 98055
June 22, 1976
i-ir. Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S Uh3
U.S. Hhvironmental Protection Agency, Region X RECEIVED
1200 Sixth Avenue r
Seattle, Washington 98101 JUN ^0
Dear Mr. Thiel: F.PA-P"*
We were unable to attend the meeting June 9 regarding the proposed
Orton Road Interceptor .
We would like you to know that we favor the Orton Road. Inter-
ceptor project, and we are hopeful that it will be approved
for the good of our community.
Yours truly,
John D. Swenson
Barbara A. Swenson
IV-67
-------
RECEIVED
JUN 28 1S76
rx EPA-FK;
y&>^<- £ 5, I <& (o
J
f?ol-
-J vi n e 9
CeJTov,
\-i cc^^c^i-rt ^"c> cLoioT>hot
^o Ux,c Ctli-i rcV A3>v3rcd Trv^T ^cujCjfcC ^oehn 5
U/e
l/a1' "VKe. fnore CX>' fn €>/ *«t> \T
do p. ol l2>ok \*orwu.v-d I o cx hiJ^c'r dch^-rw
n
\ or VYiOUG- \|o^ y"ni>sr V~»oT
UJ\\\ >s,i^eh4 ui-.il M 'smproue, prop en M
vxxl u_c ,
n '
> A^c^J u;:-\V*
pVov.. \\\^
& Ci r C C H v J
V^VjAx^J- 0. £nw
IV-68 x x, *^t,r. ,, ,. tjL- x-.. -. ti-
\> -V O X> ,
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
E.I.S. TITLE:
(Refer to front cover)
What is your opinion of this E.I.S.?
COMMENT- TVuS 1 s
T
^r
upe.,
VWi
J ""fvr--^
LJ OUTSTANDING
ABOVE AVERAGE
AVERAGE
I—I BELOW AVERAGE
UNACCEPTABLE
U-'^'KW frf tr,. \fli tU
^
y )"\ f}~\ XN^i^vTy^ c.'. \Ji(.i i iCi vIf"w
fitfuv
v-\
What is your opinion of the value
of this project?
WORTHWHILE
ACCEPTABLE
MARGINAL
UNACCEPTABLE
RECEIVED
JUN 28 '\
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check-where appropriate)
LJ ALTERNATIVES
CD LAND USE
[Xl GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
EH ECONOMICS/COSTS
LJ ENERGY CONSUMPTION
D
D
a
RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
WILD & SCENIC AREA
WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
FLOODPLAINS
AGRICULTURAL LAND
CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
PARKS/RECREATION
WATER QUALITY
LH AIR QUALITY
LJ NOISE
LH FISH & WILDLIFE
LJ GEOLOGY/SOILS ______^ _
(This format has been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
a
LJ SLUDGE DISPOSAL
I I OTHER: _______
IV-69
-------
E.I.S. TITLE:
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
0 /?TC> fV ft oA 0 INT £ R C£P ToR
(Refer to front cover)
What is your opinion of this E.I.S.?
IX] OUTSTANDING
CH ABOVE AVERAGE
LJ AVERAGE
BELOW AVERAGE
UNACCEPTABLE
RECEIVED
JUL2 1976
EPA-P-
COMMENT:
What is your opinion of the value
of this project?
WORTHWHILE
ACCEPTABLE
MARGINAL
UNACCEPTABLE
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
ALTERNATIVES
LAND USE
GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
I I ECONOMICS/COSTS
LJ ENERGY CONSUMPTION
I WATER QUALITY
LJ AIR QUALITY
LH NOISE
FISH & WILDLIFE
RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
WILD & SCENIC AREA
EH WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
I I FLOODPLAINS
LJ AGRICULTURAL LAND
I I CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
PARKS/RECREATION
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
OTHER:
GEOLOGY/SOILS
(This format has been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
IV-70
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
E.I.S. TITLE:
TO /U
/ AJ
Co.
(Refer to front cover)
What is your opinion of this E.I.S.?
LJ OUTSTANDING
LJ ABOVE AVERAGE
AVERAGE
J BELOW AVERAGE
L_J UNACCEPTABLE
COMMENT:
What is your opinion of the value
of this project?
L_J WORTHWHILE
ACCEPTABLE
MARGINAL
EH UNACCEPTABLE
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
0-WILD & SCENIC AREA
WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
FLOODPLAINS
AGRICULTURAL LAND
LJ ALTERNATIVES
LAND USE
GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
I I ECONOMICS/COSTS
LJ ENERGY CONSUMPTION
d WATER QUALITY
U AIR QUALITY
EH NOISE
FISH & WILDLIFE
GEOLOGY/SOILS
(This format has been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
[~1 CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
PI PARKS/RECREATION
I I SLUDGE DISPOSAL
J OTHER:
IV-71
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
£. J. Co/43ue.bo
E.I.S. TITIF. Qrtdrt *RoaJ
(Refer to front cover)
What is your opinion of this E.I.S.? L_J OUTSTANDING
JST ABOVE AVERAGE RECEIVED
AVERAGE JUN15197G
LJ BELOW AVERAGE EPA-FIS
UNACCEPTABLE
COMMENT .x5"*/?/(r do *&//)& *ru?**> '/ 5 M*2 ^ cD >- f /
. . _ .
What is your opinion of the value
WORTHWHILE
of this project? l_J ACCEPTABLE
LJ MARGINAL
UNACCEPTABLE
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
LJ ALTERNATIVES LJ RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
CD LAND USE CH WILD & SCENIC AREA
D GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT Q WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
I I ECONOMICS/COSTS
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
FLOOD-PLAINS
AGRICULTURAL LAND
WATER QUALITY l~] CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
AIR QUALITY I I PARKS/RECREATION
NOISE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FISH & WILDLIFE | | OTHER:
GEOLOGY/SOILS
(This format has been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
IV-72
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
E.I.S. TITLE: LV
(Refer to front cover)
What is your opinion of this E.I.S.?
Z 7-
COMMENT:
LJ OUTSTANDING
H ABOVE AVERAGE
LH AVERAGE
BELOW AVERAGE
UNACCEPTABLE
RECEIVED
JuN j 1S76
What is youropinion of the value
of this project?
WORTHWHILE
ACCEPTABLE
LJ MARGINAL
UNACCEPTABLE
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
ALTERNATIVES
LAND USE
GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMICS/COSTS
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
WATER QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
NOISE
FISH & WILDLIFE
GEOLOGY/SOILS
RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
WILD & SCENIC AREA
WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
tU FLOODPLAINS
I I AGRICULTURAL LAND
|~~| CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
HI PARKS/RECREATION
I I SLUDGE DISPOSAL
|~l OTHER: —
(This format has been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
IV-73
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM RECEIVED
MAY 1 7 1S76
E>I.S. TITIP. Orton Road Interceptor
(Refer to front cover)
What is your opinion of this E.I.S.? LJ OUTSTANDING
ABOVE AVERAGE
LJ AVERAGE
LJ BELOW AVERAGE
LU UNACCEPTABLE
COMMENT:
Area, of Liberty Senior High and Issaquah Senior High service area
reversed.
What is your opinion of the value ULJ WORTHWHILE
of this project? LJ ACCEPTABLE
LJ MARGINAL
J UNACCEPTABLE
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
LJ ALTERNATIVES ' 'LJ RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
LJ LAND USE I I WILD & SCENIC AREA
n GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT Q WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
D ECONOMICS/COSTS ' ' EH FLOODPLAINS
LJ ENERGY CONSUMPTION
AGRICULTURAL LAND
I—I WATER QUALITY I I CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
AIR QUALITY I I PARKS/RECREATION
NOISE
FISH & WILDLIFE
GEOLOGY/SOILS
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
OTHER:
(This format has been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
IV-74
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
. (A/ /ffo/e*/soA), J/tK.
i c TlTI F. Environmental Impact Statement Ortbn Road Interceptor King County, Wash.
.l.w* 111 LCI «_,v^_HHH_____H_.^.HM_______^.^^^.^^___WHM_______^»__^^_^_^_^____^^^^^_______MM_________
(Refer to front cover)
RECEIVED
JUN 23 19/6
UUI SIANDING
1 I A r\ s~\ \ /1— A\/I—i-»A<-\t— ^"^ C.- > i ">
What is your opinion of this E.I.S.? idSJ OUTSTANDING
ABOVE AVERAGE
AVERAGE
BELOW AVERAGE
UNACCEPTABLE
COMMENT:
What is your opinion of the value k2J WORTHWHILE
of this project?
ACCEPTABLE
EH MARGINAL
J UNACCEPTABLE
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
ALTERNATIVES
_J RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
a
CU LAND USE I I WILD & SCENIC AREA
EH GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT Q WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
CU ECONOMICS/COSTS EH FLOODPLAINS
EH ENERGY CONSUMPTION I I AGRICULTURAL LAND
WATER QUALITY
CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
D
EH AIR QUALITY EH PARKS/RECREATION
ED NOISE EH SLUDGE DISPOSAL
EH FISH & WILDLIFE EH OTHER:
EH GEOLOGY/SOILS .
(This format has been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
IV-75 •
-------
ROCKS
BIB LI O G RAPH
'
--^' "
• 'j
- • • - ' '
fe*:%'«V~^ti_ .^-~ __.. - " *
v
'
' ,
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Council on Environmental Quality. Final Revised Guidelines for
Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. 40 CFR, Part 1500.
August 1, 1973.
Executive Order 11593. "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment." CFR-3-The President, 1971 Compilation. May 6, 1971.
Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers.
Recommended Standards for Sewage Works. 1968.
King County Code. Charter - Sections 220-990. March 27, 1972.
King County Planning Department. The Comprehensive Plan for King
County, Washington. Supplemented by Department of Community and
Environmental Development, Land Use Management Division. 1975.
King County Water District 90. Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. [ ].
. Grant Application-Facilities Planning. Project No.
530-550-01. February 13, 1975.
Leopold, Luna B. Hydrology for Urban Land Planning - A Guidebook on
the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use. U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 554. 1969.
Municipaltiy of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO). METRO Comprehensive
Sewerage Plan.[ ].
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. An Evaluation of Alternatives
for On-Site Sewage Treatment and Disposal.(Including Summary Report).
1975.
Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). AAM Projections [ ].
Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC). PSGC Interim Regional
Development Plan Forecasts, 1970-1990. 1973.
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. Rules and Regulations
for Construction and Installation of Sewage Disposal Systems Authorized
by King County Ordinance #931. 1972 (rev.).
V-l
-------
Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle. Soil Survey of
King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with Washington Agricultural Experiment Station.
1973.
URS/Hill, Ingman, Chase & Co. Engineering Report on a Comprehensive Plan
and Cost Estimates for a Sewage Collection System for King County Water
District No. 90. 1970.
. Environmental Impact Statement for Orton Road Interceptor
Sewer, King County Water District No. 90, King County, Washington. 1973.
. Post-Hearing Addendum to Orton Road Interceptor Sewer, King
County Water District No. 90, King County,Washington. 1973.
U.S. Congress. "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments." PL 92-500.
1972.
. "Historical and Archeological Data Preservation Act Amend-
ments." PL 93-291. 1974.
. "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969." PL 91-190. 1970.
. "National Flood Insurance Act." PL 90-448. 1968.
. "National Historic Preservation Act." PL 89-665. 1966.
U.S. Department of the Interior. United States List of Endangered Species.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Regulations, Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements. 40 CFR, Part 6. April 14, 1975.
. Manual for Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements
for Wastewater Treatment Works, Facilities Plans, and 208 Areawide
Waste Treatment Management Plans. Office of Federal Activities.
Washington, D.C. 1974.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1972 PEERS Projections - Regional
Economic Activity in the U.S. Series E - Population Vol. 1-7. Wash-
ington, D.C. 1974.
University of Wisconsin Small Scale Waste Management Project. On-Site
Waste Water Disposal for Homes in Unsewered Areas. College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, College of Engineering, Extension Division
of Economic and Environmental Development. Madison, Wisconsin. 1973.
Washington Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management. "Interim
Population Projections to Year 2000 by County." Memorandum. October
2, 1972.
V-2
-------
Washington State Department of Health. Rules and Regulations of the
State Board of Health-General Sanitation. Olympia. 1960.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. Rules and
Regulations of the State Board of Health for On-Site Sewage Disposal
Systems. Health Services Division. Office of Environmental Health
Programs. Olympia. 1974.
V-3
-------
DICES
••• S.
V f
ess*.
' -VJ
\.V
H
-------
APPENDIX 1
PROJECT HISTORY
The Orton Road Interceptor has had a relatively complex history
since it was initially conceived in 1969. This section highlights the
major events associated with the proposed project. Because other sewer
projects and the development of Liberty High School are directly related
to or associated with the proposed project, relevant information re-
garding such projects is also provided where appropriate.
THE WATER DISTRICT AND SEWERS, 1952-1968
August 1952 - W.D. 90 was formed to serve the East Renton
Plateau with a public water supply.
. Mid 1950's to Mid 1960's - Rapid development of the East Renton
Plateau occurred, with subdivisions utilizing septic tank waste-
water disposal systems.
1966 to 1968 - Stricter State and County septic tank rules and
regulations were adopted; a general slowdown in development of
Water District became evident.
1967 - Developers contacted the Water District requesting assis-
tance in bringing sewerage facilities to the area.
. February 1969 - W.D. 90 adopted Resolution No. 184 authorizing
the construction, operation, and maintenance of sanitary sewers.
Under State law, certain steps remained to be taken before the
District could go into the sewer business. First, the District
had to receive State certification that it was "necessary to
proceed" with sewerage facilities. Second, it had to prepare a
comprehensive sewerage plan. In addition, the approval of
sewerage bonds by the voters of the District was required before
the District could incur any indebtedness in order to finance
sewerage facilities.
THE WATER DISTRICT AND SEWERS, 1968-1972
. August 1968 - The District submitted an engineering report to
the State seeking certification and approval.
Al-1
-------
June 1969 - The State Water Pollution Control Commission issued
a formal Certification of Necessity authorizing the Water
District to proceed with the planning of a sewerage system.
June 1969 - The District authorized its consulting engineers to
prepare a comprehensive sewerage plan.
April 1970 - The Completed comprehensive sewerage plan received
approval by the District Commissioners and the King County
Engineering Department.
June 1970 - The completed comprehensive sewerage plan received
approval by the State Department of Health and the State Water
Pollution Control Commission.
Late 1970 and 1971 - A significant regional economic slump
essentially stopped land development activity in the District.
The demand to construct sanitary sewers diminished.
November 1971 - The District's sewerage facility bond issue was
defeated by a margin of approximately 800 to 600. Like all
Water District and School District bond issues, the proposition
needed the approval of sixty percent of the voters in the
election.
Mid-1972 - As the regional economy strengthened, the District
determined that it was time to submit the proposed sewerage
plan to the voters in order to issue bonds to finance the
planned facilities.
October 1972 - The FWPCAA was approved by Congress and the Pres-
ident.
November 1972 - The School District and Water District entered
into a sewerage service agreement. Though the Water District
could not issue its own bonds to finance sewer construction, it
could enter into contracts with firms, individuals, or other
governmental agencies because the State had approved the
Certificate of Necessity. The School District realized that
without the passage of the Water District's bond issue it would
be unlikely that their new high school site would be provided
with a sanitary sewer. Therefore the School district decided to
finance the desired sewer at their own expense and enter into an
agreement with the Water District for sewer operation and main-
tenance. First discussed in 1969, this alternative was immediately
implemented following the failure of the 1972 bond issue.
The School District agreed to advance the necessary funds to
the Water District for the preliminary engineering design of the
desired interceptor and to advance up to $100,000 to the Water
District for the local financing of the design, construction, and
inspection of the sewers connecting Liberty High School to the
Al-2
-------
existing METRO Cedar River Interceptor in Renton, if any EPA
grant became available. The District agreed to prepare and submit
the required grant application forms and to assume the responsi-
bility for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
desired interceptors. The District also agreed to reimburse the
School District over a fifteen year period with funds collected
from future connections to the interceptor sewers for the differ-
ence between the money advanced by the School District and the
connection fee which the School District would have paid for the
Liberty High School site if the bond issue had passed, Washing-
ton State School Districts do not have the authority to estab-
lish, construct, operate, or maintain sewers. The Issaquah
School District, therefore, had to rely on the Water District for
grant application purposes.
November 1972 - The District sent Pre-Application Notification
forms for the Orton Road Interceptor to the State Department of
Ecology and the State and Regional Clearinghouses.
THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL, 1969 - 1976
Early 1969 - An Issaquah School District survey indicated that
the southwest portion of the School District would ultimately
support a new junior high and a new high school. Subsequently,
from mid-1969 to late 1969 Maywood Junior High was constructed
and completed and an evaluation of alternative new high school
sites was undertaken.
. Mid-1969 - The School District initiated a process of considering
alternative waste water treatment systems for the new high school.
. November 1969 - $1,565,271 in funding for the new high school
was authorized by the School District's voters.
. November 1969 - The School District concluded that sewer service
to any new high school site by the City of Renton was not feasi-
ble. In addition, the State Department of Health notified the
School District that septic tank or package sewage treatment
systems would not be acceptable long-term methods to treat the
new high school's wastes. Service by a new sanitary sewer
appeared to offer the only feasible long-term cost-effective
solution. Since school districts cannot construct, operate, or
maintain sanitary sewers, service by W.D. 90 offered a viable
alternative.
. November 1969 - The high school site evaluation process was
completed, recommending that the Liberty High School site be
acquired, primarily because the site was the most accessible to
proposed METRO (Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle) sewerage
facilities in the Cedar River Valley. In 1969 METRO Cedar River
Interceptor extension was planned to be constructed in the
early 1970s.
Al-3
-------
November 1969 - The Liberty High School site received approval
by the King County Planning Department and the Seattle-King
County Department of Public Health.
December 1969 - The Liberty High School site received approval
by the State Superintendent of Education and was purchased by
the School District.
April 1972 - The Issaquah School District Board of Directors
passed Resolution No. 171, stating the School District's intent
to proceed with the construction of the new high school
Mid-1972 - The School District unsuccessfully attempted to
obtain U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds
to finance a sewer connecting the new school site to a METRO
sewer in the Cedar River Valley.
August 1974 - Site preparation and school construction began.
March 1975 - School District voters rejected a bond issue and
special levy requested by the School District which would have
provided part of the additional funding needed to staff and
equip Liberty High School.
May 1975 - A second School District levy, which would have paid
half the cost of equipping Liberty High School, was defeated.
School Districts can only submit two special levy requests to
their electors.
August 1975 - The new high school was nearing completion.
Inside finishing, furnishing, flooring, landscaping, and final
site preparation work remained to be completed. The manhole and
lateral sewer connecting the new school to the projected loca-
tion of the proposed project was installed.
March 1976 - Issaquah School District placed a $4.9 million
special levy on the ballot and voters approved it.
Spring 1976 - Liberty High School will be completed and
approximately $3,415,000 will have been spent on constructing
it.
March 30, 1976 - $4.99 million levy for Issaquah School District
fails. Superintendent states Liberty High School can not open
in fall of 1976.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT, 1973
November 1972 to January 1973 - The State and Regional Clearing-
house review of the Orton Road Interceptor occurred. This
initial grant application review was a project which included
a connection to the existing METRO interceptor in the Cedar
River Valley. State agencies passed on generally favorable
Al-4
-------
comments for this project. The Regional Clearinghouse, then
known as the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSCG),
discovered that the proposed project involved a potential
conflict between the growth potential of the proposed inter-
ceptor and the PSGC's Intermim Regional Development Plan (IRDP).
The Conference required the assurance of the District that
residential development would be directed to land suitable for
such use prior to PSGC approval of the proposed project. The
PSGC recommended that the District restrict access to the
proposed interceptor to only those areas designated as suitable
for development by the IRDP and the King County Comprehensive
Land Use Plan.
February 1973 - W.D. 90 responded by adopting Resolution No.265
restricting use of the Orton Road and Cedar River Interceptors
south of S.E. 148th Street to connections approved by the PSGC
or its successor.
March 1973 - The PSGC passed on favorable project review comments
to DOE and EPA.
April 1973 - The District received approval from DOE to submit
a grant application under the FWPCAA for the Orton Road Inter-
ceptor project. W.D. 90's Orton Road and Cedar River Inter-
ceptor projects were placed on the state's Fiscal Year 1974
Project List, which allows eligible applicants to apply for
EPA grants.
June 1973 - The District submitted a grant application with an
attached Environmental Assessment for the Orton Road Intercep-
tor, which included the Cedar River Valley project, to the DOE
and EPA. The Environmental Assessment was also circulated to
eleven other agencies for their review and comment.
July 1973 - Review of the Environmental Assessment by the
PSGC indicated that a potential duplication of facilities
occurred between the Orton Road Interceptor and an interceptor,
known as the Madsen Creek Interceptor and proposed by King
County W.D. 108. The portion of the Orton Road Interceptor
in the Cedar River Valley along the Maple Valley Highway was
very similar to and parallel to the Madsen Creek Interceptor
section along the Maple Valley Highway. Meetings between the
PSGC and the Water Districts resulted in W.D. 108's adoption of
a resolution declaring their intent to cooperate with W.D. 90;
July 1973 - The District's Environmental Assessment Public
Hearing was held. Public opposition to the proposed project began,
July and August 1973 - Comments on the District's Environmental
Assessment were received. During the review of the Assessment
METRO inquired as to the propriety of W.D. 90's Resolution No.
265, which had been attached to the Assessment as an exhibit.
Al-5
-------
METRO believed that the resolution was not compatible with
planned W.D. 90/METRO contract negotiations. The District
responded by adopting Resolution No. 270, which altered Resolu-
tion No. 265 by requiring prior approval of the governmental
agency holding legal zoning authority for properties desiring
connection to those portions of the Orton Road and Cedar River
Interceptors south of S.E. 148th Street. King County, rather
than the PSGC or its successor, therefore, assumed the responsi-
bility for approving connections to the proposed project prior
to the District's approval of connections.
August to October 1973 - W.D. 90's consultants completed an
addendum to the Environmental Assessment which responded to
the Public Hearing comments and citizen's letters. W.D. 108
completed an Environmental Assessment for the Madsen Creek
Interceptor and held an Environmental Assessment public hearing.
Fall 1973 - A small number of W.D. 90 residents continued to
send letters opposing the proposed project to DOE.
November 1973 - W.D. 90's second attempt at receiving approval
of its bond issue for sewerage facility construction failed by
an approximate two-to-one margin.
Mid-November 1973 - DOE certified W.D. 90's Qrton Road and Cedar
River Interceptor projects as to their priority for Step 1
(facilities planning) and Step 2 (design and preparation of
plans and specifications) funding. Certification of priority
indicates that a grantee has met all necessary requirements and
is ready to receive a grant award. DOE informed the Districts
that the three projects were justified and that the preparation
of plans and specifications should proceed.
Late November 1973- DOE informed the Districts that coordination
between the Orton Road and Madsen Creek projects would be
required in order to make better use of limited funds. DOE
informed Region X that no action should be taken on either
project until the Districts reached a formal agreement regarding
the coordination of the Cedar River Valley portion of their
projects.
Late December 1973- The Districts reached agreement that joint
action with METRO on the Cedar River Interceptor would be
advantageous. Districts agreed that W.D. No. 90 would be
responsible for construction of the Orton Road Interceptor,
and with METRO, the Cedar River Interceptor. W.D. 108 agreed
to be responsible for construction of the Madsen Creek Inter-
ceptor.
Al-6
-------
THE PROPSED PROJECT. 1974
. December 1973 and January 1974 - Letters of opposition to the.
Orton Road Interceptor project were sent by District residents
to Congressmen, EPA, DOE and local governmental officials.
. January 1974 - DOE commented on EPA's EIS requirements, noting
the possibility that an EIS may be needed for the Orton Road
Interceptor portion of the three projects. DOE also desired
information regarding conditions which EPA could impose on the
Orton Road Interceptor to limit its use to the new high school.
. Early February 1974 - EPA informed DOE and the Districts that a
combined grant application should be submitted and that the
Districts should execute an agreement designating one representa-
tive to act for both Districts.
Mid-February 1974 - EPA returned the State Priority Certifications
and Project Approvals to DOE.
. Late February 1974 - W.D. 90 passed Resolution No. 277,
expressing an intent to contract with W.D. 108 for the proposed
facilities. W.D. 108 passed resolutions designating W.D. 90
as the representative for both Districts, expressing its
intent to enter into contracts with W.D. 90, and approving an
agreement with W.D. 90 for the proposed facilities. W.D. 108's
resolutions also accepted the commitment of the Burlington
Northern Railroad, Boise Cascade, and Quadrant Corporations for
the funds necessary to pay for the local share of the Madsen
Creek and Cedar River Interceptors.
Late February 1974 - Following the adoption of the resolutions
by each District specifying their relative roles, service
area boundaries, and contract responsibilities, an application
was filed by W.D. 90 for the Orton Road, Madsen Creek, and Cedar
River Interceptors. This application is the one under consider-
ation in this Environmental Impact Statement.
. March 1974 - Region X officials informed W.D. 90 that a
supplemental Environmental Assessment and public hearing would
be required since the revised joint grant application had
technically become a new grant application.
. March to May 1974 - State and Regional Clearinghouses reviewed
the Districts' supplemental Environmental Assessment.
. April 1974 - W.D. 90 held a Public Hearing for the joint grant
application. Considerable public opposition to the Orton Road
Interceptor portion of W.D. 90's grant application was observed
at the public hearing, leading State and EPA officials to
believe that an EPA Environmental Impact Statement should be
prepared.
Al-7
-------
Summer and Fall 1974 - Opposition to the proposed project by
some residents continued by mail.
May 1974 - EPA's Project Engineer prepared an initial Environ-
mental Appraisal and Negative Declaration for the Madsen Creek
and Cedar River Interceptors and suggested that they be separa-
ted from the Orton Road Interceptor project so that an EIS
could be prepared for the Orton Road Interceptor.
Late July 1974 - DOE informed the Districts and interested
property owners that all three projects would be certified for
Step 1 (facilities planning) reimbursement funding and that the
Cedar River and Madsen Creek Interceptors would be certified
for Step 2 (design and preparation of construction drawings and
specifications) funding.
August 1974 - DOE certified all three W.D. 90 projects as to
their priority for Step 1 reimbursement funding and certified
the priority of the Cedar River Interceptor for Step 2 funding.
The Step 2 priority certification for the Madsen Creek segment
of the project was denied until completion of an infiltration/
inflow evaluation. The Step 2 priority certification for the
Orton Road segment of the project was denied pending resolu-
tion of the environmental concerns associated with the project.
This certification of the three W.D. 90 projects was required
since the February 1974 grant application was technically a
new grant application and the previous certification of the
projects had been returned to DOE by EPA.
August 1974 - Region X issued a Negative Declaration for the
Madsen Creek and Cedar River Interceptor portions of the
total project, stating that no significant impacts would
result and that an EPA EIS was not needed.
September 1974 - Region X issued a Notice of Intent to prepare
this EIS for the Orton Road Interceptor portion of the total
project.
October 1974 - The METRO Council approved a sewer service
agreement with W.D. 90.
October 1974 - Region X approved the infiltration/inflow
analysis for the Madsen Creek Interceptor.
October 1974 - Region X received letters from citizens ques-
tioning the authority of King County Water Districts to sponsor
sewer projects.
November 1974 - Region X review of the Madsen Creek Interceptor's
size and service area's characteristics continued.
Al-8
-------
Late November 1974 - DOE voided the November 1973 certification
for Step 2 funding for the Orton Road, Cedar River, and Madsen
Creek Interceptors. DOE had also intended to void the August
1974 Step 2 priority certification for the three projects, due
to delays in their processing associated with the review of the
grant applications.
Early December 1974 - Region X informed W.D. 90 that the Madsen
Creek Interceptor might not be eligible for EPA financial
assistance. Region X also requested a legal opinion regarding
the authority of W.D. 90 to construct, operate, and maintain
sewerage facilities without prior approval of its residents to
issue bonds for sewerage facility construction. Preparation of
this EIS was suspended.
Mid-December 1974 - W.D. 90's legal counsel informed Region X
that W.D. 90 had completed all necessary legal steps to
establish, maintain, and operate sewer systems. W.D. 108
supplied additional information to EPA regarding the Madsen
Creek Interceptor.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT, 1975
January 1975 - Regions X's Regional Counsel concurred with the
District's legal opinion that W.D. 90 has the legal authority
to engage in sewer projects.
Late January 1975 - Region X concluded that the Madsen Creek
Interceptor was not eligible for EPA grant assistance.
Mid-February 1975 - Region X offered a reimbursement grant to
W.D. 90 for Step 1 (facilities planning) activities associated
with the Orton Road, Cedar River and Madsen Creek projects.
Late February 1975 - W.D. 108 Commissioners determined that
mutual termination of prior agreements between the Districts
would be desirable.
Early March 1975 - W.D. 108 notified W.D. 90 that they were
willing to withdraw from prior agreements if certain conditions
were met.
Early March 1975 - W.D. 90 accepted EPA's Step 1 grant for the
three projects.
Mid-March 1975 - W.D. 90 established reimbursement procedures
for the three projects by passing Resolution No. 296.
Early April 1975 - W.D. 108 submitted new information to
EPA and DOE regarding the Madsen Creek Interceptor. Based
Al-9
-------
on the new information regarding the existing demand for the
project, EPA determined that the Madsen Creek Interceptor
could again be considered eligible for EPA financial assis-
tance.
Mid-May 1975 - Region X informed DOE that the three W.D. 90
projects could be considered separate segments of one grant
application and that the administrative hold associated with
this Orton Road Interceptor EIS did not affect the Madsen
Creek and Cedar River Interceptor projects. Their grant
processing could, therefore, proceed.
Late May 1975 - DOE informed the Districts that there would be
no problems associated with segmenting the three W.D. 90
projects.
June 1975 - W.D. 90 rescinded all prior agreements and resolu-
tions dealing with the Orton Road, Cedar River and Madsen
Creek Interceptor projects by passing Resolution No. 300.
June 1975 - W.D. 90 adopted Resolution No. 302, which states
that no connections to its sewers will be permitted in those
portions of the Cedar River Valley which King County has zoned
Forest Recreation, Flood Plain, or General. Resolution No. 302
was passed in order to satisfy King County officials who were
concerned that the Orton Road and Cedar River Interceptors would
encourage development that was contrary to the County's Compre-
hensive Land Use Plan. Following adoption of Resolution No.
302, the County Council approved the District's 1970 Compre-
hensive Sewerage Plan.
Early July 1975 - W .D. 90 approved a contract with METRO in
which METRO agreed to pay the ten percent local share of the
cost of constructing the Cedar River Interceptor extension.
Originally, the Issaquah School District would have paid half
of the local share of the project and the Boise Cascade Corpor-
ation and Burlington Northern Corporation would have financed
the remainder. Eventually, the School District was to have
been partially reimbursed by W.D. 90; the corporations by W.D.
108. Under the new METRO/W.D. 90 contract, METRO will pay up
to $50,000 unless further authorizations are agreed to. W.D.
90 would be responsible for all construction and grant appli-
cations activities. METRO would assume ownership and responsi-
bility for the Cedar River Interceptor extension immediately
upon its completion. According to W.D. 90, the new contract
ends any W.D. 108 involvement with the Cedar River Interceptor
project.
Early July 1975 - DOE listed W.D* 90's Madsen Creek and Orton
Road Interceptor projects on its Fiscal Year 1976 Project List,
which indicated that grant applications for the projects may be
submitted.
Al-10
-------
Mid-July 1975 - The King County Council denied the plat request
of developers proposing Briar Hills, a proposed subdivision of
approximately 100 acres adjacent to the Orton Road Interceptor's
route. The proposed plat was denied pending the installation of
an operative sanitary sewer system.
August 1975 - W.D. 90 applied to DOE for Step 2 funding for the
Cedar River Interceptor extension. W.D. 108 applied to DOE for
Step 2 funding for the Madsen Creek Interceptor, though W.D. 90
is still, technically, the grant applicant.
August 1975 - DOE requested EPA to approve a revision to the Fis-
cal Year 1976 Project List which would officially split the three
W.D. 90 projects into three project segments. W.D. 90 would be
the grant applicant for the Orton Road and Cedar River Inter-
ceptors and W.D. 108 would be the grant applicant for the Madsen
Creek Interceptor. This request has not yet been approved by EPA
but its approval is likely. If approved, DOE will place all
three projects on the State Project List and consequently, make
them eligible for Step 2 and Step 3 grants during Fiscal Year
1976.
August 1975 - The METRO Council approved the contract with W.D.
90 for the construction of the Cedar River Interceptor extension.
September 1975 - DOE and EPA approved Facilities Plans for the
Madsen Creek and Cedar River Interceptors. Approval of a
Facilities Plan completes the Step 1 portion of EPA's Construc-
tion Grant process and allows Step 2 grants to be made.
October 1975 - DOE could certify the priority of releasing EPA
funds for reimbursing Step 2 (design, plans and specifications
preparation) work completed by the Districts on the Madsen
Creek and Cedar River Interceptor grants. Applications for
Step 3 (construction) grants could then be processed, and the
projects could be constructed. The resolution of the conflicts
between the Districts will, however, have to be resolved before
Step 2 funding will be made. W.D. 90 will probably be the
grantee for the Cedar River and Orton Road Interceptors, each
of which would be eligible for Step 2 and Step 3 grants during
this Fiscal Year. W.D. 108 would be responsible for only
Al-11
-------
the Madsen Creek Interceptor, which would be eligible for
Step 2 and Step 3 EPA grants during this Fiscal Year.
The Cedar River Interceptor's status remains somewhat unclear.
For example, even though W.D. 90 has voided all prior agreements with
W.D. 108, W.D. 108 has not rescinded any of its prior agreements
with W.D. 90 and, in fact, considers them to be still operative.
W.D. 108 considers the Cedar River Interceptor to still technically be
a joint venture, with W.D. 90 responsible for the grant application and
W.D. 108 responsible for construction of the project. W.D. 108 is,
however, quite willing to terminate all prior agreements if W.D. 108
is guaranteed reimbursement for past engineering activities associated
with the interceptor extension project.
W.D. 90 considers the Cedar River Interceptor to be strictly a
METRO/W.D. 90 responsibility with no W.D. 108 role associated with the
project. Legal action may result. The interceptor was placed on the
Fiscal Year 1976 Project List as a Step 3 project. If construction of
the Cedar River Interceptor is delayed due to inter-Water District
disagreements regarding their relative responsibilities, roles, and
financial obligations or for any other reason, the use of the proposed
Orton Road Interceptor would be affected.
Both Districts presently consider the Madsen Creek Interceptor to
be solely the responsibility of W.D. 108. W.D. 108 has assumed grant
application responsibilities for the project, and believes W.D. 90 no
longer has any relationship to the Madsen Creek Interceptor. The offi-
cial grant applicant for the project will remain to be W.D. 90 until
such time that the proposed revisions to the 1976 Project List are
approved. Both Districts consider the Orton Road Interceptor to be
solely the responsibility of W.D. 90.
EPA and DOE believe the three projects should be considered to be
segments of one grant application. DOE has, in fact, assigned tentative
segment numbers to each project. At the present time, the W.D. 90
Orton Road, Madsen Creek and Cedar River Interceptor projects are listed
on the State's Fiscal Year 1974 Project List as being eligible for Step
2 funding. The Madsen Creek and Orton Road Interceptors were also listed
on the Fiscal Year 1975 Project List as being joint W.D. 90/W.D. 108
Al-12
-------
projects eligible for Step 2 funding. The Madsen Creek Interceptor is
also listed on the Fiscal Year 1976 Project List as a W.D. 108 project
eligible for Step 2 and Step 3 funding. The Orton Road Interceptor
is listed on the Fiscal Year 1976 Project List as a W.D. 90 project
eligible for Step 2 and Step 3 funding.
. March 18, 1976 - King County W.D. 90 advertises for bids on
construction of lower portion of the Orton Road Interceptor
(Cedar River Crossing). Bid opening is to be April 20, 1976.
Al-13
-------
APPENDIX 2
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING
INDIRECT IMPACTS
The proposed project's potential indirect population density and
land use impacts have been of great concern to many citizens. Due to
this interest in indirect impacts, the following pages explain the
process used to determine the project's potential indirect impacts on
land use and population density. The potential indirect impacts on
land use and population density were used as the basis for determining
the potential indirect impacts discussed in Chapter II.
Land use and population density projections have been made for
three development situations:
A. Development without any sewers.
B. Development with the Orton Road Interceptor.
C. Development with sewers throughout the Ultimate Service Area.
The method of developing the land use and population density pro-
jections for the three development istuations consisted of six main
steps:
STEP 1. Predict where new or additional development would tend
to occur if sewer service were available.
STEP 2. Identify areas where on-site septic tank and drain field
sewage disposal systems could be used.
STEP 3. Develop assumptions regarding the amount of developable
areas which would be developed under various situations.
STEP 4. Predict potential development without any sewers.
STEP 5. Predict potential development with the addition of the
Orton Road Interceptor.
STEP 6. Predict potential development with the addition of sewers
throughout the Study Area.
A2-1
-------
STEP 1
Areas where new or additional development would tend to occur if
sewer service were available were identified in this step. In order to
make such a prediction, it was necessary to examine the following
factors:
* The development pressures affecting the sewerage service area.
* The amount of vacant developable land in the affected sewerage
service area.
* The areas already developed which could accept increased
densities.
* The land use plans, policies, and zoning ordinances regulating
development in the affected sewerage service area.
DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES
This factor was determined by examining the past development trends
in the Study Area.
Development Trends, 1850-1965. White men first came to the vicini-
ty of the Study Area in the 1850's. Development pressures, however,
didn't begin to affect the East Renton Plateau and Water District No. 90
area until around 1900. At that time many plats and subdivisions were
made along the southern and eastern boundaries of Renton near the Study
Area. County roads were constructed into the Water District No. 90
vicinity during this period. By 1915, the Study Area was significantly
encroached upon as much of the western portion of the East Renton Plateau
was logged and cleared and then platted by coal companies as either
"company" towns or for speculative purposes. A portion of the Ultimate
Service Area was platted as five acre lots between 1907 and 1909 by
various coal companies. Few homesites were, however, developed. By
1920, most of the old-growth timber on the East Renton Plateau had been
removed.
The economic depression of the 1930's and disruption of World War II
slowed the development of the East Renton Plateau. Little development
occurred between 1930 and 1945, though isolated groves of old-growth
A2-2
-------
forest continues to be logged. Farms continued to operate in the
western portion of the Study Area, near the junction of S.E. 128th
Street and 144th Avenue S.E. Few residents had moved to the Study
Area by 1945.
The post-war economic boom resulted in the rapid expansion of
Renton in a northern, eastern, and southern direction. However, by
1950, the eastern development pressures of Renton still had not yet
reached the Study Area. Though the Renton area grew to a population
of over 25,000 from 10,000 between 1940 and 1950, the only significant
change in the land use of the Study Area, between 1945 and 1955 was
the logging of its last groves of old-growth timber.
Suburban development did reach the East Renton Plateau during the
late 1950's and early 1960's. The first plat in the Study Area since
1913 occurred in the Ultimate Service Area in 1956. Continued platting
of this "Renton Suburban" area occurred until 1963, with a new division
of the "Renton Suburban Tracts" completed annually during that period.
Between 1950 and 1960 the population of the U.S. Census division
containing the western portion of the Study Area increased by 204 percent.
The U.S. Census Division containing the eastern portion of the Study Area,
which includes the "Renton Suburban Tracts", displayed a population in-
crease of 273 percent between 1950 and 1960. The City of Renton's
population grew only 15 percent during the same time period.
Between-I960 and 1968 the population of the Census Divisions
containing the western and eastern portion of the Study Area showed an
increase of 163 percent and 204 percent, respectively. The period of
1956 to 1968 saw suburban development of the Study Area continue almost
unabated. Plats were made in every year during this period.
The character of the Study Area changed a great deal during the
1955-1965 decade. Not only were large tracts of forest and farmland
converted to residential subdivisions, but the supporting land uses of a
residential area made their appearance. Churches, fire stations, schools,
neighborhood business, and similar structures were constructed and
improved. Powerlines and utility systems were installed or enlarged.
In one decade much of the Study Area changed from a rural character to
A2-3
-------
a suburban character.
Development Trends, 1965-1975. During the past decade, the
dramatic rate of development in the Study Area of the 1955-1965 period
slowed to a more moderate rate. Though platting continued, the
economic recession of the early 1970's significantly affected the Seattle
area economy and, consequently, the rate of development in the Study
Area. Only one plat was made during 1970. One additional plat was
made in 1971. No plats have been approved in the Study Area since
1971.
One factor affecting the rate of development in the Study Area is
related to water quality. All of the 1955-1965 development in the Study
Area utilized septic tank disposal systems which were virtually unregu-
lated until King County passed an ordinance regulating sewage disposal
systems in 1969. In 1971, the ordinance was revised and adopted as
Ordinance No. 931, the present county septic tank use regulation
(Ordinance No. 931 has since been slightly modified by Ordinance No.
1139 and 1385).
Ordinance No. 931 requires a permit to construct, install, repair,
or alter a sewage disposal system. The Director of the Seattle-King
County Public Health Department is responsible for approving such permits
and may deny the application if, in his judgement, the physical features
of an applicant's property or the design of the proposed septic tank
system are not adequate for safe operation of the system. Ordinance No.
931 requires sewage disposal systems to be designed by licensed sewage
disposal system designers or licensed professional engineers if the sep-
tic tank is to be used for other than an individual single family
residence.
Though Ordinance No. 931 contains no specific language regarding the
timing or techniques of percolation tests or the acceptability of
various soils for septic tank filter fields, the Ordinance provides
serious penalties for violating or failing to comply with its require-
ments and permit procedures. These penalties and the $1,000 bond posted
by each sewage disposal system installer (installers are also required
to be certified) have made it more difficult for unscrupulous septic
A2-4
-------
tank system designers, installers and land developers to operate.
Stricter enforcement by the Department of Public Health and informal
requirement for "winter" percolation tests in certain soils have made
it more difficult for developers to utilize septic tank systems for
wastewater disposal.
It may only be a coincidence, but since 1969 all new plats have
occurred in those portions of the Study Area which are composed of
soils which the U/S. Soil Conservation Service has classified as
acceptable for septic tank filter fields. Since almost all of the Study
Area is composed of "unacceptable" soils, the tough enforcement of the
County septic tank ordinance has probably had a significant effect on
the rate of suburban development in the Study Area. The Water District
Commissioners believe that as long as there are no sanitary sewerage
facilities in the Water District, the rate of residential development
will continue to be relatively slow.
Development Trends, Conclusions. The Study Area developed rapidly
between 1955 and 1970. Apparently, a combination of an economic reces-
sion and more stringent enforcement of septic tank regulations brought
this rapid development to a halt.
It appears that the development trends of the 1955-1970 period will
begin again during the next decade if existing planning policies remain
unchanged and sanitary sewers are constructed by developers and/or the
Water District. Realtors, builders, King County officials, and the
Water District's engineer also generally believe that as the economy
improves the Study Area will once again be subject to intense development
pressure. This is due, primarily, to the fact that:
* The Study Area is near flourishing employment centers, including
Renton, Bellevue, Southcenter.
* The Study Area is relatively accessible to employment, commercial,
and entertainment centers. Accessibility to Interstate 405,
Renton, Bellevue, and Seattle was improved by the widening and
reconstruction of S.E. 128th Street. Ongoing and planned improve-
ments to the Maple Valley Highway and S.E. 138th Avenue will make
the area even more accessible.
A2-5
-------
* Recent home building reports clearly indicate that the most
active areas are the Kirkland-Woodinville-Bothell, Redmond-East
Lake Sammamish, Federal Way, and East Kent-Soos Creek areas,
which are among the last undeveloped areas in the immediate
urban fringe of Seattle. Most Seattle urban fringe areas are
presently being developed with the exception of Water District
No. 90, where development is apparently constrained by the ab-
sence of sanitary sewers.
* The Study Area is an attractive and pleasant area to live in.
The demand for housing in the Study Area is so great that, the
few homes built during 1974 and 1975 have typically been sold
before their completion or construction.
* The Study Area is considered to be an appropriate area for
suburban residential development. County land use planning and
zoning policies encourage the eventual development of most of
the Study Area.
Sewers will be required if the existing undeveloped portions of the
Study Area are to develop. However, if the demand for housing increases,
and economic conditions improve, the absence of public sewers would
probably not prevent the development of large acreages of developable
land. Consortiums of developers could probably finance the construction
on further development; but it is a constraint that can be overcome.
Local realtors and King County planning officials believe that the rate,
timing, and, to a lesser degree, the nature of future development will be
primarily related to economic conditions and housing and lending policies,
rather than the nature and timing of sanitary sewers.
For the remainder of this appendix, it will be assumed that the
development potential of the Ultimate Service Area will be achieved
during the design period. The development trends of the 1955-1970 will
be assumed to start again during the next decade.
DEVELOPABLE LAND
This factor was determined by "subtracting" existing developed land
and land with severe physical limitations for development from the
Study Area. Existing developed land is shown in Figure 10 in
Chapter II (on pageII-5). The Study Area has few physical limitations
A2-6
-------
(other than soil limitations on septic tanks) affecting development
other than the steepness of the slopes which line the Cedar River Valley
and the periodic flooding of low-lying portions of the Cedar River Valley
by the Cedar River.
Steep Slopes. Existing slope classifications are discussed in
Chapter II. For the purpose of determining sewer-induced development,
those areas with slopes in excess of 40 percent were considered to be
undevelopable. The Initial Service Area contains 45 acres of slopes over
40 percent; the Planned Service Area has 83 acres of slopes over 40
percent.
Most of the Study Area's existing steep slopes are presently
undeveloped. This is typical of developing suburban areas, as steep
slopes were initially passed over by developers because of the additional
costs involved in their development. If typical suburban development
processes occur in the future, many of the Study Area's steeply sloping
areas of less than 40 percent slope would probably be eventually develop-
ed. Generally, even the steep slopes will then become targets for
development, as more suitable developable land becomes scarce, as prop-
erty taxes increase, and as the amenity values of views, southern
exposures, and wooded building sites become more desirable. Continual
improvements in building technologies also affect the use of steep slopes.
Just as past technological improvements have allowed building to take
place on sites which were once considered unsuitable or not economically
feasible for development, it is reasonable to assume that future improve-
ments will allow building to occur on slopes which cannot be presently
developed. It was reasonable, however, to assume that the very steepest
slopes (i.e. those over 40 percent) will remain essentially undeveloped
through the design period.
Floods. Figure 16 shows the flood plain of the Cedar River as
defined by various agencies and studies. Within the Study Area, the only
significant flooding problem occurs in the Cedar River Valley; the small
creeks and streams in the Study Area are not considered to cause signifi-
cant flooding problems. For the purpose of determining the indirect
impacts of the proposed project, it was assumed that the undeveloped
A2-7
-------
portions of the Cedar River flood plain will remain essentially undevel-
oped through the design period. However, Federal flood insurance pro-
grams and local land use plans and controls do not preclude further
development in the flood plain. Therefore, additional development in
the flood plain was projected when consistent with local planning poli-
cies. Existing developed areas were assumed to retain their present
character and density of development.
POTENTIAL DENSITY INTENSIFICATION
Future development will not, in all likelihood, be limited to just
existing undeveloped areas, areas of large land holdings, and vacant
lots. Existing developed areas can, in certain instances, be anticipated
to redevelop to greater densities of land use. Such density intensifi-
cation may occur when property tax assessments rise or when adjacent
areas take on a new and more intensively used character.
As illustrated by Figure 10, about one-third of the plateau portion
of the Ultimate Service Area is already developed or set aside for some
reserved open space use. The 28 percent of the plateau portion of the
Ultimate Service Area which has been developed as a single-family
residential area contains many large-lot residential areas (the average
lot size on the plateau is about 1.5 acres). It is possible that as
development pressures intensify, many of the large lot residential areas
in the Ultimate Service Area would be subdivided. However, two points
make the wholesale density intensification of the developed portions of
the Ultimate Service Area rather unlikely. First, many existing devel-
oped areas contain large lots which are irregular in shape or accessible
at only one point. Many older plats in the Ultimate Service Area created
deep large lots with very limited street frontage. It would be virtually
impossible to develop many of these deep narrow lots to greater densities
under present King County land use control regulations.
Those presently developed areas which contain large lots of a size
and shape which could conceivable be developed to greater densities are
also affected by the general provisions of the King County Comprehensive
A2-8
-------
Plan, zoning code, and building code. Even where access to the undevel-
oped portion of a developed large lot is available, the zoning code and
building code requirements may in many cases, limit "lot-splitting".
Figure 28 displays those developed areas which are most likely to
increase their intensity of use, if any change in the density of already
developed areas occurs. The areas noted on Figure 28 are sparsely
developed residential areas made up of scattered homes on very large
lots. All of the areas noted could develop to much greater densities
according to the existing King County zoning and planning regulations.
It would be possible for those areas noted to approximately double their
present intensity of land use; however, it is probable that they will
retain their present character for, at least, the short-term future.
Within the Initial Service Area, 133 acres of existing developed
land has further development potential. The Planned Service Area con-
tains almost 140 acres of existing developed land which could be further
developed.
LAND USE PLANNING AND POLICIES
This factor was used to determine the density and type of potential
future development in the Study Area. The King County Comprehensive Plan
and its amendments contain the planning policies and plans affecting land
use within the Study Area. The County Comprehensive Plan is discussed
in Chapter I. The remaining paragraphs of this section discuss the
King County Zoning Code and its zoning classifications.
King County Zoning Code. This Code is the most relevant land use
regulatory measure affecting the Study Area. The legal significance
and potential density of development allowed by the existing zoning
classifications affecting the Study Area were previously described in
Chapter I of this Environmental Impact Statement. Figure 29 shows the
official designations of the existing zoning classification's affecting
the Study Area. Most of the Ultimate Service Area is designated as
Suburban Residential (SR), Single-family Residential (RS-15,000),
General (G), Suburban Estate (SE) or Flood Plain (FP). The following
A2-9
-------
Undeveloped Areas
Figure 28
POTENTIAL DENSITY
INTENSIFICATION AREAS
SCALE IN FEET
0 2000
IN
-------
Figure 29
EXISTING ZONING
CLASSIFICATIONS
I See Table 13 For Legend!
SCALE IN FEET
2000
IN
-------
TABLE 13
I
M
ro
SYMBOL
BC
BN
CG
FP
G
RD 3600
KM 900
KM 1800
RS 9600
RS 15,000
SE
SR
EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
(See Figure 29 )
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
Community Business
Neighborhood Business
General Commercial
Flood Plain
General
Duplex Residential
Maximum Density, Multiple Dwelling, Residential and Business
High Density, Multiple Dwelling, Residential
Single Family Residential (9600 sq. ft. lots)
Single Family Residential (15,000 sq. ft. lots)
Suburban Estates
Suburban Residential
-------
statements briefly describe these zoning classifications; a more detailed
synopsis of the King County Zoning Code can be obtained from the
County.
The SR zone provides for the orderly transition of areas from a
suburban to an urban character; small scale agricultural operations may
be mixed with developing urban subdivisions in the SR zone. Lot areas
may vary from five acres to 7,200 square feet (4-5 dwelling units per
acre). With approved sewage disposal systems (septic tanks or sewers),
maximum densities of three dwelling units per acre may be achieved.
Sewers are required if densities are desired to reach 4-5 dwelling
units per acre.
The RS-15,000 zone provides an area for single family dwellings at
urban densities and for other related uses, including churches, schools,
and libraries, which contribute to a complete urban residential
environment. Up to two dwelling units per acre may be constructed
and sewers are not required.
The General zone regulates the use of land in areas generally unde-
veloped in order to prevent the improper location and intrusion of
business and industrial uses. Residences in the General zone must be
situated on one acre or larger lots.
The SE zone provides an area for more rural uses than is practical
in more concentrated urban areas. Horses, chickens, and agricultural
activities are encouraged in SE zones. Residences must be situated on
one acre or larger lots.
The FP zone applies to those areas declared by King County to be
potentially hazardous to the public health, safety, and general welfare
unless conserved in essentially their natural state. Lot areas must be
ten acres or larger. In addition to the FP zone, King County considers
flood hazards through use of a flood hazard "over-zone", which places
special requirements on subdivisions, building permits, and similar
regulatory activities in designated flood hazard areas.
The distribution of potential development within the Study Area
was made in compliance with the planning objectives of King County
expressed by Figure 8 . An area's zoning classification was then
A2-13
-------
used to refine the plan's land use designation and provide the density
and lot size factor for use in projecting development potential.
This procedure is consistent with the State's intent for plans to
express the general development policies of local governments and for
zoning to refine and implement such general policies. When conflicts
in allowable densities for specific areas occurred between the County's
Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning, the land use designation of
the plan took precedence.
Land Ownership Patterns. Another factor affecting the development
potential of urban fringe and suburban areas is the pattern of land
ownership. Because the multiple ownership of many small or scattered
parcels of property makes land development more difficult and costly,
the grouping of adjacent blocks of developable properties under single
ownership frequently precedes the actual development of an area.
Based on studies conducted across the United States, many planners have
concluded that the general development trends of an area on the urban
fringe are, to some degree, indicated by periodic reviews of changing
patterns of land ownership.
The pattern of land ownership within the Study Area is illustrated
by Figure 30(which follows) which displays those unplatted and platted
land parcels and lots under single ownership and greater than ten acres
in size. Most of the land in the Cedar River Valley, and along the north
and south valley walls is owned as large parcels. In addition, essen-
tially all of the plateau south of the Cedar River (in Water District
No. 108) is owned as large parcels. Corporate ownership of these areas
is most common (railroad, timber, and land development corporations).
The Ultimate Service Area, with the exception of the north valley
wall, is primarily owned by private citizens with small land holdings.
Only two areas of large single-owner land holdings occur on the plateau
portion of the Ultimate Service Area; an approximate 180 acre area along
the western boundary of the Ultimate Service Area and an area of
approximately 200 acres southwest of Lake Kathleen. In both of these
areas, some steps have been taken toward development of the property
(i.e. development roads and/or water lines have been constructed and
A2-14
-------
band Holdings
Ow
> 10 Acres
SCALE IN FEET
LAND OWNERSHIP
PATTERNS
Figure 3O
-------
installed, some clearing has occurred, etc.). At least two forty
acre parcels of land in the Ultimate Service Area have also been
agglomerated under single ownership by development groups.
The creation of large land holdings of agglomerated undeveloped
properties does not necessarily mean that they will be developed.
For example, in the Cedar River Valley and along the valley walls, land
use controls by King County may prevent future development at suburban
densities, even though the properties have been assembled into
developable parcels by investors. A comparison of Figures 30 and 8
indicates that many such areas of large land holdings are, in fact,
presently planned for non-intensive uses. The information provided
by Figure 30 does,however, probably indicate the general areas where
development pressures will be greatest and most immediate.
Existing Vacant Lots. Merely because property may be owned as small
parcels (less than ten acres in size), development pressures do not
necessarily vanish. In many cases, the cumulative effect of the devel-
opment of many small previously undeveloped lots may have as great an
effect on an area at the urban fringe as the development of one or two
large parcels of land. It was important, therefore, to examine the num-
ber of already platted lots which are presently undeveloped in the
Study Area.
Vacant lots are scattered throughout the Study Area in a relatively
random pattern (Fig. 31). Some of the lots are vacant because of the strict
enforcement of County septic tank regulations. Many vacant lots in
some of the more dense subdivisions platted in the early 1960's
simply can not be developed utilizing septic tank wastewater disposal
systems. Region X has received letters from owners of such properties
requesting EPA assistance in bringing sewers to their presently
undevelopable holdings.
Other vacant lots are vacant by the choice of the property owner.
Some of these lots are utilized as garden plots or for raising chickens
or calves. Others are used for recreational purposes such as pasture
land for horses and ponies.
Similarly, lot owners may intentionally retain their lots in an
A2-16
-------
-v xs:
V .. v \
\ IS. .**.
••••• •
SCALE IN FEET
EXISTING VACANT LOTS
Figure
-------
undeveloped condition for speculative purposes or as investment property.
It is probable that some of the vacant lots are vacant because of their
inaccessibility or due to their peculiar shapes or sizes. Other vacant
lots within the Study Area are vacant because they were only recently
platted or subdivided. Though no plats have been approved in the Study
Area since 1971, some of the Study Area's plats were not developed until
1974 and early 1975.
In April 1975 there were over 700 vacant lots in the Study Area;
320 in the Ultimate Service Area, and 125 in the Initial Service Area.
The remainder (195) were located in the Planned Service Area.
SUMMARY OF FACTORS
Utilizing the information presented by the preceding pages, the
four inputs needed to estimate the Ultimate Service Area's development
potential were determined. The procedure used to determine these
inputs is illustrated on Table 14.
STEP 2
Areas where on-site septic tank and drain field sewage disposal
systems could be used in the Ultimate Service Area were identified in
this step. These areas can be identified by reviewing State and local
septic tank use ordinances and regulations and relating them to the
existing geology and soils in the Study Area.
Septic Tank Use Ordinances and Regulations. Septic tank use in
Washington is regulated by both State and local Boards of Health. The
State Board of Health is responsible for developing and enforcing
general rules and regulations affecting septic tanks throughout the
State. The Seattle-King County Board of Health and Department of Public
Health are responsible for approving individual septic tanks, septic
tank designers, septic tank installers, and enforcing specific local
A2-18
-------
TABLE 14
LAND AREA SUMMARIES
Total Land Area
minus
Existing Residential Land
minus
Existing Public and Semi-public Areas
minus
Reserved Open Space
equals
Unreserved Open Space
minus
Unreserved Open Space
With Slopes Over 40 Percent
equals
Developable Unreserved Open Space
minus
Developable Unreserved Open Space
Not Planned for Development
equals
Developable Open Space
Planned for Development
(includes some Flood Plain Areas)
Initial
Service
Area
1050 ac.
312 ac.
48 ac.
18 ac.
672 ac.
45 ac.
627 ac.
14 ac.
613 ac.
Planned
Service
Area
1345 ac.
500 ac.
12 ac.
107 ac.
726 ac.
83 ac.
643 ac.
143 ac.
500 ac.
Existing Residential Land
minus
Fully Developed Residential Land
equals
Residential Land with
Density Intensification Potential
Existing Vacant Platted Lots
312 ac.
179 ac.
133 ac.
125
500 ac.
363 ac.
137 ac.
195
A2-19
-------
septic tank use regulations with King County. The State of Washington's
i
"Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health for On-sit!,e Sewage
Disposal Systems", adopted in June 1974, create the uniform fr.amework
for the local boards of health to follow regarding the regulation of
on-site sewage disposal systems. These regulations established minimum
functional regulations, guidelines, and design standards. Most local
boards of health in Washington adopted local rules and regulations
consistent with the June 1974 State regulations by January 1976.
King County had adopted ordinances regulating the use of septic
tanks prior to the State's June 1974 "Rules and Regulations", including
i
the County's Ordinance No. 931, its amendments, and the Seattle-King
i.
County Department of Public Health's "Rules and Regulations for Construc-
tion and Installation of Sewage Disposal Systems". Some revisions to
the County's existing septic tank regulations will, however, have to
be made in order to comply with the State's requirements. Since the
C
State's regulations define the minimum level of acceptable stahdards,
specifications, and design criteria for future septic tank use, the
State regulations were used as the primary source of information for
projecting future potential septic tank use in the Study Area.
The State's "On-site Sewage Disposal Rules and Regulations" are
quite specific. Those sections dealing with "Location", "Design", and
"Minimum Lot Sizes for Subdivisions" are the greatest assistance when
attempting to predict where future septic tank use is likely to be
permitted or disallowed and what density of future development could
occur if sewers were not provided and only septic tanks were used.
Because these sections of the State's septic tank rules and regulations
are so specific (e.g. no septic tanks will be allowed on slopes greater
than 30 percent; within 50 feet of surface water bodies; in gumbo,
rock, hardpan, or claypan; where elevation or an impermeable layer is
less than one foot; etc.), the projection of potential future septic
tank use is facilitated.
The implementation and enforcement of the State "On-site Sewage
Disposal Rules and Regulations" will undoubtedly affect development in
the Study Area. Because of the regulations, some areas will be unable
A2-20
-------
to develop further utilizing septic tank disposal systems. Those areas
which are composed of suitable soils and meet the locational and water
quality criteria of the regulation may experience increased development
pressures. An understanding of the relationship of the soil and geo-
hydrological characteristics of the Study Area to the State and local
septic tank regulations was, therefore, viewed as a useful indicator of
where future development is most likely to occur. The density of such
development can also be related to the State and local septic tank
regulations.
Surficial Geology. The surficial geology of the Study Area reflects that
the processes of glaciation, its topography, internal geo-hydrological
structure, and soils are primarily the products of the glacial action.
Most of the Study Area is composed of surficial deposits of till. In
most places a thin layer of the uncompacted ablation till lies on a
thicker layer of the very compact, nearly impermeable compressed "hardpan"
till. The till within the Study Area is somewhat unique in that it is
composed of a large percentage of sand, as well as silt, clay, and gravel.
It is also quite thin throughout much of the Study Area; the loose
"recessional" till is frequently less than two or three feet thick; the
compacted "hardpan" till is, locally, less than five feet thick.
Outwash deposits occur as terraces adjacent to the Cedar River
Valley within the Study Area. Probably created by melt water flowing
adjacent to an ice-filled Cedar River Valley or as delta deposits, the
outwash terraces of the Study Area are composed of sandy pebble-and-
cobble gravel in the east of the Study Area and sand and pebbly-gravel
in the western portion of the Study Area.
The Study Area is also composed of scattered mixed glacial deposits
along the Cedar River Valley walls, landslide deposits, alluvial fans,
peat bogs, and Cedar River alluvium. The mixed glacial deposits include
various layers of till (the Puget Sound ice sheet of 10,000 to 20,000 years
ago was at least the fourth glacier to cover the Puget Lowlands during the
Pleistocene Epoch of the Quaternary Geologic Period, which started about
1,500,000 years ago), sedimentary clays, silts, and sands deposited in
the glacial lake which once filled the Cedar River Valley, and layers of
A2-21
-------
older glacial outwash. The landslide deposits result from small block
slides and debris and mud flows which are common along the steep walls
of the Cedar River Valley. Alluvial fans consist of thin sand and,
sometimes, silt and gravel deposits at the mouths of small streams.
Peat bogs have developed in depressions on the till plateau with re-
stricted drainage, where organic and mineral deposits have collected.
Peat within the Study Area is generally quite thin (usually 3 to 20
feet in thickness). The alluvium of the Cedar River contains sand and
gravel, with associated beds of silt, clay, and peat. The Cedar River's
deposits are generally quite thin; the maximum thickness known in the
old alluvial fan of the Cedar River in Renton is slightly more than
100 feet. Most of the Cedar River alluvium at the surface is
virtually unweathered and quite recent.
Surficial Geology and Septic Tanks. In general, septic tank filter
fields fail to work properly when soils are poorly drained or are so
compact that the absorption rate is very slow. Poorly drained soils
which become saturated with water during wet weather or after heavy
rains leave little or no space for septic tank effluent. A mixture of
septic tank effluent and ground water may then rise to the surface of the
soil causing aesthetic and health problems. If a soil has a very slow
absorption rate, the septic tank effluent may rise to the surface even
in dry weather. In wet weather, filter fields of soils with slow
absorption rates usually become a boggy mess.
Septic tank filter fields fail for a number of other reasons. The
land may be too steep; there may be a seasonal high water table; only
a thin layer of soil may cover bedrock or some cemented impermeable layer
of soil or geologic material just below the bottom of the filter field's
trenches; the filter field may be flooded periodically; or the septic
tank and filter field may be inadequately maintained.
Most of the Study Area's surficial geologic units are associated
with at least one of the causal factors of septic tank filter field
failure described above. During the winter months the seasonal water
table rises on the impermeable layer of "hardpan", frequently causing
septic tank effluent to "overflow". The peat bog and alluvial areas,'
A2-22
-------
in almost every case, are poorly drained, occasionally flooded, have
very slow absorption rates, or experience a high seasonal water table.
The valley wall geologic units are too steep for septic tank filter
fields to work properly. Only the outwash terraces are associated with
few or none of the problems which typically cause septic tank systems
to fail.
Caution must, however, be used when stating that the outwash
terraces are suitable for septic tank filter fields. Even though they
are composed of well-drained permeable material with a fast absorption
rate and have a level to moderate slope and no seasonal high water table
problem they may not be a suitable area for septic tank systems.
Similar geologic material has proven to be quite unsuitable for septic
tank use where the drainage has been too excessive and where underlying
aquifers were utilized for drinking water supplies. The State septic
tank regulations reflect the fact that excessive permeability may be
a serious problem.
Soils and Their Affect on Septic Tank Systems. For the purpose
of determining indirect impacts of the proposed project, it will be
assumed that local health officials will continue to interpret,
administer, and enforce the County's septic tank use ordinances and
the State's "On-site Sewage Disposal Rules and Regulations" in a
manner consistent with their actions in the Winter of 1974 and Spring
of 1975. Though some discretion is associated with the interpretation,
administration, and enforcement of the County and State regulations,
conversations with Seattle-King County Health Department officials
indicate that there is a growing tendency to utilize the recently
completed U.S. Soil Conservation Service soil survey of the King County
area as a primary but general source of information regarding the
suitability of any specific area for use as a septic tank filter field.
The new (November 1973) "Soil Survey of the King County Area" names,
describes, and locates the soils of the King County Area. In addition,
the relative suitability or degree of limitation of each soil for many
specific purposes is provided. The relationship between the King County
soils and agricultural productivity, timber production, and wildlife
A2-23
-------
is also described in the new soil survey.
Since the soi^s of the Study Area have had only around 10,000
years to develop, it is not surprising that the distribution and char-
acteristics of the soils directly reflect the underlying geologic
material. Figure 19 displays the distribution of soils in the Study
Area.
In its discussion of the relative suitability of King County's
soils for uses as septic tank filter fields, the 1973 Soil Survey
classifies the soils of King County into three categories; those with
none to slight limitations; those with moderate limitations; and those
with severe limitations. Figure 20 displays the relative limitations of
the Study Area's soils, as described by the U.S. Soil Conservation
(SCS) in the 1973 Soil Survey. This is the map that local health
officials utilize as one of their general references for determining
whether or not septic tanks may be used on specific properties.
As shown by Figure 20 only the outwash-related Everett gravelly
sandy loam soils have few limitations for septic tank use. The SCS
notes, however, that soils have rapid percolation rates, they are not
necessarily always acceptable sites. Adjoining soils that have a very
slow percolation rate or proximity to streams or ponds can make the
installation of septic tank filter fields inadvisable. In addition, the
soils may have such rapid percolation rates that the movement of efflu-
ent from drain fields is not impeded and the effluent may not contaminate
nearby water supplies. The SCS notes that in many parts of the King
County Area, Everett soils, such as those found in the Study Area, may
have a rapid percolation rate to a depth of four or five feet and meet
the minimum requirements established by health codes. However,
imprevious layers of consolidated galcial till or silty glacial lake
deposits may occur at a depth of 5 to 15 feet. The SCS notes that even
though effluent may readily move downward through the sand and gravelly
layers of the Everett soil, it might then move laterally over the
impervious layers and, subsequently, come to the surface in the yard of
a neighbor or in a ditch along a road.
A2-24
-------
The SCS defines the degrees of limitation for septic tank filter
fields illustrated by Figure 20 as:
None to slight. This rating indicates that the soil has all of the
following features: Hydraulic conductivity is more than 1 inch per hour,
and the percolation rate is faster than 45 minutes per inch. The depth
to the seasonal high water table is more than six feet. There is no
flooding. Slopes are less than eight percent. The average depth to
bedrock or consilidated glacial till is greater than six feet.
Moderate. This rating indicates that the soil has one or more of the
following features: Hydraulic conductivity is 1.0 to 0.63 inches per
hour, and the percolation rate is 45 to 60 minutes per inch. The depth
to the seasonal high water table is four to six feet. Flooding is rare.
Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. The depth to bedrock or consolidated
glacial till is four to six feet.
Severe. This rating indicates that the soil has one or more of the
following features: Hydraulic conductivity is less than 0.63 inch per
hour, and the percolation rate is slower than 70 minutes per inch. The
depth to the seasonal high water table is less than four feet. Flooding
is occasional to frequent. Slopes are more than 15 percent. The depth
to bedrock or consolidated glacial till is less than four feet.
STEP 3
Assumptions regarding the amount of developable areas which would
actually be developed under the three development situations were made
in this step. The main assumptions which were consistently applied
throughout the prediction process were:
* The assumption that development pressures will increase during
the next decade. Wherever possible, the development trends will
be toward the fulfillment of the area's development potential.
* The assumption that only 25 percent of the existing developed
areas with further development potential will be developed during
the design period. The remaining 75 percent are odd-shaped par-
cels, have poor access, or are utilized for recreational
(gardens, backyards, etc.) uses which will be assumed to
continue through the design period.
Three variables were assumed to affect the distribution of develop-
ment and the density of development within the Ultimate Service Area:
* Soil limitations for septic tank use
* Land ownership
* Planning policies, plans, zoning regulations, and septic tank use
regulations.
A2-25
-------
Soil limitations for septic tank use were assumed to be represented
by Figure 20 • It was assumed that 30 percent of the planned developable
open space and vacant lots in areas of soils with severe limitations for
septic tank use could eventually be developed, even if no sewers are
constructed. According to local Department of Public Health officials,
this is a valid assumption.
Land ownership patterns were assumed to affect development patterns
in the following manner:
* Vacant land held as small holdings was assumed to be half as
likely to develop if sewers are not installed than large
holdings of vacant land owned by development groups . This was
due, primarily, to the fact that owners of large parcels have
greater flexibility in finding homesites which pass percolation
tests. Developer-owners of large land holdings are also, of
course, generally interested in developing their properties.
Owners of small parcels may be satisfied in owning the land for
speculative purposes or for recreational use and not actually
developing the property.
* It was assumed that, if sewers were constructed, all land
ings (large and small) would be equally likely to be developed.
This assumption is believed to be valid due to the increased
pressure placed on property-owners with small holdings by sewer
connection and assessment fees, increased property values, and
the changing character of the area.
The determination of the actual amount and type of development in
each of the three basic categories of development (i.e. new plats, den-
sity intensification, development of vacant lots) was governed by the
County Plan's designation and zoning classification. Where conflicts
between the County Plan and the existing zoning occur, the Plan took
precedence. Where conflicts between State septic tank use regulations
and the County Plan or zoning specifications (e.g. minimum lot size
requirements) occurred, the more restrictive requirement was utilized.
The following outline illustrates the general effect of these assumptions
as they related to the process of estimating the indirect population
density and land use impacts:
A2-26
-------
THREE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT CAN OCCUR:
1. New Development (new Plats)
2. Density Intensification of Existing Developed Areas
3. Development of Existing Vacant Lots
THREE VARIABLES WILL AFFECT THE DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT:
1. Soil Limitations for Septic Tank Use
a. Soils with "none to Slight" Limitations for Septic Tank Use
*New Development could occur in 100% of the Developable Open
Space Planned for Development and vacant lots composed of
such soils.
*25% of the Density Intensification Areas with such soils
could develop.
b. Soils with "Slight to Moderate" or "Severe" Limitations for
Septic Tank use.
*New Development could occur in 30% of the Developable Open
Space Planned for Development composed of such soils.
*30% of the 25% of the Density Intensification Areas with
such soils could develop.
*30% of the Vacant Lots with such soils could develop.
2. Land Ownership
a. If sewers are not installed
*50% of the development potential determined above could occur
in areas held as small land holdings.
*100% of the development potential determined above could occur
in areas held as large land holdings.
b. If sewers are installed
*Land ownership would have no effect on the area's development
potential.
3. Planning policies, plans, zoning, and septic tank use regulations
a. County Land use planning policies
*Take precedence over zoning and determine the density of the
development potential determined above.
b. Zoning regulations
*Refine the development potential distributed per the County's
plan.
c. Septic tank use regulations
*Refine the development potential distributed per the existing
zoning where septic tank use regulations are more specific.
A2-27
-------
STEP 4
In this step, the potential development without any sewers was
predicted. Figure 13 indicated the nature of future development in the
Study Area which would be likely if the present situation were continued
through the design period. Those vacant lots, large land holdings, and
portions of existing developed lots with development potential which are
located in areas with "none to slight" septic tank filter field limit-
ations comprise the areas designated by Figure 20 as likely future
development areas.
As noted previously, about thirty percent of the area with
"moderate" or "severe" soil limitations for septic tank filter fields
will usually pass County percolation tests. Therefore, Figure 13
displays an arbitrary one-third of the land in large ownerships and
one-third of the existing vacant lots located in areas with "severe"
septic tank limitations as being developed during the design period.
Some additional areas, not shown by Figure 20 , could also possibly
be developed as five acre lots, when consistent with County land use
planning regulations and policies. Special exceptions for lots, parcels,
or tracts of five acres or more in size are porvided by the State
"On-site Sewage Disposal Rules and Regulations".
If development occurred as shown by Figure 13 , the population
within the Ultimate Service Area would be increased from 3,440 to about
5,900. The Initial Service Area would contain 2,800 residents on about
500 acres of developed residential land. The Planned Service Area would
contain about 3,100 residents on approximately 630 acres of developed
residential land. If sewers were never constructed within the Ultimate
Service Area, it would be reasonable to anticipate that a maximum
of about 390 acres of existing vacant land would be developed during the
design period. Approximately 210 acres would be developed in the
Initial Service Area; 180 acres would be developed in the Planned
Service Area. The distribution of this development potential by lot size
would be as follows:
A2-28
-------
Lot Size Homes per Acre Initial Service Area Planned Service Area
12,500 sq. ft. 2.5 158 homes 55 homes
15,000 sq. ft. 2.0 42 homes 173 homes
20,000 sq. ft. 1.75 204 homes 91 homes
35,000 sq. ft. 1.0 7 homes 16 homes
over 35,000 sq. ft. less than 1.0 0 homes 1 home
STEP 5
In this step, the development potential of the Ultimate Service Area
with the Orton Road Interceptor was predicted. Figure 11 illustrated the
future development within the Study Area that could occur if the Orton
Road Interceptor were constructed. Figure 11 was based on the preceding
analysis of County plans and policies, land ownership patterns, the distri-
bution and character of vacant lots known proposed developments in the
Study Area, and State laws and regulations associated with the provision
of sanitary sewer service by Water Districts. Figure 11 reflects the
fact that State law requires the connection of any dwelling unit or other
structure where sewage originates to a public sewer system when there is
an adequate public sewer accessible to the dwelling unit or other
structure if such connections are permitted by the sewer utility (W.D.
90 in this case). Figure 11 was based on the assumption that homes
within 200 feet of the proposed interceptor would be connected.
Consideration of pending platting activity and the disapproval of
some recent plats by the King County Council due, in part, to the
absence of sanitary sewers, also affected Figure 11. At least some of
these proposed developments are quite likely to be established as Local
Improvement Districts (LID's), which can then request sewer service from
W.D. 90. The Water District would not participate in the financing of
the local share of the costs of the LID sewer facilities, since the Water
District has not been authorized to sell bonds on behalf of such LID's.
These LID's would have to be financed by development groups, banks, or
other private institutions.
It is important to note that residential development could still
occur in many portions of the Ultimate Service Area in addition to the
corridor of the Orton Road Interceptor. As shown by Figure 13, considerable
A2-29
-------
development could occur in portions of the Study Area without any
sewers. The potential for such development, in addition to that
development related only to the proposed project, is expressed by Fig. 13,
The development potential of the Ultimate Service Area, shown by
Figure 11 , would increase the population within the Ultimate Service
Area from 3,440 to 8,945. The Initial Service Area would contain about
4400 new residents of 375 acres of newly developed residential land.
The Planned Service Area would contain about 1100 additional residents
on 180 acres of newly developed residential land. The distribution.
of this development potential by lot size would be as shown in Chapter
II.
STEP 6
In this step, the potential development with sewers throughout
the Ultimate Service Area was predicted. At this time, a major obstacle
to the fulfillment of the County and Water District Comprehensive Plans
has been the failure of the Water District's voters to approve Water
District bond issues.
One can speculate that if the Orton Road Interceptor were construct-
ed and some LIDs for the proposed developments were formed, the popu-
lation and voting patterns may change and a bond issue may be passed in
the future. Residents of the LID developments will already be connected
to sewers and will have paid for their sewerage facilities when they pur-
chased their new homes. In general, such new residents, already connected
to sewers, vote for sewerage bond issues because of their belief that if
their neighbors are on sewers, the neighborhood and community will improve,
property values will rise, and the environment will benefit. Of course,
the new residents will be less likely to object to the costs of sewers
for other portions of the Water District since they will not have to
pay any additional assessments. The new residents would not be "double
charged" unless they clearly received some new additional benefit. Since
only a relatively small increase in favorable votes would have reversed
the bond issue defeats of 1972 and 1973, it is possible that the Orton'
A2-30
-------
Road Interceptor could, in an indirect manner, play a role in bringing
about land use changes throughout its Ultimate Service Area.
If sewers were constructed throughout the Ultimate Service Area,
the pattern of future development could be expected to resemble that
displayed by Figure 12 . As was the case with the preceding two figures,
the pattern of future development shown by Fig.12 was based on an analysis
of existing County policies and plans, land ownership patterns, proposed
development projects, and the existing land use patterns. Other
factors, including soil types and the distribution of vacant lots were
also considered.
With sewers, the population of the Ultimate Service Area could be
expected to reach 14,040, an increase of 408 percent over its 1970
population. The Initial Service Area would contain 11,680 residents,
a 708 percent increase over its 1970 population. The Planned Service
Area would contain 7,750 residents, representing a 288 percent increase
over its 1970 population. Approximately 685 acres of existing vacant
land would be developed within the Initial Service Area during the
design period. About 605 acres of existing vacant land would be
developed within the Planned Service Area during the design period.
The distribution of new homes by lot size would be as shown in Chapter
II.
A2-31
-------
APPENDIX 3
KING COUNTY W.D. 90
.RESOLUTION
AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHANGES
A3-1
-------
CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
I, D. R. O'CONNOR, being a duly elected, qualified
and acting member of the Board of Commissioners of Water
District Mo. 90, appointed by said Board and acting as
Secretary thereof, do hereby certify that the attached copy
of Resolution No. 307 is a true and correct copy of said
Resolution as duly and regularly adopted by unanimous vote
of the Commissioners of V/ater District No, 90 at their
regular meeting of October 7, 1975.
WATER DISTRICT NO. 90
/
. R. 'O^CO
Secretary
,:
f •'•'
v'-
A3-2
-------
KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90
RESOLUTION NO. 307
A RESOLUTION of the Board of Commissioners
of King County Water District No. 90 cancelling
and rescinding Resolution No. 302.
WHEREAS, King County Water District No. 90 has heretofore
adopted Resolution Ho. 302 on the 17th dav of June, 1975 and
WHEREAS, objection has been made to this Resolution in
that it denies uniform service to property owners lying within
the boundaries of the District,
NOW, THEREFORE, it in bv the Board of Commissioners of
King County Water District No. 90
RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 302 as heretofore adopted
be rescinded,and it is further
RESOLVED, that consistent with rules and regulations
of the Water District and orovisions of King County and the
State of Washington, service connections to sewers which are
owned and operated by the District shall be allowed to all
properties for which necessarv fees have been paid and compli-
ance made with Local, State and Federal regulations.
A3-3
-------
CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) 88.
COUNTY OF KINS )
I, D. R. O'CONNOR, being a duly elected, qualified
and acting member of the Board of Commissioners of Water
District No. 90, appointed by said Board and acting as
Secretary thereof, do hereby certify that the attached conv
of Resolution No. 306 is a true and correct copy of said
Resolution as duly and regularly adopted by unanimous vote
of the Commissioners of Water District No. 90 at their
regular meeting of October 7-, 1975.
WATER DISTRICT NO. 90
D.R. CONNOR
Secretary
A3-4
-------
KIKn COUNTY WATEP DISTRICT NO. 90
RESOLUTION WO. 306
A RESOLUTION of the Board of Comninnloners
of Kinr, Countv Water District :io. 90 adopting
a supplemental plan of additions and betterments
to the general comprehensive plan for a ays ten
of sewers for the District as adopted by
Resolution Ho. 216 on April 21, 1970.
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Kins Countv Water
District No. 90 has heretofore adopted a general comprehensive
plan and method of financing for a system of sev/ors for the
District by Resolution No. 216 on April 21, 1970 and
WHEREAS, growth within the ar«a of the District and both
economic and sociolorical changes have created conditions by
which it is necessary to consider changes, additions and better-
ments to said plan as initially adopted, and
WHKREAS, the Board of Commissioners has nov determined
that formal adoption of additions and betterments to said com-
prehensive plan which can now be determined should be formally
recognized as a portion of the District general comprehensive
plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is by the Board of Conrsisn inner a of
King Countv Water District No. 90
RESOLVED as follows?
Section 1. Changes, additions and betterments to the
A3-5
-------
comprehensive plan for sewers for the District are set forth
on Exhibit "A", which in attached hereto and bv thin- reference
made a part hereof, and adonted.
The Board of Water Comwissloners shall take such action
and do such things ae may be proper and necassarv in the exe-
cution of 8aire-
hensive plan for the acquisition of such easements, franchises,
rights-of-wav, licenses and permits, as may be reauired and for
the acquisition bv purchase, condemnation or otherwise, or for
leasing or renting of such property as mav be necessary for
the fulfillment of said additions and betterments to the treneral
comprehensive plan.
The Board of Watar Cormissioners expressly reserves the
right to make changes in the items listed as a part of th«?
changes, additions and betterments to the general comprehensive
plan where such changes will not substantial!'.; alter the addi-
tions and betterments to said plan, such as to nake reasonable
modifications in locations and sizes of sewer lines, changes
in location and tvne of sewage disposal facilities, or substitu-
tion of other method of senate disposal therefore, which would,
in the opinion of the Commissioners, be in the best interest of
the District, and to proceed wit!; the construction and installa-
tion of the systen of sewers specified in whole or in successive
parts or units from tine to tine as may be advisable and as
funds for the sane become available.
A3-6
-------
Section 2. Tlio estimated cost of carrying out the
additions and betteiinents to the changes, additions and better-
ments of the general comprehensive plan heroin adopted, including
all construction, installation, overhead and general expanses,
engineering and lagal expenses, land and easement purchases and
acquisitions, is included within the costs originally included
in the general conprehensive plan and will not involve increase
in costs to that plan.
Section 3. The cost of construction for the additions
and betterments to the general comprehensive plan herein adopted
shall be met and defrayed from funds which the District JBAV have
for such purpooe and fron issuance and sale of sewer revenue
bonds of the District, to be issued as a portion of the bonds
authorised by and in the form authorized bv Resolution Ho. 216,
v;ithou± distinction as to bonds Issued under the original general
comprehensive plan adopted by Resolution 'Jo. 21C and the changes,
additions and betterments adopted herein.
A3-7
-------
R.K.DONESHVAR $ ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
400O AURORA AVE. N. SEATTLE, WA. 981O3
(206) 633-3485
October 1, 1975
Honorable Board of Water Commissioners
King County Water District No. 90
15606 S. E. 128th Street
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: District's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan
Orton Road Drainage Basin
Gentlemen:
At the time the preliminary application for State and Federal grants
were being prepared, you were informed that some minor changes must be
made in the District's Comprehensive Sewerage Plan in order to serve the
proposed high school as well as some other areas with high frequency of
failure in the drainfields and septic tanks. The consensus of the Board
was to wait until all detailed information has been compiled prior to actual
revision. After careful examination of the new information and analysis of
the best available population projection for the area then we were to pro-
ceed with updating of the Comprehensive Plan.
A review of population forecasts presented in the District's Compre-
hensive Plan will indicate a very close parallel with that of the King County
Planning Department compiled in 1968. This data was also compared against
the Puget Sound Governmental Conference population forecasts, which by this
date has been revised downward. As a matter of fact, in the past two or three
years, most of the local agencies had to revise their previous population pro-
jections prepared in the late 1960's. It must be remembered that one of the
most basic assumptions in forecasting the suburban development is that the
present employment centers will continue to flourish in the^same locations
and will be the major influencing factor in the locations of residential areas.
Of course, this assumption proved to be very unpredictable and indeed, be-
cause of the Boeing employment downtrend, it turned out to be a very negative
factor. Because of slow growth rate and other local factors the time table for
construction of some of the facilities naturally had to be revised or postponed.
A3-8
-------
Page Two
October 1, 1975
Carefully considering the various factors affecting population growth,
along with published forecasts by regional agencies we have concluded that
the population densities presented in the Comprehensive Report will have to
be revised downward. Based on our review of the existing population fore-
casts, we estimate the average population density of the areas within the
King County Water District No. 90 will be about six persons per acre or
otherwise the area will remain basically low to medium density residential.
There will be, of course, many localized areas with a greater population
density than six persons per acre while at the same time some other areas
may have only four persons per acre.
Lower population density affects the total flows generated within
the District and therefore some pipe sizes have to be revised.
The attached map is prepared to show the changes made in the Com-
prehensive Sewerage Plan of the District in part necessitated by the immedi-
ate need for sanitary sewers for part of theDistrict which were not predicted
by the original plan. The revised Orton Road Sub-drainage Basin will serve
most of the areas with known polution and water quality problems. However,
it may be two or three years after Orton Road Interceptor is constructed before
sewers are extended to the White Fence Ranch area or Maple Wood Elementary
school. It is our considered opinion based on our discussion with local resi-
dences and property owners that they will have sewers extended with or with-
out the District's financial help. The suggested Orton Road Sub-drainage
Basin will serve all the areas within its boundaries without the use of any
pumping stations. However, other areas with know drainfield problems could
also be served by use of pumping stations as an interim means.
Should there be any questions, please give us a call.
Very truly yours,
Rasool Doneshvar, P. E.
RD:fw
Encl.
cc: EPA, Seattle, i/
EPA, Redmond
DOE, Redmond
Don Ho 1m, Attorney
A3-9
-------
1 ~~"S?S*.
WATER DISTRICT NO. 90
BOUNDARY /
|-«—ORIGINAL IORTON ROAD
!• ("ID A Ikl A/^r QAI IkinADV
_ REVISED' ORTON ROAD
l| / DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE1 BOUNDARY
I. ALL PIPES 8" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
KING CO. WATER!DISTRICT NO. 90
REVISED ORTON ROAD DRAINAGE
-------
APPENDIX 4
HISTORICAL VEGETATIVE PATTERNS OF THE STUDY AREA
The following figures illustrate the changing patterns of
vegetative succession and land use in the Study Area. The figures
were created from forest cover and site class maps made by King
County timber tax assessors. The original maps are available for
review at the Timber Tax Division of the Department of Assessments,
King County Administration Building.
A4-1
-------
>
ou?
U.KiP
A4-2
-------
-PS
15-80
Use
-------
FlP-
t,LO
A4-4
-------
n
DP—
7^* FIK. >\*et> *^
A4-5
-------
A4-6
-------
;
A4-7
-------
A4-8
-------
W*Vn
& V/o
TO
T
MIUL H*** !•»•*- ~\ |~
^ ftw 5 soo { ^-r
Pf.*f TtMOnW«A^V/° 0
Si^^/r^r; /
Pf./ ^.MC^^WUK^K -
^jft^RCsr j /* . 1 $
'^X/ ^ /^
^ >^sX^ ^>
A4-9
-------
119)
(042-1152)
A4-10
-------
-------
APPENDIX 5
WATER QUALITY DATA
As indicated in the text of the EIS, water quality data for the
Orton Road Interceptor Study Area are very limited. Contained in this
Appendix are representative data from three sources:
1. December 1973 METRO report on the quality of small lakes and
streams in the Lake Washington drainage basin.
2. Computer printouts of data for Lake Kathleen and May Creek
from EPA Region X's STORET file.
3. Laboratory analysis of surface samples collected by W.D. 90's
consultant representing surface water contamination adjacent
to Service Area boundaries.
A5-1
-------
QUALITY OF SMALL LAKES AND STREAMS
IN THE
LAKE WASHINGTON AND GREEN RIVER DRAINAGE BASINS
f
INTERIM REPORT
by
Cecil M. Whitmore
Robert G. Swartz
Robert N. Brenner
Glen D. Farris
PERIOD JULY 1971 to OCTOBER,1972
METRO DECEMBER 1973
A5-2
-------
TABLE 14
RIBCO STREAMS
SEASONAL NUTRIENT
CON CENT RAT I ON f
July, 1971 - October 1972
NAME Phosphorus ,
Winter-Spring
Lyon Cr.
McAleer Cr.
Thorton Cr.
Cedar R. at Indian
Unknown Cr .
Peterson Lk. Cr.
Spring Lk. Outlet
Lk. Desire Outlet
Walsh Diversion Ditch
Cedar R. at Maple Valley
Cedar R. at Landsberg
Cedar R. at Renton
May Cr . at Mouth
May Cr. at Coalfield
Mouth of Sairmamish
Swamp Cr. at Hwy 522
Swamp Cr. at Hwy 524
Farrmamish R. at Wayne's
H. Cr. at Thrasher's
«. Cr. at Hwy 522
Ilartha Lake Outlet
Max.
0.29
0.05
0.18
0.03
O.OR
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.13
0.43
0.07
0.12'
0.18
0.02
Min.
0.04
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.03
•0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.01
Av.
0.13
0.03
0.11
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.02
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.05'
0.07
0.18
0.05
0.06
0.11
0.02
mgs P/l
Summer-Fall
Max. Min. Av.
0.13 0.01 0,Q7
0.12 0.01 0.08
0.13*
0.04 0.01
0.06 0.01 0.03
0.03*
0.05*
0.04*
0.04*
0.06*
0.10*
0.14 0.06 0.11
0.22 0.10 0.13
0.16 ' 0.13 0.15
-
A5-3
-------
TABLE 13
RIBCO STREAMS
SEASONAL NUTRIENT
CONCENTRATI01 S
July, 1971 - October, 1972
NAME Nitrate, mgs N/l
Winter-Spring Summer-Falll
Lower Newaukum
Lyon Cr.
McAleer Cr.
Thorton Cr .
Cedar R. at Indian
Unknown Cr.
Peterson Lk. Cr.
Spring Lk. Outlet
Lk. Desire Outlet
Walsh Diversion Ditch
Cedar R. at Maple Valley
Cedar R. at Landsberg
Cedar R. at Renton
May Cr. at Mouth
May Cr. at Coalfield
Mouth of Samraamish
Swamp Cr. at Hwy 522
Swamp Cr. at Hwy 524
Sammamish R. at Waynes
N. Cr. at Thrashers
Max.
1.50
1.85
0.72
1.85
0.30
1.50
1.20
0.60
0.46
1.30
0.30
0.26
0.30
0.96
0.56
0.80
1.55
0.64
0.80
0.86
Min.
0.44
0.74
0.26
0.74
0.14
0.70
6.46
0.26
0.26
0.34
0.12
0.10
0.18
0.16
0.12
0.40
0.60
0.06
0.30
0.34
Av. Max. Min.
1.08 1.25 0.14
1.21 1.35 0.16
0.46 2.10 0.18
1.28
0.20
1.01 0.11 0.04
0.78 0.38 0.18
0.41
0.38
0.68
0.19
0.15
0.22
0.61
0.40
0.57
0.96 0.70 0.39
0.29 0.49 0.09
0.53
0.59
A5-4
AV.
0.75
0.96
1.31
1.50*
0.27
0.06*
0.11*
0.09*
0.09*
0.31*
0.18*
0.59
0.31
-------
TABLE 12
RIBCO STREAMS
SEASONAL NUTRIENT
CONCENTRATIONS
July, 1971 - October, 1972
i
NAME Ammonia,
VJinter-Spring
Lyon Cr.
McAleer Cr.
Thorton Cr.
Cedar R. at Indian
Unknown Cr .
Peterson Lk. Cr.
Spring Lk. Outlet
Lk. Desire Outlet
Walsh Diversion Ditch
Cedar R. at Maple Valley
Cedar R. at Landsberg
Cedar R. at Renton
May Cr. at Mouth
May Cr. at Coalfield
Mouth of Sararnanish
Swamp Cr. at Ilwy 522
Swamp Cr. at Ilwy 524
Sanmamish R. at Waynes
N. Cr. at Thrashers
'n. Cr. at Kwy 522
Max.
0.04
1.03
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.18
0.03
O.OR
0.12
Min.
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
A5-5
Av.
0.02
0.39
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.05
•«
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.06
mas N/l
Summer- Fa 11
Max. Min. Av .
0.03 0.01 0.02
0.03 0.01 0.02
0.03*
0.01 0.01
0.03 0,01 0.01
0.01*
0.01*
0.01*
0.01*
0.04*
0.05*
0.03 0.02 0.02
0.10 0.01 0.03
0.06 0.01 0.03
-------
TABLE 11
RIBCO STREAMS
TOTAL COLIFORMS/CONCENTRATION - ORGANIFMS/100 mis
WINTER-SPRING SUMMER-FALL
(Nov. - May) (June - Oct.)
NAME
Lyon Cr.
McAleer Cr.
Thornton Cr.
Cedar R. at Indian
Unknown Cr.
Peterson Lk. Cr.
(outlet)
Spring Lk. Outlet
Desire Lk. Outlet
Walsh Diversion Ditch
Cedar R. at
Maple Valley
Cedar R. at
Lanclsberg
Cedar R. at Renton
May Cr.
May Cr. at
Coalfield
Coal Cr.
Coal Cr. at Coal Cr.
Sammamish R. at mouth
Swar.p Cr. at Rt 522
Swamp Cr. at Rt 524
DOE
Class.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Max.
6100
410
15000
110
600
2300
800
430
260
20
37
340
500
2100
850
120
1200
3600
10000
A5-6
Median Max.
69 ' 5100
120 12000
11000*
64
570*
260* 1600
630*
48 590
240
20
23
60
350*
"l80
510*
25
500*
1500* 110000
3500* 9400
Median
2700*
5800*
11000**
-
-
400*
-
300*
-
510**
72**
600**
-
—
-
-
4000**
4400*
. 3600*
-------
STOr'F.T DATF 76/03/P9
TMOEX 1311141 000040 00090 0100
MILKS ooo8.<>o 0009.40 007.20 001.08
>
Ln
1
— I
00010
00070
00077
0 0 0 <•> S
O03nn
00400
00410
00608
00630
00609
00945
31501
WATF3
TU^3
Tr>fl''.<;p
CNOUCTVY
r>0
JM
T aL-f
NH3-N
N02\N03
PHOS-TOT
SULFATF
TOT COLI
T E " v
vKSh.
SfCCnl
AT ^SC
CAC03
HISS
N-TOTAL
d v f) n 0
SG4-TUT
MFIMENDO
CENT
JTU
lMC"FS
"IC^Of'HI
Mli/L
su
Md/L
^li/L
M'l/L
Mf?/L P
MG/L
/lOOML
AMO OH4710
47 2d 42.0 12? Ob 12.0 2
J_K. KATHLttr'M - PROFILE
S3
w«SMlM(jTOrN
LK. ^ASn, - LK.
METr<0
0000 CLASS 00
72111204
EH
12
9
4
12
12
12
3
12
12
12
2
4
wt AN
12.4417
1 .H8M89
10rl.300
47.0*33
7.241t>6
6.boO66
12.UOOO
.066000
.225000
.012500
1 .80000
20.0000
VARIANCE
34.6390
.653620
637.402
137.7^1
14.^4rU
.051-514
7.00000
.008991
.042300
.000020
1.62000
.000000
STAN OtV
5.8HS49
.80^468
25.2b47
11.73Sb
3.80107
,226v6o
2. 64575
. 09<*rt20
.205669
.004623
1.27279
.000000
CUEF VAH
.47304f
.428013
.233192
.249^9
.5246H9
. 034T r,3
.22<>-*79
1 .456 77
.914087
.3f>l8l5
.70710.8
STAND Er( .
1 .69b99
.PV.9409
12.6274
3.38774
1.09727
.065519
1 .52752
.027372
. 059372
.001306
.900001
.000000
MAXIMU^
24.9000
3.30000
138.000
72.0000
11.7000
6.90000
14.0000
.350000
.530000
.020000
2.70000
20.0000
MlNlMU"
0.20000
1.00000
7^.2000
35.0000
. 100000
t> . 2 0 0 0 0
9.00000
.010000
.010000
.010000
.900000
20.0000
BES DATE
71/OM/05
72/02/24
71 /0»/ OS
71/08/05
71 /OH/05
71/0i/05
72/U2/24
71/06/05
71/06/05
71/08/05
72/04/19
71/08/05
END DATE
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/02/24
7.2/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26'
72/05/26
72/05/26
-------
STO^ET DATF
000040 0 0 0 « 0 0100
10 00 1 .20 001,S5
PAKfl^F
nool n
, 1 K V
'•> CNDUCTW
00300 TO
00400 ^H
> 006CH NM3-M
I 00630 NO2sN03
00 OPb6e> PhOS-TOT
31501 TOT COLI
CENT
JTU
'TC-Or- HO
MG/L
S'.)
OISS
N-TOTAL
MFIMENOO
0/1 0
»7 ?«
ft. K
OHU710
. 0 122 ()r> l>v.O 2
'-l - OUTLET
PACIFIC CJ
LK. »"VSHIN'3TON
MET^U
0000 CLASS 00
7?i 1121)4
/100KL
K
£
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
MEAN
1 •» . o o o a
1 . -iSOOO
41.SOOO
4.hoooo
6.7-3000
.040000
.180000
.010000-
27.5000
VA^I ANCE
1^.0000
. 4 0 S 0 0 0
24.SOOO
2.00003
.004990
. l]6fc•-0^
.012600
. 145E-10
112.500
STAN OE\/
4 .2H£04
,r>363^6
4. V4V75
1.41422
.070637
.000034
.113137
.000000
10.6066
COEF vArl
,303o«-h
.32*3-3?
. 1 1 v 2 / 1
.147315
.010465
.000853
.6HrtS4Q
.3*5695
STANU EH
3.00000
.430000
3.SOOOO
1 .00001
,049S>49
.000024
.OHOUOO
.000000
7.30000
MAXIMUM
17.0000
2.40000
45.0000
10.0000
6.bOOOO
.040000
.260000
.010000
35.0000
MINI'MlM
11.0000
1.50000
31.0000
6. 60000
6.70000
.040000
.100000
.010000
' 20.0000
HE'i GATE
72/0-»/l9
72/04/19
72/04/19
72/04/19
72/04/19
72/04/19
72/04/19
72/04/19
72/04/19
ENO DATE
72/0^/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
72/05/26
-------
STORET DATE 76/03/29
INDEX 1311141 0000*0 OOO-JQ
MILES 0007.30 0009.^-0 000.20
PAP.A-iF.TE-*
00010 U4TF> TE'-'^
00015 THERMAL
00042 ALTITUDE
ooo^o
00070
OOOMO COl.OP
0009^ CNOiJCTVY
003UO
00400
00610
00615
00620
00
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N
00665 PHOS-TOT
00671 PwQS-niS
31504 TOT COLI
3*260
1 1 L . 4 T U /
FEET
FlOv
.IKSN
PT-CO
AT 25C
TnT4L
TOTAL
O^T^O
•iFIM LES
HOu^-NET
AC) MSL
CFS
JTU
UN f TS
-5t-10
.077547
.115571
.000437
4004059
.000529
STAM OEV
4.69328
2-3.665^
6.90292
23.9105
30.83H3
1..26120
.251355
.0-1^1^9
.000007
.278472
.124/85
.020899
2001.01
.023005
COEF v/Ak
.4379*3
1 . 0«7^*
1 .06HM*
.3^412^
.227240
.116778
. 033 3(!>6
.650224
.000082
.272630
1.35309
.388204
.880050
1.01755-
bTAND Ek
.Vb80l3
5. J51 / i
1 ,*090'3
4.8«0 71
^. 29*85
,?->7441
.051308
.008534
.000002
. 06076n
.0^^*12
.005069
408.455
.00*797
MAXIMUM
19.2000
1-10.000
25.0000
10*. 000
30.00-00
llh.OOO
178.000
13.9000
7.90000
.100000
.010000
l.nOOOO
.5*0000
.090000
7000.00
.osoooo
MlNlMU*
2. loooo
110.000
25.0000
2.«0000
1.00000
24.0000
85.0000
8 . « 0 0 0 0
6.90000
.000000
.010000
.600000
.020000
.000000
370.000
.OOftOOO
&E<- DiTE
71/10/13
72/01/17
01/Ul/Ol
71/10/13
71/10/13
71/10/13
71/10/13
71/10/13
71/10/13
71/10/U
71/10/13
71/10/13
71/10/13
71/10/13
71/10/13
71/07/05
END DATE
72/09/18
72/01/17
01/01/01
72/09/18
72/09/18
72/09/16
72/09/18
72/09/18
72/09/18
72/09/18
72/09/18
72/09/18
72/09/18
72/09/18
72/09/16
72/09/18
-------
STOkET DATE 76/03/39
!>
Ln
|
O
INDEX
MILES
PARAMF
00010
00070
00095
00300
00310
004QO
00410
00515
OObO1^
00608
00615
00620
00625
00630
00669
00672
009SS
31501
31616
70507
1311141
0008.60
:TF«
W4TE9
TUPR
CNOUCTVY
00
800
P-t
T AL<
HFSIOUE
Ow'? N
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N
TOT KJFL
N02'.M03
Pi-OS-TOT
PHOS-nlS
SILICA
TOT COLT
FEC COLI
PHOS-T
000040
0009.40 .
TE*?
JK^N
AT 25C
5 rtfl Y
C«CO3
DISS-105
N
HISS
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
Mvn^o
nvn^o
DISOL VEu
MFIMFNDO
MFM-FC8*
OflTHO
.
ChNl
JTU
Mic>*0"iHi
Md/l
l*"3/L P
Mii/L
/10UML
/100ML
Mf,/L P
04*0 080440
47 31 48.o 122 11 59.0
MOUTH lit- MuV
53
PACIHC NORTHWEST
LAKE WASHINGTON
72111204
0000 CLASS 00
130
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
10
6>->
63
59
71
135
136
64
1
6
2
1
MEAN
9. 7>s379
4.43333
101.333
12. 0667
) .*oooo
6.b3333
32.6667
5.70000
.387000
.0*7391
.003794
.325422
.? 78^9Q
.309477
.058450
.048437
.020000
1091.83
160.500
.030000
VARIANCE
11.8344
8.16332
100.3*8
1.26355
.1 79999
.?033">*
* 1.3343
2.1700*
.068668
.001017
.000003
. 029064
.031179
.021952
.0034^9
.001315
778021
9660.50
STAN JEV
3.44U11
2.85715
1(1. 01 74
1-.1240I3
.424263
,*5(>948
6.42918
1.47311
.2620*5
.031«85
.001797
.170*82
.176575
. 1*8163
. 05MBl^
.036263
882.055
98.2673
CO£F Vb'H
.352334
.^,44471
.098t(56
.0931^6
.3030*5
.0679^2
. 19nr)12
,?^d4^0
.677120
.672800
.473819
.5238*0
.633H19,
.478753
1.00613
.7*86^3
,807a66
.612365
STAND E4
.3(11718
1 .6*95n
5.78353
.>i
-------
SCALE IH FEET
SURFICIAL WATER QUALITY
SAMPLE SITES 11-18-75
Figure 32
-------
CERTIFICATE
LAUCKS TESTING LABORATORIES
INCORPORATED
(206) 622-0727
1008 WESTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
LABORATORY NO.
55221
CHEMISTS
SAMPLERS • INSPECTORS
ASSAYERS • SPECTROGRAPHERS
BIO-CLINICAL CHEMISTRIES
DATE
November 21, 1975
CLIENT
R. K. Doneshvar & Associates
4000 Aurora Ave. N.
Seattle, Washington 98103
REPORT ON
WATER
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
TESTS PERFORMED AND RESULTS:
Sample
#1
#2
#3
#4
Submitted 11-18-75
Marked: #1, #2, #3, #4
Total Coliform Count
M.P.N. per 100 ml of
Sample
Fecal Coliform Count
M.P.N. per 100 ml of
Sample
11,000
1,100,000
24,000
460,000
2,400
460,000
930
460,000
Respectfully submitted,
LAUCKS TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
JMOrpO
M. Owens
A5-11
,, J
THIS REPORT I* SUBMITTED FOR THI EXCLUSIVE USlToF THE PERSON, PAWTKEHSWIP, o* CORPORATION TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED.
USE OF THE NAME OF THIS COMPANY OR ANT MEMBER OP IT* STAFF tH COMMtCTtOM WITH THE AOVERTISIHa OK SALE OF AMT PRODUCT OH
PROCESS WILL OE ORANTIO ONLY ON CONTRACT. THIS COMPANY ACCEPT* f»O «E*yQM»l«l>-ITY EXCEPT FC» TJOHUrt PBKFORMAMCC OT Uttfff-
TION AND/OR A«ALY*I* IH SOOO FAITH AND ACCONJJIMS TO T»« IIULC* Op- Tpfll TK*0« AHO
-------
All four samples were taken on November 18, 1975, at approximately IrOO pm.
The weather was clear and cold, approximately 40°F. There had been little if
any precipitation for two days prior to the 18th, but it rained heavily on the
15th. All samples were taken in sterilized bottles supplied by the Department
of Social & Health Services.
Below is a description of the location where each sample was taken:
#1 sample was taken in a creek on the north side of the Briarwobd Elementary
School. The creek drains in a westerly direction from the school. The creek
was about 3 feet wide and 6" deep, surrounded by woods and flowing at about
1 fps.
#2 sample was taken just to the east of the Briarwood Elementary School drain-
field. A "french drain" has been constructed to carry excess "water" northerly
to a creek. A hole was dug in the gravel and a sample was taken after the
water cleared.
#3 sample was taken next to the roadside ditch on 163rd Ave., S. E. near
S. E. 129th Street. Water was coming out of the side of the hill in a small
stream near the ditch. A sample was taken from this stream.
#4 sample was taken in the concrete gutter on 169th Ave., S. E. near S. E.
124th Street. Water was coming out of the hillside above the street. The
water then flows to the gutter where the sample was taken, then down the
gutter to the catch basin.
Samples taken by Stephen Barker
A5-12
-------
APPENDIX 6
PLANTS OF THE STUDY AREA
This appendix contains a list of non-ornamental plant species
found in the Study Area. This list is based on cursory filed surveys,
not on detailed investigations. No endangered or threatened plant
species, as designated by the Endangered Species Act and the
Smithsonian Institution, were observed in the Study Area.
A6-1
-------
APPENDIX 6
PLANTS OF THE STUDY AREA
TREES
Western Yew
Western Red-cedar
Grand Fir
Douglas-fir
Western Hemlock
Madrona
Black Cottonwood
Lombardy Poplar
Pacific Willow
Scouler Willow
Red Alder
Hazelnut
Black Hawthorn
Bittercherry
Oregon Crabapple
Big-leaf Maple
Vine Maple
Cascara
Pacific Dogwood
Red-osier Dogwood
Oregon Ash
SHRUBS
Sitka Willow
Hooker Willow
Japanese Knotweed
Tall Oregongrape
Cascade Oregongrape
Redflowering Currant
Gummy Gooseberry
Taxus brevifolia
Thuja plioata
Abies grand-Is
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Tsuga heterophylla
Arbutus menziesii
Populus tpiohoearpa
Populus niffpa
Salix lasiandra
Saline scculeviana
Alnus rubra
Corylus oornuta
Crataegus douglas-ii-
Prurtus emapginata
Pyrus fusoa
Acer maeTophyllum
Aeev cireinatum
Khamnus purshiana
Cornus nuttall-ii
Cornus stolonifeva
Fraxinus latifolia
Salix sitchensis
Salix hookeriana
Polygonum ouspidotum
Berbevis aquilfolium
Berberis nervosa
Ribes sanguineum
Ribes lobbii
A6-2
-------
APPENDIX 6 (cont.)
Ocean-spray
Indian Plum
Pacific Ninebark
Salmonberry
Himalayan Blackberry
Thimbleberry
Douglas Spiraea
Scot's Broom
Devil's Club
Salal
Labrador Tea
Evergreen Blueberry
Red Huckleberry
Black Twinberry
Blue Elderberry
High-bush Cranberry
Common Snowberry
Red Elderberry
HERBS AND FORBS
Common Horsetail
Scouring Rush
Stinging Nettle
Dock or Sorrel
Wild Ginger
Miner's Lettuce
Field Chickweed
Marshmarigold
Various Buttercups
Pacific Bleeding-heart
Fringecup
Youth-On-Age (Piggyback
Stink Currant
Little Wild Rose
Holodiscus discolor
Osmaronia cerasiformis
Physocarpus aapitatus
Rubus speatabilis
Rubus discolor
Rubus parvifloras
Spiraea douglasii
Cytisus scoparius
Oplopanax horridwn
Gaultheria shallon
Ledwn groenlandioum
Vaccinium ovatwn
Vaocinium parvifolium
Lonicera involucrata
Sambuaus cerulea
Viburnum spp.
Symphoricarpos albus
Sambuaus racemosa
Equisetum arvense
Equistetum spp.
Urtica dioioa var.
Rumex spp.
Asarum oaudatum
Montia spp.
Cerastium spp.
Caltha spp.
Ranunculus spp.
Dicentra formosa
Tellima grandiflorum
Plant)/Tolmiea menziesii
Ribes bracteosum
Rosa gymnocarpa
A6-3
-------
APPENDIX 6 (cont.)
Nootka Rose
Evergreen' Blackberry
Pacific Blackberry
Black Raspberry
Various Clovers
Vetch or Wild Pea
Common Mullien
Fireweek
Kinnikinnick
Loosestrife
Bittersweet Nightsahde
English Plantain
Common Plantain
Western Twinflower
Common Yarrow
Pearly-everlasting
Canadian thistle
Common thistle
Daisy Varieties
Canadian Goldenrod
Western Goldenrod
Milk-thistle
Marsh Cinquefoil
Common Tansy
Common Dandelion
Hairy Cats-ear
Spiked Willow-herb
Water Plantain
Various Rushes
Various Sedges
Various Spike-rushes
Various Bulrushes and Tules
Various Grasses
Various Bur-reeds
Rosa nutkama
Rubus laoiniatus
Rubus UP sinus
Rubus leuoodermis
Trifolium spp.
Vicia amerioana
Verbascwn thapsus
Epilobium angustifolium
Aratostaphylos uva-ursi
Lysimachia spp.
Solarium dulcamara
Plantago lanoeolata
Plantago major
Linnaea borealis
Achillea millefolium
Anaphalis margaritaoea
Cirsium arvense
Cirsium vulgare
EvigeTon var.
Solidago canadensis
Solidago oaoidentalis
Sonohus spp.
Potentilla palustris
Tanaoetum vulgare
Taraxaeum offieinale
Hypoo'haeris vadioata
Lythrum salioaria
Alisma plantago-aquatioa
Junaus spp.
Car ex spp.
Eleooharis spp.
Soirpus spp.
Gramineae spp.
Sparganium spp.
A6-4
-------
APPENDIX 6 (cont.)
Common Cat-tail
Skunk Cabbage
False Lily-of-the-Valley
Western Trillium
Lady-fern
Licorice-fern
Sword-fern
Bracken-fern
Typha lati folia
Lysiahitum tmevieamm.
Maianthemwn unifoliwn
Trillium ovatum
Athyrium filix-femina
Polypodiwn glyoywhiza
Polystiohwn munition
Ptevidium aquilinwn
AQUATIC PLANTS
Water-fern
American Water-lily
Spatterdock
Hornwort
Crowfoot
Broadleaf Arrowhead
Pondweed
Duckweed
Azolla mexioana
Nymphaea odorata
Nuphar polysepalwn
Ceratophyllim demevswri
Ranunculus spp.
Sagittaria latifolia
Potomogeton spp.
Lerma spp.
A6-5
-------
APPENDIX 7
WILDLIFE OF THE STUDY AREA
Because of the various habitats which exist in the Service Area,
numerous animals can be or are expected to be found in the area. The
habitats include: Douglas-fir forest; mixed forest; riparian and bog;
brush, shrub and meadow; and urban/suburban. This appendix lists
wildlife species associated with these various habitats. No species
which have been sited in or near the Study Area are designated as
rare, threatened or endangered wildlife species onthe U.S. Department
of Interior list.
A7-1
-------
APPENDIX 7
WILDLIFE OF THE STUDY AREA
H
CO
w
g
PM
I
CO
O
§
Q
8
pq
H
CO
W
PC!
o
PM
a
a
s
pq
CO
PH
M
pe!
—I
I
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
Northwestern Brown Salamander
Long-toed Salamander
Pacific Giant Salamander
*Rough-skinned Hewt
Western Red-backed Salamander
Oregon Salamander
Tailed Frog
Western Boreal Toad
^Pacific Treefrog
Red legged Frog
Bullfrog
Western Pond Turtle
Northwestern Fence Lizard
Northern Alligator Lizard
Rubber Boa
*Common or Red-sided Garter Snake
Western Terrestrial or Wandering
Garter Snake
Northwestern Garter Snake
Ambystoma graci-le
Anibystoma maorodaotylum
Dioamptodon ensatus
Tarieha granulosa
Plethodon veh-iculum
Ensatina esohsoholtzi. oregonesis
Ascaphus truei-
Bufo boreas
Hyla regilla
Rana aurora
Rana aatesblana
Clemmys marmorata
Soeloporus oooi-dentali-s
Gerrhonotus ooeruleus var.
Charina bottae
Tharnnophis si-rtalls var.
Tharmoph'Ls elegans var.
Tharnnophis ordinoi-des
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
APPENDIX 7 (cont.)
IH
H
s
BIRDS
*Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Green Heron ' Butorides virescens
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus
*Ganada Goose 'Branta oanadensis
*Mallard Anas platyrhynahos
Gadwall Anas strepera
Pintail Anas acuta
*Green-winged Teal Anas aarolinensis
Blue-winged Teal Anas disoors
American Widgeon or Baldpate Mareaa amerioana
*Shoveler Spatual olypeata
Wood Duck Aix sponsa
*Bufflehead Buoephala afbeola
*Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus-
Common Merganser Mergus merganser
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator
* Sharp- shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus
Cooper ' s Hawk Acoi-piter oooperii
*Red-tailed Hawk Buteo j 'amicensis
Bald Eagle Eatiaeetus leucocephalus
•Marsh Hawk Circus oyaneus
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
H
|
0
oi
H
1
co
5
§
p
X
X
H
H
o
fe
@
H
a
X
X
o
o
p
<
2
3
%
PH
H
C*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
§
§1
CO
11
P^ PH
« §
X
X
X
X
§
§
p
§
CO
3
§
s
X
X
X
X
-------
APPENDIX 7(cont.)
H
H
PQ
^c
w
BIRDS (cont.)
Pigeon Hawk Faloo columbarius
*Sparrow Hawk Falco sparverius
*Ruffled Grouse Bonasa umbellus
^California Quail Lophortyx oalifoTnious
*Ring-necked Pheasant Phdsionus ooloh-ious
* American Coot Fulioa ameTioana
*Killdeer Charadrius vooifeTus
Common Snipe Capella galli-nago
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis maoularia
Western Sandpiper Ereunetes mauri
*Glaucous-winged Gull LOTUS glauoesoens
*Herring Gull LOTUS argentatus
California Gull LOTUS califoTniaus
Ringed-billed Gull LOTUS delwarensis
*Mew Gull LOTUS oanus
*Bonaparte's Gull LOTUS Philadelphia
Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasoiata
Rock Dove Columba livia
*Mourning Cove Zenaidura maoTOura
Barn Owl Tyto alba
Pygmy Owl Glauoidium gnoma
Green-horned Owl Bubo virginianus
H
CO
o
PLI
p^
H
1
CO
O
p
0
o
X
X
X
H
CO
[V]
pH
O
pL|
@
W
(-H
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
pp
Q
JZ
!3
JZ
^c
f— ^
^
P-*
H
tf
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
p
PQ
^}
•yj
5
I/D
"IS
33 0
13 5y
D^ PM
M g
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
S
05
5
PQ
£3
CO
**^
^
pQ
pq
e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
I
Ln
APPENDIX 7 (cont.)
H
£_|
H
s
BIRDS (cont.)
Short- eared Owl Asia flanmeus
Screech Owl Otus asio
Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Black Swift Cypeseloides n-iger
Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi
Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna
*Rufous Hummingbird SelasphoTus rufus
*Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle aloyon
*Red-shafted Flicker Culaptes cafer
Hairy Woodpecker Dendrooopos villosus
*Downy Woodpecker Dendrocopos pubescens
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapiaus varius
Traill's Flycatcher Empldonax traillli
Western Flycatcher Empidonax diffia-ilis
^Western Wood Pee Wee Contopus sordidulus
*Violet-green Swallow Tachyc-ineta thalassi-na
*Tree Swallow Ii"LdopToone bioolor
*Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx rufioollis
*Barn Swallow Ei-Tundo' rust-ica
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Purple Martin Progne sub-is
*Steller's Jay Cyanooltta stellevi
H
CO
3
0
pj
1^
1
C/2
^J
1-3
CD
§
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H
CO
9
o
pn
Q
^q
H
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
CP
Q
g
-------
APPENDIX 7 (cont.)
H
H
H
§
§
BIRDS (cont.)
^Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
*Black-capped Chickadee Parus atrioapillus
*Chestnut-backed Chickadee Parus rufesoens
*Conmon Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta oanadensis
*Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes
*Bewick's Wren Tnryomanes bewickii
Long-billed Marsh Wren Telmatodytes pdlustris
*Robin Turdus migratorius
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius
Swainson's Thrush Hylociohla ustulata
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa
* Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor
* Star ling Sturnus vulgaris
Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius
Button's Vireo Vireo nuttoni
Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus
Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata
MacGillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei
H
CO
i
Pn
H
1
CO
M
O
§
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H
co
o
ptl
Q
pM
H
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
§
Q
<
j2
5
pd
^
H
(A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
•
:Q
3
A
•> t2
ta o
iO Q
i w
rt S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•^
pQ
g
g
CO
•z
^5
9
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
APPENDIX 7 (cont.)
H
H
H
i
BIRDS (cont.)
Yellow Warbler Dendroioa petechia
Audubon's Warbler Dendroioa auduboni
Townsend's Warbler Dend.Toi.ca townsendi
*Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigTescens
Yellowthroat Geothlypis tTichas
Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla
*House Sparrow PasseT domesticus
Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
*Red -winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Bullock's Oriole IcteTus bullocl
-------
I
oo
APPENDIX 7 (cont.)
EH
-------
APPENDIX 7 (cont.)
H
H
H
§
a
MAMMALS (cont.)
^Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa
*Townsend's Chipmuck Eutamias townsendi
Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Douglas's Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasi
Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
Beaver Castor fiber
Common Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus
Bushy-Tailed Wood Rat Heotoma cinerea
Capper's Red-backed Mouse Clethrionomys gapperi
Townsend's Meadow Mouse Microtus townsendi
Long-tailed Meadow Mouse Microtus longicaudus
Oregon Meadow Mouse Microtus oregoni
*Muskrat Onodatra zibethicus
*Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus
Black Rat Rattus r.attus
House Mouse Mus musculus
Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus
Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum
*Nutria Myocastor coypus •
*Domestic Dog (Feral) Canis spp.
*Coyote Canis latrans
Eastern Red Fox Vulpes vulpes fulva
H
CO
prl
pq
O
p.
H
p4
1
CO
h-i
o
§
Q
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H
CO
w
fv]
o
Q
w
H
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
e
3
^
M
v4
^q
PH
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
j2?
3
g"
ry^
s
CO
». 'i
a"o
CO Q
g a
« §
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§
§
t=
PC)
!=>
CO
>z
^q
9
p
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
I
I—>
o
APPENDIX 7 (cont.)
H
2
M
9
™
MAMMALS (cont.)
Black Bear Ursus americanus
^Raccoon Procyon lotor
Short-tailed Weasel tyustela erminea
Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata
Mink Lutreola lutreola
Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius
* Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis
River Otter Lutra canadensis
Mountain Lion** Fells concolor
^Domestic Cat (Feral) Felis spp.
Bobcat Lynx rufus
*Black-tailed Deer Odocoileus hemionus
TOTALS FOR ALL SPECIES
(SPECIES DIVERSITY)
*These species have been observed within the Study Area during 1975 and 1976.
**Mountain lion have been sighted immediately north and east of the Study Area
on Tiger and Squak Mountains. Their presence in the Study Area would be very
uncommon.
H
LO
3
o
Pn
pci
M
PM
to
a
o
8
o
X
X
X
X
X
61
H
00
3
o
fn
a
a
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
101
o
o
PQ
Q
*z
<
*£.
<3
$
CM
M
erf
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
117
p
------- |