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

-------