EPA 9IO/9-77-043A EPA-IO-WA-KING^D^V/WTW-77
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SEPTEMBER 1977
s
METROPOLITAN SEATTLE
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
VOLUME I
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
METROPOLITAN SEATTLE
Volume I
Regional Analysis
Number: EPA 910/9-77-043A
King County, Washington
Prepared jointly by:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region X
Seattle, Washington 98101
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Seattle, Washington
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
With the Assistance of
James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Pasadena, California/Boise, Idaho
Approved by:
ild P. Dubois
"Regional Administrator
August 25, 1977
Date
-------
INTRODUCTION
A. Action Sponsor
The action sponsor is the Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle (METRO) for purposes of compliance with the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA Chapter 43.21C RCW)
and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency for the
purposes of compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
B. Lead Agency, Responsible Official and Contact Person
For NEPA Compliance
Lead Agency: Environmental Protection Agency.
Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Responsible Official: Donald P. DuBois
Regional Administrator
Contact Person: Roger K. Mochnick
Project Officer, Environmental
Evaluation Branch
For SEPA Compliance
Lead Agency: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
600 First Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
Responsible Official: Neil Peterson
Executive Director
Contact Person: Peter S. Machno
Manager, Environmental Planning
Division
C. Authors and Contributors to Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
11
-------
Introduction
Participating Agencies: Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Ecology
Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle
Advisory Agencies: City of Seattle
King County
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Consultants: James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers,
Inc. (Environmental Impact Statement)
Metropolitan Engineers (Facility Plan)
Human Resources Planning Institute (Socio-
economic studies)
D. Licenses and Permits Required to Implement Wastewater
Facilities Plan
Building, grading, complex source permit, shoreline
permit and other local governmental permits would be
required before implementing most of the alternatives
described herein. Eligibility for grant funding by EPA
and DOE would be determined after completion of the
Final Facility Plan and EIS.
E. Location of EIS Background Data
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Environmental Planning Division
SEPA Information Center
Room 404
600 First Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
F- Cost to Public for a Copy of the EIS
No charge while supply lasts.
G. Date of Issue of Draft EIS
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was made
available to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
and the Public on September 23, 1977.
H. Final Due Date for Public and Agency Comments
The final date for submittal of public and agency comments
is November 11, 1977. All comments should be sent to
Mr.-Roger K. Mochnick, Environmental Evaluation Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Distribution List
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
Description of the Proposal
Preface
PAGE
I. CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND 1
EIS Organization 1
Existing Wastewater Facilities 2
Wastewater Treatment Plants 2
Collection System 5
Sludge Management 5
Water Quality Planning and Regulations 6
Recent Local Planning 6
Current Federal Planning Requirements 7
Regional Issues 8
Legal and Institutional Consideration 9
Water Quality 10
Sludge 12
Plant Location 13
Growth 14
II. CHAPTER II - EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Physical Environment 17
Topography 17
Geology and Soils 17
Climate 23
Air Quality 23
Water Resources 26
The Biotic Environment 59
Terrestrial Habitats 60
Shoreline Habitats 61
Intertidal Habitats 62
Puget Sound 67
The Duwamish Estuary 80
Freshwater Environments 81
Rare or Endangered Species and
Sensitive Habitats 85
Natural Resources and Energy 87
Chemicals and Materials 87
Energy 88
Fisheries 89
IV
-------
Table of Contents
The Human Environment 89
Land Use and Land Use Planning 89
Population 97
Economic and Financial 99
Costs 102
Social, Recreational and Cultural 105
Archeological and Historical 110
Health and Safety 111
Legal and Institutional Considerations 112
Aesthetic Considerations 117
III. CHAPTER III - ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
Existing Wastewater Facilities 119
Service Areas 119
Treatment Plants 122
Collection Systems and Combined Sewer
Overflows 124
Sludge Management 127
Renton 133
Development of Alternatives 134
Issues 134
Wastewater Management System Components 136
Regional Alternatives 151
Alternative A - No Action 151
Alternative B - Metro Comprehensive
Plan (No Action Pursuant to PL 92-500) 151
Alternative C - Major Combined Sewer
Overflow Control 152
Alternative D - Partial Combined Sewer
Overflow Control 152
Alternative E - Secondary 152
Alternative F - Secondary/Southern
Strategy 152
Alternative G - Secondary/West Point
Phaseout Option 153
Alternative H - Deconsolidation/Re-
clamation 153
Other Alternatives 153
Impact Analysis Method 156
Alternative A - No Action 159
Description 159
Primary Impacts 162
Secondary Impacts 190
Mitigation Measures 192
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 192
Alternative B - Metro Comprehensive Plan
(No Action Pursuant to PL 92-500) 193
Description 193
v
-------
Table of Contents
Primary Impacts 201
Secondary Impacts 216
Mitigation Measures 219
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 220
Alternative C - Major Combined Sewer Overflow
Control 221
Description 221
Primary Impacts 232
Secondary Impacts 250
Mitigation Measures 253
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 255
Alternative D - Partial Combined Sewer Over-
flow Control 256
Description 256
Primary Impacts 262
Secondary Impacts 275
Mitigation Measures 277
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 278
Alternative E - Secondary 279
Description 279
Primary Impacts 287
Secondary Impacts 299
Mitigation Measures 301
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 302
Alternative F - Secondary/Southern Strategy 303
Description 303
Primary Impacts 310
Secondary Impacts 324
Mitigation Measures 326
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 327
Alternative G - Secondary/West Point Phaseout
Option 328
Description 328
Primary Impacts 335
Secondary Impacts 347
Mitigation Measures 348
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 349
Alternative H - Deconsolidation/Reclamation 350
Description 350
Primary Impacts 360
Secondary Impacts 376
Mitigation Measures 379
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 380
Impacts of Growth 381
Population Projection 381
Agency Policies and Growth Patterns 381
Primary Impacts from Growth 383
Secondary Impacts of Growth 384
Summary 386
Geology, Soils and Topography 386
Air Quality and Odors 387
VI
-------
Table of Contents
Water Quality 391
Biology 399
Energy and Natural Resources 403
Human Environment 404
IV. CHAPTER IV - CITIZEN AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 417
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES A-l
APPENDIX B - LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRON-
MENT B-l
APPENDIX C - AIR POLLUTION EMISSION CALCULA-
TIONS C-l
APPENDIX D - SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES AND TABLES D-l
APPENDIX E - ENERGY CALCULATION E-l
APPENDIX F - REGISTERED HISTORICAL PLACES IN
THE METRO AREA F-l
APPENDIX G - DETERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYMENT G-l
Vll
-------
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Metro Service Areas 3
1-2 Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park, West Point
and Alki Service Areas 4
2-1 Metro Treatment Plant Service Areas 16
2-2 Puget Sound Topography 18
2-3 Geology 20
2-4 General Soil Map 21
2-5 Hazardous Landslide Zones 22
2-6 Surface Waters 27
2-7 Combined Sewer Overflow Locations 31
2-8 Current Water Supply Facilities 38
2-9 Circulation in Central Puget Sound 41
2-10 Surface Tidal Circulation of Puget Sound
During Major Ebb Tide 43
2-11 Surface Tidal Circulation of Puget Sound at
Lower Low Water 44
2-12 Surface Tidal Circulation of Puget Sound at
Major Flood Tide 45
2-13 Surface Tidal Circulation of Puget Sound at
Higher High Water 46
2-14 Municipal and Industrial Effluents Discharged
to Puget Sound Main Basin East Side 50
2-15 Monthly Input of Trace Metals to Puget Sound
at West Point in 1973 52
2-16 Intertidal Hardshell Clams 74
2-17 Subtidal Geoducks 74
Vlll
-------
Table of Contents
List of Figures
2-18 Salmon Spawning Sites 78
2-19 Commercial Value of Puget Sound Fish 91
2-20 Existing Land Use 92
3-1 Metro 201 Facility Plan Service Area Alter-
natives 121
3-2 Sewerage Service Subareas 123
3-3 CATAD Regulator Stations and Drainage Areas 126
3-4 Combined Sewer Overflow Locations 128
3-5 King County Cedar Hills Landfill 132
3-6 Relative Priority in Terms of Pollution Risk
from Combined Sewer Overflows 139
3-7 Groundwater Impact Potential 175
3-8 Facility Plan Alternative B - Comprehensive
Plan (No Action Pursuant to PL 92-500) 194
3-9 Alternative B - Plant Layouts (Sheet 1) 198
Alternative B - Plant Layouts (Sheet 2) 199
3-10 Facility Plan Alternative C - Major CSO
Control 222
3-11 Alternative C - Plant Layouts (Sheet 1) 226
Alternative C - Plant Layouts (Sheet 2) 227
3-12 Facility Plan Alternative D - Partial CSO
Control 257
3-13 Facility Plan Alternative E - Secondary 280
3-14 Alternative E - Plant Layouts (Sheet 1) 284
Alternative E - Plant Layouts (Sheet 2) 285
3-15 Facility Plan Alternative F - Secondary/
Southern Strategy 304
3-16 Alternative F - West Point and Duwamish 308
Plant Layouts
3-17 Facility Plan Alternative G - Secondary
West Point Phaseout Option 329
IX
-------
Table of Contents
List of Figures
3-18 Interbay Layouts 333
3-19 Facility Plan Alternative H - Deconsolida-
tion/Reclamation 351
3-20 Alternative H: North Lake Sammamish Waste-
water Treatment Plant 356
3-21 Alternative H: North Lake Washington (Kenmore)
Wastewater Treatment Plant 357
3-22 Alternative H: Carkeek Park Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant 358
x
-------
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paqe
2-1 Summary of 1973 Air Contaminant Emissions
in King County 24
2-2 Physical Description 28
2-3 Instream Use of Area Rivers 29
2-4 Water Quality Parameters (1973) of Seattle
Metropolitan Area Rivers 30
2-5 Suggested Criteria for Judging the Trophic
Status of Temperate Lakes and the Respec-
tive Values for Lake Washington and Lake
Sammamish 32
2-6 One Hundred-Year Flood Levels and/or Tide
Levels at Project Sites 39
2-7 Total Copper, Lead and Zinc Inputs to Puget
Sound 54
2-8 Combined Sewer Overflows Emptying Near Salmon
Spawning Sites in Lake Washington 71
2-9 Selected Characteristics of Puget Sound
Fisheries 90
2-10 ..Existing Land Use 1970 93
2-11 Metro 201 Study Area Population Projections 98
2-12 Service Area Population Projections 100
2-13 Employment Projections 101
2-14 National Cost of Implementing PL 92-500 104
2-15 Matrix - Goals of Seattle 108
3-1 Outfall Details 124
3-2 Combined Sewer Overflows 129
3-3 Sludge Quantities 131
XI
-------
Table of Contents
List of Tables
3--4 West Point Influent Metals Load Balance 147
3-5 Alternative A - No Action: Summary 160
3-6 Selected Water Quality Parameters: Levels
in Madison Park Overflow, August 1976, and
Water Quality Criteria 164
3-7 Selected Parameters in the Roanoke Street
Overflow, August 1975, and U.S. EPA
Proposed Water Quality Criteria for
Freshwater Life 166
3-8 Hanford Overflow to the Duwamish Selected
Parameters in Overflow, August, 1976,
Compared to USEPA Criteria, 1975 168
3-9 Water Quality Profile Data: West Point
(August 1974) 172
3-10 Water Quality Profile Data: West Point
(January 1975) 173
3-11 Combined Sewer Overflows Emptying Into
Marshlands 177
3-12 Energy Consumption for Alternative A 185
3-13 Cost Estimate for Facility Plan Alternatives 187
3-14 Estimated Average Monthly User Charge Under
Each Alternative Per Equivalent Connection 188
3-15 Alternative B - Metro Comprehensive Plan
(No Action Pursuant to PL 92-500) 195
3-16 Alternative B - Project Costs and Construc-
tion Staging 196
3-17 Energy Consumption for Alternative B 212
3-18 Alternative C - Major CSO Control: Summary 223
3-19 Alternative C - Project Costs and Construc-
tion Staging 224
3-20 Collection System Projects to Hold and Trans-
port Combined Sewer Overflows 229-231
3-21 Energy and Chemical Consumption for Alterna-
tive C 245
Xll
-------
Table of Contents
List of Tables
3-22 Alternative D - Partial Combined Sewer
Overflow Control: Summary 258
3-23 Alternative D - Project Costs and Construc-
tion Staging 259
3-24 Energy and Chemical Consumption for Alterna-
tive D 271
3-25 Alternative E - Secondary: Summary 281
3-26 Alternative E - Project Costs and Construc-
tion Staging 282
3-27 Energy and Chemical Consumption for Alterna-
tive E 295
3-28 Alternative F - Secondary/Southern Strategy:
Summary 305
3-29 Alternative F - Project Costs and Construc-
tion Staging 306
3-30 Energy and Chemical Consumption for Alterna-
tive F 319
3-31 Alternative G - Secondary/West Point Phaseout
Option: Summary 330
3-32 Alternative G - Project Costs and Construc-
tion Staging 331
3-33 Energy and Chemical Consumption for Alterna-
tive G 342
3-34 Alternative H - Deconsolidation/Reclamation:
Summary 352
3-35 Alternative H - Project Costs and Construc-
tion Staging 353
3-36 100 Year Flood Water Levels 366
3-37 Energy and Chemical Consumption for Alterna-
tive H 372
3-38 Impacts on Geology, Soils and Topography 388
3-39 Air Quality Impacts Summary 390
Xlll
-------
Table of Contents
List of Tables
3-40 Summary of Wastewater Flows and Pollutant
Loads to Receiving Waters in 2005 392
3-41 Energy Consumption for Facility Plan Alterna-
tives 401
3-42 Natural Resource Commitment - Summary 403
3-43 Construction, Operation and Maintenance
Employment 410
xiv
-------
Distribution List
Places of Public Availability
Public Libraries
Seattle Libraries
Main Branch
Montlake Branch
University Branch
West Seattle Branch
Magnolia Branch
Broadview Branch
Puget Sound Council of Government Library
King County Library
Main Branch
Richmond Beach Branch
Bellevue Branch
University of Washington
Reference Library
Metro and EPA Public Information Centers
The Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle Municipal Reference Library
Metro Library
King County Clerk of the Council
State of Washington—Office of Community Development
Federal Agencies
Council on Environmental Quality
U. S. Department of Agriculture
U. S. Department of Defense
U. S. Department of Interior
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Energy Office
National Marine Fisheries Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Members of Congress
Warren G. Magnuson, U. S. Senate
Henry M. Jackson, U. S. Senate
John E. Cunningham, U. S. House of Representatives
Joel Pritchard, U.S. House of Representatives
xv
-------
Distribution List
State Agencies
Office of the Governor
Department of Ecology
Department of Fisheries
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Game
Department of Social and Health Services
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
The State Ecology Commission
State Parks and Recreation Commission
State Oceanographic Commission
State Utility and Transportation Commission
Local Agencies and Interested Groups
Metro Council Members
City of Seattle Agencies:
City Council Central Staff
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community Development
Office of Policy Planning
Department of Parks and Recreation
Department of Engineering
Department of Public Works
Water Department
Port of Seattle, Director of Planning
County Agencies:
Administrator, King County
Seattle - King County Department of Health
Department of Budget & Program Planning
Department of Planning & Community Development
Department of Public Works
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Snohomish Metropolitan Municipal Corporation-King County
(SNOMET)
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
Chairperson, Citizen's Water Quality Advisory Committee
Chairperson, Metropolitan Sewer Advisory Committee
City of Renton
City of Edmonds
City of Lynnwood
City of Black Diamond
xvi
-------
Distribution List
Metro's component and contracted agencies
National Wildlife Federation
Friends of the Earth
Sierra Club
Audubon Society
Washington Environmental Council
Institute of Environmental Studies (University of Washington)
Ecotope Group
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was made available
to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the public
on September 23, 1977.
xvi i
-------
SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIS CONTENTS
This Draft EIS is summarized in terms of the proposal,
the alternatives considered, the direct and indirect impacts
on the environment, measures to mitigate adverse impacts, and
unavoidable adverse impacts.
The Proposal
The Draft Facility Plan, prepared for the Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle, contains alternatives for Puget
Sound plants to the year 2005. Alternatives in the Draft
Facility Plans are focused on facilities at West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park, and Richmond Beach, but other sites within these
designated service areas have been considered in alternatives.
The Metro plant at Renton is not included in the proposed fac-
ilities, but effects of alternatives on Renton are described
since Renton is an integral part of the Metro system.
Regional Alternatives
The Draft EIS analyzes the impacts of the eight regional
alternatives proposed in the Draft Facility Plan. Each al-
ternative is evaluated on a co-equal basis in the Draft EIS;
no recommended alternative has been selected. The Final EIS
will include a recommended alternative and will undergo a 30-
day public review period.
Regional alternatives were developed to address, in
various combinations, four polar issues: water quality,
site impacts, the law (PL 92-500) and costs. Components
considered in developing alternatives included service area,
collection system and transfer interceptors, treatment pro-
cess, plant site, treated wastewater discharge location,
combined sewer overflow control, and sludge'management.
Interceptors to service new growth areas were not included.
Two of the alternatives (A and B) are "no action" alter-
natives required by The Washington State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Two of the alternatives (C and D) address combined sewer over-
flows, which create a local water quality problem. Four alter-
natives (E, F, G and H) provide secondary treatment and other
variable features. From the eight regional alternatives, it
is possible to derive hybrid alternatives that select compon-
ents from more than one alternative and blend them into a new
xvi a
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
alternative, such as secondary treatment plus combined sewer
overflow controls. The eight regional alternatives are sum-
marized below.
Alternative A - No Action
No capital expenditure would be made for expansion, modi-
fication or upgrading treatment plants at West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park or Richmond Beach. There would be no construc-
tion of new interceptors or increase in plant capacity dur-
ing the planning period (until 2005). Alternative A is eval-
uated to meet SEPA "no action" requirements.
Alternative B - Metro Comprehensive Plan -
(No Action Pursuant to PL 92-500)
Plant upgrading and transfer interceptor construction
would follow the Metro Comprehensive Plan. Alternative B is
evaluated as the "no action" alternative pursuant to Public
Law 92-500 (PL 92-500) and NEPA requirements and serves as
the baseline for comparing other alternatives. Puget Sound
plants (West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach)
would be retained with primary treatment. Improved sludge
management and disinfection practices would be provided in
Alternative B and all following alternatives. Four new trans-
fer interceptors and improvements to the Alki outfall would
be included.
Alternative C - Major Combined Sewer
Overflow Control
Major portions of combined sewer overflows would be con-
trolled by containment at holding tanks and regulator stations,
transfer from fresh to saltwater tnrough a new outfall to
Elliott Bay, and/or treatment. The existing Puget Sound
plants would be upgraded to provide enhanced primary treat-
ment by physical/chemical treatment of solids during the
summer. A new wet weather enchanced primary treatment plant
would be constructed in the lower Duwamish industrial area
and the Alki plant would be abandoned, both in 1995.
xix
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
Alternative D - Partial Combined Sewer
Overflow Control
Wet weather combined sewer overflows would be reduced to
Lake Washington, Lake Union and the West Seattle shoreline
by constructing holding tanks, regulator stations, and an
outfall to Elliottt Bay. The four Puget Sound plants would
be upgraded to enhanced primary treatment with chemical addi-
tion during the summer for improved solids removal.
Alternative E - Secondary
Secondary treatment would be added to the West Point,
Alki and Richmond Beach wastewater treatment plants by 1985.
The Carkeek Park plant would provide primary treatment for
wet weather flows only beginning in 1985; dry weather flows
would be pumped to West Point. The Carkeek Park plant could
be abandoned in 1995 (depending on City of Seattle Sewer
separation programs).
Alternative F - Secondary/Southern Strategy
Secondary treatment would be provided at Richmond Beach
and West Point (with a reduced service area). A major new
secondary treatment facility would be constructed in the
Duwamish industrial area in 1985; the Alki plant would be aban-
doned at that time. A new outfall off Alki Point would be
built for discharging effluent from the Duwamish (and Renton)
plants. The Carkeek Park plant would provide primary treatment
for wet weather flows only beginning in 1985; dry weather flows
would be pumped to West Point. The Carkeek Park plant could
be abandoned in 1995 (depending on City of Seattle sewer
separation programs).
Alternative G - Secondary/West Point
Phaseout Option
Secondary treatment would be provided at the Alki and
Richmond Beach plants. West Point would continue as a pri-
mary treatment plant for wet weather flows only, beginning
in 1985. A new secondary treatment plant in the Interbay
area (Golf Park site) would be constructed. The Carkeek
Park plant would provide primary treatment for wet weather
flows only beginning in 1985; dry weather flows would be
pumped to West Point. The Carkeek Park plant could be
xx
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
abandoned in 1995 (depending on City of Seattle sewer separ-
ation programs).
Alternative H - Deconsolidation/Reclamation
Secondary treatment would be provided at West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach. Areas of growth would be
served by new inland plants with local effluent and sludge re-
use possible. Advanced waste treatment would be provided at
new North and South Lake Sammamish plants. A new secondary
plant at Kenmore would discharge treated effluent to Puget
Sound.
Environmental Impacts
The primary (direct) and secondary (indirect) impacts of
each alternative are described in categories in the physical,
biological and human environments plus natural resources and
energy. The major effects of each alternative are summarized
below.
Alternative A - No Action
Alternative A, which would continue sewerage service to
the present sewered population but provide no new service or
capital improvements, would have comparable impacts in 2005
as existing conditions. Combined sewer overflows (CSO's)
would produce localized adverse impacts on inland surface
waters (Lake Washington, Portage Bay, Lake Union, Ship Canal)
and saltwaters (Elliott Bay and Alki Point). Bacterial levels
would probably continue to exceed standards for swimming (Lake
Washington) and shellfishing (Carkeek Park and Alki Beach) in
some areas. Pollutant discharge to Lake Washington/Ship Canal
from combined sewer overflows and to the Duwamish River from
the Renton plant would have adverse impacts on fisheries. Eel-
grass beds at Alki, important in herring production and local
fisheries, could be affected by combined sewer overflows and
inadequate dilution at the existing outfall. In Puget Sound,
the discharge of solids, metals, toxicants, and other mater-
ials would continue at present rates. Although effects as
measured to date from present discharges have been very minor,
the possibility of subtle, long-term impacts must be con-
sidered.
The site impacts on regional park lands or residential
areas would continue. The West Point plant would continue
xxi
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
operating near Discovery Park and the Carkeek Park plant
would remain in that park.
Alternative A would not comply with the secondary treat-
ment requirements of PL 92-500, but the implementation of
this alternative is not realistic. It is evaluated merely
to show the consequences of no action.
Energy consumed by continued operating practices at
West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach would be
24 million kilowatt-hours per year, approximately equivalent
to the energy consumed annually by 1200 homes.
Capital costs would not be incurred under Alternative A.
The estimated Metro user charge, averaged for the next 20
years, would be $5.25 per month per equivalent connection.
Alternative B - Metro Comprehensive Plan -
(No Action Pursuant to PL 92-500)
Water quality impacts would increase under Alternative B
relative to existing conditions. Combined sewer overflow in-
creases (over present conditions) of 36 percent to some in-
land waters would produce localized adverse water quality
impacts in waters (Lake Washington and Ship Canal) used by
migratory and resident fish. Construction of the second
Kenmore interceptor could possibly adversely affect salmon
spawning areas in a portion of Lake Washington. An indirect
impact would be a three-fold increase in discharge from the
Renton plant to the Duwamish River, which could adversely af-
fect migrating fish. Shellfishing areas would be less sub-
ject to contamination at Alki, due to improvement in the out-
fall. For Puget Sound, discharge of primary effluent would
add more materials that could adversely affect water quality,
such as solids, oxygen-demanding materials, bacteria, nutri-
ents and toxicants. Long-term impacts of this discharge are
difficult to ascertain, based on limited data, but could be
detrimental to Puget Sound.
The site impacts would be approximately the same as in
Alternative A, since only minor improvements would be made at
plant sites.
This alternative does not comply with the secondary treat-
ment requirements of PL 92-500, but is evaluated to comply
with requirements because it represents no action pursuant to
PL 92-500 and to reflect Metro's present Comprehensive Plan,
XXIX
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
Estimated capital costs would be $82,000,000 (1976 dol-
lars) . Assuming construction costs would not be eligible for
federal and state grants, the estimated Metro user charge,
averaged for the next 20 years, would be approximately $8.40
per month per equivalent connection.
Alternative C - Major Combined Sewer Overflow Control
This alternative would virtually eliminate combined sewer
overflow to freshwaters (Lake Washington, Lake Union, Portage
Bay and the Ship Canal) but would transfer some overflow to
Elliott Bay. Localized moderate-to-major benefits to migra-
tory fish routes and spawning areas would result. However,
the discharge of an expanded Renton plant to the Duwamish
would have adverse impacts on migratory fish. In addition,
the discharge to the Duwamish estuary from the proposed Du-
wamish wet weather plant could add pollutants to the area,
which is already stressed for fish and other biota by oil,
grease, ship wastes and poor flushing characteristics. Some
shellfishing conditions and public health protection at Alki
would improve with the improved outfall there. In Puget Sound,
enhanced primary treatment would result in a 20 percent re-
duction in solids loads relative to Alternative B. However,
solids loads to Puget Sound would remain approximately as
under existing conditions; an increase in flow would be
counteracted by a corresponding decrease in solids concentra-
tions. Therefore, water quality improvements due to Metro
discharge are not anticipated.
Construction impacts for the CSO holding tanks and re-
gulator stations could cause temporary disturbances such as
noise, odor and traffic disruption. However, once facilities
are operational, impacts would be negligible.
Because no substantial changes would be made at the
treatment plants, they would still exist in or near parks
that provide regional recreational opportunities. Socioeco-
nomic impacts of constructing a new plant in the Duwamish
have not been determined yet, but are being studied by Metro.
Energy use would be 36 million kilowatt-hours per year, equi-
valent to consumption from 1800 residential units.
Alternative C does not comply with the PL 92-500 require-
ments for secondary treatment. Consequences could include
penalties and ineligibility for grant funding. Estimated
capital costs would be $251,000,000 (1976 dollars). Assuming
no federal or state grant funding, the estimated Metro user
charge, averaged for the next 20 years, would be approximately
$13.70 per month per equivalent connection.
XXlll
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
Alternative D - Partial Combined
Sewer Overflow Control
Substantial decreases in combined sewer overflows to sensi-
tive freshwaters would result. Lake Washington, in particular,
would benefit in localized areas from combined sewer overflow
reductions of 83 percent. This was judged as a moderate bene-
fit to salmon spqwning areas. A 50 percent combined sewer
overflow decrease to the Ship Canal should benefit migrating
fish. The Alki outfall improvement would probably benefit
nearby shellfishing areas. Discharge to Puget Sound would be
approximately equivalent to Alternative C, wherein water qual-
ity improvement's were not anticipated due to increases in
wastewater flows and continuation of existing pollutant loads.
The treatment plant sites would remain as they are now
with little change in the on-site facilities for the chemical
storage and additional equipment used in enhanced primary
treatment. Plants at West Point and Carkeek Park would con-
tinue to exist near regional park lands.
Construction impacts for the CSO holding tanks and re-
gulator stations could cause temporary disturbances such as
noise, odor and traffic disruption. However, once facilities
are operational, impacts would be negligible.
Energy consumption would be approximately 34 million
kilowatt-hours per year, equivalent to the consumption for
1700 residences.
This alternative would not comply with the secondary
treatment requirements of PL 92-500, with possible conse-
quences on penalties and funding. Estimated capital costs,
principally for transfer and CSO control facilities, would be
$107,000,000 (1976 dollars). Assuming facilities would not
be eligible for federal and state grants, the estimated Metro
user charge, averaged for the next 20 years, would be approxi-
mately $11.10 per month per equivalent connection.
Alternative E - Secondary
Secondary treatment would reduce the solids loads (and
corresponding metals, oxygen-demanding materials, toxicants,
and other contaminants) to Puget Sound by over 70 percent
compared to Alternative B. Although the exact impacts of this
reduction are not known, it appears to be beneficial from the
standpoint of subtle, long-term effects. However, nutrients
would probably increase in Puget Sound, which could affect the
xxiv
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
size of plankton blooms. In addition, this alternative makes
little change in combined sewer overflows, which could have
localized adverse effects on salmon spawning and beach areas
in Lake Washington, plus migratory fish routes in the Ship
Canal. Improvements to the Alki outfall could benefit shell-
fishing and eelgrass beds there. Constructing the Kenmore
parallel interceptor could possibly destroy salmon spawning
areas in a part of Lake Washington by siltation.
The site impacts would include 12 acres of shoreline fill
needed at West Point and expansion of Alki into neighborhood
baseball fields.
Energy requirements for secondary treatment would be
higher than primary or enhanced primary. Annual energy con-
sumption would be 87 million kilowatt-hours, equivalent to
4300 residential connections.
This alternative would comply with the secondary treat-
ment requirement of PL 92-500. Timing requirements of the
NPDES permit dated June 14, 1977 include completion of the
Facility Plan and EIS by June 30, 1978 followed by develop-
ment of a compliance schedule for design and construction to
meet the required 1983 date for completion of best practica-
ble treatment facilities. Capital costs are estimated at
$213,000,000 (1976 dollars). Assuming all facilities would
be eligible for federal and state construction grants, the
estimated Metro user charge, averaged for the next 20 years,
would be $6.80 per month per equivalent connection.
Alternative F - Secondary/Southern Strategy
Under this alternative, the principal water quality im-
pact would result from combining secondary effluent from the
Alki, Renton, and new Duwamish plants discharging to Puget
Sound off Alki Point. This discharge would be approximately
26 percent larger in terms of flow than the present West Point
discharge. Information on existing conditions off Alki is
limited, so more studies are needed before exact impacts can
be determined there. A preliminary conclusion is that nutri-
ents from secondary effluent could influence the size of plank-
ton blooms near Restoration Point. Removing the Renton efflu-
ent from the Duwamish River would be beneficial in terms of
nutrients, dissolved oxygen and migratory fish routes. Alter-
native F would also reduce combined sewer overflows to inland
waters by about 30 percent, a minor improvement to fish spawn-
ing areas and migratory routes.
xxv
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
Site impacts would occur at the new Duwamish dry weather
plant, but socioeconomic data is not yet available to more
accurately describe these impacts. Metro is currently study-
ing the Duwamish area for more information. Some plants in
or near parks (West Point, Carkeek Park) would remain, but the
Alki plant would be abandoned in 1985.
Energy use would be 81 million kilowatt-hours per year,
comparable to the requirements of 4000 residences.
Alternative F complies with the secondary treatment re-
quirements of PL 92-500. The compliance schedule would be
developed after June 1978 as discussed previously. Capital
costs are estimated at $286,000,000 (1976 dollars). Assuming
all facilities are eligible for federal and state grants, the
estimated Metro user charge, averaged for the next 20 years,
would be approximately $6.85 per month per equivalent connec-
tion.
Alternative G - Secondary/West Point Phaseout Option
The water quality impacts on Puget Sound from effluent dis-
charge would be similar to Alternative E because service areas,
flow and treatment processes would be the same. Some impacts
on Elliott Bay from the new Interbay outfall could be expected.
Effects of combined sewer overflows on freshwater would also be
the same as in Alternative E. The construction of the Kenmore
parallel could possibly destroy some salmon spawning areas by
siltation.
The principal difference from Alternative E would be in
the site impacts associated with the new Interbay site. The
proposed Golf Park site for the Interbay plant would affect
local residents by odors during construction and operation;
a hard-to-replace recreational facility would be eliminated.
(If the optional Commodore Way site were selected, approxi-
mately 60 businesses would be removed, with a loss of 700-
800 jobs.)
*
The site impacts at West Point and Carkeek Park would
continue as at present until possible phaseout of the plants
(possibly 1995 for Carkeek Park, unspecified for West Point),
depending on sewer separation and water conservation programs.
Energy use would be 85 million kilowatt-hours per year,
comparable to the requirements of 4200 residences.
xxvi
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
Alternative G complies with secondary treatment require-
ments of PL 92-500. The compliance schedule would be deve-
loped after June 1978 as above. Estimated capital costs
would be $362,000,000 (1976 dollars) which represents a
cost over $100,000,000 more for the West Point phaseout
option relative to Alternative E. If the facilities are
grant-eligible, the estimated Metro user charge, averaged
for the next 20 years, would be approximately $7.45 per
month.
Alternative H - Deconsolidation/Reclamation
Water quality and related biological benefits from com-
bined sewer overflow reduction under Alternative H would be
small; thus, localized spawning or recreational areas along
Lake Washington and migratory fish routes through Lake Union
would continue to be affected. Impacts on overall quality of
Puget Sound would be similar to other secondary alternatives,
an anticipated but not quantified improvement. The addition
of Kenmore secondary effluent off Richmond Beach could affect
water quality and biology there, but little is known of ex-
isting conditions. Impacts on inland freshwaters could result
from the decentralized plants, particularly in the event of
plant malfunction.
Site impacts would include shoreline fill at West Point,
expansion to park picnic areas at Carkeek Park and expansion
to a baseball field at Alki.
Energy use at 124 million kilowatt-hours per year (equi-
valent to 6200 residences) would be the highest of all the
alternatives because of energy needs for advanced waste
treatment.
This alternative would comply with secondary treatment
requirements of PL 92-500. Estimated capital costs would be
$308,000,000 (1976 dollars). Assuming grant eligibility, the
Metro user charge, averaged for the next 20 years, would be
$7.85 per month per equivalent connection.
Mitigation Measures
Some measures suggested to mitigate adverse impacts are
as follows:
1. Operating enhanced primary treatment year round
(Alternative C and D).
xxvi i
-------
Summary of Draft EIS Contents
2. Improving chlorination application systems
(Alternatives B, C, and D).
3. Obtaining socioeconomic information on the
Duwamish sites (Alternative C and F).
4. Monitoring water quality, biology and currents
to obtain more information prior to constructing
new outfalls at Alki (Alternative F), Richmond
Beach (Alternative H), or Elliott Bay (Alterna-
tives C, D and G).
5. Industrial pretreatment for West Point or Interbay
ervice areas (Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, G and H).
6. Streamflow augmentation in the Duwamish River
(Alternative B).
7. Investigation of transfer options other than the
Kenmore parallel (Alternatives B, E, G).
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The remaining adverse impacts on water quality, biology,
socioeconomics, sites, costs, energy and natural resources
that could not be mitigated by the previously mentioned
measures under each alternative would be unavoidable ad-
verse impacts.
XXVlll
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Name of the Proposal and Sponsors
This information is contained in the Introduction and
in the Summary of Draft EIS Contents
B. Location of the Project
The project location is described in Chapters I and III
of the Draft EIS.
C. Other Agencies File Numbers on Proposal
The reader is requisted to contact Mr. Roger Mochnick
(EPA), Mr. John McDonnell (DOE), and Dr. Peter Machno
(Metro) for this information.
D. Identification of Construction Phasing and Future EIS
Requirements.
Chapter III contains this information.
E. Description of Physical and Engineering Aspects
of the Project
Projects are summarized in the Draft EIS and detailed in
the Draft Facility Plan.
F. Land Use Plans and Zoning Regulations
Chapter II of the Draft EIS describes existing and pro-
jected land use; Chapter III addresses whether the pro-
posal is consistent with these regulations.
XXIX
-------
PREFACE
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates
the impacts of alternative wastewater facilities described in
the Draft Facility Plan developed for the Municipality of Met-
ropolitan Seattle (Metro). The alternatives include waste-
water treatment plants, transfer interceptor sewers, com-
bined sewer overflow control facilities and sludge handling
facilities that would be constructed and operated by Metro.
The major part of construction costs could be provided by
grants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE).
The EIS has been prepared in response to federal and
state legislation plus local resolutions requiring that EPA,
DOE and Metro each fully consider the environmental impacts
and consequences of alternative projects prior to making a
final decision to proceed on a recommended project. The
respective responsibilities for the three agencies in the
EIS process were established for EPA in the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321, et seq.; for
DOE in the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Chapter 43.21C RCW; and for Metro in Metro Council Resolution
No. 2582.
In certain cases, significant environmental impacts could
result from the various wastewater facilities alternatives.
For example, alternatives for Metro's West Point, Alki and
Carkeek Park wastewater treatment plants may have signifi-
cant environmental impacts; similarly an evaluation of
facilities on a regional level indicated that some signifi-
cant impacts should be considered. Therefore, a decision
was made to prepare an EIS on these projects to comply with
both NEPA and SEPA requirements. Rather than preparing
separate EIS documents at the appropriate time, the three
agencies agreed to prepare a joint EIS for the regional
facilities alternatives, plus the West Point, Alki and Car-
keek Park alternatives. In addition to satisfying both NEPA
and SEPA with the joint EIS, the agencies also chose a pro-
cedure designed to eliminate delays and duplication of effort
as well as to facilitate desirable interchange among the ag-
encies and with the public during the early stages of the EIS
process.
In another case facilities would not cause significant
environmental impacts as defined in NEPA. Therefore, an
EIS pursuant to SEPA (which would also serve as an environ-
mental assessment) was prepared for the Richmond Beach site
and service area.
XXX
-------
Preface
For the total evaluation of the environmental impacts of
alternative facilities plans, the environmental analysis has
been organized as follows: Regional Analysis EIS (Volume I),
West Point Treatment Plant EIS (Volume II), Alki Treatment
Plant EIS (Volume II), Carkeek Park Treatment Plant EIS (Volume
II), Richmond Beach Treatment Plant EIS (pursuant to SEPA)
(Volume II). Each site-specific document (Volume II) is in-
tended to be read with the regional analysis (Volume I), with
each such pair constituting a complete EIS.
The production of this joint Draft EIS results from close
cooperation between EPA, DOE, and Metro. All three agencies
have been intimately involved with the review, analysis, sup-
plementation, and synthesis of materials furnished by inde-
pendent consultants hired to assist with the preparation of
the EIS. The City of Seattle, King County, and the Puget
Sound Council of Governments have also participated in meet-
ings and provided comments on preliminary draft materials to
ensure that local government concerns and regional land use
planning goals were incorporated in the EIS.
EPA regulations on "Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements" (40 CFR Part 6; 40 FR, April 14, 1975), Council
on Environmental Quality Guidelines for the "Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements" (40 CFR Part 1500; 38 FR
20550, August 1, 1973), and the EPA "Manual for Preparation
Works, Facilities Plans, and 208 Area-wide Treatment Managem-
ment Plans" (July 1974) have been used in preparation of the
EIS. Likewise, SEPA Guidelines, adopted by the State Council
on Environmental Quality and incorporated by Metropolitan
Council Resolution No. 2582, have been followed insofar as
they are consistent with federal requirements.
Some of the alternatives described in the Draft EIS's
and Draft Facility Plans include the provision for secondary
treatment at Metro facilities by 1985. The twenty year plan-
ning period is from 1985-2005. These 1985 dates are not con-
sistent with the current PL 92-500 requirement for Best Prac-
ticable Treatment including secondary treatment by 1983.
According to the facility planning engineers, the 1985 date
may be more realistic than 1983 due to delays in the Step I
planning process, and thus in the start dates for Step II
(design) and Step III (construction).
However, since the law currently requires Best Practi-
cable Treatment by 1983 the construction schedules will be
changed to reflect this. Due to time constraints it was not
possible to change the dates in the Draft Plans and EIS's.
The reader should note that any mention of secondary treat-
ment in 1985 will be changed to 1983 in the Final Plans and
EIS's. The twenty year planning period also changes to
1983-2003.
XXXI
-------
Preface
These changes may impact the analysis of alternatives in
several minor ways. First there is a potential for a slight
saving in costs, due to the decrease in inflation associated
with an earlier start date. However, the need for this
earlier start date compresses the design and construction
schedules causing an increase in these costs. The two fact-
ors, one a potential savings and one in increase in costs,
will probably negate one another.
The new planning period from 1983-2003 will cause popu-
lation projections and solids loading to decrease slightly.
This decrease, estimated at 2 percent, is well within current
sensitivity of the projections and should not have a notice-
able impact on the analysis.
All comments on this Draft EIS should be sent to the EPA
as the lead agency in the EIS process. Comments should be
addressed to Mr. Roger Mochnick, Environmental Evaluation
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington, 98101. The EPA will then distribute
copies of the comments to DOE, Metro and the EIS consultant.
Comments will be used by the three agencies in preparing the
Final EIS and in their decision-making processes.
It is believed that this process best enables the agen-
cies involved to fully assess and consider all significant
physical, economic, and social effects of their proposal,
and public input thereon, prior to any significant decision-
making step. For this reason, the agencies have not attempted
to bias the decision to be reached by recommending any one of
the eight alternatives prior to full completion of theEIS pro-
cess, including the public hearings. Rather, the attempt of
this document is to present the decision makers and the pub-
lic with as complete an analysis as possible of each of the
alternatives so that a fully informed decision can be made.
The remaining part of the decision-making process will
proceed under the following schedule:
October 25, 1977 Public hearing on Regional
Draft EIS
October 26, 1977 Public hearing on West Point
Draft EIS
October 27, 1977 Public hearing on Alki Draft
EIS
November 1, 1977 Public hearing on Carkeek
Park Draft EIS
xxxi i
-------
Preface
November 2, 1977
November 1977
February 1978
March 1978
April 1978
April 1978
April 1978
Public hearing on Richmond
Beach Draft EIS
A preferred alternative is
recommended by Metro in con-
junction with EPA and DOE
Final EIS is available
Public hearings on Final EIS
Metro Council decision
DOE decision
EPA decision
xxxi11
-------
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evalu-
ates the environmental, social and economic impacts for
alternative wastewater facilities proposed to serve the
regional area of metropolitan Seattle. The following sec-
tions describe the EIS organization, existing wastewater
facilities, water quality planning and regulations, and
major issues.
EIS ORGANIZATION
This Draft EIS identifies the impacts of regional
alternatives for wastewater facilities, which would be con-
structed and operated by the Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle (Metro). The alternatives were developed in the
Draft Facility Plan for Upgrading Puget Sound Plants, pre-
pared separately by Metropolitan Engineers and completed in
April 1977.
Both the Facility Plan and the EIS are organized as
five reports in a series. The first presents alternatives
or impacts on a regional basis. The remaining four are site-
specific reports focused on the present Metro municipal
wastewater treatment facilities for the West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach areas.
The Regional Analysis EIS, which is this report, con-
stitutes Volume I of the EIS series. It considers the cumu-
lative or regional impacts from each of the eight alterna-
tives for regional wastewater facilities, as described in
the System-Wide Volume of the Draft Facility Plan.
The remaining EIS documents analyze the site-specific
issues, alternatives and impacts for the West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach plants and service area.
Each of the four site reports constitutes a Volume II in the
EIS series and evaluates the corresponding alternative faci-
-------
Background
lities described in the site-specific Draft Facility Plans.
The Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach EIS documents are con-
fined to evaluating the existing site alternatives and the
service area impacts. The West Point EIS, in addition to
considering the West Point plant site and service area, dis-
cusses impacts for alternative sites in the Interbay area.
Similarly, the Alki EIS describes existing site and service
area impacts plus those expected at an alternative site in
the Duwamish area.
In the Draft EIS series, each alternative defined in the
Draft Facility Plan is evaluated on a co-equal basis. No
decision or selection of recommended alternatives has been
made.
EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES
The existing Metro wastewater facilities are summarized
in this section to provide a background for subsequent dis-
cussions of alternatives and impacts. For more detail on ex-
isting facilities, the reader is referred to Chapter III.
Metro presently operates the largest municipal waste-
water collection, treatment and disposal system in the Pacific
Northwest. Approximately 710 square miles comprise the Metro
planning area, shown in Figure 1-1. Currently, the sewered
population within the service area is estimated at 812,000.
Metro operates as a wholesale wastewater treatment agency for
33 cities and special districts which in turn provide local
and basic collection system services.
The Metro facilities consist of wastewater treatment
plants, collection systems, and sludge management facilities,
as outlined in Figure 1-2.
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Metro operates four wastewater treatment plants along
Puget Sound at West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond
Beach. A fifth plant is located on the Green-Duwamish River
at Renton.
The Puget Sound plants, for which alternatives are being
considered in the Draft Facility Plan and Draft EIS, treat
an average of 130 million gallons per day (mgd) before dis-
charging the treated wastewater to Puget Sound through out-
falls. Average daily flows by plant, calculated from 1973-
1975 daily records, are approximately 118 mgd at West Point,
7.5 mgd at Alki, 3.4 mgd at Carkeek Park and 1.5 mgd for
-------
w~,"Sf.i.'. ••!••'
•; x,
•'V<
f "-ti
*•?, ~-sr
"3:;
': It-:
^•'^^
;',h,
•'^
B-C
£*fflB
I'^-i
!%_;
iKi:
V"-"-i
:^fe%
•a.,-x
.•n
S^^'A -GJ--
fc_u
w;.
.(<£..
•'''j'-vi*; ' " !'..""''1 •" ' v -^
1 f-^:>'^^.-v-7-i-.
, .^-:^J;:-^|,
^ ';J>:xJ&:'.:?^
— •- -(^—qrn,._ fy.vj * ••-
--r v^-s^
^ -^;t-s^
fO,
:-x;-
1^
t1^
f?°N;-
S' -Xsk"1"1 '-"C "'.•'-•Si '¥?
, -' , i • • • • fr VI -^SS-?-- . ^- - K^l^l
,;.s-.-^v- - t$S^--^i&&
•- \ f '*x-' -y>. •l"iSrras^fe^^rvr *V,T^-I
,^ ,-;.v^^-.-? p.v:^fe'^.- -V\Sj
••-^-•-'•-^^^^m;^
KVi
"33?^.V:^^ ^
!M., -„ ir^v^:^jW^.^WS^^';''A^:' ^'^- -• •'-'"• ""
''&
fc?^ :'>Vi'^'^^''.- '-- •'*•'. •'""•';.''11'\%'.?",\''"' • 'Ai • - -^W. " Z^''''/-'">-^!--i&$$!fc *?• f7?&
:\^~-s.
Figure 1-1
Metro Treatment Plant
Service Areas
-------
F.9u« 12
flichmond Bwch. C«ke«k Park. Wt«
Point and Alki Service &rt« •-
Exuling Facilities
-------
Background
Richmond Beach. These four plants provided primary treat-
ment, which removes approximately 65 percent of the suspended
solids and 35 percent of the oxygen-demanding organic mater-
ials from incoming wastewater.
The fifth Metro plant at Renton presently provides
secondary treatment, which removes over 85 percent of the
solids and oxygen-demanding materials by settling and con-
trolled bacterial decomposition, before discharging treated
wastewater to the Green-Duwamish River. The Renton plant is
not considered in the Facility Plan, except as it is af-
fected by alternative actions for the Puget Sound plants.
Collection System
The existing collection system transports wastewater
(sewage) to the plants for treatment and disposal. As a re-
sult of the collection system design and local rainfall pat-
terns, a major portion of the system transports storm water
as well as sewage. During dry weather, flow is comprised
principally of sewage. During wet weather, infiltration of
groundwater and inflow from storm drains into portions of the
collection system result in combined sewage and storm flows.
The sewers that transport both sewage and storm flows are
called combined sewers.
Flows during wet weather periods exceed the carrying
capacity of the collection system, causing combined sewers
to overflow into Lake Washington, Portage Bay, Lake Union,
the Ship Canal, the Duwamish River, Elliott Bay and Puget
Sound. For further details on combined sewer overflows
(CSO's) , reference is made to Chapter IV of the Draft Facil-
ity Plan plus Chapters II and III of this EIS.
To reduce the frequency and volume of overflows, Metro
employs a computer controlled storage and diversion system
for its wastewater flow during wet weather conditions. The
system reduces the number of combined sewer overflow occur-
ences and can divert flows from one location to another.
Sludge Management
Metro also handles sludge, which is the solid material
that settles at the plants during the sewage treatment pro-
cess. After it is removed from wastewater, sludge is pro-
cessed by digestion to stabilize it. Subsequent dewatering
can be used to reduce the sludge volume before it is trans-
-------
Background
ported to a land site.
Currently, the West Point plant functions as the regional
sludge processing center for the majority of the Metro service
area. It treats digested sludge from Richmond Beach and Car-
keek Park, raw sludge from Renton, plus solids from incoming
wastewater for the West Point service area. Sludge at West
Point is digested, dewatered and trucked to the Cedar Hills
landfill for disposal and an experimental reforestation site
in the Pack Forest for recycling. Alki sludge is digested
on-site, then hauled to the Cedar Hills landfill for disposal.
WATER QUALITY PLANNING AND REGULATIONS
The concern over water quality protection and improve-
ment has been manifested in several key events that have
affected wastewater facilities in the metropolitan Seattle
area. Actions have been influenced by local goals and poli-
cies, state requirements, and national legislation. Recent
local planning and current federal requirements are summar-
ized in this section.
Recent Local Planning
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) was
formed in September 1958 in response to citizen concern over
water quality problems in the Lake Washington drainage basin.
In 1957, citizens were instrumental in securing passage of a
bill in the Washington State legislature which enabled the
formation of metropolitan municipal corporations to handle
water pollution and other area-wide problems. Such a cor-
poration was established in the Seattle metropolitan area
by a popular vote in 1958. That election created Metro and
assigned it the power to prepare a comprehensive sewage plan,
acquire or construct facilities, operate facilities, and set
rates. The subsequent formation of the Metro Council was
followed by its first major action: adoption of a compre-
hensive plan for sewage disposal within a 230 square mile
area in the Cedar and Green River Basins. This plan was
initiated by the City, County and State before Metro was
formed, and completed and adopted by Metro in 1958.
The Comprehensive Plan established
a network of interceptor sewers and regional wastewater
treatment facilities to replace numerous local plants. The
focus of the plan was toward consolidation of wastewater
facilities to a small number of regional plants and transfer
-------
Background
of treated wastewater discharge from fresh to salt water.
The program included staged facilities development to meet
projected population growth. During the first ten years,
approximately $120 million worth of collection, treatment
and disposal facilities were constructed. The regional
treatment plants included four primary treatment facilities
discharging to Puget Sound: West Point (1966), Alki (1958),
Carkeek Park (1962), and Richmond Beach (1962). In addition,
an inland plant with secondary treatment was constructed at
Renton (1965). By 1970, most of the raw sewage discharge to
the Duwamish River, Elliott Bay and Puget Sound had been
eliminated. Since the Metro facilities have been in oper-
ation, substantial water quality improvements have occurred
in Lake Washington and nearshore marine waters.
A second major planning effort by Metro further refined
water resources planning on a regional basis but emphasized
prevention rather than treatment. In response to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1964 (as amended), Metro and
King County prepared a plan for the Cedar and Green River
basins, which was overseen by the River Basin Coordinating
Committee (RIBCO), appointed by Metro Council. Major studies
were on water quality management, water resources management,
urban runoff and basin drainage, and solid waste management.
The resulting RIBCO plan affirmed the conclusion of the Metro
Comprehensive Plan and recommended regional sewage treatment
facilities served by interceptor networks.
Current Federal Planning Requirements
The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (Public Law 92-500 or PL 92-500) marked the beginning
of more substantial federal involvement in wastewater facili-
ties planning and construction, water quality requirements
and implementation procedures. According to Section 101 of
PL 92-500, the national goals for water quality are (1) elim-
ination of pollutant discharge into navigable waters by 1985
and (2) an interim goal, wherever attainable, of water quality
suitable for fish, shellfish,-wildlife, and recreation by
July 1, 1983 (often abridged as the "fishable/swimmable" goal).
Implementation of the PL 92-500 goals involves various planning
provisions and discharge requirements.
Planning requirements are prescribed under Sections 201,
208 and 303 (e) of the Federal Act. Section 201 plans, known
as facilities plans, consider alternatives for individual
wastewater treatment plants, such as service areas, collection
systems, treatment processes and sludge disposal. If facili-
-------
Background
ties are judged to be major federal actions significantly af-
fecting the quality of the human environment, an EIS is re-
quired before approval. If the plan and EIS are approved,
Section 201 also allots federal funding for facilities design
and construction. The Metro Draft Facility Plan (Metro-
politan Engineers,1977) and this EIS series represent response
by Metro, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the
Section 201 planning requirement of PL 92-500.
Concurrently, Metro is preparing an area-wide waste treat-
ment management plan, under Section 208 of PL 92-500, which
addresses both point (municipal and industrial) and non-point
(agricultural and urban runoff) sources of pollutant discharge.
The previously described RIBCO project, also prepared under
Metro, satisfies the river basin planning requirement for
water resources under Section 303 (e) of the Act.
The planning requirements for meeting the water quality
goals of PL 92-500 are supplemented by specific effluent or
discharge requirements. For publicly owned treatment works,
such as Metro's five wastewater treatment plants, Section
301 of the law specifies that secondary treatment must be
provided by July 1, 1977. Best practicable treatment (BPT)
is required by 1983. Specific discharge requirements for
each facility are contained in National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, issued in Washington by
the DOE as the designated representative for EPA.
Because the law requires secondary treatment for munici-
pal wastewater treatment plants, EPA will only provide con-
struction grant funds for alternatives which meet secondary
treatment requirements. Currently, these grants under
PL 92-500 are funded 75 percent by the EPA for eligible pro-
jects. DOE provides 15 percent of construction costs, and
Metro would fund the remaining 10 percent. However, for al-
ternatives that do not include secondary treatment, the pro-
visions of PL 92-500 would not allow federal or state funding.
REGIONAL ISSUES
Several regional issues related to alternative waste-
water facilities have formed an integral part of the EIS.
Some issues were identified jointly by the EPA, DOE and Metro
in an initial Memorandum of Understanding prior to prepara-
tion of the EIS. Other issues were identified by the facili-
ties planning, socio-economic, architectural or EIS consul-
tants. Public input into the planning process has generated
-------
Background
some additional issues.
The major regional issues generally can be grouped into
categories as follows: (1) legal and institutional consider-
ation, (2) water quality, (3) plant siting, (4) sludge, (5)
growth, and others. Issues of particular concern to indivi-
dual sites, such as odor or visual impacts, are addressed in
the site documents, Volume II of the EIS.
Legal and Institutional Considerations
Several legal and/or institutional factors are issues
in the development of alternative wastewater facilities and
in analysis of their impacts. Among these are national,
state, or local regulations of water quality, shoreline
management and others.
Water Quality
Water quality regulations pursuant to PL 92-500 specify
two types of standards: (1) effluent quality and (2) receiv-
ing water quality- The first provision requires effluent or
treated wastewater to meet the quality typical of secondary
treatment processes by 1977; effluent quality from best
practicable treatment is required by 1983. The second pro-
vision is a goal that receiving waters (such as Puget Sound),
to which effluent is discharged, would meet fishable/swimm-
able quality by 1983. Under the law, both factors apply to
the Metro area.
The Draft Facility Plan contains alternatives that
were focused on various combinations of effluent quality and
receiving water quality goals. For example, four of the
alternatives contain secondary treatment in compliance with
the effluent quality regulation. Other alternatives were
developed in response to the Metro strategy, a position
developed by Metro in 1973. At that time, available scientific
evidence led Metro to conclude that secondary treatment would
not produce water quality benefits commensurate with costs.
Therefore, other options for improving local water quality
were explored in an attempt to achieve the fishable/swimmable
goals. One method proposed by Metro for local water quality
improvement would be control of combined sewer overflows;
thus two of the alternatives include combined sewer overflow
control measures.
-------
Background
However, only those alternatives (described in detail
in Chapter III) that include secondary treatment comply with
PL 92-500. Other alternatives that contain combined sewer
flow control but not secondary treatment are currently
ineligible for EPA funding for construction. Thus, the
legality and fundability of alternatives under PL 92-500 and
consequences thereof are considered in the EIS (Chapters II
and III) . The legality of alternatives appeared to be an
important issue at public meetings. In fact, many suggested
that illegal alternatives should not be considered.
The relationship between various water quality planning
elements of PL 92-500 has also been an important consideration
in the Facility Plan and EIS. For example, the Facility
Plan (developed in response to Section 201 of PL 92-500),
the Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan (pursuant to
Section 208 of PL 92-500) and the RIBCO Basin Plan (based on
Section 303e requirements of PL 92-500) have been considered
to the extent possible in the EIS. As expressed at public
workshops, the interrelationship of water quality planning,
particularly the Section 201 and 208 plan, is an important
public concern.
Other Requirements
The relationship between water quality goals and other
governmental goals was also examined in evaluating alterna-
tives. For example, local shoreline management policies
that seek to control construction along shorelines and rec-
reational planning that aims at providing improved public
access are considered in the EIS. Other statutory require-
ments are sometimes contradictory to water quality require-
ments, particularly as they affect plant size and site. These
potential conflicts are discussed in more detail in Chapters
II and III.
Water Quality
Because the wastewater Facility Plan is based on both
local and national goals for water quality protection and
improvement, water quality is a central issue in the Plan
and EIS. The effect of present effluent discharge, future
discharges, and combined sewer overflows on water quality
are evaluated in the EIS. Most of this discussion is in the
Regional EIS.
10
-------
Background
Effects of Present Treatment Plant Discharges to Puget Sound
The question of the effects of the present treatment plant
discharges to Puget Sound is central to the analysis of exist-
ing and future impacts on water quality and subsequent effects
on biology and public health. Studies have recently been com-
pleted that indicate that Metro's discharge is not causing
substantial degradation to the water quality in the Sound.
However, there is some disagreement within the scientific
community as to the interpretation of the data that is avail-
able on water quality/ particularly in terms of dissolved
oxygen/ nutrients, and flushing rates. More information on
the existing water quality is described in Chapter II.
Puget Sound is a complex water system that is influenced
by pollutant discharges not only from Metro's four waste-
water plants, but also from nine other municipal discharges,
combined sewer overflows, industrial discharges, non-point
pollution sources (urban runoff, agricultural and forest-
related runoff) and aerial fallout. Given this situation,
it is not a simple matter to measure directly the impacts
from Metro's treatment plants. The Puget Sound Interim Studies,
funded by Metro and now nearing completion, have researched
several aspects of Puget Sound water quality and biological
conditions and have arrived at preliminary conclusions, based
on two years of scientific study. This EIS is also charged
with independently synthesizing and analyzing existing infor-
mation and estimating the effects of present and projected
discharges to Puget Sound. Information and conclusions to
date on this issue are presented in Chapters II and III of
this EIS, but more research is necessary to definitively answer
the questions.
The EIS has considered other water quality impacts,
particularly possible subtle, long-term impacts of toxic mater-
ials such as heavy metals, chlorine, or chlorinated organic
compounds. Since Puget Sound is important for both commer-
cial and sport fishing, any adverse impacts of water quality
on fish and shellfish are important issues for evaluating
wastewater management alternatives. Public health risks are
also analyzed because wastewater discharged to the Sound
could potentially degrade water quality at recreational
beaches or contaminate fish or shellfish later ingested by
humans.
11
-------
Background
Effects of Future Discharges
The impacts of future discharges to Puget Sound and/or
other water bodies are considered in Chapter III of the EIS,
following the description of existing conditions. For every
alternative, the projected impacts are evaluated with respect
to variations in wastewater volume, treated water quality,
and discharge site. Since the wastewater Facility Plan
addresses the issue of treatment processes, the EIS evaluates
impacts from discharging effluent from primary, enhanced
primary, secondary, or advanced waste treatment plants. In
addition to the effects of alternative treatment processes
on water quality plus related areas of biology, fishing,
recreation and public health, the EIS also investigates the
effect of each process on costs, employment, sludge, plant
sites, legal and institutional concerns, and other factors.
Impacts of Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's)
The frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows
(CSO's) in the metropolitan Seattle area have led to con-
cern over their impacts on water quality and subsequently on
fisheries and public health. Presently, CSO's discharge
intermittently to Lake Washington, Lake Union, the Ship
Canal, the Duwamish River and estuary, other freshwater
bodies, Elliott Bay and Puget Sound. Although the im-
pacts of CSO's on fresh and marine waters have only recently
been investigated by Metro, it is possible that the uncon-
trolled discharge of combined storm water and sewage and
their associated bacteria, nutrients and toxicants could
have adverse effects on fish, shellfish and recreational
areas.
Sludge
Management of sludge, the solid material removed in
wastewater treatment, has been identified by Metro, DOE, EPA,
and the public as an important regional issue. Therefore,
sludge was considered in the Facility Plan and EIS. The
amount of sludge production is linked to the treatment pro-
cess (primary, enhanced primary, secondary) and wastewater
volume of various alternatives. The effects of sludge volume
and concentration from alternative wastewater treatment pro-
cesses are described in the EIS. Possible regional impacts
of sludge handling and disposal include energy use for sludge
processing and transportation; effects at a land disposal
12
-------
Background
site such as groundwater contamination, alterations in
topography, changes in soil characteristics; recycling bene-
fits and costs; and public health risks. Traffic associated
with sludge transport from production site to disposal site
may be an important factor in evaluating alternatives. On a
regional basis, the location of sludge treatment and disposal
sites requires careful consideration since the possibilities
for disposal or re-use may be affected.
The present Facility Plan contains an interim solution
for sludge disposal that is common to all alternatives: dis-
posal at an existing land fill. Experimentation with incin-
eration, pyrolysis, agricultural and park use, land reclama-
tion and reforestation techniques for sludge re-use will be
continued. Various configurations of sludge processing fa-
cilities are contained in the Facility Plan alternatives.
Other sludge processing or disposal alternatives were evalu-
ated on a preliminary basis in the facilities planning work,
but were eliminated for various reasons, at least on an in-
terim basis. Therefore, the EIS only evaluates a single
sludge disposal alternative with its various options for pro-
cessing. Since the sludge handling and disposal method is
an interim solution for an important regional issue, future
planning on sludge treatment and environmental analysis of
sludge-related impacts is necessary.
Plant Location
The location of treatment plant sites has received con-
siderable attention in the facilities planning process and
in meetings with local citizens. Since alternatives include
options for maintaining, expanding, upgrading or abandoning
existing plant sites and constructing new ones, the issue
is a visible one, particularly among residents living near
existing sites. In addition to potential site-specific im-
pacts on land use, odor, nuisance, traffic, views and re-
lated topics, there are regional or systemwide issues on
plant siting. These involve policies on shoreline manage-
ment and access, compatibility with regional land use and re-
creational opportunities, impacts on the local tax base and
others. The options of a few large plants versus many small
plants raise issues of centralization versus decentralization,
with attendant impacts on local control, growth patterns,
quality control, economics of scale, and potential for efflu-
ent or sludge reclamation and re-use.
13
-------
Background
Growth
Growth, as related to wastewater management alternatives,
was identified by EPA, DOE and Metro as a key regional issue
for the EIS. Subsequently, other agencies and the public
have mentioned the importance of considering growth.
The location and staging of wastewater collection systems
can, along with provisions of other infrastructure, influence
growth patterns in a region. The link between population
growth and impacts on land use, air quality, water quality
and related topics is typically described in EIS documents.
Under the present Draft Facility Plan, the issue of
growth is less of a factor in distinguishing among alterna-
tives and impacts than it is in some EIS's. This relates
to the fact that the existing Metro treatment plants of
West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach already
have the capacity to handle projected dry weather flows
for their current service areas until the year 2005. Thus,
most of the discussion on alternatives is based on alterna-
tive treatment processes rather than on alternative future
capacities.
In addition, the study area and alternatives in the
Draft Facility Plan are limited to approximately the
service areas of the four plants that presently discharge
to Puget Sound. Alternative sites within these service
areas are also considered. However, the Renton plant
and service area, where much of the area where future growth
could be expected to occur, is not considered as part of
the alternatives in the Facility Plan. Instead, the
effects of various alternatives on Renton site are shown for
illustration but are not included in the proposal.
Interceptors (large wastewater collection sewers) to
service new growth areas are not presently included in the
Draft Facility Plan. Instead, future interceptors to
serve new growth areas would be considered separately as
they are proposed by a local agency to Metro.
Therefore, although the EIS recognizes that growth is
an important issue, it can only address specific growth
impacts as related to proposed treatment plant alternatives.
For example, if an alternative includes a change in service
area or growth that would cause more combined sewer over-
flows, the effects of these combined sewer overflows are
examined. In addition, the EIS contains an analysis of
generalized growth impacts on a regional level in Chapter
III.
14
-------
CHAPTER II
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The Metro study area, dominated by the City of Seattle,
is part of the Central Puget Sound region of Northwest
Washington (Figure 2-1). This study area contains 575 square
miles, including portions of western King County and south-
western Snohomish County to the north. The Metro area lies
in the Green and Cedar River basins which are tributaries to
Puget Sound.
The Puget Sound region lies between two north-south
trending longitudinal ranges of glacier-capped mountains: the
Olympics to the west and the Cascades to the east. Coniferous
forest characterizes the lower elevations. Classic cone-
shaped volcanoes, some of which are still active, form strik-
ing landmarks in the area.
A marine climate and heavy rainfall have produced lush
vegetation and abundant rivers and streams. Human activity
is concentrated primarily in the coastal and alluvial valleys
where timber clearing has replaced the conifers with maples
and other deciduous trees. Puget Sound affords access to the
Pacific Ocean and extensive protected beaches and harbors.
Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish, to the east of Puget Sound,
are the largest freshwater bodies in the area, although small
lakes, ponds and streams abound throughout. The region's
natural resources include timber, fish, shellfish and other
marine resources. Additional major economic bases today are
Boeing Aircraft and tourism, the latter primarily a result of
the Seattle World's Fair in 1962.
For analytical purposes, further discussion of the envi-
ronmental setting is subdivided into the physical, biological,
and human environments. It is clearly understood that the
three overlap, but this artificial division ensures a thorough
analysis of relevant impacts.
15
-------
RENTON SERVICE AREA
WEST POINT SERVICE AREA
JS^S-"- | | ALKI SERVICE AREA
CARKEEK PARK SERVICE AREA
RICHMOND BEACH SERVICE AREA
METRO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
( \,<~ '
I/' ';,Vl METRO STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
4-- • "•
•• ' SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
.
7 .- ' - .:-.
I
K '•;•- -
•••: ; .•-' M - -x .
"W>*M. ,. , . -, . ',
v i , ; .... ^;
v .-:-tv----:-'.-,.
;i, u _• -••, !•;••.
Figure 2-1
Metro Treatment Plant
Service Areas
16
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The physical environment discussion describes the charac-
ter of the land, the water supply, the wastewaters and natural
waters affected by those wastewaters, and atmospheric aspects
including climate and air quality.
Topography
Topography has influenced the location, design, construc-
tion, cost and operation of regional sewerage and drainage
facilities. The boundaries of sewerage service areas and the
present study area have been determined by watersheds, a func-
tion of topography, rather than political decisions. As a
result, the Metro area extends from Silver Lake to the north
to Auburn on the south, and from Puget Sound eastward for up
to 18 miles. Topography has also helped to determine waste-
water treatment and disposal sites; the size, route and slope
of collection sewers and the areas tributary to them; the
necessity for and location of pump stations; and population
distribution and growth.
The topography of the study area is characterized by
striated hills, rolling glaciated uplands and deeply incised
adjoining troughs. Principal physical features generally have
a north-south trend like that of Puget Sound, Lakes Washington
and Sammamish, stream valleys and the intervening ridges.
Elevations in the study area range from 14,000 feet at Mount
Rainier to sea level. The average elevation in Seattle is
about 200 feet, as shown in Figure 2-2.
Geology and Soils
Regional and local geology is relevant to planning of
sewerage works in that conditions encountered in the construc-
tion of pipelines, tunnels and other structures affect design
and construction requirements and thus have a direct bearing
on cost. Geological conditions may be determining factors in
choosing routes of principal sewers and may influence the over-
all scheme of sewerage. Moreover, soil formations, both sur-
face and subsurface, determine the feasibility of local sewage
disposal (by means of septic tanks and leaching fields) and the
magnitude of seismic hazards. Groundwater location, landslide
zones and seismicity also influence facilities location and the
impact of natural forces upon them.
The Metro study area geology and soils were developed
through various geologic processes, including the action of
glaciers, which left deposits of fill, and scoured out the
Puget Sound. Lakes formed in depressions left by the melting
of buried ice. Erosional processes occurred after the upthrust
of the Cascades and formed the Cedar and Green River basins.
17
-------
Vi" — >&M''- < 4 .«.> -Vv F">
tecw- ^l-P-ty • -#
tl«%t.4lr%' :'-«fiSl
««i?/pw
s""" \./cf'^l-..-. ? . 1 ';>*- ,v>=-«..
4-^K^ -^ifte? ^
b. -•* ,\ s.:vj J'b»4 r^«
FIGURE 2- 2
PUGET SOUND TOPOGRAPHY
gray < 1°0 feet
white > 300 feet
black > 800 feet
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Alluvial deposits of post-glacial age formed as valley floors.
Regional geologic features are summarized in Figure 2-3• Soils
in the Metro study area include three general types: firm dry
clays and silts, hard cemented till, and waterbearing sands
and gravels. Soil characteristics were considered in the
development of wastewater facilities since they affect bear-
ing capacities for structures, bedding conditions for pipe-
lines, groundwater table, landslide potential, seismic role
and other factors. In general, the land and terrace soils of
loamy fine sand, gravelly or stony material are often underlain
by cemented till and provide good structural support. Lowland
soils are composed of sandy or silty alluvium. These have good
bearing capacities.
Peat deposits that occur along some water courses and
tidelands require special beddings for pipelines or structures.
Figure 2-4 describes these soils.
Groundwater occurs primarily in low-lying, permeable soils.
A few high-discharge wells are present in the uplands, but
predominately, this region is characterized by impervious com-
pact glacial till. In the lowlands there are a few peat
deposits up to 12 feet thick which contain groundwater tables.
Sewage lines passing through these areas may experience infil-
tration problems.
Hazardous landslide zones and landslide deposits in the
study area are shown in Figure 2-5 (McGreevy, 1973). These
occur mainly along the beach and on the fringe of basins.
Landslide zones reflect two basic causes: (1) wave action
eroding the base of the cliffs, and (2) collapse of hills
following saturation and loss of strength in sandy soils.
In terms of seismicity, the study area has been classified
as zone 3 - the highest rating of seismic activity in the
United States (PSCQG, 1975). Major quakes in 1949 and 1965
caused loss of life and major property damage in western Wash-
ington and northeastern Oregon (Rasmussen, 1967; Algermessen,
1966; U.S.G.S., 1975). Damage was primarily to older, poorly
constructed brick buildings; to the Duwamish industrial area
situated on unstable fill materials; and to areas such as West
Seattle that are underlain by compacted sediments which trans-
mit vibrations. Characteristics of selected major quakes in
the area have been summarized (Rasmussen et al., 1974).
Seismic design considerations are based on the Uniform
Building Code, which indicates that structures in the Puget
Sound area should be designed to withstand a "zone 3" earth-
quake, ground shaking able to cause major damage, registering
VIII or greater on the Modified Mercalli Scale. The most likely
Metro-related damage would be to collection system elements
19
-------
Geology
NORTH
Vashon Till
Esperance Sand
Alluvium
Lawton Clay
Fill or Modified Land
Other
Source: McGreevy, 1973
Figure 2-3
20
-------
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
[ Allk-IA', I JSI'K 'I I.' "nli'lrrel, t.flif •: If ' ,: . 'll'.!.!!!.": ' •. I , , .1
1 I If.ll tljve aenSl ,1- v ".•*'/ (.e" >',!{,!• /I ,• ,.;..•,' .1 (lf,.|l I' I .
•j ,:«ie/ AHI>>(«,. ,d iv. 'Ci ih ii r')--ii, ir n-iei: .niii ..'iiitMlC', *r i sum'
. . . , . ..
~7—| ,n i,. ii,.,,. . 11,1/1 /»(., ;i iAi/ |,iM-p(ir,!.' ^i.iLul hi' ii ,-i.i(i >i
b I !>r Ot'j..S'IS -II .1 ii"l Mi I I'- I- Ii, .(If'if. Hid \ "/,n.1I i'*d j'j-.it,
•-- i Pfj rili-')J Ic-; '.tit.1, i. .1'., ,.n 11,'l.inHi ;inu Ii>n,-i(er>
FIGURE 2-4
U 5 DtHAKIMlM UI AbhlCUl lU
SOIL LON^lKvAllUh btKVICt
GENERAL SOIL MAP
KIN(; ClU'NTY AltKA. WASHINGTON
21
-------
Hazardous
Landslide Zones
NORTH
Unstable Contact Line
Landslide Deposit
Source: McGreevy , 1973
FIGURE 2- 5
22
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
which cross fault lines. The magnitude of potential earth-
quake hazard risk for a specific area in the Puget Sound
region is difficult to ascertain, as thick glacial deposits
mask the underlying bedrock. Faults were apparently detected
by oil explorations, but their locations have not been made
generally available (Norman Rasmussen, personal communication)
For more detail on regional geology, soils, groundwater
location, landslide zones, and seismicity, the reader is
referred to the facilities planning documents and task
reports (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977). Site-specific infor-
mation is contained in Volume II of the EIS series.
Climate
The Puget Sound region has a temperate marine type cli-
mate characterized by rainy and rather mild winters and rela-
tively dry and cool summers. Average daily temperatures
typically are below 70°F in the summer and above 40° in winter.
The Puget Sound area is flanked on the west by the Olym-
pics, which rise from 4,000 to 8,000 feet and protect the
Metro area from severe winter storms moving inland. To the
east of the Metro area, the Cascades cause air masses to rise,
cool, and precipitate. These mountain ranges also tend to
channel the major wind systems into a general north-south
direction. Snowfall ranges from 10 to 30 inches in the low-
lands, 75 to 100 inches in the foothills, and 300 to 500
inches in the mountains which feed Cedar and Green Rivers.
Average annual rainfall is 35 to 50 inches occurring over
about 162 days a year.
Inversions and fogs are common in the Puget Sound area.
Horizontal mixing is good in the area near the Sound, but
inland areas, especially low lying valleys, have a greater
tendency to trap air masses.
For more extensive data on climate in the Puget Sound
region, the reader is referred to Facility Planning Task D3
(Metropolitan Engineers, 1976).
Air Quality
Emissions from King County for 1973 are presented in
Table 2-1 (PSAPCA, 1973). Motor vehicles are responsible for
the major emissions of nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and car-
bon monoxide, while industrial sources account for most of the
sulphur dioxide. Autos emit a little over half of the total
suspended particulates but are far more diffuse sources than
industrial stationary sources.
23
-------
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF 1973 AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS
IN KING COUNTY
Air Contaminant Source
Fuel Combustion
Residential Area
Bituminous Coal
Distillate 0*11
Natural Gas
Wood
Other
Industrial
Bituminous Coal - Area
- Point
Coke Point
Distillate Oil Area
Point
Residual Oil Area
Point
Natural Gas - Area
Point
Processed Gas - Point
Wood - Area
- Point
Other - Area
Point
Stationary Electrical
Subtotal
Process Losses
Area
Point
Subtotal
Solid Waste Disposal
Incineration
On-Site - Area
- Point
Municipal - Point
Open Burnings
On-Site - Area
- Point
Dumps Area
Point
Slash Burning - Area
Subtotal
T s tation A
Motor Vehicles
Gasoline
Diesel
Off-Highway Usage
Aircraft
Railroad
Vessels
Evaporation Losses
Liquid Petroleum Gas
Subtotal
Miscellaneous Area Sources
Orchard Heating
Agricultural Burning
Wild Fire
Subtotal
Totals
Subtotal Area
Subtotal Point
Total Emissions (tons/year)
Suspended
Participates
35
441
143
107
5
731
0
0
0
610
43
624
113
101
175
0
0
1275
2
1
2944
46
3721
393
3930
4323
16
36
0
365
0
0
0
284
701
3992
65
103
85
183
216
0
0
4644
0
0
129
129
7615
5903
13518
Sulfur
Dioxide
40
1649
5
1
0
1695
0
0
0
1625
118
5834
1031
3
6
0
0
16
0
0
8633
1067
11395
0
2218
2218
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
11
969
122
43
120
272
1096
0
0
2622
0
0
1
1
117B9
4458
16247
Nitrogen
Oxides
5
530
375
13
18
941
0
0
0
2928
206
1953
355
642
1563
0
0
1566
11
5
9229
609
10779
1
113
114
17
5
0
17
0
0
0
33
72
34675
1306
377
966
547
737
0
40
38698
0
0
15
15
45223
4455
49678
Hydro-
carbons
35
132
60
75
2
304
0
0
0
12?
9
82
15
23
30
0
0
313
1
0
595
12
911
11510
5920
17430
12
29
0
175
0
0
0
334
550
55436
224
5663
.2126
365
360
5572
18
69764
0
0
152
152
82145
6662
86807
Carbon
Monoxide
15B
221
150
314
848
0
0
0
163
11
108
20
98
166
0
0
313
2
1
882
17
1747
4
427
431
38
338
0
1227
0
0
0
836
2439
321441
1299
20479
5770
512
488
0
104
350093
0
0
380
380
352961
2129
355090
Source: PSAPCA data, 1973.
24
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Most air quality parameters are below the primary federal
standards, but some do violate the more restrictive Washington
State and Puget Sound standards.
The subsidence inversions common to the autumn in the
Puget Sound region are associated with highest levels of
pollutants, especially if accompanied by low northerly wind-
speeds. The Duwamish Valley, a topographic subbasin, develops
inversions, and low wind conditions. Before siting sewage
treatment facilities in this or other inversion-prone valleys/
one should consider existing air pollution problems.
Sewerage Facilities Emissions
Potential treatment plant emissions include aerosols
containing pathogenic microorganisms and gases including
chlorine, ammonia, methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen
sulfide, carbon disulfide, mercaptans, hydrocarbons, and
protein decomposition products, many of which are odoriferous.
These odors can usually be traced to three sources: septic
raw wastewater (contains no dissolved oxygen), overloaded
facilities, and sludge treatment practices.
Primary treatment facilities can produce odors, particu-
larly if the settling basins are uncovered or if the incoming
sewage contains no dissolved oxygen (as a result of long
travel times in the collection system). Secondary treatment
offers more area for contact between wastewater and air, so
the potential for odors can increase, particularly if the
plant is overloaded. Because the volumes of odors emitted
from sewage treatment processes are small, the probability
of odors being detected beyond one-half mile from a treatment
plant is slight.
Techniques for controlling, minimizing, or preventing
odors from being generated or dissipated include chemical
wastewater treatment, prevention of uncontrolled septic or
anaerobic condition, and confinement of odors. In sewer lines,
oxidizing agents such as chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, and
permanganate compounds are often used against hydrogen
sulfide gas emissions.
Data on air pollutants generated by Metro sewerage
facilities are limited as few problems have been identified.
Waste digester gas is flared; other potential emissions are
from boilers and gas-fired engines (Metropolitan Engineers,
1976) .
Complaints of odor from the Alki treatment plant received
by PSAPCA were transmitted to Metro in the summer of 1976.
25
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Numerous complaints on odors at Alki have been reiterated in
public workshops. Metro has attempted to control odor at
Alki by increasing chlorination, modifying the waste gas
burner, adjusting the boiler and improving plant housekeeping.
However, odor remains a problem at Alki and also at times at
Carkeek Park as is specified in site-specific documents.
Manholes, pumping stations, regulators, holding tanks,
and siphons are all potential odor sources. Hypochlorite
scrubbers have been installed on the wet veil exhaust of
several pumping stations within the Metro sewerage system for
odor control. Flushing sewer lines with water is becoming
standard practice for combating H2S production by diluting,
oxygenating, and promoting scouring.
Water Resources
Water resources play a prominent role in the Seattle
metropolitan area. Commercial trade uses the international
harbor; a substantial ferry system interconnects Puget Sound's
communities; many of the industries are water dependent; and
weekend recreation includes salmon fishing, swimming and
boating. Eighty-eight out of 1000 people in Seattle own
watercraft-one of the largest ratios in the country.
Following sections describe water resources, with special
attention on water quality, hydrology, and use.
Fresh Surface Waters
Major surface waters in the study area are shown in
Figure 2-6 . Surface water is abundant due to the combin-
ation of heavy rainfall and local topography. The physical
description of these surface waters is shown in Table 2-2.
The suitability of these surface waters for various bene-
ficial uses is summarized in Table 2-3. Present water
quality of the study area rivers is summarized in Table 2-4,
and DOE criteria for State of Washington Water Quality Stand-
ards are shown in Appendix Table D-l. Locations of combined
sewer overflows are shown in Figure 2-7.
Lake Washington. Lake Washington is located in the heart
of Seattle, and is surrounded by urbanization to the west and
suburban development to the east. Physical data is indicated
in Table 2-2. Source and outlet are shown on the map, Fig-
ure 2-6. Water quality parameters are shown in Table 2-5.
26
-------
TACOMA
FIGURE 2-6
SURFACE WATERS
27
-------
TABLE 2-2
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Water Bod'/
Cedar River
River
Green River
Duwamish
River
Lake
Sammamish
Lake
Washington
Lake Union
(and Ship
Canal)
Green Lake
Fuget Sound
Area/
\ oiunu~.;
7.6 sq mi/
285,000
ac ft
50 sq mi/
2.83 km3
0.4 sq mi/
3366 ac ft
1016 sq mi
Total
Lonatr.
(mit
50
1 4
80
11
8
22
8
0.8
80
Width
imi ;
1.5
1-4
0.5
1
Avt_'raae
bcptn
(ieetl
58
101
12.5
930
max
Draanage
(sc rci }
188
1 QC,
j.y b
483b
483b
98
476
11,000
Outflow (i-fi)
Mean
700a
~) "7n
^ /u
1345C
1560d
0.162
Hich
'1 300
(Dec-
Jan)
km pe
Low
184a
( Ju] , Auq ,
Sep)
'', "79
(Jul/
Aug)
107C
(Jul/
AUQ )
•-.300d
(Jul/
Aug)
r year
i
I
Sc-urci
Cascades
Lake
Sammamish
Cascades
Gr
-------
TABLE 2-3
Instream Use of Area Rivers
INSTREAM USE
Green River Basin
CHECKPOINTS
10. Green River above Palmer
11. Newaukum Creek above Mouth
12. Big Soos Creek above Mouth
13. Green River above Auburn
14. Green River above Tukwila
15. Black River Tributaries at Estuary
Lake Washington
Basin
CHECKPOINTS
1. Cedar River above Landsburg
2. Cedar River above Renton
3. Issaquah Creek above Mouth
4. Lake Sammamish
5. Sammamish River above Kenmore
6. May Creek above Mouth
7. Thornton Creek above Mouth
8. Lake Washington
I
Lake Union
USE:
Major
Minor QUALITY.
Ideal
Acceptable U Unacceptable
29
-------
TABLE 2-4
Water Quality Parameters (1973) of Seattle Metropolitan
Area Rivers
Flow Rate (cfs)
Mean Annual
Summer Low
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Mean
Low
High
Trend, in past 10 yrs.
#Violations /yr .
Temperature ( C)
Mean
Low
High
^violations /hr.
Coliform
Mean
Low
High
Trend
# violations /yr
Classification, based
on DOE Standards
Green
(at Tukwila)
1,345
107
N.D.
6
12.0
slightly better
rare
N.D.
4
22
some in summer
700
200
2,500
tenfld decrease
Occasionally
A to AA
Duwamish
1,560
300
N.D.
3
N.D.
Worse
Bvery summer
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
600
7,000
N.D.
most of year
B
Cedar
700
184
11
9.5
12
None
None
N.D.
4
19
some in
summer
500
50
2,300
None
occasional
A
Sammamish
270
74
7
8.5
13.
None
=very other
summer
20
5
40
all summer
1,500
200
15,000
None
continual
AA
30
-------
Figure 2-7
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
LOCATIONS
31
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Table 2-5
Suggested Criteria for Judging the Trophic Status of
Temperate Lakes and the Respective Values for
Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish
Item
(1974)
Oligo- Lake Lake
tropic Eutrophic Washington Sammamish
Chlorophyll -a
jug/1 (growth
season mean)
Primary produc-
tivity mgC-m2
per day (growth
season mean)
Hypo limnetic
C>2 deficit in
mg02/cm2 per day
(mean rate)
Ortho P04-P in
jag/1 (winter
mean)
Total P annual
supply in g/m
per year for
mean depth 32.9m
Total N annual
supply in g/m2
per year for
mean depth 32.9m
Secchi : Depth
(summer mean) m
0-4
30-300
-025
-
.22
3.00
-
10-100
.000-3000
.055
10
.42
6.00
-
4.7
350
w.
16.5
.48
4.33
N.D.
6. 8
775
0.06-0.1
12
0.06
3.84
3.1
32
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Sewer lines were diverted from Lake Washington in 1965,
and since then the quality of this lake has improved remark-
ably. The dissolved oxygen content has increased, coliform
levels have decreased, and the nuisance alga Oscillatoria
rubescens has decreased greatly. When the diversion was
being considered in 1965, it was predicted that 55% of the
phosphorus and 12% of the nitrogen intakes would be diverted.
In fact, concentrations of phosphate CPC>4 -P) have dropped
75% from the 1960's (Metro, 1976) and are now at 1950 levels.
However, nitrogen concentrations have increased.
The outlet of Lake Washington was changed in 1916 from
Black River, which entered the Duwamish River at Renton, to
the man-made Ship Canal which passes through Lake Union to
Puget Sound. To prevent Puget Sound's saltwater from in-
truding into Lake Washington, the water level of Lake Washing-
ton is maintained at 21 feet above sea level by locks.
Combined sewer overflows discharge a mean annual flow
of 16.4 million gallons to Lake Washington. Data of over-
flows during two storms in August, 1976 were taken at the
Madison outfall into Lake Washington (#023) . The total coli-
form levels in the receiving waters at "first-flush" exceeded
state standards of 240 counts/100 ml, (ranging from 250 to
3700), but usually subsided to levels below the health stan-
dard within 96 hours (Combined Sewer Overflow Studies, Metro,
1976) . Fecal coliforms were generally 10 to 50% of the level
of total coliforms. Since most fecal coliforms originate
in human waste, this could indicate the primary coliform
loading is from other sources, such as soil or street runoff.
It is not known how representative this data is of other
overflows into Lake Washington. More data should be acquired
for a complete understanding of the impact of CSO's.
Because of Lake Washington's location in the center of
Seattle, it plays a prominent role in the region. It is
lined by at least eleven public beaches, is traveled by
many pleasure craft, and provides much other recreation.
These beaches sometimes experience coliform counts which
exceed state standards.
Lake Sammamish. Lake Sammamish skirts the Seattle metro-
politan area to the east of Lake Washington. Its shores
have recently undergone residential development. Physical
data is indicated in Table 2-2. Sources and outlet are
shown on the map, Figure 2-6. Water quality parameters are
shown in Table 2-4.
33
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Algal blooms during spring and summer sometimes impair
recreational use. These phytoplankton sink in the fall to
create anaerobic conditions in the bottom waters. Secchi
disk, a measure of water clarity, shows a light penetration
of 3.0 meters (mean summer) (Metro, 1976).
Some sewer outlets were diverted away from Lake Sammamish
in 1965; since then, blue-green algae have decreased in abun-
dance, which may be an indication that the lake is showing
some response to nutrient diversion. However, overall, the
water quality has not changed significantly (Metro, 1976).
There are urban storm water discharges to Lake Sammamish,
which possibly have an effect on the nearshore waters, but no
combined sewer overflows. There are no significant industrial
or municipal wastewater discharges to Lake Sammamish.
Green Lake. Green Lake, located in Seattle above Lake
Union, is in the middle of a recreation park. Physical data
are indicated in Table 2-2.
Green Lake has been identified as eutrophic. Total
phosphorus concentrations have an annual mean of 30 jag/1.
Nitrogen has an annual mean of 15jug/l. These nutrients are
not normally limiting to algae growth (Metro, 1976). The dis-
solved oxygen drops to zero in the hypolimnion below 22 meters
until the fall overturn (DOE, 1977). Algal blooms sometimes
produce a scum on the lake surface, which collects on the
shores and decomposes. Coliform bacteria standards at public
beaches are exceeded one-third of the time. It is believed
that most of the bacteria come from duck feces.
Green Lake has had a history of eutrophication. Sediment
samples show that the lake has been highly productive for
6,700 years. In the last 25 years the rate of sedimentation
has increased by a factor of nine.
The lake has been diluted for the past 15 years with
7-10 mgd of municipal water to control algal blooms and en-
hance public health and safety. This dilution has improved
many quality parameters by a factor of four. Still there are
occasional cases of "swimmers itch" (avian schistosomiasis)
and algal blooms. Chemical herbicides were used to control
the algae in 1974.
Combined sewers occasionally overflowing into Green Lake
during the rainy season [ less than 0.5 million gallons
annually (Metro, 1977)] have a slight detrimental effect on
the water quality. There are no industrial or municipal dis-
charges into this lake.
34
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Lake Union and Ship Canal. The man-made Ship Canal
breaches the land between Lake Washington and Puget Sound
in the heart of urban Seattle.
The Ship Canal has been classified as mesotrophic-eutro-
phic. The dissolved oxygen concentration, however, is low,
especially in the stratified lower depths of Lake Union during
the summer. Coliform bacteria levels often exceed state
standards, especially at time of combined sewer overflows.
Heavy metal concentrations in the Ship Canal sediments have
been increasing in the past 80 years. The Ship Canal was
last dredged of sediments in 1954 CDOE, 1977).
Salinity is monitored to prevent intrusions into Lake
Washington. The locks include fish ladders through which
the State Department of Fisheries hopes that more than a
million salmon annually will pass by 1980. These salmon
proceed to Lake Washington and most continue up the Cedar
and Sammamish Rivers.
The Ship Canal receives an input from combined sewer
overflows of 186 million gallons per year, which could have
a detrimental effect on water quality- Industries also
discharge to Ship Canal and Lake Union.
The Ship Canal was constructed in 1916 to allow vessel
travel between Lake Washington and Puget Sound. Today the
Ship Canal is probably the most highly traveled body of
water in the Pacific Northwest.
Cedar River. The Cedar River originates in the Cascade
Mountains, then flows through the alluvial plain to discharge
into Lake Washington at Renton. Above Renton, much of the
Cedar River basin is sparsely developed. Hydrologic and water
quality data are shown in Table 2-4. Ced-ar River will not
be directly affected by any of the alternatives.
Green River. Hydrologic and water quality data are shown
in Table 2-4.
The Renton sewage treatment plant discharges into the
Green River at Renton (the point where it is renamed the
Duwamish). This discharge apparently has a significant
impact on river quality, increasing nitrate and phosphorous
levels. Further, there are at least six major industrial
discharges into the Green River.
Above Renton, the Green River would not be affected by
any of the alternatives.
35
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Sammamish River. Hydrologic -water quality data are
shown in Table 2-4. Since tributaries to the Sammamish
River originate in the foothills, flows are not affected by
snow melts at higher elevations.
The Sammamish River channel is narrow, shallow, and slow
moving. It was widened, deepened, and straightened in 1964
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
There are a few industrial discharges, but none from
municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plants.
Non-point waste sources include urban runoff, failing on-site
sewage disposal systems, horse and cattle pasturage, and park
and golf course fertilization.
The Sammamish River water quality would only be directly
affected by Alternative H, which incorporates wastewater
discharges in the vicinity of Lake Sammamish.
Groundwater
Groundwater comprises 10% CIS mgd) of the area's water
supply. Substantial users of groundwater are Renton (5.6 mgd) ,
Kent (4.7 mgd), Redmond (0.6 mgd), Issaquah (0.5 mgd) and
other small, primarily irrigation, districts (2.6 mgd).
A well field is proposed for the Georgetown-Kangley area.
Some localized well fields were recently closed when Seattle
water became available.
Generally, it can be assumed that 16 inches of rainfall
is available annually to recharge the water table. In urban
areas, one half of the rain water is lost for groundwater
recharge as it flows through storm drains or infiltrates
into the sanitary sewers.
The metropolitan area soils are predominantly glacial
and sedimentary, and therefore range from fairly impervious
tills to highly permeable strata which have a storage volume
of as much as 20 percent of total soil volume. Most of the
shallower aquifers, which may be as shallow as 50 feet, are
in hydraulic continuity with adjacent rivers.
Groundwater recharge is from direct precipitation from
local streams, or higher elevation aquifers. There are four
known aquifers in the foothills (the Georgetown-Kangley,
among others) which eventually discharge into the rivers.
There are also recharge zones in the Federal Way region and
in the swales of the Alderwood drift plain.
36
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Most water tables and wells along Puget Sound stand above
sea level, so there is no apparent immediate danger of salt-
water intrusion.
Water Supply
The water supply facilities for the Seattle metropolitan area
are shown in Figure 2-8. Approximately 130 mgd is provided
by the Cedar River Landsburg Diversion. Another 60 mgd is
available from the Tolt River diversion. The remaining 15 mgd
is supplied by groundwater. Distribution of the water supply
is 92 mgd for residential, 17 mgd for commercial, 18 mgd for
industrial and 36 mgd for public and miscellaneous users.
Metro's West Point, Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach and
Renton wastewater treatment plant service areas receive water
from the Tolt River system. This has very low levels of
dissolved minerals and a low pH, which combine to make it
corrosive.
Heavy metal ions are displaced from distribution system
materials, as indicated by the comparison of running and
standing water quality. Ultimately, these metals reach the
wastewater treatment facilities where they are substantially
removed or discharged to receiving waters, depending on the
selected treatment process.
The Cedar River system supplies water to the Alki waste-
water treatment plant service area, plus portions of the
West Point and Richmond Beach service area. Water quality of
the Cedar River supply, indicates it contains more dissolved
minerals than the Tolt supply, has a high pH; and generally
is expected to be less corrosive.
To meet future water demands, the Seattle metropolitan
area is considering greater diversions of the Cedar River
and new development of groundwater, both locally and at the
proposed Georgetown-Kangley well field (Metro, 1974).
Seattle is seeking legal rights to 300 mgd of Cedar River
water, but the case has not been completed.
Flood Levels
Flood level data for the existing and proposed sewage
treatment plants are given in Table 2-6. Of potential concern
are the Carkeek and Diagonal Way treatment plants sites,
situated only two feet above the one hundred year high water
levels. Adjacent sludge basins, which are often lower than
the rest of a facility, may have to be protected from flood
waters.
37
-------
Culmback Dam
South Fork Tolt
Dam & Reservoir
Lake
Sammamish
andsburg
Diversion
Masonry Dam
Chaster
Morse Lake
Howard Hanson Dam
Howard Hanson
Reservoir
Palmer Diversion
and Pipeline
FIGURE 2-8
CURRENT WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
38
-------
TABLE 2-fi
ONE HUNDRED-YEAR FLOOD LEVELS AND/OR TIDE LEVELS
AT PROJECT SITES
Site
Carkeek Park
West Point
Richmond Beach
Alki
Commodore Way
Interbay
Diagonal Way
Duwamish
Kenmore near
Lake Washington
North and South
Sammamish
Average 100 Year
Elevation Water Level
40 ft
S.L.
19
30
45
55
12+
21
25
Lake
38 ft
8.4
8.4
10
25
10+C
10+c
8.4a
16d
32. 5b
Ground Depth to 100
Surface Yr Flood Level
40 ft
19
6-30
30-33
25-55
43-65
12+
21
25
low land
2 ft
10.6
10.6
20+
20
45+
2+
12.6
9
on
surface
on high tide level
Lake Sammamish 100-year flood at 32.5 ft.
Near Puget Sound add 1.7 ft to highest tide level
Lake Washington: controlled water level
SOURCE: Metropolitan Engineers
39
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Puget Sound
Since Puget Sound is the effluent disposal site for
much of the study area now and will continue as such in the
future, an understanding of its physical, chemical and bio-
logical characteristics is central to the impact analysis.
In an effort to document any effect, beneficial or
adverse, of primary effluent from its four Puget Sound out-
falls, Metro has sponsored a series of eleven studies col-
lectively called the Puget Sound Interim Studies (PSIS). As
of June 1977, ten final reports were completed. These studies
focused primarily on parameters treatable or controllable by
Metro, but also seek to generate general information on the
central basin of Puget Sound. The studies include (1) track-
ing of effluent from West Point by dye tracing (W. P. Bendiner
and T. E. Ewart, U. W.), (2) current tracking by drogue
tracers (Ebbesmeyer, Evans-Hamilton, Inc.), (3) evaluation
of intertidal flora and fauna of beaches adjoining Metro's
marine discharges (K. Chew et_ _a_l., U. W.), (4) measurement
of heavy metals in water column, sediments and biota of Puget
Sound (W- Schell, U. W.), (5) nutrient observations in Puget
Sound (E. E. Collias, U. W.), (6) phytoplankton productivity
studies and possible effects of Metro discharges (Evans-
Hamilton, Inc.), (7) analysis of subtidal sediments and ben-
thic organisms (Harmon, Serwold and Sylvester, Shoreline
Community College), (8) demersal and pelagic fish (B. Miller,
U. W.), (9) acoustical tracking of pelagic fish and zooplank-
ton near outfalls (T. S. English), (10) bioassay of marine
organisms, response to toxic materials in effluent (Q. J.
Stober, U. W.), (11) current properties and mixing of efflu-
ent, water quality studies (Environmental Quality Analysts,
Inc.).
The PSIS have provided the major portion of information
subsequently discussed in this document on Puget Sound.
Physical conditions are described in the following sections
on oceanography and water quality. Biologic conditions are
presented later in this chapter. For more detailed descrip-
tions of the studies the reader is referred to the studies
themselves or to the Studies' Summary (Duxbury, 1976).
Oceanography. Puget Sound is a fjord-like estuary
carved by glaciers from an older river valley system. An
estuary is a semi-enclosed area of seawater diluted by fresh-
water from rivers. The basic circulation pattern and net
exchange of water between the Sound and the Pacific Ocean
through the Straits of Juan de Fucaare influenced by the
differences in temperature and salinity between freshwater
and saltwater. As indicated in Figure 2-9, there is a net
40
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Figure 2-9. Circulation in central Puget Sound. Letters and
solid arrows denote surface circulation above approximately
50 m. as follows: A - outflow from Colvos Passage; B - south-
ward flow due to 'pumping' action of Tacoma Narrows; C - surface
divergence of output from Colvos Passage; D - outflow from
Duwamish River; E - net northward flow. Large arrows denote
deep circulation beneath approximately 50 m.
41
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
outflow of less dense freshwater in the upper 150 feet of
the Sound and a net inflow of more dense saltwater at greater
depths.
The Sound is a series of interconnected basins separated
by shallows called sills which restrict deep water circula-
tion. Flushing of a basin occurs when dense seawater in a
seaward basin cascades over the separating sills. Between
flushings, deep water in a basin becomes higher in nutrients
and lower in dissolved oxygen. Flushing rates of basins
vary. The replacement time for the entire Sound is 218 days,
while certain basins flush in less than two weeks depending
on runoff, tides and wind conditions. Flushing rates for
surface waters, which are under investigation, may be less.
More complete intermediate and shallow circulation is
driven by freshwaters from rivers flowing in at depth. How-
ever, since freshwater inflow is less dense than saltwater,
some layering of water in the Sound results. A shear zone
of little or no net motion occurs at the interface between
these water masses at depths of 120 to 180 feet. In this
zone, waters tend to roll back and forth and may remain in
place over many tidal cycles.
Superimposed on the net flows of the Sound are oscilla-
tory tidal flows. About 5% of the total volume of the Sound
is exchanged on each tide, but much of the water taken out
on an ebb tide returns on the following flood tide. Tides
in Puget Sound are of the mixed type, characterized by two
highs and two lows of unequal heights each tidal day (24.84
hours). The greatest inequalities are between the heights
of successive low waters. The mean tidal range at Seattle
is 10.7 feet.
Research on the surface tidal currents of Puget Sound
has been conducted on a hydraulic tidal model of Puget Sound
at the Department of Oceanography, University of Washington.
Figures 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, and 2-13 portray the model results
in the central basin for the maximum ebb, slack water, maxi-
mum flood, and the following slack period. While winds and
gravity cannot be modeled, the study results are generally
descriptive of actual conditions.
During maximum flow periods, cross-channel variation
in tidal flow is minimal, with eddies being confined next to
the shore on the lee side of points that jut into the basin.
During slack water periods, the driving force on the main
channel flow dissipates and reverses its direction. Eddies
formed behind headlands then expand, migrate away from shore
and interact with each other. Mixing is therefore maximized
during this slack water period by eddies as opposed to the
predominately horizontal transport that occurs at maximum
42
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
i Ci'i 11 f/.'.f.'/w//j (
//•' "fill 'lii Ills ^-
mffm
rs\iir.i 'i I'lli'i,/! un'i.
J i ii
122°30
Figure 2-10 Surface tidal circulation of Puget Sound
during major ebb tide (From Duxbury, 1976)
43
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
//,
^MiiK'
eJilk
ii'X'iVli'
J
122°30
Figure 2-11 Surface tidal circulation of Puget Sound at
lower low water. (From Duxbury, 1976)
44
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
^fwww/WW'
nor
mm
WWW1
«ftl
mSI9!iKt'
•t U 111 ihMi/iK^/ V xr
^VVx^7^"' ii ' 111
I
47<>45'
47°30'
122°30'
Figure 2-12 Surface tidal circulation of Puget Sound at
major flood tide. (From Duxbury, 1976)
45
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
47045'
1 U^Jl
<^.
\v\^ -,.
1^
•ll'l
:- , \\--M
OV'M'
•ViMv' i i
i i iii • i
.ii'lii c'i
.'',":!.•
i ', f ' s.
'"•'({>
/'W'"
'/' III
Balnbridge
Is.
>^ww^?
-V?>^ V.i///'^^
ii§p
Wte^
^tgi^ti
«fts§
r^-"1:1,',*>"-".^
V,;^.^
^
x,»>x^'
i^lV''/'1
••'"'!/'/•'
/'///, /' •/.
Vrtfr
':$'//
)^
•<"X-
v.
'^^
>x^^;
' ' h^^''
i\\yi'"f
'lit'
Vv(c 'n
',''/'//,
$®
[&U^V
M^'m1'^1''^^^^ Alkl
^ l' ^^\ Point
^ii'!«,feim
'^'4iW( I'ufei:1,;^
^----^\^>^\^ ^- "v"X>^ Ij
^-_' • xv.\voc-x- N <\.> ,\\> y
•V?.^-- "--v> >^^NV^ o . \V\
^•'^iLx.e:>.v^-?.VNyiV,-
47°30'
122°30'
Figure 2-13 Surface tidal circulation of Puget Sound at
higher high water. (From Duxbury, 1976)
46
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
ebb and flood. As a result, effluent discharged along the
east side of the central basin is diluted and dispersed more
by eddies at slack water than by strong horizontal movements
at flood and ebb tides.
Puget Sound is generally little affected by wind as it
is partly protected by mountains on three sides. Mixing
near river mouths and water column stability are strongly
affected by local winds but water levels and circulation
patterns are affected only by major storms. In most areas,
the largest wind waves observed rarely exceed 4.3 feet
(Duxbury, 1975).
The mixing of the Sound affects temperatures, salinity,
nutrient levels and dissolved oxygen in surface waters of
the Sound. Seasonal changes in the seawater coming in from
the Pacific Ocean through the Straits of Juan de Fuca are
caused by coastal upwelling in summer and coastal downwelling
in winter. Upwelled oceanic water is characterized by low
temperatures and oxygen, high salinity and nutrients. Changes
over several years, or even in a single year in the flow of
oceanic water, in the strength of upwelling or in rainfall,
are reflected in the water quality of Puget Sound. The waters
of the Sound are turbid much of the year, primarily because
of phytoplankton growth and sediment discharged by rivers.
Both form turbid patches readily seen from the air. Surface
waters are clearest in autumn when discharge is lowest.
Physical characteristics of Puget Sound also affect
dispersal of effluent disposed therein. Tracing dye in-
jected into West Point effluent indicated an initial dilution
of about 140:1 at the diffuser. The effluent was usually
observed rising rapidly from the discharge depth of 230 feet,
3,000 feet off West Point, to a zone varying from 120 to 180
feet which corresponds to the depth of the shear zone
described previously. Two water samples collected at the
beaches north and south of West Point during the dye studies
(August 1974) contained dye at a dilution of 1:250 or about
half the concentration found at the diffuser.
Tidal currents, turbulence and velocity cause the
effluent to spread out and break up into filaments and
patches. The plume moves northerly on an ebb tide, southerly
on a flood tide. As the zone of little or no net motion is
also at the 120 to 180 feet zone, the effluent is probably
not flushed out of the Sound as fast as initial water mass
movements would suggest, but is recycled back and forth over
the outfall. Where this intermediate layer contacts the
bottom, waterborne materials may be concentrated and deposit-
ed, as reflected in the distribution of subtidal sediments
47
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
and biota (Harmon, Serwold and Sylvester, 1976). When the
vertical stability of the water column breaks down, generally
in summer, the effluent tends to surface, an event more
common than previously predicted (Bendiner, 1976), but whose
probability was not studied. This phenomenon has not been
entirely explained. The surfacing of effluent is thought to
be a summer phenomenon, perhaps associated with isolated
freshwater patches from the Duwamish River and the Ship Canal,
and the reduced stability of the water column in the absence
of the general freshwater lid. The dye studies have also
shown that effluent patches may become trapped in the eddies
which form at ebb and flow tides on the north and south sides
of West Point. No further studies have been performed to
determine the frequency and distribution of effluent on east-
side beaches. In the absence of water quality and shellfish
data it is impossible to determine the probability and magni-
tude of these events and any associated public health risk.
The dye study and benthic study confirm that studies of
effects and fates of pollutants in Puget Sound cannot be
limited to nearshore waters (upper 100 feet) as the distribu-
tion of effluent is due to deeper water movement patterns
and the preferred plume position corresponds with changes in
the benthic ecology at depths of 150 feet and more.
The fate and effects of effluent from the Carkeek Park
sewage treatment plant were also evident from the benthic
sampling studies of the PSIS. The Carkeek outfall appeared
to correlate with the local distribution of (1) sediment
having a hydrogen sulfide odor, (2) seeds, (3) arenaceous
foraminifera (Trochamina), (4) Buliminella elegantissima, a
foraminiferan shown to be associated with California out-
falls, and (5) clams, snails and worms.
Water quality. The water quality in Puget Sound is
influenced by the previously described mixing of fresh and
saltwater, physical characteristics and circulation patterns,
and the contribution of pollutants from various sources
within the study area. Detail is available in the PSIS as
well as other publications (Collias and Barnes, 1964;
Duxbury, 1972-1975).
The waters of the Sound are a continuously changing
mixture averaging about ten parts coastal or saltwater to
one part river or freshwater with an average salinity of
28 0/00 (28 parts salt to 1000 parts water). During the
summer, there is also a distinct thermocline or rapid temper-
ature decrease with depth at 30 to 40 feet.
The major sources of pollutants in the study area are
the municipal and industrial effluents and combined sewer
overflows discharged to the east side of the central Puget
48
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Sound basin as shown in Figure 2-14. Discharges from 16
sewage treatment plants contribute more than 185 mgd of
treated wastewater to the basin. Of these, 15 are discharg-
ing to Puget Sound and two to the Duwamish River. With the
exception of three secondary treatment plants, all provide
primary treatment. The Washington Marine Atlas indicates
that there are from 28 to 35 municipal dischargers to the
central basin alone, excluding those to rivers like the
Duwamish. By the year 2000, effluent discharges in excess
of 500 mgd (RIBCO Part III, 1974) are expected. Pollutant
loads to Puget Sound are thus expected to also increase
significantly by 2005. Non-point and miscellaneous waste
sources include air fallout from industry and automobile
exhaust, dredge spoil, oil wastes or spills, garbage and
sewage from ships and floating debris. Information on quan-
tities of present and projected (year 2005) pollutant loads
to the Sound from these sources is sparse, but present (1975)
pollutant loads discharged to saltwater by Metro sewerage
system and combined sewer overflows are estimated at 14,000
tons of solids per year. Projected loads (year 2005) are
dependent on the selected alternative, as discussed in
Chapter III.
Water quality and nutrient investigations were con-
ducted as part of the PSIS with a view to identifying the
effect of Metro's West Point treatment plant effluent on
certain water quality parameters: temperature, salinity,
density, dissolved oxygen, light transmittance reduction
(turbidity) and pH. All parameters but pH were found relat-
able to the effluent plume. However, turbidity was the only
parameter more than barely detectable. Turbidity decreased
with distance from the source as expected. The study suggest-
ed that other water quality parameters be measured in order
to characterize the effects of effluent on Puget Sound or
that more sensitive tracers be employed.
The nutrient study data indicated that at slack water
the effluent builds up temporarily near West Point's diffuser
with concomitant increases in local concentrations of nitrate,
ammonia, and phosphate and changes in temperature, dissolved
oxygen, salinity and density. Chemical data collected along
the central axis of Puget Sound did not reflect the effluent's
influence. Since the Sound is a complex system with tremen-
dous natural variability in its physical and chemical char-
acteristics, this variation masks any effects that may be
due to West Point's flow, though this flow is substantial.
Whether future flows will also be barely detectable is diffi-
cult to predict. Future loadings of nutrients, however,
were modeled by STR (1975) and suggest a 33% increase in
49
-------
ftROWNS
8AY
SHILM40LS
•AY
M
O
LEGEND
—• COMBINED OVERFLOW
o— INDUSTRIAL
-o- URBAN RUNOFF
MUNICIPAL
Typt of Flow
Location Treatment (mgd)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3.
9.
10
11.
12.
13.
Mukilteo
Olympui Terrace
Lynnvxood
Edmonds
Richmond Be»eri (METRO)
Carke«k Park (METRO)
Weit Point (METRO)
Alki Point IMETHOI
Salmon Otek
Miller Cre«k
Dei Mom«
Redondo
Lakota
P
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
0.1
0.12
1.5
3.8
1.1
3.1
109.7
12.1
2.5
2.2
2.2
0.98
0.36
Discharge OHfuser
Dep-th(ft5 Pofh
10 *'
60'*
100**
60 »*
100 **
200**
230**
80**
65**
200 **
150 **
180*
185 *
0
0
0
6
11
13
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note:
Data as of June 1973
P-Pnm»ry
S-S»cond»ry
+MSC
FIGURE
2-14
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EFFLUENTS DISCHARGED TO PUGET SOUND MAIN BASIN EAST SIDE
50
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
nitrogen in Puget Sound surface waters by the year 2000 as
the result of estimated municipal and industrial loadings.
The validity of the model is questioned, however, and other
nutrient studies suggest that the effect of Metro discharges
is probably minor and localized with respect to nutrients.
Studies of Southern California outfalls have shown
biological changes associated with sewage effluent in areas
in which little or no water quality changes could be mea-
sured, however (SCCWRP, 1975; Smith, 1976). Biological sys-
tems are perhaps more sensitive indicators of environmental
change than are physical and chemical systems.
As the terminus of a drainage system, Puget Sound is-
a collection point for discharged materials, including heavy
metals. Discharges from metropolitan centers are a major
source of these materials. In the study area, West Point
sewage treatment plant is a primary contributor; Richmond
Beach, Carkeek Park and Alki are minor contributors. Other
sources of metals in Puget Sound are industrial discharges,
river and surface runoff, storm sewers carrying leachates
and eroded material from land, airborne materials such as
aerosols generated from fuel consumption, the protective
paints and antifouling measures of vessels, and incoming
saltwaters. Metals are removed from the Sound primarily
by flushing and/or by sedimentation of particles with which
they are associated.
Variations in input of metals to West Point correlated
well with rainfall, especially for winter and spring months
(Figure 2-15) in 1973, for which there is data. It is
recognized that 1973 had little rain and the correlation may
not be generally true. While rainfall may increase the
total mass of trace metals delivered to the treatment plant
and thus to the Sound, the increased flow also dilutes the
effluent causing concentrations of metals in it to be lower.
Summer and fall changes may be partially a function of water
supply sources (Schell ^t .a].., 1976). Too, as described in
the water supply section of this report, Seattle's soft,
corrosive water tends to leach metals from pipes in the
supply system, especially zinc, cadmium, copper and perhaps
lead. West Point also receives industrial wastes which may
contain high concentrations of metals. Determining the
sources which contribute metals to West Point or any treat-
ment facility is necessary for the evaluation of source
control potential should metals in effluent be deemed a
water quality problem. The inputs of copper, lead and zinc
to Puget Sound have been estimated from several sources
(Schell et_ aJU, 1977). Routine monitoring data collected
by different agencies in the Puget Sound area are not
presently adequate for an accurate evaluation of different
51
-------
12000
10000
8000
J
6000
4000
2000
kg
kg
kg
3000
2000
1000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2500
2000
100C
kg
150C
100i
50<
kg
20
15
CM. of
Rain
Pb
Cu
Cr
Ni
Cd
n n n n n n n
n n n n n
n
n n n n n n n
n
n n n n n
JH 0_
Rain Fall
„ [1
n
FIGURE
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jly. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2- ] 5 .Monthly input of trace metals lo Puget Sound at West Point in 1973.
52
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
trace metal sources.
Table 2-7 shows that Metro's West Point plant and the
other minicipal plants are sources of minor or equal impor-
tance with other man caused sources. The table suggests
the plants contribute small proportion of the estimated load,
exclusive of industrial sources, of copper, lead and zinc,
respectively. Although municipal contributions appear to be
a small portion of the total input, their significance should
be evaluated in terms of the conditions observed near the
sites of metals deposition. The significance of Metro's
inputs depends on sedimentation rates, biological uptake,
residence times of waters and circulation near the outfalls
and in the central Puget Sound basin (Schell et al., 1977).
Concentrations of heavy metals in central Puget Sound
water, sediments and biota have been examined since many
heavy metals, such as cadmium or mercury have toxic proper-
ties (Schell et al.. 1976). Samples were taken at the four
Metro outfall sites, in Shilshole and Elliott Bays, at
Duwamish Head, off Four Mile Rock and at selected sites
some distance further north and south. The Blake Island
sampling site, assumed to represent background levels of
trace metals in the central basin, had higher levels of
metals than most sites sampled, including West Point,
probably due to particular air and water circulation patterns,
The metals found here, then, do not necessarily represent
background levels in Puget Sound. No clear distribution
pattern for metals emerged from the water column studies,
but at all stations, levels of cadmium and lead were approxi-
mately an order of-magnitude higher than in the open sea
(Schell et_ aj.., 1976). Levels of zinc, copper, and nickel
were the same or lower than open sea levels for these
metals. These comparisons are tentative however as the
concentrating method used is least efficient for lead and
cadmium (Duxbury, 1976; W. Schell, personal communication,
1976). Identifying pollutant sources and distribution pat-
terns in Puget Sound is currently problematic because of
their number and variety and the complex circulation of
the Sound.
Puget Sound sediments, an important sink for trace
metals, were dated and metals analyzed from core samples as
part of the PSIS heavy metals study (Schell et al., 1977).
Mercury concentration tended to decrease with depth in the
cores, showing enrichments in surface sediments of six to
nine times the average background level in the Sound. At
Blake Island, the surface enrichment factor was 17-18. The
presence of dredge spoils at several sites was indicated
from lowered organic carbon and nitrogen levels. The high
enrichment factors suggest that potential problems may
53
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Table 2-7
Total Copper, Lead
a
Source
Rivers
Duwamish
Ship Canal
Metro's West Point
Plant
Other Municipalities
in the Puget Sound
Area
Atmospheric Input
b
Urban Runoff (CSO)
Vessel Protective
Measures and Fuel
Consumption
Advective Transport
(Incoming Seawater)
Note:
a
and Zinc
Inputs
to Puget
c
Sound
(Tons/Year)
Copper
714
11
0.9
26
20
41
14
329-535
278
Lead
1843
50
7
8
14
248
317
8-11
278
Zinc
1473
28
0.9
51
24
74
45
127-218
793
Estimated
Standard
Deviation
50%
50%
50%
10%
50%
50%
No Data
No Data
50%
Direct industrial discharges and dumping not included due
to their complexity and lack of adequate data.
Assumes all urban runoff overflows to Puget Sound. As
this is not actually the case, values shown probably
represent maximum inputs.
The numbers, including the standard deviations, presented
in this table are rough approximations, highly controversial
and do not account for ionic forms of metals.
Source: Compilation of data from various sources in Schell
et al., 1977.
54
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
exist with mercury. The probable source or sources of
mercury have not been specified. The PSIS metals study is
inconclusive regarding the impact of Metro sewage discharge
sites on observed distribution and concentration levels of
heavy metals in Puget Sound.
At a given site, occasional variations appear in sedi-
mentation rate, such as would result from slumping or spoil
dumping. Near the West Point outfall, at a depth of 827
feet, a core indicated a rapid accumulation of sediments over
the entire 48 cm core length. It has been suggested that
this may reflect the deposition of sludge or natural sedi-
mentation in the "deep hole" near West Point (Metropolitan
Engineers, 1976). At the same time, it appears that no sludge
builds up at the West Point outfall at a depth of 230 feet
(Domenowske and Matsuda, 1969) .
The picture is complicated by the dumping of Duwamish
dredge spoils containing high levels of a number of indus-
trial pollutants in Elliott Bay off Four Mile Rock. A study
of dredge spoil contaminants indicates that fine particles,
which are highest in trace metals, travel furthest. On an
ebb tide, fine materials from the dump site reach West Point
in five to six hours, and the beach south of West Point
(where dye was found in an earlier study) in half that time.
The concentrations of metals in the diluted effluent at
the diffuser and in the dispersed spoils after one ebb tide
are about the same (Schell et al., 1976). Zooplankton,
however, ingest the fine particles and tend to selectively
concentrate metal from them. In summary, information on
heavy metals in Puget Sound water and sediments has been
only recently developed. Preliminary analysis indicates
the existing Metro discharges are not major contributors of
heavy metals, but more information is needed to fully assess
the impacts of these metals.
The Duwamish Estuary
The Duwamish Estuary includes the lower 13 miles of
the Green-Duwamish River which drains the Green River basin
through the major industrial area of Seattle for about
eight miles. The lower six miles of the estuary have been
dredged routinely for navigational access.
The entire Duwamish River is tidally influenced. Under
high river flow conditions, however, water in the upper five
miles of the estuary is always fresh regardless of tide.
Under low flow conditions, saltwaters travel as far as ten
miles above the mouth of the estuary. The average annual
flow at Auburn is 1,360 cfs (cubic feet per second). The
maximum recorded mean is 2,071 cfs (1972) and the minimum
55
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
107 cfs (1941).
Uses of the Duwamish fall into two potentially con-
flicting classes: (1) commercial shipping and waste dis-
posal and (2) fisheries. Due to the river's large silt load,
maintaining access to the industries requires that the
Duwamish be periodically dredged for navigational purposes
or otherwise improved. A number of industries discharge
treated and some untreated wastewater effluent into the
waterway. At the estuary's uppermost point near Tukwila,
secondary sewage from Metro's Renton plant is discharged at
a current rate of approximately 28 mgd (43.3 cfs) with
expected increases of 72 to 99 mgd (111.3 to 153.1 cfs) by
the year 2005 (Metropolitan Engineers, Facility Plan, 1977).
The Duwamish River estuary also receives 251 million gallons
of combined sewer overflows annually. Fisheries concerns
are based on the migration of commercially important
anadromous salmonids: Chinook, coho, and chum salmon; plus
steelhead, rainbow and cutthroat trout, all of which are
residents. This river system is one of the most important
spawning and rearing habitats for anadromous fishes in the
Green River and Lake Washington drainage basins.
Water quality conditions in the Duwamish estuary are
related to its uses and physical-chemical characteristics.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the surface water
decreases downstream in the Duwamish. Washington State DOE
Class B DO standards of 6.5 mg/1 or 70% saturation for
freshwater and saltwater, assumed to apply for both surface
and bottom waters, are violated in July, August and September,
corresponding to periods of low river flow and algae blooms.
Low values (3 to 4 ppm) occur in the lower reaches of
the river and are too low for many aquatic organisms. Low
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the waters increase the
toxicity of heavy metals, ammonia and other agents to fishes
and other animals. The potential toxicity of the discharge
from Metro's Renton sewage treatment plant is similarly
increased by low DO conditions. This is expected to be a
problem of greater magnitude in the future, as future flows
from Renton may be one-third to one-half the river's flow
under summer-fall conditions (Metropolitan Engineers Task D5,
(1977) .
Temperature standards (DOE Class B) are probably
violated in summer months as the result of low flows, little
shading along the river's bank and more intense sunshine
(Metropolitan Engineers Task D5, 1977) .
Variations in pH during a major algae bloom may be as
high as one unit, exceeding the DOE standard set of 0.5 units
of variation. Major blooms appear at least once every two
56
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
years, influenced primarily by water salinity distribution,
flow and turbidity (Welch, 1969) .
The BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) in both bottom and
surface waters is generally low, less than 4 mg/1, but
increases to over 6 mg/1 during algae blooms (Santos and
Stoner, 1972). Blooms in recent years have been larger,
causing aesthetic nuisance conditions.
Average nitrate concentration in freshwater has in-
creased progressively since 1964 by amounts greater than
those which can be attributed to the Renton treatment plant,
2.7 miles upstream from the station sampled (Santos and
Stoner, 1972). Ammonia and phosphate concentrations in-
creased significantly downstream from Metro's Renton
plant outfall after the plant began operation in June, 1965,
but concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus were relative-
ly high before operation of the plant and during nonbloom
periods (Welch, 1969). Criteria for nitrate-nitrogen are
violated regularly at Tukwila, and during high runoff peri-
ods at Auburn. Non-point sources appear to be involved at
both stations, but Tukwila also received point source wastes
(RIBCO, 1974). The Metro water quality staff has monitored
water quality in the Duwamish and feels that Renton effluent
is affecting nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the fresh-
waters of the upper estuary. In the dredged lower estuary,
the effluent's effects are masked by the high nutrient con-
centrations in the salt wedge waters. Plankton blooms occur
primarily in the lower estuary.
With increasing future flows from Renton, ammonia
nitrogen is expected to exceed toxicity levels in the river
by 1980 to 1990. The conversion of ammonia to nitrate in
receiving water requires oxygen and thus contributes to
dissolved oxygen depletion which may be as much as 2 to 3
mg/1 by the year 2005. The RIBCO study which predicted the
problem states that ammonia nitrogen should not be dis-
charged to the estuary at the projected Renton discharge
rates (RIBCO, 1974). Total coliform bacteria standards are
violated throughout the river most of the year.
The Duwamish River estuary has been the site of at
least one PCB spill. Recent preliminary measurements of
toxic PCB's in sediment, algae and zooplankton are available
for the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay from an analysis by
EPA and the University of Washington Department of Ocean-
ography (1973). Surface sediment concentrations of PCB's
ranged from 1000 to greater than 2000 parts per billion (ppb)
PCB concentrations in zooplankton exceeded criteria recom-
mended by EPA.
57
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Preliminary investigations to isolate the significant
sources of PCB's were also conducted by EPA in 1973. Based
upon measurements from the Renton plant and four interceptor
flows, it was concluded that the major source of PCB's in
the Duwamish River is some discharge other than those sampled.
Recent Metro monitoring and field data on Renton plant dis-
charge support this conclusion. Metro staff reports indi-
cate high PCB's in a sewer overflow to the Duwamish, however.
This latter point is relevant as PCB's are suspected to
cause fin erosion and liver disease in fishes, a common
occurrence together with.tumors and parasitic worm infesta-
tions in the Duwamish. Puget Sound Interim Studies investi-
gations of these phenomena are discussed in the biotic
sections of this report.
In summary, the Lower Green-Duwamish River is the most
contaminated local body of water with respect to toxic sub-
stances. The river flows through a major industrial area
of Seattle which is susceptible to toxicant introductions
through direct discharge, non-point source runoff and acci-
dental spills. The problem as it now exists in the Lower
Green-Duwamish River is one of increasing levels of heavy
metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons in bottom sediments and
resident fish populations plus heavy metal and inorganic
substances in the water. The concern is also for adjacent
waters, as water and sediments from the Duwamish move north
and west along the shore of Elliott Bay to West Point in a
few hours (Figure 2-9).
58
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
THE BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT
Assessment of ecological communities in impact assessment
documents is generally based on surveys of the distribution,
diversity and abundance of organisms in the areas of interest.
The observed patterns of distribution, diversity and abundance
are the result of complex natural selection pressures: inter-
and intraspecific interactions, predation, food availability,
physical-chemical environmental conditions, and chance. To
understand the observed patterns requires a systems approach,
an understanding of the interrelatedness and balances of the
components of an ecological community. Therefore, knowing
merely the physiological tolerance limits of the organisms
found in a given area is not sufficient to predict the impact
of a perturbation due to human activities. Unfortunately, the
state of ecological knowledge is such that for most communities
the requisite information is not available.
A further and equally important consideration is ade-
quately sampling an area such that abundance and distribution
can be determined at all. Aquatic systems, with the possible
exception of the intertidal and small bodies of water, present
especially difficult and unique problems. Due to the lack of
direct access to the organisms, the scientist is generally
forced to rely on unwieldy sampling devices operated from the
surface, in the absence of direct information on the organisms
below, their reaction to the gear, and on the field efficiency
of the gear. Also, natural patchiness in the distribution of
most organisms creates high sampling variability. All of the
above are critical to determining sampling error. The use of
sonar detection methods has somewhat mitigated these problems,
but is not in widespread use. It remains, therefore, more
difficult to balance sampling adequacy against cost in aquatic
than in terrestrial studies.
The Puget Sound region is biotically diverse and com-
prised of a variety of natural and modified habitats: urban
terrestrial areas, forests, non-forest terrestrial vegetation,
wetlands, intertidal areas, freshwaters (ponds, lakes, rivers,
streams), saltwaters (Puget Sound), and estuarine waters
(Duwamish). Each habitat is characterized by a set of physical
and chemical conditions, flora and fauna.
A discussion of natural succession would provide a basis
for describing the biological environment that would exist in
the future without implementation of the proposed action. How-
ever, successional data are sparse, at best, for the various
biotic habitats in the study area.
59
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Terrestrial Habitats
The fauna of terrestrial habitats generally correlates
with vegetation whose distribution is, in turn, tied to soil
characteristics, moisture and light conditions. Heterogeneous
vegetation creates greater faunal habitat diversity through its
structural and food resource diversity. Small areas of diverse
vegetation may lack certain species, however, which require
large foraging areas, territories, or corridors for migration
or are more disturbed by the presence of man. The activities
of man dominate the study area and have left most terrestrial
environments in a highly modified state. Paving and the plant-
ing of crops and ornamentals have largely replaced the original
forest and shrub. Natural floral assemblages remain in patches
in the Metro area and in large portions of the eastern Puget
Sound region (Metropolitan Engineers, Tasks A1G and B5F, 1976).
Nonvegetated areas include heavily developed urban
areas such as some Duwamish or Interbay (the Commodore Way
site) sites considered in some alternatives. Nevertheless,
some organisms thrive in these otherwise inhospitable en-
vironments. Scavenging birds such as pigeons (rock doves)
and sea gulls have also adapted to urban settings. Rock
doves nest in buildings while gulls nest near shore and fly
to city feeding areas daily. Other urban animals include
rats, mice, beetles, flies, ants and other pest species.
The vegetation of city green belts, empty lots, undevel-
oped ravines, neighborhood parks, highway rights-of-way and
residential areas tends to be fairly homogenous and thus
supports few species of animals. Lawns and ornamental trees
support robins, sparrows, swallows, migratory passerines,
squirrels, wild rats and mice, and a host of insects. Greater
varieties of animals such as the California quail, rufous-
sided towhees, sparrows, lizards, and toads live in thickets
of Himalayan blackberry, salmonberry, and other shrubs which
provide more food resources and shelter from predators. Parks
may have, in addition, rabbits, raccoons, weasels, and a num-
ber of migratory and resident birds. Portions of Alki, West
Point, Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach, Interbay (the Golf
Park site) and some Duwamish sites are representative of
this habitat.
Forested areas occur near West Point (Discovery Park),
Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach, the University of Washington
Arboretum and grounds, and the eastern border of the study
area. Primary trees include Douglas fir, western hemlock,
western red cedar, red alder, deciduous big leaf maple,
willow and black cottonwood. The composition of the forest
understory usually is comprised of a combination of young
trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, ferns and mosses. Mixed deci-
duous-coniferous forest offers the greatest environmental
60
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
diversity and thus supports the richest animal assemblage. The
vegetative cover of the meadow-like lowland areas is primarily
grasses interspersed with scattered stands of fir. Beaver,
muskrat, mink, and river otter occur along lowland water
courses. Raccoon, opossum, red fox, weasel, and skunk inhabit
valleys in the area and are relatively unperturbed by humans.
Coyotes and bobcats also can exist with man but prefer wooded
foothills. Squirrels, marmots, and chipmunks are common.
Game birds include grouse, pheasant, partridge, quail and
doves. Raptors include a variety of owls and hawks. Finally,
there is a diversity of songbirds and "pests" such as crows,
sparrows and starlings.
Shoreline Habitats
Of the Puget Sound region's fauna, the most important to
this analysis are water-associated. Marshes and estuaries
are important for habitat, food and propagation of a large
number of birds, mammals and amphibians. Past land develop-
ment, which included drainage and fill or flooding through
levees and dams, has reduced the availability and extent of
these ecosystems. Increased nutrients entering these waters
have encouraged the growth of algae and shoreline vegetation
which have also altered the composition of aquatic communities.
The physical and chemical characteristics of these waters
have been described in earlier sections of this chapter. A
description of the biological, ecological and environmental
characteristics is offered of the historical condition (if
known), the present conditions and projections to the year
2005.
Shoreline habitats - freshwater marshes, salt or tidal
marshes and the intertidal itself - have certain important
characteristics in common. For example, they support a
variety of migratory and resident water birds that rely on the
area for either food, breeding grounds or both. These habi-
tats are more sensitive to changes in the physical and chemical
characteristics of the land immediately adjacent than are
open waters. Dilution of runoff is limited in the shallows,
particularly in areas where circulation is slow. Wetlands
also tend to be highly productive. Vegetation is generally
dense, characterized by heavy growths of saltgrass and pickle-
weed in tidal marshes as well as cattails, rushes and sedges
in freshwater marshes. Major groups of birds include mallard,
pintail, coot, goldeneye, teal, widgeon, grebes, scoters and
several species of geese.
61
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
A number of species of gulls and wading birds (such as
herons and cranes) are common. In freshwaters these birds
feed on fishes, insects, frogs, and various plants; in salt-
water areas, common prey include fishes, fish eggs, crusta-
ceans, mollusks and other marine invertebrates. A number of
birds also feed on dead or dying salmon and salmon eggs.
Crows and gulls tend to be scavengers but, like owls and
hawks, prey upon the chicks of other shore birds, sometimes
seriously reducing their prey's population. Shellfish beds
can be damaged by scoters (white-winged, surf and black
species) when the birds are abundant, so that limited hunting
of these species is encouraged (Salo, 1975).
By contrast, some of the water birds need protection since
they are limited in distribution. For example, the black
oyster-catcher is restricted to rocky intertidal areas and the
black brant (a goose) feeds only in eelgrass and sea lettuce
(Ulva) beds. To ensure protection of these water birds, their
food source and substrates should be protected.
The distribution of wetlands and wildlife in the study area
is summarized in Appendix Figure D-l. None of the alternative
plant sites contain this type of habitat, but a number of com-
bined sewer overflow points infringe on wetlands. Kellogg Is-
land in the Duwamish has a small saltwater marsh. Lists of
terrestrial and marshland fauna of the study area are given in
Appendix Tables D-2 and D-3.
Intertidal Habitats
The intertidal zone is that area which, lying between
the high tide and low tide levels, is submerged at high tide and
exposed at low tide. The tideland habitat along much of
central Puget Sound has been highly modified through time by
dredge and fill operations. Natural shoreline in the Seattle
area is limited to Meadow Point, the north and south sides of
Magnolia Bluff, a small area north of Alki Point and just
south of Brace Point. Disturbed shorelines nevertheless
support well-developed biota. Rock-cobble substrates, sand-
gravel, and muddy silt-and-sand soft bottoms each have a
characteristic flora and fauna.
Intertidal areas are examined in detail herein since they
are frequently visited by the public and may be subject to
contamination from several types of nearby sources. With the
exception of West Point's north and south beaches, the beaches
near the Metro facilities along Puget Sound are used by sport
clam diggers. Alki, Carkeek Park and Lincoln Park beaches
are visited by numerous school children on field trips
throughout the year. Three potential sources of contamination
in the intertidal have been examined: (1) the four Metro
wastewater treatment plants, (2) combined sewer overflows, and
(3) groundwater seepage.. Shoreline fill in some alternatives
is also of concern in the intertidal.
62
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
The impacts noted to date on biota in the intertidal
generally fall into three distinct groups. First, the over-
all input from the sources described above has apparently pro-
duced some changes in community structure such as altered
abundance, diversity and biomass that cannot necessarily be
attributed to a specific contaminant or source. Second, the
effluent discharge and combined sewer overflows have possibly
tended to influence heavy metals concentrations. Third, the
levels of pathogens and toxicants are being investigated for
potential impacts on intertidal biota and human consumers of
shellfish. Each of these three types of impacts in the exist-
ing environment are discussed further.
General Changes in Community Structure
Some existing influences on the intertidal have been
claimed. The dye studies at West Point, described previously,
indicated that effluent may surface at West Point beaches in
summer when the water column stability is high. Intertidal
benthic forms may thus have periodic contact with effluent at
a dilution about half that at the diffuser (250:1) . A similar
phenomenon is likely at Alki, where initial dilution is only
10:1, and at the other plant sites due to onshore currents
(Metropolitan Engineers Facility Plan, 1977). Eastern central
basin beaches are also subject to other discharges such as
combined sewer overflows. In addition, there appeared to be
a seepage of odoriferous groundwater into the West Point north
intertidal area, which may have an effect, especially at low
tide, by introducing sulfurous, low dissolved oxygen and low
salinity water into the intertidal.
The biota on the four beaches near the outfalls and at
Lincoln Park have been monitored in a biannual intertidal
sampling program established by the University of Washington
College of Fisheries in 1971. To date, no significant
differences between number of animal species, natural history,
biomass or seasonality of animals have been found.
Seasonality and between-beach differences were observed
in intertidal benthic algae at the same five sites, however.
Differences in species number and frequency were attributed
primarily to availability of suitable substrate. Comparison
with other areas in Puget Sound showed that Seattle beaches
tend to have greater numbers of green and blue-green algae
than brown algae, the reverse of the situation elsewhere
(Whidbey Island, Steamboat Island and Hood Canal). It was
also noted that the total biomass of algae was greater in 1973
than in 1971. The increase was not quantified. The 1975
data suggest that changes that have occurred since the 1973
study are comparable to those described above (Armstrong
et al.,1976).
63
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Nutrients are postulated to affect the growth and repro-
duction of a common brown alga, Fucus. The present studies
indicate that a positive relationship exists at West Point
between amount of sewage effluent present and formation of
reproductive structures. The macroalgae or large "kelp"
species, Laminaria and Nereocystis, have significantly higher
and lower growth rates respectively at West Point, and the
kelp bed community in general is less diverse.
The intertidal at West Point also has fewer species of
diatoms (single-celled plants) than the other sites, and
significantly greater growth of limpets, mollusks that graze
on diatoms. Limpet growth rates may be related to the change
in diatom community- The diversity of diatom assemblages has
been shown repeatedly to be inversely related to levels of
pollution (Patrick, 1949; Hohn, 1959).
A pattern of increased biomass, reduced species numbers
and greater abundance of green and blue-green algae could
indicate a developing nutrient enrichment situation, a chronic
stress on the system which is difficult to assess. The
stress, by worker's best estimates (Thorn et a_l. ,1977), is from
sewage. This parallels the situation in freshwater, in which
green and blue-green algae predominate where sewage effluent,
septic tank overflows, and other sources of high nutrients,
such as fertilizers, gain entry to the water body. Increases
in effluent flows and/or CSO's in the future could intensify
the situation.
Combined sewer overflows are another source of potential
pollutants in the intertidal. There are twenty-two such dis-
charges into Puget Sound and Elliott Bay, many near swimming
beaches and a few in shellfish areas. Recent dye studies
indicate that areas along the shore, including the intertidal,
have markedly slower rates of circulation and lower dilution
capacities than do offshore areas. Nearshore waters also
tend to move strongly along the shore in either direction
contrary to the direction cf the prevailing tide or current
until reaching an exposed point where they move outward into
the prevailing surface current and sink. Depending on flows
and the concentrations of water quality contaminants, the
potential impacts on the intertidal from combined sewer over-
flows could be substantial.
While combined sewer overflows are widespread and of
long-standing concern, little is known of their quality or
their effect on receiving waters and biota. Metro water
quality staff studied two August 1976 storms at each of four
important overflow sites (Tomlinson et al., 1976): the Denny
Way regulator (W027) emptying into Elliott Bay, the Hanford
regulator (W032) in the East Waterway of the Duwamish estuary,
64
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Madison Park (023) on Lake Washington and Roanoke Street (132)
on Lake Union. No macroscopic biota were found at the fresh-
water stations, Madison or Roanoke. Similarly in the inter-
tidal at Hanford, no biota were found in the plume area;
numerous worms were found outside the plume. Denny Street had
abundant worms of species associated with disturbed areas,
plus some clams, crabs, amphipods and other worms. From these
preliminary data, the overflows appear to be having a substan-
tial adverse impact on intertidal biota in the vicinity of the
overflow point. The extent of the effect is unknown. A
summary of the study is given in Appendix Table D-4.
The substantial variation in quality of overflows and in
circulation at the four sites prevents generalizing to the
entire overflow system. Overflow locations are well known
and approximate annual flows have been estimated (Figure 2-7),
but their effects on habitats have not been evaluated.
Other minor sources of pollutants to the intertidal and
nearshore waters are septic tank seepages. Septic tank ef-
fluent from Lawtonwood, an unsewered residential area com-
prised of about two dozen houses, enters a small stream run-
ning from Fort Lawton down to the shore of Puget Sound, just
north of West Point. Septic tank effluent also enters the
intertidal at Perkins Lane at the base of Magnolia Bluff and
in the Salt Water Park area south of Seattle. The Seattle-
King County Health Department recommends that no shellfish
taken from these beaches be consumed (Seattle-King County
Health Department, personal communication, 1977).
Heavy Metals
Treated sewage as a mixture from both industrial and
domestic sources carries materials including heavy metals
that can impact and be assimilated into biota. Trace metals
in water incorporated into biota can be further concentrated
selectively into body tissues. Once the elements enter the
food web, predator-prey interactions pass these materials on,
with subsequent concentration in the predator's organs. As
man is a predator in this process, it is important to examine
the trace elements and other toxicants that could affect a
seafood consumer.
Levels of metals are thought to be (1) generally low, at
least in West Point effluent for which data is available,
(2) probably somewhat correlated with rainfall, and (3) gene-
rally within NPDES effluent limits. It is known, however,
that a slug of mercury, chromium or arsenic of unknown source
occasionally goes through the plant. Proposed EPA criteria
for marine and freshwaters are shown in Appendix Table D-5.
65
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
A discussion of toxicants in the study area can be found in
Metropolitan Engineers Task Report D3, "Preliminary Environ-
mental Evaluation" (1976).
The distribution of heavy metals in intertidal biota of
central Puget Sound has been examined (Olsen, 1976). The
data suggest (Schell _et _al., 1977) that levels of metals tested,
except arsenic, are higher in intertidal organisms at Metro
outfall areas than in central areas, but the statistical signi-
ficance of these data is not determinable. The study did show
that Ulva, a green alga, tended to concentrate lead and that
clams and mussels were able to concentrate all elements
studied^ Levels of mercury, however, were below FDA stan-
dards: Federal Food and Drug regulations prohibit the sale
of shellfish and fish containing mercury levels greater than
500 parts mercury per billion parts wet weight (ng/g). Allow-
able levels for other metals have not been fixed. Concentra-
tions of lead in clams were on the average 62 percent higher
on the north side of West Point than at the other five
stations. Mercury levels in clams were highest at West Point
(north side) and at Carkeek Park, followed by levels found at
Lincoln Park. Data on other metals and other intertidal
organisms tested indicated that, in general, metals at West
Point were slightly, but not significantly higher. Plankton
contained significantly higher concentrations of copper and
zinc in the vicinity of Metro sewage outfalls, however (Olsen,
1976).
Levels of certain metals in biota near the Denny Street
overflows are shown in Appendix Table D-6. Levels of lead
in clams 100 yards south and 30 yards offshore were two orders
of magnitude higher (parts per million or mg/kg dry weight),
than in intertidal clams at West Point's south beach.
Pathogens and Toxicants
Important water quality contaminants other than metals
which may be concentrated by shellfish consumed by humans
include pathogens, but levels in shellfish from these areas
are not now monitored. Metro water quality data indicate
that the water at these beaches meet total but not fecal
coliform bacterial standards for commercial shellfish waters.
Bathing standards are regularly met (Seattle-King County
Health Department, personal communication, 1977).
Toxic elements are not regularly monitored by Metro or
any other agencies in the study area, but Metro plans to do so
beginning in 1978. Special PCB studies performed by Metro
staff indicated very low levels in effluents with routine
monitoring.
66
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Puget Sound
The area of study is the central basin of Puget Sound
from Mukilteo in the north to Poverty Bay, the marine boundary
of the Cedar-Green River drainage basin in the south. Puget
Sound is characterized by high levels of ecological activity,
floral and faunal productivity. Productivity is enhanced by
nutrients from upwelling of oceanic waters, freshwater
nutrient contributions, and sunlight to shallow'waters.
Other inputs to Puget Sound, such as municipal and industrial
effluents, runoff, combined sewer overflows and aerial con-
taminants have been discussed in previous sections of this
report. The ecological relationships of Puget Sound are
complex, partly because of the physical-chemical variables
such as currents, tides, winds, temperatures, quality and quan-
tity of inflows and contaminants. These parameters affect
dilution, dispersion, light intensity, salinity, pH, dissolved
oxygen and other chemical and physical factors on which plank-
ton and other aquatic life depend. In general, however, the
biological communities are productive and diverse. Estuaries,
such as Puget Sound, also serve as nurseries for a number of
aquatic organisms, providing food and shelter for embryonic,
larval, juvenile and adult life stages. Early life stages
are especially sensitive to environmental conditions.
To evaluate impacts of the various alternatives it is
necessary to understand the complexities of the existing
estuarine habitat and its organisms. Comprehensive under-
standing of Puget Sound, like other aquatic ecosystems, is
limited at best, due to the dearth of basic ecological know-
ledge. Several of the Puget Sound Interim Studies (PSIS) and
other reports have addressed themselves to the biology of the
Sound as affected by man-made inputs. The intertidal portion
of the studies have been described previously, and the general
biological characteristics of Puget Sound have been described
in the "Puget Sound Regional Assessment Study" of June 1975
(Vol. II Supplement) in terms of species composition lists,
figures on numerical abundance, biomass and production for
the producer, consumer, and decomposer trophic levels.
Primary Productivity
In general, phytoplankton populations are found to be
viable throughout the water column; indeed, greater numbers
of cells are found below the euphotic or lighted zone,
probably carried to depth by turbulence 'at the Admiralty Inlet
Sill. Evaluations of phytoplankton productivity and standing
stock in central Puget Sound were part of the Puget Sound
Interim Studies.
67
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
The annual cycle of algal growth, dominated by a series
of intense blooms beginning in early spring and recurring
throughout the summer, is limited primarily by inadequate
sunlight in winter and other factors. Growth is also limited
by vertical movement and turbulence, changes in light inten-
sity due to self-shading and particulates, sinking of algal
cells and occasional rapid horizontal movement of cell popula-
tions by sustained winds during spring and autumn.
Phytoplankton growth is rarely limited by nutrient
depletion. Phosphate always occurs in excess of need; short-
term nitrate depletion (3-4 days) concurrent with the most
intense blooms has been observed in earlier studies. Zoo-
plankton grazing appears to be unimportant in controlling
natural phytoplankton blooms in Puget Sound (STR, 1975) .
Phytoplankton patches sampled in the Seattle area appar-
ently originate at two locations: (1) at the edge of the
Puyallup River plume at Tacoma from which patches move forward
through the East Passage and (2) a bloom system off Seattle
near Restoration Point (across from Alki). Patches are carried
northward and out of the Sound over the Admiralty Inlet Sill
and are mixed downward into waters moving landward by vigorous
tidal action. Cells may be returned to the photic zone by
turbulent motion upwards and upwelling by tidal mixing at the
Tacoma Narrows in about ten days (see Appendix Figure D-2) .
The entire cycle takes about three weeks, such that there are
about seven cycles from April to August. These cycles are
felt to be important to Puget Sound primary productivity,
especially in May-June and July-August.
Productivity is significantly lower in Elliott Bay than
in mid-channel due partially to limited light penetration
resulting from the silt load carried in by the Duwamish River.
The only significant longitudinal variation in the central
Sound attributed to the West Point outfall is a 15-20 percent
increase in the 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 year extreme values at
stations within a mile north and south of the outfall. The
effect of the effluent is felt to be reduced by the effluent's
equilibrium depth being below the depths of maximum produc-
tivity (see Appendix Figure D-3, Ebbesmeyer and Helseth,
1976). In addition, dilution to background levels of most
effluent patches is thought to occur in six to twelve hours,
significantly less time than the one day usually assumed for
phytoplankton to divide. Under bloom conditions, however,
doubling time may be only eight to ten hours (S. Campbell,
personal communication).
68
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
The other major group of plants in Puget Sound are the
benthic algae which occur subtidally and intertidally. Inter-
tidal algae have been described in a previous section of this
report. Subtidal kelp beds provide an important and diverse
habitat for a number of fishes and marine invertebrates. Sub-
tidal algal species lists are available; abundance and biomass
data generally are not. An important habitat at low tide and
subtidal levels is created by beds of eelgrass (Zostera), one
of the few marine flowering plants. A host of larval and adult
fishes, invertebrates and marine birds are associated with
these areas. Eelgrass beds are found at Alki, Lincoln Park,
Point Pully, Carkeek and elsewhere (Department of Fisheries;
McGreevy, 1973). Like the intertidal species at West Point,
subtidal forms are occasionally exposed to effluent at concen-
trations about half those at the diffuser or higher.
Zooplankton and Pelagic Fish
Pelagic fish and zooplankton were evaluated by acoustic
tracking as part of the Puget Sound Interim Studies. Zoo-
plankton, small animals that feed on algae, form a food base
for many species. Zooplankton and fishes occur in patches
and may be distributed by strong tidal currents as well as by
their own movements. The cycle of abundance of juvenile herr-
ing was found to be responsible for the observed overall high
fish densities in September and low densities in February
(Miller et a_l. ,1976) . Central basin littoral (nearshore)
areas may be an important nursery and spawning area for herring.
Herring eggs are sticky and adhere to eelgrass, rockweed and
other seaweed, rock, pilings, or trash. While juvenile herring
are not excessively preyed upon, later stages and adults form
one of the major foods of the sea, the prey of Chinook and
coho salmon, water fowl, sharks, sea lions and whales (Hart,
1973) .
No particular evidence in the data collected indicated a
change in fish populations with the sample locations (West
Point, Alki Point, Point Williams). The scatter in data, due
to geographical patchiness and temporal variations, precludes
any such finding at this time.
Fish eggs and larvae were also sampled at sites close to
and distant from West Point and Alki Point outfalls. No
patterns of distribution other than seasonal and depth were
detected in the central Sound. No discernible attraction to
or avoidance of the outfalls was evident, but currents are
more powerful than the swimming motions of most of these
organisms.
69
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Benthic Organisms
The distribution, properties and microbiological com-
ponents of bottom sediment and the macrofauna in the central
basin of Puget Sound have been investigated. In some cases,
distribution patterns are related to the West Point and Carkeek
discharges inasmuch as an abundance or a reduction of a bio-
logical component appears uniquely related to the typical
horizontal and vertical plume position near the 150 foot con-
tour. Some benthic populations (clams, marine worms) were
usually large at the 150 ft contour. The distribution of the
foraminiferan, Buliminella eleaantis'sima also appears to be
related to the West Point plume. This species, found to
delineate areas influenced by sewage outfalls in Orange County,
California, has also been found in Puget Sound shallow water
habitats having high organic content and accumulation of fine
debris (Harmon et al., 1976; Duxbury, 1976).
At about this 150 ft level is an abundance of marine life
and organic debris accumulation with high diversity within a
few groups of organisms. Substrate differences at this inter-
mediate depth, sulphurous and organically rich sediments
related to the old sewer outfall at West Point, are present
and also influence the distribution of organisms. The areas
sampled did not include the Richmond Beach and Alki areas.
Due to the sampling design of this study, quantitative dif-
ferences and statistical significance of observed trends
could not be determined.
Demersal Fishes
Demersal, or bottom-dwelling, fishes in the study area
were sampled at West Point, Alki and the Duwamish River as part
of the Interim Studies. Substantial differences in nearshore
species composition, abundance (standing crop), frequency of
occurrence,and species richness between West Point, Alki Point,
and Point Pully (control) are highly correlated with habitat
or substrate variation between sites, and there is no evidence
at this time that "wastewater discharged into Metro facilities
has adversely impacted nearshore shallow water fishes" (Miller
^t aJU , 1976) .
Juvenile coho and chum salmon occurred more frequently at
West Point, especially in spring when the fish feed heavily
on nearshore invertebrates. While salmonids are temporary
members of the nearshore community, they may be adversely
affected by (l) wastewater brought into shallow waters by eddy
systems, o-r by (2) congregating around the outfalls. The fish
could be potentially impacted through accumulation of toxic
materials from nearshore prey species or by direct contact with
toxic wastewater from the outfall.
70
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Offshore sampling revealed important differences between
the control and the two outfall sites in terms of frequency
of occurrence of dominant species, recurrent species groups,
species richness and diversity, especially in deeper water.
"While no direct cause and effect relationship can be demon-
strated at West Point, the evidence thus far suggests that the
deep water fish community there may have been altered by the
discharge of wastewater from the Metro facility" (Miller et
^1., 1976) .
Differences at West Point include higher standing crops
(catch per haul), a high abundance of ratfish, a reduction in
both diversity and evenness and the apparent replacement of
slender sole by rex sole. The significance of this replacement
is in the feeding modes of the two species. Slender sole feed
on bottom-living free swimming crustaceans (shrimps, crabs,
etc.); rex sole feed on benthic infauna, polychaetes (worms),
clams, and the like which live in bottom sediment. The re-
placement may indicate a change in the benthic community, per-
haps in the form of a higher standing crop of benthic infauna.
While these differences may be due to natural variation between
sites, it is also possible that the changes are associated with
the West Point effluent discharge.
Studies elsewhere (SCCWRP, 1975; Smith, 1976) have shown
that organic enrichment of benthic communities by sewage
and/or sludge usually results in an increased abundance of bio-
mass of infauna, a lower species diversity and substantial
change in species composition. Substantial biological changes
at a new outfall can occur unaccompanied by any measurable
adverse changes in sediment or water quality. An increased
abundance of the fish which use bottom sediment dwellers the
most as prey, such as rex sole, occurs. In Southern California,
dover sole are attracted to the Orange County outfall area.
The benthic environment near West Point is still not well
understood. Domenowske and Matsuda (1969) found no sludge
buildup or change in the abundance of some benthic organisms
near West Point, which went on line in 1966. Subtle changes
in the benthic community may have occurred which were not
readily discernible. The study discussed above (Harmon et
al. , 1976) indicated a change in the benthos and increased""
abundance of infaunal species at the 150 ft contour but the
data were judged inconclusive (Stober, personal communication,
1976) .
A portion of the fish study was designed to establish
relationships between the occurrence of disease or parasite
infestation near the sewage outfall. Skin Tumors (epidermal
papillomas) were found on flatfish at all sites, but incidence
ranged from 3.3 to 18.4 percent of the sampled fishes with an
average of about 14 percent at West Point, 3 percent at Alki
71
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
and 10 percent at Point Fully. Of Duwamish fishes sampled
(starry flounder) an average of 18.6 percent were tumorous with
a range of 11 to 37 percent depending on the season. Studies
of tumors at the subcellular level revealed no bacteria or
fungi, but virus-like particles were observed. A certain indi-
dence of skin tumors would probably exist in the absence of
man. The question is not the presence or absence of tumors,
but what level of disease indicates disturbance to the system.
Determining a background level is nearly impossible as
natural conditions in the Sound are highly variable and domes-
tic and industrial effluents enter its waters at many points
inside and outside the present study area. Other studies
suggest, however, that the incidence of disease and parasitism
increased with crowding, especially if bacteria or viruses are
involved. Any area where fish congregate, such as at an en-
riched infaunal area often found near outfalls, would likely
show increased disease incidence from increased contact between
fishes and perhaps with pathogens or toxics in sewage effluent.
Philometra americana (blood worm), an external nematode
parasite, was found on English sole and rock sole in varying
frequencies: 7 percent at West Point, 16 percent at Alki, and
21 percent at Point Pully, the control area. In the Duwamish,
the average was 11 percent. Infested fish were all larger than
6 inches and the parasite did not appear on any smaller fish.
The life cycle of this species of Philometra is undocumented,
however. No attempt is made in the report to relate this
disease to the impacts of man on the Sound. Increasing infes-
tion to the south suggests that flushing in those parts of the
Sound may be insufficient to disperse waterborne disease
causing agents, whether of human or "natural" origin (J.
McDonnell, personal communication, 1977). There appears to
be a trend of increasing levels of infestation to the south
in Puget Sound.
The disease studies have inherent uncertainties. Point
Pully is flanked to the north and south by two sewage dis-
charges, Miller Creek and Salmon Creek, so its use as a control
may be unrealistic. Finding a suitable control in Puget Sound
may be an equally unrealistic goal, however. In addition,
trawl estimates of fish biomass have been shown to be two
orders of magnitude less than visual estimates by divers at
similar sites (Smith, 1976).
Effluent Quality: Toxicity Versus Public Health
Where potential public health hazards and adverse impacts
on aquatic environments both exist, the question of effluent
disinfection versus effluent toxicity arises. Chlorine is
presently the most widely used and least expensive method of
disinfection of wastewaters. Chlorine dose required varies
with waste treatment employed. As a rule of thumb, if the
72
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
required chlorine dose for adequate disinfection (bacterial
removal) of average strength primary sewage is 15 mg/1, waste
treated by chemical precipitation would require about 2/3 as
much and by activated sludge processes about half as much to
achieve the same level of disinfection.
Coliform bacteria are the indicator organisms for public
health and disinfection efficiency in marine as well as fresh-
waters. Coliform standards for a given body of water depend
upon the uses of that water, the applicable standard being
that for the most sensitive beneficial use. Under State of
Washington water quality standards, Puget Sound is classified
AA Extraordinary and carries a median total coliform standard
(MPN 100 ml) of less than 70, with not more than 10% of the
samples greater than 230/100 ml. These standards meet U.S.
Public Health Service criteria for shellfish waters.
Shellfish have long been implicated as carriers of typhoid
fever and other enteric diseases, plus infectious hepatitis.
This is potentially of concern as hardshell clams and geoducks
occur on beaches at or near Carkeek Park, south of West Point,
at Alki, and near Richmond Beach (Figures 2-16 and 2-17 ).
Moreover, unlike other marine foods, these organisms are fre-
quently eaten raw or partially cooked. Studies have shown
that Salmonella bacteria and enteric viruses do occur in
shellfish and shellfish-growing waters judged to be sanitarily
acceptable by fecal coliform standards (Metcalf, 1974). Bac-
terial indices are of questionable usefulness when applied to
sanitary assessments involving shellfish subjected to low
levels of fecal pollution, especially for enteric virus.
Viruses have been shown to enter the marine food chain, includ-
ing edible species of fish and shellfish. In addition, patho-
gens adsorbed into particles which settle fairly rapidly are
not quickly killed, but remain infectious for long periods of
time; a potential problem if the sediments in which they reside
are resuspended by tide or wave action or other turbulence.
Coliform effluent limitations for Metro's treatment
plants are shown in Appendix Table D-7. For the six months
of April through September, the percentage of Metro monitor-
ing stations with median counts in excess of total coliform
standards are shown in Appendix Table D-8. Violations occur
most frequently in the shoreline vicinity of the outfalls
from Carkeek Park, West Point, and Alki (Metropolitan Engine-
ers, 1976). Metro shoreline monitoring data for the six-
month period of April through September 1976 indicated that
beaches near Metro's outfalls in general did not exceed total
coliform standards. Median standards were violated at Car-
keek, the Ship Canal, and the Harbor Island area at the mouth
of the Duwamish. Special study programs have been initiated
at all three sites by Metro Staff. Fecal coliforms accounted
73
-------
INTERTIDAL
HARDSHELL CLAMS
FIGURE 2-16
o
SUBTIDAL
GEODUCKS'
FIGURE 2-17
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
for most of the median total coliform levels found. At beach
stations, maximum values were of either fecal or nonfecal
origin. Median MPN fecal coliform at Puget Sound beaches
averaged about 20/100 ml but tended to be higher at Carkeek.
The Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services monitors shellfish areas for both fecal and total
coliforms, mercury and paralytic shellfish poison. The
department has no jurisdiction over sport shellfish and there
is no commercial take in the Metro area. Bacterial standards
applied by the department for shellfish waters are fecal coli-
form median MPN of 14/roO ml with no more than 10% of the
samples over 43/100 ml. Virtually all of the Metro Puget
Sound beach and offshore stations failed to meet the State
fecal coliform standard for commercial shellfish waters in
1976. This suggests that consumers of shellfish dug on beaches
in the Metro area are exposed to greater risk of disease than
is allowed for commercial shellfish. The source(s) of the
bacteria has not been identified.
The toxicity of sewage effluent to organisms in receiving
waters has recently received attention (Brungs, 1976). Studies
have dealt primarily with effects of chlorine, but also with
secondary products formed such as chloramines and chlorinated
hydrocarbons, and with heavy metals and pesticides. Acute and
chronic bioassay experiments have been performed at West Point
as part of the Puget Sound Interim Studies (Stober et al.,
1976 and personal communication, 1976). Toxicity studies by
Metro indicate that the salmon 96 hour LC 50 (concentration
which kills 50% of test animals after 96 hours) for primary
effluent averages about 7.5 percent effluent and that chlorine
and chloramines are the principal toxicants at about 0.07 mg/1
total residual chlorine. Sublethal effects can occur at far
lower levels, however. "Safe" levels are suggested at 0.1
times the 96 hour LC 50 concentration (an average of 0.75
percent primary effluent in this case (NTAC, 1968). Effluent
of twice the dilution at the diffuser (250:1 or 0.4 percent
effluent) appears at West Point beaches. The frequency, dis-
tribution and duration of this phenomenon is presently unknown,
but it appears that variable conditions may intermittently
expose juvenile salmonids and other species to toxicants at
close to limits for safe levels on the average, but which
commonly exceed those levels. Deep water food fishes which
migrate into shallow waters off West Point and Alki at night
to feed may be similarly exposed.
Appendix Table D-9, which gives toxic levels reported
for various marine organisms, indicates that chlorine can
apparently be detrimental to aquatic organisms at low levels
(Brungs, 1976). Proposed U.S. EPA criteria (1975) are 0.002
mg/1 for salmonid fishes and 0.01 mg/1 for marine and other
75
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
freshwater organisms continuously exposed. Actual chlorine
residual in Metro effluents from Alki, Carkeek Park and Rich-
mond Beach is uncertain as chlorine feed rate is manually
controlled and mixed in the outfall pipe. There are no
changes in feed r-ate with seasonal or daily changes in flow.
Chlorine feed rate is residual paced at West Point, but peaks
in residual chlorine are not uncommon. In addition, the
residual is measured a short distance downstream of the
chlorine feeding point and therefore does not reflect the
actual chlorine residual before discharging into Puget Sound.
Calculated total residual chlorine-at the West Point
diffuser is 0.008 ± 0.002 mg/1 on the average. Peaks of 0.02
mg/1 are common and occurrences of 0.036 mg/1 are occasional
(Stober et al., 1977). The average value is the limit for
safe levels of 0.0075 mg/1 (0.1 x 96LC50). Exposure is
intermittent, however, and no acute or chronic toxic effects
have been verified in the field to date.
There is a growing sentiment that alternate forms of
disinfection to chlorination be emphasized to protect aquatic
life. Recent studies (Marine Research, 1976; R.K. Kawaratani,
personal communication, 1977) have shown that halogenated
organics, specifically haloforms, occur in approximately the
same concentrations after disinfection of power station cool-
ing water(saltwaters) with chlorine, bromine, ozone, or hydro-
gen peroxide. Haloforms and halogenated organic pesticides
can be bioconcentrated with adverse results. For example, DDT
in an initial concentration of three parts per trillion in
seawater was concentrated 25 million times (to 75 ppm) in
a four-step chain causing reproductive failure for the top
carnivore (Baalsrud, 1974).
Levels of these compounds in Metro sewage effluents and
combined sewer overflows are not well known, nor are the
effects of chronic exposure in Puget Sound. Recent reviews of
the effects of organic residues and of heavy metals in marine
environments are given in papers by Portmann (1975) and
Jernelov (1975).
Commercio.1 and Sport Fisheries
Commercial marine shellfish and invertebrates include
dungeness crabs; butter, horse, and manila clams; geoducks;
cockles; mussels; squid, shrimp; octopus; and oysters (the
introduced Pacific oyster). Anadromous (migratory) and resi-
dent fishes are valuable resources in the Puget Sound region.
The most important are the five species of Pacific salmon —
chinook, coho, sockeye, chum and pink — plus steelhead,
searun cutthroat and dolly varden trout. Saltwater commer-
76
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
cial and sport fish include lingcod, Pacific cod, sole or
flounder, rockfish, surf perch, smelt, herring, dogfish and
ratfish. The distribution of commercial and sport fisheries
in the study area are shown in Appendix Figure D-4 (Washing-
ton Marine Atlas, 1972).
Salmon spawn in a variety of locations in the study area
(Figure 2-18). The Green River and its tributaries
support Chinook, coho, chum and steelhead; the Cedar River and
its tributaries are important spawning areas for all species,
especially sockeye salmon. Beach spawning has been observed
in Lakes Washington and Sammairtish especially along shores where
bottom conditions and water quality are most suitable (RIBCO.,
Water Quality, 1974; McGreevy, 1973). It appears that com-
bined sewer overflows at 14 points empty directly onto chinook
and sockeye salmon spawning grounds in Lake Washington (Table
2-8). These two salmon species spawn in September, October,
November about the time fall rains and combined sewer overflows
begin. The transitional zones such as the Ship Canal and the
brackish lower Duwamish estuary are necessary to the downstream
migrants' physiological adjustment to saltwater. The quality
of these waters is crucial as juvenile fishes are extremely
sensitive to environmental parameters.
The State of Washington operates chinook and coho salmon
hatcheries on Issaquah Creek in the Lake Washington drainage
basin and on Big Soos Creek near Auburn in the Green River
drainage basin.
Factors that limit fish production include low river
flows, with accompanying increases in water temperature and
decreases in dissolved oxygen because of municipal and indus-
trial diversion; contaminants from urban runoff; and physical
obstacles to anadromous fish passage such as diversion dams.
Salmon are fished commercially by gill net in the
study area alongshore and into deep waters mid-channel from
Alki Point south to Lincoln Park. Salmon are purse seined
from Carkeek north alongshore. Sport fishing for salmon is
concentrated off the Ship Canal (Shilshole Bay) and north and
south of West Point, but also occurs south of Carkeek, across
the mouth of the Duwamish (Harbor Island) and in Elliott Bay.
Commercial herring fisheries are along northern Alki shores.
Commercial bottom fish are taken in an area north of West Point
to mid-channel.
Non-salmon sport fishing is also important. One steel-
head line runs up the Ship Canal and another up the Duwamish.
Sport bottom fish are taken just north of Shilshole Bay along
the coast (Washington Marine Atlas, 1972). The runs of Paci-
fic salmon and migratory trout in the Lake Washington basin
77
-------
tf
?-••
N
Source: McGreevy, R., Seattle Shoreline
City of Seattle,/' 1973
MIGRATION PATHS
CRITICAL MIGRATION AREAS
CHINOOK SALMON SPAWNING SITE'J
SOCKEYE SALMON SPAWNING SITES
Salmon Spawning Sites
FIGURE 2-18
78
-------
TABLE 2-8
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS EMPTYING NEAR
SALMON SPAWNING SITES IN LAKE WASHINGTON
Overflow Fish Potentially Impacted
013 Sockeye
014 Chinook
015 Chinook
W011 Chinook
024 Chinook
025 Chinook
040 Chinook
041 Chinook
042 Chinook
043 Chinook
165 Chinook
046 Chinook
Source: McGreevy, 1973; Metropolitan Engineers, 1976
79
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
are reportedly increasing each year (RIBCO , 1974) .
The Duwamish Estuary
The biology of the Duwamish estuary has been described for
the various trophic levels for the years 1973 and 1974 ("base
line") conditions and historically (pre-1973) by STR (1975).
The physical and chemical characteristics of the estuary are
described in the same report and in Metropolitan Engineers
Facility Planning Task Reports (1976).
The producers in the Duwamish are aquatic plants of which
marine and freshwater phytoplankton and plants of the attached
community are characterized by their sensitivity and growth
response to environmental conditions. Blooms are not nutrient
limited in the Duwamish, but are the combined result of appro-
priate physical factors,conditions characteristic of summer.
Nutrients in Renton secondary effluent are believed to
increase productivity levels in freshwaters in the Duwamish
(Welch, 1969; Farris, personal communication, 1977). Attached
microfloral growth rates are also generally correlated with
nutrient levels. Plankton blooms occur primarily in the lower
estuary, where nutrients brought in by the saltwaters mask
any effect of Renton effluent.
Dependent upon these tiny plants are zooplankton, benthic
macroinvertebrates and vertebrates, demersal and pelagic.
Zooplankton species lists for the Duwamish estuary are avail-
able (Harmon et al., 1974).
Benthic macroinvertebrates of the Duwamish are clams,
polychaete worms and a variety of crustaceans--ostracods,
amphipods, isopods, euphausids and others. Worms, which are
most abundant, plus some crustaceans form the diet of most
bottom-dwelling fishes.
Demersal migratory and resident fishes species composition
(30 species) and abundance have been established (Matsuda et
aJL. , 1968) . The most abundant species are the shiner perch,
Pacific staghorn sculpin, and starry flounder. Chinook salmon
is the major migratory species of which most individuals in
the Duwamish are fingerlings from the Soos Creek hatchery.
The estuary is a spawning and rearing area for these and many
other species. Indeed, the majority of the individuals present
in spring and summer are juveniles. Other dominant species
are English sole, Pacific snake blenny, and the padded sculpin.
The total number of species varies little through the year,
unlike relative abundance of individuals of a species.
Demersal fish abundance can be limited in the Duwamish
by low dissolved oxygen concentrations and high summer water
temperatures. Low DO can affect salmon by delaying migration,
80
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
causing mortalities or generally weakening the fish. Dissolved
oxygen levels of less than 4.5 mg/1 have been found to cause
fatigue, and most bottom fishes will leave an area where DO
is less than 2 mg/1. DO standards of 5 mg/1 in saltwater and
6.5 mg/1 in freshwater are violated during low flow periods
(summer and fall) in the lower river. Minimum DO concentra-
tions in 1975 were 1 mg/1 below standards, or 4 mg/1 (salt-
water and 5.5 rng/1 (freshwater).
Chinook salmon migrations upstream have become progres-
sively earlier over the last 22 years, probably due to hatchery
egg-taking practices. Adult salmonids recognize and can avoid
the low DO concentrations common in the estuary's saltwater
layer in late August and early September by migrating upstream
in the freshwater layer. Sensitive downstream migrants, which
spend June and July in the estuary, are apparently also some-
what able to detect and avoid water quality problems.
Raw sewage was diverted from the Duwamish in 1969, gener-
ally relieving late summer DO problems; however, projected
increases from Renton sewage treatment plant may mean a return
of the situation as secondary effluent has DO of 2 mg/1 and
the conversion of increased ammonia loads to nitrates will
consume oxygen (RIBCO, 1974; Metro staff, personal communica-
tion, 1977) if secondary treatment continues without upgrading.
Fin erosion and liver abnormalities are characteristic of
Duwamish starry flounder of 6 - 10 inches length. From 2.6
to 66.6 percent of fish samples were affected. Microbiological
studies were inconclusive but Duwamish fishes had significantly
higher levels of skin bacteria than fishes in the sewage areas.
Several types of evidence suggest that skin erosion and liver
disease in the Duwamish are different expressions of a single
systemic disease caused by the action of one or more toxic
chemical contaminants, possibly PCB's, followed by bacterial
or viral infestation. Studies on 22 species of fishes of
New York and Southern California associate this disease
with sewage outfalls.
Fin erosion was induced in English sole by maintaining
them in aquaria containing Duwamish River sediment, but not in
fish on Nisqually River sediment (control). Bacteria assoc-
iated with fin erosion are most commonly of the pseudomonad and
enterobacterial groups (NOAA, 1976; McCain et al., in press;
Wellings et al./ 1976).
Freshwater Environments
The freshwater lakes and streams in the study area provide
an important habitat for aquatic plants and animals and have
recreational, commercial and industrial uses. Migratory fish
populations central to the area's sport and commercial fishing
81
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
depend on this habitat for spawning and rearing. Salmon are
sensitive to environmental conditions and are often used as
indicators of water quality -
Lake Washington
Physical and chemical characteristics of Lake Washington
have been studied extensively, and briefly presented in pre-
vious sections of this report. The aquatic plant community^
is composed of phytoplankton, attached microflora, and macro-
phytes. The increase in blue-green algae from 7% to 96% from
1950 to 1962 (summers) has been partially reversed by the
diversion of sewage by Metro. The 1950 condition has not been
recovered but undesirable blue-greens are being replaced by
green algae and diatoms. Productivity in Lake Washington has
been thoroughly studied (Edmondson, 1972).
Zooplankton feed on algae and are in turn food for fishes.
The benthic macroinvertebrates, which are also eaten by fishes,
are oligochaete worms, leeches, clams, insect larvae (chiro-
nomids), amphipods and crayfish. The most abundant of resident
fishes are yellow perch, peamouth, northern squawfish, large-
mouth bass, black crappie, large-scale suckers, brown bullhead,
and prickly sculpin. Also common are longfin smelt, carp, and
threespine stickleback. Migratory species moving through the
lake to spawning grounds in the Cedar River are chinook, coho,
sockeye and chum salmon, steelhead, cutthroat and dolly varden
trout. Some chinook and sockeye salmon spawn in the lake;
sockeye use it as a rearing ground as well for a year or more.
Species lists are given in STR Report Vol. II Supplement (1975).
Lake Sammamish
To the east of Lake Washington in a suburban area is Lake
Sammamish. More productive than Lake Washington (classed
mesoeutrophic), it nevertheless is somewhat similar in species
composition. Unlike Lake Washington, however, its deeper por-
tions (greater than 63 ft depth) are devoid of oxygen in summer,
limiting available habitat. Issaquah Creek, on which the state
maintains a salmon hatchery, drains into the lake and supports
coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon runs. The quality of Lake
Sammamish has not changed substantially, but in 1970-74, blue-
green algae decreased an average of 40% over 1964 to 1965
levels. A survey of the benthos has indicated that chironomid
larvae are the most abundant forms in sublittoral and deep
areas, reflecting a condition in keeping with high productivity
and low dissolved oxygen conditions. A review of Lake Sammam-
ish water quality and biological indicators is given in Metro-
politan Engineers Task D3 (1976)^
82
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Green Lake
Green Lake, bordered by fill, major sanitary landfill
sites and two combined sewer overflow points, lies completely
within a developed residential area. It is eutrophic and has
a muck bottom 10 to 20 feet thick. The lake is subject to
algae blooms, thought to be primarily the result of subsurface
seepage. The fish are primarily stocked rainbow trout. The
Game Department periodically poisons to remove undesirable fish
species before restocking with trout (McGreevy, 1973). Green
Lake is also an important waterfowl resting area. The water-
fowl droppings, runoff, and, perhaps to a small extent, com-
bined sewer overflows undoubtedly contribute to the overen-
richment of nutrients in this lake.
Lake Union/Ship Canal
The Lake Washington Ship Canal connects Lake Washington
through Lake Union to Shilshole Bay. The University of Wash-
ington maintains a salmon and steelhead hatchery at Portage
Bay. Lake Union has been changed significantly by industrial-
ization of its shores and saltwater intrusion from the Hiram
Chittenden Locks. Some deep bottom sediments are totally de-
void of fauna, and the physical/chemical water quality data
suggest that Lake Union waters are generally unfavorable to
salmonids. Resident fish are similar to those found in Lake
Washington, such as yellow perch, peamouth, northern squawfish,
largemouth bass, black crappie, and brown bullheads, which
generally have less stringent environmental requirements than
salmonids (Metropolitan Engineers Task D3, 1976) .
The Ship Canal was last dredged in 1954 by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for navigational purposes. Perhaps the most
important biological use of the Ship Canal is for migratory
fish passage to spawning and rearing grounds in the Lake Wash-
ington drainage. Hatchery production and escapement records
show that this migratory route supports valuable sockeye, coho,
and chinook runs. A fish ladder has been installed at the
locks which allows the passage of migratory trout and salmon.
This run constitutes a significant part of the salmon migra-
tion in eastern Puget Sound.
Lake Union, which exceeds dissolved oxygen and coliform
standards, is considered to be mesoeutrophic. Nutrient
sources are runoff, sewer overflows, atmospheric emissions and
rainfall, and bacterial nitrification. Even in its somewhat
stressed condition, Lake Union and the Ship Canal comprise an
important waterfowl area. There is also evidence of migrating
salmon appearing at the south end of the lake, either from con-
fusion or avoidance of unfavorable conditions (Metro Baseline
Study Draft, 1976, quoted in Metropolitan Engineers Task D3,
1976)
83
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Sammamish River
In 1964, the Sammamish River, which connects Lake Samma-
mish with Lake Washington, was completely channelized for flood
control by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The river has
suffered from the rechannelization and from urbanization, low
flows and high temperatures, which are removing salmon spawning
and rearing habitats and creating conditions unfavorable even
for fish passage. Furthermore, pollutants entering the river
may affect the quality of Lake Washington downstream. Water
quality and biologic conditions and standards violations are
discussed in Metropolitan Engineers Task Reports (1976).
Cedar River
The Cedar River drains into the southern end of Lake
Washington and is considered to be of generally good quality in
spite of temperature and dissolved oxygen problems in summer,
year round violations of total coliform standards, and nitrates
violations in winter.
Benthic productivity is felt to be higher than in most
northwest coastal rivers. Mayfly larvae, considered to be
"indicators" of good water quality (Mackenthun, 1969), were
found in 1975 at sampled sites on the lower Cedar River (Malick,
1975 in Metropolitan Engineers Task D3). Diversity was not
significantly different between the upper and lower reaches of
the river sampled. The Cedar River, as discussed previously, is
an important salmon spawning area, which may be threatened by
summer low flow conditions. It has been suggested (Stober and
Graybill, 1974) that a minimum flow of 240 cfs be maintained
to ensure spawning conditions.
Other Waters
In this group are small lakes and ponds and small streams.
Small lakes are generally interspersed among forest, agricul-
ture, rural/suburban and urban areas. Most are eutrophic or
mesotrophic, as outlined in Metro's monitoring program, and
have less strictly aquatic life and more water-associated
terrestrial organisms, such as waterfowl, raccoons, beaver,
muskrat, and insects. Small streams are abundant inside as
well as outside the study area and provide habitat for fish
and wildlife. Existing and future blockages and excessive sedi-
ment deposition will eliminate these as will contaminants and
runoff, which are presently damaging benthic communities. Cer-
tain of the descriptions of surface waters in this document are
brief, as the waters are not expected to be directly impacted
by the facilities planned. Secondary or indirect impacts of
future growth are expected, but not well defined, as discussed
in Chapter III of this report.
84
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Rare or Endangered Species and Sensitive Habitats
Environmentally sensitive areas have been defined in
Metro Resolution No. 2582 (Section 5) to include "a. Shore-
lines of the state, b. Other areas including those with un-
stable soils, steep slopes, unusual or unique flora or fauna
or areas which lie in flood plains which the Executive
Director may hereafter designate as environmentally sensitive
areas." This portion of the biotic section treats shorelines
and "unique or unusual flora and fauna".
Endangered species are included in this category. Only
four subspecies found in Washington are on the endangered list
of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife: the
American peregrine falcon, the Arctic peregrine falcon, the
Aleutian Canada goose and the Columbia white-tailed deer.
None of these are recorded from the study area.
A more extensive but preliminary list, which also includes
rare and threatened reptiles, birds and mammals in the Green
River sewage area, is given in Appendix Table D-10 (Metropoli-
tan Engineers Task A5, A1G,B5F Appendix, 1976). Of these,
water-associated birds and reptiles would be most affected by
the facilities planned. Sensitive areas other than such
habitats are salmon spawning and rearing areas, fish migration
routes and waterfowl resting areas.
Sockeye salmon spawn in a few restricted nearshore areas
in Lake Washington (Figure 2-18)• Such areas, which occur off
Pleasure Point, Seward Park, Enatai Beach, Beaux Arts, North
Mercer Island and Juanita Beach, are quite vulnerable to sedi-
mentation, dissolved oxygen depletion and temperature changes
(Metropolitan Engineers, 1976). The lower Duwamish River, Elli-
ott Bay, Lake Union, Salmon Bay, and Shilshole Bay serve as cri-
tical transition zones where homeward migrating adult fish and
outward migrating juvenile fish acclimate to changing salinity
(McGreevy, 1973). During migration to and from saltwater, fish
undergo natural physiological stress. Any additional physical
insult adds to this stress and results in mortality directly,
or indirectly from increased disease susceptibility associated
with increases in temperature and toxicant concentrations.
Removal or replacement of natural shoreline areas destroys
feeding and protective areas for juveniles enroute to Puget
Sound. When forced into open waters, they are more vulnerable
to predation. As mentioned, there is evidence that in Lake
Union migrating salmon are appearing in the south end of the
lake, an abnormal event. Recommended temperatures and dis-
solved oxygen levels for fishes are given in Appendix Tables
D-ll and D-12.
85
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Waterfowl and water-associated birdlife occur throughout
the study area. The Seattle area is principally a wintering
and resting ground for birds using the Pacific flyway during
the fall migration south and again for the spring migration
north. Most species of waterfowl utilize either saltwater
areas of Puget Sound or the freshwater area of the Duwamish,
Lake Washington and the Ship Canal. In addition, the study
area has a considerable population of resident waterfowl on
marine shoreline and freshwater marshes, usually in inlets or
coves where human activity and pollution is minimal (McGreevy,
1973). "Significant" marine birds are found at the Carkeek
Park area, at Richmond Beach, West Point, Alki, Salt Water
Park, the Duwamish-Harbor Island area, Shilshole Bay and
especially at Elliott Bay (Salo, 1975). Waterfowl feed on a
variety of marine and freshwater plants and animals including
dying salmon and salmon eggs and thus these birds would be ad-
versely affected by the same actions that impact salmon spawn-
ing, rearing and migration areas, but to a lesser extent. If
some conditions are degraded, the birds will leave the area.
More insidious are increased levels of pollutants such as pest-
icides, which may enter the food chain undetected by the in-
dividual animal but which can cause general reproductive fail-
ure or other severe physical effects.
The most sensitive aquatic habitats are considered to be
those with minimal mixing and dilution capacity and unique
flora and fauna (Metropolitan Engineers, 1976) such as sockeye
salmon spawning and rearing areas, and lake shallows. Waters
considered to be in this group are Green Lake, the Green River,
the Duwamish River, the Sammamish River,- Lake Union/Ship Canal,
Lake Sammamish, Lake Washington shorelines, and sections of the
Puget Sound intertidal (eelgrass beds, clamming beaches).
Moderately sensitive habitats have limited mixing and
dilution. Examples are Elliott Bay, marshlands, fish migra-
tion routes, other portions of the Puget Sound intertidal,
certain Puget Sound nearshore areas, and Lake Washington off-
shore areas.
Less sensitive areas are narrow littoral zones in lakes
and marine offshore waters characterized by good mixing and
dilution. These classifications are based on the writer's
judgement and the sensitivity analysis of Metropolitan Engineers
Task Report A5, A1G, B5F (1976). The habitats of small lakes
and streams are not included in this classification with the
exception of those containing salmon spawning areas, as these
waters presently lie outside the area of primary impact from
the proposed project. Future secondary impacts may be substan-
tial but are not defined well enough to classify as to sensi-
tivity.
86
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY
The major natural resources required by each of the
eight Alternatives A-H in the Metro 201 Plan include waste-
water treatment chemicals and construction materials.
Energy production for facilities operation would require
natural gas, hydroelectric power and/or other sources of
energy. The current status of these resources as related to
Metro facilities is summarized below. Additional information
can be found in the following publications: "Soil, Air,
Population Growth and Resource Constraints", Tasks B5A,
B5B, BSD, BSE (Draft), (Metropolitan Engineers, October
1976) and Final Regional Analysis Report, (Human Resources
Planning Institute in conjunction with Howard Edde, Inc.
October 1976).
Chemicals and Materials
The chemicals that may be used in the wastewater treat-
ment facilities include chlorine, sulfur dioxide, lime,
ferric chloride, various polymers, sulfuric acid, alum, and
activated carbon. Chlorine (C12) is used for disinfection
of bacteria and viruses. Sulfur dioxide could be used as a
dechlorination agent since chlorine reacts with organic
residuals to form such substances as chloramines and chlori-
nated hydrocarbons, which may be toxic to organisms. Lime
(CaO) , ferric chloride ( FeCl3) , Alum (Al2(SO4)3), and poly-
mers would be used in physical/chemical processes as coagu-
lant aids in solids removal processes such as enhanced primary
treatment. For advanced waste treatment, methanol (CH3OH)
would be used for denitrification; salt or sodium chloride
(NaCl) for recharging ion exchange beds; and activated car-
bon for adsorption of organics.
The reliability of future supply for wastewater treat-
ment chemicals varies from moderate to high and most are
produced in the Pacific Northwest (HRPI, 1976)» Lime and
ferric chloride are in "moderate" supply; supplies of the
other chemicals are highly reliable. The closest supply
for ferric chloride would be Antioch, California and the
supply of activated carbon would probably be Marshall,
Texas.
Specific requirements for various wastewater treatment
chemicals will be discussed in the section of this report
on alternatives and impacts.
87
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
The materials that would be used in construction of
Metro wastewater treatment facilities are cement, sand and
gravel, steel, structural metal, wood products, plastics
and metals for various pipes, valves and fittings. The
reliability of supply for all of these construction materials
is high for the Puget Sound region (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1976).
Energy
Energy for wastewater treatment is used on site for
operation and maintenance, as supplied by purchased electric-
ity. On-site energy is also needed for anaerobic digestion.
To keep the anaerobic digestion process at its maximum rate,
the sludge being digested is heated to 90°-95°F, which re-
quires energy. However, anaerobic digestion also produces
methane gas which can be used as an energy source. Generally,
in the Seattle area, anaerobic digestion of sludge produces
two to three times as much energy as it consumes. Off site
energy is needed to produce treatment chemicals and to truck
sludge.
Types of energy used include gasoline, diesel oil, elec-
tricity, methane, and natural gas. The suppliers of these
types of energy for the Metro service area include Seattle
City Light, various oil companies, the Bonneville Power Ad-
ministration, the Northwest Pipeline Corporation and, for
the production of methane, the anaerobic digester component
of the wastewater treatment process. With the exception of
natural gas the reliability of all of these energy forms in
the Seattle Metro service area is high. The reliability of
natural gas is rated low. (Hepple, 1972; U.S. Department of
Commerce, PB.^245~422f £EA, 1976, Edison Elec. Inst. , 57th;
Liquid Carbonic Corp.,
Total energy consumption for all Metro wastewater
facilities would be in the range of 50 to 170 million kwh/year
for alternatives A through H. An equivalent amount of energy
would be consumed by 2,500 to 8,500 houses in the northwest
area (where one house is estimated to consume an average
of 20,000 kwh/year).
88
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Fisheries
Fresh water anadromous and marine fish in the Puget
Sound, area are both commercial and recreational resources
of major importance (see Table 2-9). These fisheries are
more fully described in other sections of this report.
The commercial value of these fish is illustrated by Figure
2-19. The fishing industry associated with the Puget Sound
area is a very important national resource, not only for
the fishery and catch, but also for the processing of much
of the U.S. Northwest fishery resource.
THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Various factors determine what is generally described
as the human environment. For the purpose of this Environ-
mental Impact Statement the human environment related to
the Metro service area is defined by the following basic
variables:
Land use and land use planning
Existing and projected population
Economic and financial considerations
Social, recreational and cultural features
Archeological and historical resources
Health and safety considerations
Legal and institutional constraints
Aesthetic and nuisance features
This section of the EIS briefly describes human environment
conditions in the Metro service area.
Land Use and Land Use Planning
Approximately 75,000 acres make up the municipal
watershed for the City of Seattle. Much of the land with-
in the Metro service area falls into one of the classes of
urbanization (residential, commercial or industrial).
While some agricultural land exists, the bulk of the un-
developed land is forested. Figure 2-20 presents the exist-
ing land use conditions for the Metro service area and
Table 2-10 presents existing land use for King County and
Snohomish County (Metropolitan Engineers, 1976; RIBCO, 1974)
Various plans, guidelines and state and local regula-
tions pertaining to the use of land within the Metro ser-
vice area are pertinent to the wastewater facilities plan.
These include the State Shorelines Management Act, the
Seattle Shorelines Master Plan, the Comprehensive Plan for
89
-------
TABLE 2-9
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF PUGET SOUND FISHERIES
Major Shoreline Linkages
in Puget Sound
Fish
Salmon
Steelhead
Shellfish
Clams
Oysters
Crabs
Type of
Commer-
cial
X
X
X
X
Benefit
Recrea-
tional
X
X
X
X
X
River
Delta Other Shore-
Areas line Areas Unknown
X
X
X
X
X
Bottom Fish
Rockfish
Cod
Flounder and
sole
othez Food Fish
X
X
X
X
X
X
Herring
X
Includes Puqet Sound and adjacent estuarine areas.
j
The lingcod appears to have significant shoreline linkages in Puget Sound.
Herring are used as baitfish for sport fishing.
(Fisheries Statistical Report, 19741
90
-------
PUGET SOUND 1974
TOTAL PRODUCTION
94,127,803
HALIBUT
1,101,407
HERRING
12,139,035
SALMON (124°)
32.493.222 Ibs.
ROCKFISH
& OCEAN PERCH
^.N 13,028,693
' MISC.
1,271,568 Ibs. /
!TRUE
• COD
I 8,079,883.
ALBACORE TUNA
3,037,573
SHELLFISH
5,474,398 Ibs.
SOLE & FLOUNDER
7,502,024
TOTAL VALUE TO FISHERMEN
$35,731,666
SALMON
$24,922,095
HERRING
$1,569,741
ALBACORE TUNA
$1,072,970
HALIBUT
$856,408
/ / * *' Jr \
''/--',''-' A
i , , ,' ,'- \
//X-' .--- -4
&::--:::.
ROCKFISH & OCEAN PERCH
$1,293,927
SOLE & FLOUNDER
$1,036,946
TRUE COD
$930,133
SHELLFISH
$3,006,107
MISC.
$1,043,339
Commercial Value of Puget Sound Fish
FIGURE 2-19
Source: Fisheries Statistical Report 1974
91
-------
*
Figure .-20
t AI-; 1 INu I AND DSt
92
-------
TABLE 2"10
EXISTING LAND USE 1970
(acres)
Single and multi-
family
Retail and trade
Finance, insurance, real
estate; personal, pro-
fessional and repair
services
Manufacturing
King County
58,200
2,003
3,039
2,866
Wholesale, transportation,
communication, utilities 2,804
Government and
education
Parks and designated
open space
Streets
Agriculture, vacant
open space , and
vacant construction
15% slope and/or
subject to flood
5,730
6,305
38,603
221,943
92,888
Snohomish County
14,399
553
675
1,364
501
1,618
991
10,177
115,317
30,641
93
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
King County, the King County Shorelines Plan, King County
Code Titles 20 and 21 (Zoning and Land Use Codes), the King
County Building Code, the State Flood Zone Act, the King
County Filling and Grading Ordinance, Building Regulations
for the City of Seattle, the Seattle Land Use and Zoning
Codes, and the King County Shoreline and Management Plan.
The general provisions applicable to the Metro
Facility Plan of these various local land use controls are
as follows.
City of Seattle
As part of its general review authority, the City of
Seattle would review the construction of a sewage treat-
ment plant, rehabilitation of sewer lines or extension of
sewage facilities through its Building Department. Two
permits are required from the Seattle Building Department
for the construction of facilities, including one which
examines general design and construction and a second con-
cerning filling and grading activities. The Seattle Shore-
lines Management Plan implements the Washington State
Shorelines Management Act (RCW 90.58). This document con-
trols development within 200 ft of the significant shore-
lines in the city, including rivers and streams with flows
greater than 5 cfs, lakes greater than 20 acres and all
marine waters.
King County
In 1964 King County adopted a comprehensive plan.
Certain provisions of this plan relate to the Metro Facility
Plan and are included as follows:
"Utilities Development Policies
Trunk utility lines should be installed in
advance or at the time of development in
accordance with the general plan for the
area. Local or service utility lines should
be installed as needed.
Where pollution conditions now exist, all
possible steps should be taken to correct
such conditions."
94
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Any development activities occurring in a state
designated flood zone within King County would require a
permit for construction from the county. In addition, King
County Ordinance 2281 specifies that the Public Works
Department review and approve construction activities which
modify the drainage of 5,000 sq ft of land surface, with
particular attention to any increases in storm runoff that
might occur. Filling and grading activities in excess of
5 ft must have a filling and grading permit. The King
County Shorelines Management Plan implements the State
Shorelines Management Act and applies to portions of the
Metro service area.
Puget Sound Council of Governments
The regional comprehensive planning agency for the
central Puget Sound region is the Puget Sound Council of
Governments (PSCOG). Its membership includes Bremerton,
Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Kitsap County. Snohomish County,
Pierce County and King County. Its primary purposes are
to develop a regional planning program and a regional com-
prehensive plan, and to formulate recommendations to member
counties, cities and other jurisdictions. Also, PSCOG is
the A-95 Review Agency (Federal Clearinghouse) and as such
is charged with review and comment on all federal-related
projects within the PSCOG area. The PSCOG through its
predecessor, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, has
adopted an interim Regional Development Plan. However,
it is now considering for adoption, "Goals and Policies for
Regional Development" (December 1976) which would supercede
the Interim Plan. Related to public services and utilities,
such as the Metro Facility plan, the following goal is
included in the goals and policies under consideration. A
similar goal exists in the Interim Regional Development
Plan now in effect (PSCOG, 1976).
"Goal
It is in the public interest to minimize
the costs of future growth by encouraging
new development within urbanized areas
where necessary investments in public
services have already been made."
In further expanding on this goal the following
policies are included in the proposed document.
95
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
"1. Existing public utilities, facilities
and services shall be used to their
fullest prior to expansion.
3. Encourage conservation efforts and the
maximum utilization of utilities and
services before increasing supply.
4. Land for new urbanization should be
staged through a series of growth manage-
ment decisions including public service
extensions.
5. The pattern of development which produces
the least cost in new public utilities,
facilities and services shall be encouraged
within feasible limits.
6. Encourage consideration of adopted estimates
of growth, availability of space on regional
basis, and fiscal impacts on the region and
jurisdiction prior to providing public
services to new area.
7. Plans for public services shall be consistent
with regional growth policies and local com-
prehensive plans and shall be based upon:
1) criteria for population and employment
distribution; 2) policies designed to limit
demand, 3) responsible fiscal management."
Another goal of the PSCOG document related to natural
environment and amenities is the following.
"It is in the public interest to maintain the
natural beauty and liveability of the region
through sensitive treatment of nature in
development."
Pertinent policies following from this goal are:
"1. The natural beauty and liveability of this
region shall be a primary consideration in
the location, timing and quantity of growth.
a. Natural amenities identified as
important to the region's character
and beauty shall be preserved or
sensitively developed as a second
choice.
96
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
b. Patterns of development which
minimize adverse impacts on these
amenities shall be encouraged.
5. Encourage efforts to develop nonstructural
solutions to environmental problems.
17. Permanent structures designed for human
habitation, commerce, employment or public
assembly should not be located within high
risk zones, including 100 yr floodways, earth-
quake zones, or active landslide zones.
25. Achievement or maintenance of ambient air
quality standards and surface and ground-
water quality standards as established by
law is recognized and supported."
Population
The population of the entire Puget Sound Region went
from approximately 1,000,000 in 1940 to approximately
2,000,000 in 1976. Two rapid growth periods occurred,
first during World War II, and then during the early 60's
because of a resurgence in commercial air transport con-
struction. During the 50's, late 60's and early 70's the
growth rate dropped, particularly in the early 1970's due
to cut-backs in the aerospace industry.
The current and projected populations within the Metro
study area have been used as the basis of facilities plan-
ning. The service area populations were estimated by Metro
and Metropolitan Engineers, based on Puget Sound Council
of Government's projections. The PSCOG forecast populations
in activity allocation model (AAM) districts based on an
independent economic base study, allocated to AAM districts
according to policies and 1960 - 1970 patterns by multiple
regression. The PSCOG forecasts for 1980, 1990 and 2000
were interpolated for 1985 and 1995 projections and extra-
polated to 2005 by Metro. Individual AAM populations were
then divided as necessary and apportioned into existing
service area boundaries. Estimates of sewered and unsewered
populations were developed as described in the Draft Facility
Plan. The resulting 1975, 1985 and 2005 populations by
present service area are shown in Table 2-11.
The total Metro service area population for 2005 was
forecast at 1,502,000 for the Draft Facility Plan. In
service areas currently designated for the West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach plants, the estimated popu-
97
-------
TABLE 2-H
METRO 201 STUDY AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Service Area
Alki
Carkeek Park
Richmond Beach
North Lake
Washington
North Lake
Sammamish
West Point*
Renton**
Total
1980
Sewered
42,400
25,600
16,900
43,100
32,000
491,500
276,500
928,000
Total
42,400
25,900
17,000
88,500
53,000
497,800
406,000
1,130,600
1990
Sewered
46,500
27,000
21,700
90,500
49,200
519,000
435,000
1,188,900
Total
46,500
27,300
27,900
126,500
75,000
535,000
558,300
1,396,500
2000
Sewered
43,200
27,700
27,900
148,400
67,000
524,500
612,000
1,450,700
Total
43,200
27,800
28,900
157,500
94,000
540,500
698,300
1,590,200
2005
Sewered
43,200
28,100
32,000
166,500
75,000
527,300
700,000
1,572,100
Total
43,200
28,100
32,000
173,500
102,000
543,000
770,000
1,691,300
CO
* Includes the proposed Val Vue connection change but excludes the
North Lake Washington and North Lake Sammamish sewer service areas,
** Includes the proposed Val Vue connection change but
excludes the North Lake Sammamish sewer service area.
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
lation would be 943,000 by 2005. These populations and
distributions thereof were maintained consistently for all
alternatives in the Draft Facility Plan. However, with
various alternatives for wastewater treatment plants and
intended sewerage service, the population tributary to a
given treatment plant would vary depending on the choice of
alternative, plant sizing, location, and collection system.
A summary of population (sewered and total) by future service
area for the year 2005 is shown in Table 2-12.
Economic and Financial
Seattle is a major economic center for the Northwest.
Employment projections are shown in Table 2-13. Water
oriented outdoor recreation and commercial fishing and its
related industries are major components of the economy. A
brief discussion of the commercial value of the fisheries
is presented in the section of this report on natural
resources and enerqv. Further information is in Metropolitan
Enaineers Task Al and B2 reports (1976).
Recent trends in wages reflect economic conditions in
the greater Seattle area (HRPI Regional Analysis, 1976) . In
1970-71 the aerospace industry terminated approximately
50,000 people. Since then manufacturing employment has
remained relatively constant, and moderate growth has
occurred in most nonmanufacturing industries.
Total manufacturing wages grew at an average rate of
1.14% annually during the period from 1964 to 1974, but fell
slightly from 1970 to 1974. The nonmanufacturing industries
in the SMSA have relatively lower average wages than the
manufacturing industries, but showed steady growth from 1964
to 1974.
The highest average wage and highest average annual
increase in nonmanufacturing was in transportation, communi-
cations and utilities, averaging a 1.81% increase. The
greatest growth in average wages was in lumber and wood pro-
ducts averaging 2.8% annually over the 10 year period from
1964 to 1974.
A major economic consideration relates to the possible
development of a new wastewater treatment site in the Inter-
bay area. The Commodore Way site in Interbay is an option
but not the site evaluated for costs and other feasibility,
in Alternative G. This site currently is developed by 60
99
-------
Table 2-12
Service Area Population Projections
o
o
Service Area
Alki
Carkeek Park
Richmond Beach
West Point
Subtotal
(Primary Study
Area)
Renton
Total
(Total Metro
Planning Area)
1975
Sewered
44,000
23,000
17,000
510,000
594,000
218,000
812,000
Total
45,000
25,000
20,000
609,000
699,000
335,000
1,034,000
1985
Sewered
45,000
23,000
19,000
600,000
687,000
300,000
987,000
Total
45,000
25,000
22,000
660,000
752,000
400,000
1,152,000
2005
Sewered
54,000
30,000
26,000
785,000
895,000
280,000
1,175,000
Total
54,000
31,000
27,000
831,000
943,000
559,000
1,502,000
-------
TABLE 2-13
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Year
1970
1980
County
King
Snohomish
Pierce
1970 total
King
Snohomish
Pierce
1
1990
1980 total
King
Snohomish
Pierce
1990 total
Projected Employment (thousands)
Retail*
Emp.
68.7
9.3
18.5
96.5
80.7
13.2
23.9
117.8
105.0
22.3
35.7
163.0
Total
16.3
14.8
19.7
16.7
17.0
19.2
21.7
18.0
17.2
21.6
23.0
18.8
F.I. RE/
Services*
Emp.
103.7
9.4
23.8
136.9
114.9
11.5
26.6
153.0
165.8
19.9
38.9
224.6
Total
24.6
14.9
25.3
23.7
24.2
16.8
24.1
23.4
27.1
19.3
25.1
25.8
Manufacturing*
Emp.
97.9
28.9
19.5
146.3
116.7
24.1
22.6
163.4
136.1
30.7
28.4
195.2
Total
23.2
45.9
20.8
25.3
24.6
35.1
20.5
25.0
22.3
29.8
18.3
22.5
Whsle/T.C.U.*.
Emp.
71.6
4.9
11.0
87.5
79.7
6.9
14.1
100.7
105.6
11.6
21.6
138.8
Total
17.0
7.8
11.7
15.1
Gov't
Education*
Emp.
78.9
10.5
21.1
110.5
16.8 83.0
10.1
12.8
12.9
23.1
!
15.4 119.0
17.3
11.3
13.9
16.0
98.2
18.6
30.5
147.3
Total
18.8
16.7
22.5
19.1
17.5
18.8
20.9
18.2
16.1
18.0
19.7
17.0
Total
420.8
63.0
93.9
577.7
475.0
68.6
110.3
653.9
610.
103.1
155.1
868.9
*See Table 5-1 for definitions.
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
industries, many of which depend on their placement at the
Commodore Way site to establish their clientele with close-
by seafood-related businesses. If the Commodore Way site
was condemned for a sewage treatment facility, 700-800 jobs
would be transferred. Many of these businesses may not be
able to relocate. The cost of purchasing the land in this
site has been estimated at $19.4 million (HRPI, 1976).
More details on the Commodore Way site are mentioned in the
regional document under Alternative G, which considers this
site and in the West Point site document.
Costs
Costs for Metro wastewater facilities, whether existing
or proposed, include three components: capital cost, oper-
ating and maintenance costs, and total annual costs.
The capital costs include the initial expenditures for
construction of wastewater treatment plants, sewage collec-
tion systems, effluent disposal methods; combined sewer over-
flow control facilities, sludge handling and disposal tech-
niques, plus the purchase of land and miscellaneous treat-
ment-related equipment. These capital costs typically are
major expenses that are made infrequently and that can be
phased to suit planning requirements. Because capital or
construction costs can require large sums of money at one
time, they are often financed by bonds or other types of
loans that are paid back, with interest, over a period of
several years. The yearly payment on the original capital
cost debt is referred to as the annual cost of capital or
amortized cost.
Operation and maintenance costs include expenses such
as wages for labor, purchase of chemicals and power, and
replacement or repair of equipment. These costs occur con-
tinually or at frequent intervals during the life of the
project.
The total annual cost of wastewater facilities is the
sum of the annual payment on amortized capital and the annual
operation and maintenance costs. The payment of total annual
costs can be achieved by various means, including charges
to persons who use the services.
The determination of costs for alternative wastewater
facilities has been made for the Facility plan (Metropoli-
tan Engineers, 1977) and is summarized in this EIS. In deter-
mining the costs of each alternative, the following assumptions
were made:
102
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
1. Capital costs were compared on a common basis of
1976 construction costs for the Seattle area
(Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index
of 2600 for costs in 1976).
2. Project capital costs were based on 2005 flows and
loads.
3. Various financing possibilities were evaluated for
capital costs and their effect on amortized costs
and user charges.
4. Operation and maintenance quantities and costs were
based on 1995 average flows and loads.
5. Annual cost of replacement parts were 0.5 percent
of capital costs.
6. Metro would be responsible for 100 percent of
operation and maintenance costs.
7. Total annual cost included annual cost of capital,
computed at 6.125 percent for 20 years (20 equal
payments of 8.8 percent of the original principal
per year).
For more detail, the reader is referred to the Facility
Plan.
In addition to the amount of the capital and the oper-
ation and maintenance costs, another important factor is
the charge to users. Metro presently serves the equivalent
of 425,000 sewered residential connections and charges $3.55
per month for each connection to defray the total annual
costs of present wastewater facilities. (Individual sewerage
service charges in the study area may vary since component
agencies within Metro may add a monthly user charge of their
own.) These Metro charges are the same for residential users
regardless of customer location or volume of sewage.
Future user charges were computed for the various
alternatives (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977), as discussed
in Chapter III. Because the user charges are based on both
amortized capital costs and operation and maintenance costs,
the assumptions for capital cost financing influence pro-
jected user charges. Under the first assumption, all facili-
ties described under alternatives until the year 2005 would
be grant eligible; that is, EPA would continue to provide
construction grants of 75 percent of the eligible capital
costs as now practiced pursuant to PL 92-500. An additional
grant of 15 percent from DOE is also part of the first
103
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
assumption which continues the present grant funding condi-
tions, leaving the remaining 10 percent of capital costs
to be paid by Metro. Under the second assumption, future
facilities would not be grant eligible after 1985, after
which time Metro would pay 100 percent of construction costs.
Prior to 1985, the eligible capital would continue at 75 per-
cent EPA grant, 15 percent DOE grant and 10 percent Metro
cost. Under the third assumption, no facilities presently
being evaluated, would be grant eligible, and Metro would
pay 100 percent of construction costs.
The discussion of future costs in Chapter III separates
costs for the Puget Sound plants (or alternative sites) from
the costs for Renton to the extent possible based on present
agency policies and information from the Facility Plan
(Metropolitan Engineers, 1977). Capital costs are identified
separately for treatment plants, collection system and com-
bined sewer overflow control methods that relate to the
Puget Sound plants (or alternative sites) only, the Renton
plant only, or the total. Similarly, annual operation and
maintenance costs are separated in such a manner for com-
paring alternatives, However, the monthly user charges as
currently developed in the Facility Plan include the costs
for Renton (amortized capital, operation and maintenance)
since the costs of all Metro facilities are distributed
equally to all residential users (or equivalent). Also,
future user charges under Alternatives B through H are based
on 530,000 sewered residential equivalent connections.
A comparison can be made between the cost of Metro's
wastewater treatment programs and the estimated cost of
implementing PL 92-500 for the whole country. The national
cost of PL 92-500 is shown in Table 2-14 (EPA, 1976) .
Table 2-14
National Cost of Implementing PL 92-500
Needs Category
I (Secondary Treatment)
II (More Stringent Treatment)
IIIA (Infiltration/Inflow)
IIIB (Replacement and/or Rehabilitation)
IVA (New Collector Sewers)
IVB (New Interceptor Sewers)
" (Combined Sewer Overflows)
Total I, II, IVB
Total I-v
1990 EPA Assessment
(Billions of Dollars)
12.955
21.279
3.017
5.486
16.979
17.923
18.262
52.158
95.902
104
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Social, Recreational and Cultural
Social, recreational and cultural attitudes and values
may be determined by an opinion poll or may be assumed
to be reflected in the goals and policies adopted by the
elected officials in the region. One such set of adopted
directives for the Seattle area is entitled, Goals for Seattle,
the report of the Seattle 2000 Commission which was prepared
by citizens of Seattle and adopted by the Mayor and the
City Council. The emphasis in this document, related to the
Metro Facility Plan, is the protection and enhancement of
natural and cultural conditions and the strengthening of
existing communities. Sections related to water are quoted
directly from the report as follows:
11D. Goal: Water
The City should undertake all means reasonable and feas-
ible to ensure water purity to meet health standards and
protect the environment.
1. Undertake efforts to meet Federal Water Pollution
Control Act requirements by 1984.
a. It is the national goal that the discharge of
pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated
by 1985.
b. It is the national goal that wherever attainable,
an interim goal of water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the
water be achieved by July 1, 1983.
2. Participate actively in METRO and RIBCO (River Basin
Coordinating Committee)
3. Encourage citizen-awareness of water pollution
problems:
a. Through higher cost and a revision of the rate
structure, encouraging re-use of water.
b. Encourage less water consumption.
c. Regulate amounts used by industrial and residential
consumers, by establishing usage priorities.
d. Use fines and taxes to finance enforcement of
current and future laws.
105
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
e. Prohibit navigational wastes.
4. Regulate pollution of all water bodies, including
creeks.
5. Encourage research on water pollution.
a. Potential pollutants in storm water runoff.
b. Usage of sewer sludge.
6. Ensure clean water to protect wildlife, vegetation
and recreation areas. "
Another important statement within the Goals for Seattle
report, concerns utilities and is excerpted as follows:
"11. Utilities (the water, electric, sewer, storm
drainage, and solid waste disposal projects) in Seattle,
and those which will affect Seattle, shall be planned
by the unit responsible for all the planning for the
city, and shall be implemented and operated to achieve
the goals of the people of Seattle.
a. These public utilities should operate to carry out
policy decisions made by the elected officials, not as
private businesses for the promotion of private enter-
prise; utilities can provide the framework for the
community patterns which have been chosen.
b. The people of the city have been promoting the
exodus of residents from the city by overpayment for
utilities which are planned and operated by area
agencies; Seattle should pay only its fair share for
utilities."
In addition to the "Goals for Seattle" program, other
public sponsored efforts have determined and/or set public
goals and policies as follows: Shorelines Master Program,
City of Seattle; Shorelines Management Master Program, King
County; RIBCO; The Comprehensive Plan for King County 1964 -
1972; The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Seattle; Alter-
natives for Washington. The goals and policies expressed
through these studies are presented in matrix form in Table
2-15. (HRPI, 1976).
Citizen Opinion Surveys
Citizen opinion surveys were conducted by HRPI, and
106
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Gerhardt Research, in regions adjacent to the wastewater
treatment facilities at Alki, Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach,
and the Magnolia community near West Point.
When 377 randomly chosen citizens were asked, in a Ger-
hardt survey, what environmental concerns needed most atten-
tion, most responded that they could think of none. Those
who did have an environmental concern mentioned such things
as park upkeep, heavy traffic on streets, noise, or litter.
Although a few mentioned water quality, none directly pointed
out any of the wastewater treatment facilities as a most
serious environmental problem.
Although most of the 37.7 interviewed knew of the treat-
ment facilities (about 80-90%), they concerned few (5-30%).
When asked if they would favor upgrading sewage treatment
facilities as required by the law, the majority said "yes"
(54-60%). Most who opposed were concerned, about cost, neces-
sity, or location of the facility. The highest number (42-52%)
felt that "cleaning up the environment" was most important
compared to such local issues as parks (15-19%) or hiding of
facility (5-8%). The general consensus towards upgrading or
expansion of the facilities was cautious acceptance.
Residents near Carkeek Park did not generally disagree
with the location of the Carkeek Park facility, but those at
Alki thought such prime land as Alki Point should not be
wasted on a sewage treatment facility. Most residents inter-
viewed at West Point said they were not opposed to the loca-
tion of the facility, nor did they oppose landfill to expand
the facility (54% not opposed to 24% opposed) (HRPI, 1976).
107
-------
TABLE 2-15
MATRIX - GOALS OF
SEATTLE
to be in final EIS
108
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
HRPI (Metro's socioeconomic consultant for the EIS) and
Metro's community involvement staff conducted informal meetings
which were attended by citizens explicitly concerned about the
water treatment facilities. In general, this group felt more
strongly than those randomly interviewed by Gerhardt Research,
that these facilities were not well located. Those at West
Point, Carkeek Park, and Alki felt that wastewater facilities
should not be in prime park land, but rather in industrial
regions. The residents adjacent to the Richmond Beach facil-
ity, which is not park land, were not opposed to its presence.
All groups were willing to put up with the facilities, and felt
that monetary constraints hindered relocation. The question
of expansion was debated both ways - people seemed to either
strongly favor it or oppose it. Richmond Beach residents,
again, were more favorable than others. At West Point there
was sentiment that if expansion occurred, the West Point
facility's placement would be more permanent, and there would
be less chance of phasing out the use of this prominent point
for a wastewater facility. At West Point, residents also com-
plained that the fence north of the treatment facility was too
close to the beach, so at high tide people could not use this
beach. There was also opposition to the sludge lagoon at
West Point.
Most were unaffected by the sludge trucks, but some were
opposed to their noise on residential streets.
Most groups interviewed were supportive of "Metro's
effort to make treatment of waste overflow at 200 places
in the interceptor lines at least as high a priority as the
federal and state requirement of secondary treatment".
Those representing the West Point area said "Seattle residents
would probably be willing to pay for 'some' extra on their
sewer bill to alleviate this problem". Alki residents didn't
know if they supported the Metro strategy, and didn't want
to "pay any more for Metro to do the job it agreed to do"
(HRPI, 1976; Clear Water Watch, 1976).
The Commodore Way site in Interbay is a distinct business
community related to the seafood industry. These businesses
depend on each other and on tourists who visit the fish
markets in this area for their commerce. Business persons
are upset that this site is even being considered for a
sewage treatment facility. A petition with 1200 signatures
has been formed in opposition to using this site.
Cultural Activity Centers
Cultural activity centers in the Seattle region include
109
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
downtown Seattle, the University of Washington, the Seattle
Center, the waterfront area, and the new King Dome Center, to
mention only a few. Numerous ethnic or culturally distinct
neighborhoods and sections of the Seattle community exist
which provide uniqueness to the entire region. Action by
Metro concerning wastewater treatment could affect the various
important water bodies and shorelines and, therefore, affect
their value as cultural entities.
Archeological and Historical
Historical sites in the vicinity of the proposed waste-
water facilities and affected water bodies include the Alki
Point Lighthouse and Hiram Chittenden Locks. Further, the
West Point Lighthouse is being proposed for the historical
register (Metro, 1977). Currently, the wastewater treatment
facilities do not conflict with these historical sites and
future expansion of the facilities could occur in such a way
as not to conflict. The National Register of Historical
Places also lists sites in inland areas. If interceptor
routing or other wastewater related activity occurs in the
vicinity of these sites, appropriate consideration should
be given. These historical sites are shown in Appendix F.
Twenty-three archeological sites have been identified
in King County- However, state regulations ban their publi-
cation to avoid theft and vandalism. These 23 sites are
based on a very preliminary type of information and it is
expected that the number will significantly increase as
additional specific surveys are performed. The Office of
Public Archeology at the University of Washington reviewed
six alternative treatment plant sites (West Point, Commodore
Way, Golf Park, Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach and Alki)
and determined that no known archeological resources
existed at any of the six sites. However, it was concluded
that the North Beach area of the West Point site was a
potential area of archeological resources and should be
explored further before construction activities (Jerry Jermann,
1976).
The three alternative sites at Duwamish are all of
potential interest. Many of the potential interceptor routes
in northern King County and southern Snohomish County are
potential archeological resources.
110
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Health and Safety
Health and safety considerations relative to the Metro
Facility Plan include:
• Occupational safety
• Public health and safety related to the various
treatment facilities
• Existing health effects of combined sewer
overflows
• Sludge handling
• Various construction areas such as the storage
and transport of explosive or caustic chemicals
The Metro and national injury rates for sewage systems
are to be commended. Metro's occupational safety record
is good compared to national rates for sewage systems workers
and are generally in compliance with all applicable regula-
tions. Two hazardous conditions currently exist. First, an
open flame boiler exists between the sludge digesters at
Alki and, second, there are a few non-explosion proof lights
in access wells at pump stations (Metro, 1976).
Health problems related to water quality have arisen
at some public beaches: public health bathing standard
excesses of coliforms have been cited at eleven Lake Washington
beaches but the beaches have never been closed (Metro, 1976).
Combined sewer overflows may create public health problems
at a number of locations, particularly in Puget Sound, the
Duwamish estuary, the Lake Union/Ship Canal, and Lake Washing-
ton. During storm periods when urban runoff is discharged
into many portions of the Seattle sewer system, the sewers
overflow and discharge urban runoff and raw sewage into the
receiving waters associated with the overflow point. The City
of Seattle has embarked on a major effort entitled Forward
Thrust Separation Program, to alleviate the worst of these
problems. Approximately 110 (30 Metro and 80 City of Seattle)
overflow outfalls remain in the system and discharge approxi-
mately 40 times annually. The current information on this
subject is presented in other parts of the report and will
not be expanded upon further.
The public health and water quality implications of sludge
handling are described in the sludge management and groundwater
portions of the report. Two types of contaminants are of
interest: pathogens such as bacteria, fungi, parasites and
viruses in one category; and heavy metals and complex organics
in the other. Metro has spent 0.5 million dollars on sludge
research since 1973. Metro's sludge disposal areas are
111
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
currently protected from public access, either through
fencing or remoteness. At Cedar Hills sanitary landfill,
sludge leachate monitoring and control is being developed.
Another public health concern relates to septic tank
failures. The health departments of King and Snohomish
Counties have identified the following areas as subject to
frequent septic tank failures.
1. King County East District; Welcome Lake, the east
side of Lake Sammamish;
2. King County North District; Appletree Point; Five-
Way Agreement Area; Flamingo Estates; Maplewood
Tarrace; N.E. 180th near Bothell Way N.E.; Orlands;
Wellington Hills; Beardsley Blvd. near Highway 405;
Cottage Lake;
3. Snohomish County South District; south of Alderwood
Manor; valley bottoms along Swamp Creek; north of
March Lake; south and west of Lake Serena.
Legal and Institutional Considerations
A number of legal and institutional considerations or
constraints are pertinent to the Metro 201 Facility Plan.
The most important of these are the goals and compliance
specifics of PL 92-500 (the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972) . The Metro 208 Area Wide Waste
Management Plan and septic tank failure problems are other
constraints. Also to be considered are the various shore-
line management regulations which originate from the State
Shoreline Management Act. Various state regulations con-
cerning public health and pollutant discharge permits are of
concern as is the dredge and filling permit program of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers along with the institutional
considerations related to intergovernmental procedures and
relationships.
Public Law 92-500 (PL 92-500)
The most significant legal constraint applicable to the
Facilities Planning process is PL 92-500. The basic objec-
tive and goals of PL 92-500 are in Section 101 (a).
"The objective of this Act is to restore and
112
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters. In order to
achieve this objective it is hereby declared
that, consistent with the provisions of this
Act — (1) it is the national goal that the
discharge of pollutants into the navigable
waters be eliminated by 1985; (2) it is the
national goal of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife and provides for recreation
in and on the water be achieved by July 1,
1983..."
In Section 301 (a) the provisions for limiting effluent
quality are stated.
"Except as in compliance with this section
and sections 302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404
of this Act, the discharge of any pollutant
by any person shall be unlawful."
The implementation of this ban was established in
Section 402 which provides for a permit system for pollutant
discharges (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System -
NPDES).
Subsections 301 (b)(1)(B) and 301 (b)(1)(C) pertain to
effluent limitations for 1977. The first paragraph is the
secondary treatment requirement which provides that in order
to carry out the objective of this Act there shall be
achieved:
(B) for publicly owned treatment works in
existence on July 1, 1977, or approved pursuant
to Section 203 of this Act prior to June 30, 1974
(for which construction must be completed within
four years of approval), effluent limitations
based upon secondary treatment as defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Section 304(d)(1) of
this Act;...
The second paragraph applies to discharges into waters
which will not meet quality standards through the secondary
treatment requirements of paragraph B. These waters are
known as "water quality limited" waters or segments. In them,
law requires that there shall be achieved:
(C) not later than July 1, 1977, any more
stringent limitation, including those necessary
to meet water quality standards, treatment standards,
or schedules of compliance, established pursuant
113
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
to any State law or regulations (under authority
preserved by Section 510) or any other Federal
law or regulation, or required to implement any
applicable water quality standard established
pursuant to this act.
The meaning of the 1977 secondary treatment requirements
is spelled out in the regulations. For effluent limited seg-
ments which can achieve applicable standards through the use
of secondary treatment, the requirements of secondary treat-
ment are listed in 40 CFR 133.
Effluent limitations have also been established for 1983
in Section 301 (b) (2) (B) . These require that there shall be
achieved:
(b) not later than July 1, 1983, compliance by
all publicly owned treatment works with the require-
ments set forth in Section 201 (g) (2) (A) of this Act.
Section 201(g)(2)(A) establishes prerequisites for grants
for construction of treatment works. Specifically, the grant
applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate to the EPA Adminis-
trator that:
(A) alternative waste management techniques
have been studied and evaluated and the works pro-
posed for grant assistance will provide for the
application of the best practicable waste treatment
technology over the life of the works consistent
with the purposes of this title: ...
The preceding clauses in Section 201(g)(2) set a dead-
line of June 30, 1974 after which no grants may be given
for construction of treatment works which fail to comply
with the requirements for study of alternative techniques
and selection of the best practicable waste treatment tech-
nology. "
Section 302 (b)(2) of the Act permits a variance under
certain conditions for effluent limits set to meet the fish-
able, swimmable water quality requirements in Section 302(a).
"If a person affected by such limitation demonstrates
...there is no reasonable relationship between the
economic and social cost and the benefits to be ob-
tained. .., such limitation shall not become effective."
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is a
permit which provides a time schedule for compliance with
PL 92-500. The original permit issued by the EPA and DOE
114
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
required that Metro develop a Facility Plan by April 1,
1977 leading toward the secondary treatment requirement by
July 1, 1977.
Metro complied with the part of developing a Draft
Facility Plan, but because of delays in grant funding and
facilities planning and questions concerning the effective-
ness of secondary treatment for Metro plant's discharging to
Puget Sound, secondary treatment was not established by 1977
as required by PL 92-500. Currently, DOE and EPA are in the
process of preparing a new NPDES for 1977-1982; the time
schedule for which this permit will require compliance with
the secondary treatment required by PL 92-500 is uncertain.
Alternatives A,B,C,and D will not comply with the require-
ment of secondary treatment. Implementation of Alternatives
E, F, G, and H may require more time than available with the
deadlines established in the new NPDES.
Fines for noncompliance with PL 92-500 are established
as follows:
Section 309(d) of'the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act sets a maximum civil penalty of $10,000 per day of viola-
tion. Although the statute sets are maximum, it provides no
guidance as to what would be an appropriate penalty for a
particular violation.
In arriving at the estimated judgment figure, a number of
factors should be considered (EPA Memorandum, 1977).
(1) The extent to which the defendant may have profited
by failing or delaying to comply,
(2) The degree of harm to the public caused by the defen-
dant's failure to comply,
(3) The willfulness of the violation, or the good or bad
faith of the defendant in meeting its obligation to comply,
(4) The necessity of vindicating the authority of EPA,
(5) The ability of the defendant to pay the penalties.
To date, no municipality has been fined for noncompliance
with secondary requirements.
Shorelines Management
The Shorelines Management Master Programs for Seattle
115
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
and King County are major constraints on development activity
within 200 feet of the significant shorelines within the city.
Significant shorelines are defined as rivers and streams
with flows greater than 5 cfs, lakes greater than 20 acres,
and all marine waters. This includes all of the sites con-
sidered in the eight alternatives evaluated.
Other Considerations
Other important quasi-legal, political and intergovern-
mental considerations or issues which affect the actions that
may be proposed by Metro are as follows:
• The City of Seattle's concern regarding future inter-
ceptor service to outlying, undeveloped areas and the
equity of user charges for future growth areas.
• King County's recent actions concerning the preserv-
ation of agricultural land.
• The "Goals and Policies for Regional Development" and
general policy impetus by the Puget Sound Council of
Governments to utilize areas presently containing the
needed utilities including sewers before new areas
are developed (future interceptor service).
• The cost effectiveness and applicability of the fed-
eral regulation requiring secondary treatment for
Metro municipal wastewater treatment plants which
discharge to Puget Sount (currently being examined
and resolved by the EPA and Metro).
• The current reluctance of the Washington Department
of Ecology to allow the ocean dumping of sewage
sludge and their discouragement of the discharging
of wastewater effluent into the freshwater lakes
(Washington and Sammamish).
While some of the above considerations are not written
policies or regulations, they can have the same effect as
specific regulatory provisions and should at least be con-
sidered in the selection and implementation of a wastewater
treatment program. Due to the complex interagency review
processes such as the A-95 federal project review process,
local and state jurisdictions can exert a strong veto power
over federal-related projects not in compliance with written
or unwritten policies and value judgements.
116
-------
Existing Environmental Conditions
Aesthetic Considerations
Asethic considerations have been dealt with in detail
for the four treatment plant locations of West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach (Metropolitan Engineers,, 1976)*
This information is summarized in the Appendix to Task D3 of
the Facility Plan (Metropolitan Engineers,. 1976) » Regional
considerations not taken into account in that report include
the overall aesthetics of the Puget Sound, Lake Washington,
and Lake Sammamish shorelines, the forested and/or pastoral
nature of much of the undeveloped land which could be af-
fected by future interceptor service and the aesthetics
related to the Kenmore, South Lake Sammamish, Duwamish and
Interbay sites (all of which are considered in the eight
alternatives). In general, the overall aesthetics of the
Puget Sound, Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish are excellent..
The forested and agricultural undeveloped areas are also very
important components of the total environmental quality of
the Puget Sound region. In this environmental impact analysis
the aesthetics associated with these areas are considered to
be of the highest quality and deserving of the utmost pro-
tection. Since interceptor service to new growth areas is not
defined as part of the eight alternatives in the Draft
Facility Plan, the analysis of aesthetic impacts related to
the important interceptor routes and pump station locations
is not possible at this time. However, when future inter-
ceptor expansion is proposed, aesthetics should be an im-
portant consideration.
117
-------
118
-------
CHAPTER III
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
The following sections describe the eight regional
alternatives and their expected environmental impacts. A
brief description of existing wastewater facilities within
the Metro study area provides a frame of reference for the
following discussion on selection of alternatives. Next,
'a summary of the methodology used to analyze environmental
impacts is presented. Each regional alternative, as out-
lined in the Draft Facility Plan (Metropolitan Engineers,
1977), is then described in more detail. Expected impacts
of each alternative on the physical environment, the biologi-
cal environment, the human environment, and natural resources
and energy are discussed. The direct or primary impacts
attributed to the alternative are presented first, followed
by the indirect or secondary impacts. Mitigation measures
to alleviate or lessen adverse impacts are described, followed
by a list of unavoidable adverse impacts. A summary of
regional impacts concludes Chapter III.
EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES
The existing wastewater facilities in the Metro service
area are described briefly for later comparisons with pro-
posed alternatives for the year 2005. The facilities are
presented in terms of service areas, treatment plants, collec-
tion system and combined sewer overflows, sludge management,
and the Renton plant (not included in the proposed facili-
ties plan but affected indirectly by various alternatives).
Figure 1-2 summarizes existing facilities.
Service Areas
Boundaries of the planning area in the Facility Plan
were determined following consideration of previously estab-
lished boundaries described in the 1958 Metro Comprehensive
119
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Plan, the 1974 River Basin Coordinating Committee (RIBCO)
study, and in various boundary adjustments developed by Metro
staff and approved by the Metro Council.
A premise in the original Comprehensive Plan was the
division of the area into logical units for sewerage, drain-
age and design. This division was based on many factors
which, in the case of sewerage planning, were limited and
defined by topography as well as economic and political con-
siderations. Therefore, boundaries of the original metropoli-
tan Seattle sewerage study were established on the basis of
topography, growth, and development studies.
The planning area boundary was revised during the RIBCO
environmental management study to generally follow the drain-
age basin concept; it included the upper watershed of the
Cedar and Green Rivers. Areas requiring sewer service before
the year 2000 (according to IRDP-AAM projections) were identi-
fied within the RIBCO basin boundary and followed, with a few
modifications, in the Draft Facility Plan.
Boundaries used in the Draft Facility Plan are shown in
Figure 3-1. The planning area in general is defined by the
shoreline of Puget Sound from Seattle north to the Snohomish
County line, east into Snohomish County following the natural
drainage, south following the original Comprehensive Plan
boundary to a point about two miles northeast of Issaquah,
where the line begins to cut across the natural drainage at
the location where land development is expected to cease.
This line generally follows the City of Seattle watershed
fence line and rail lines to the northern edge of Enumclaw,
then west to the northern shore of Lake Tapps. The boundary
then proceeds north following the RIBCO boundary in south-
western King County adjacent to southwest suburban Des Moines
and Lake Haven sewer districts (with the exception of the un-
incorporated Star Lake area, which is to be sewered into the
City of Kent).
The total Metro study area encompasses approximately
710 square miles, as shown in Figure 1-1. Approximately
275 square miles comprise the primary study area for the
Facility Plan, shown in Figure 1-1; this includes the drain-
age basins tributary to the West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park
and Richmond Beach plants. The large Renton service area
(435 square miles) is excluded from the primary study area,
although Renton area considerations are included in many
elements of the planning.
Although most of the projects involved in the Draft
Facility Plan are within the West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park
and Richmond Beach service areas shown in Figure 2-1, some
120
-------
•
-
EL
NO ACTION
SECONDARY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(NO ACTION PURSUANT
TO PL 92-500)
SECONDARY
SOUTHERN STRATEGY
MAJOR CSO CONTROL
SECONDARY
WEST POINT PHASE OUT
OPTION
PARTIAL CSO CONTROL
DECONSOLIDATION
RECLAMATION
LJ
i
LEGEND
RENTON
WEST POINT
DUWAMISH (STORMWATER)
DUWAMISH (WASTEWATER)
ALKI
RICHMOND BEACH
CARKEEK PARK
NORTH LAKE WASHINGTON
NORTH LAKE SAMMAMISH
SOUTH LAKE SAMMAMISH
PRESENTLY SERVED BY OTHERS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 3-1
Metro 201 Facility Plan
Service Area Alternatives
121
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
regional issues extend beyond these boundaries. Sludge dis-
posal, the environmental impacts of the alternatives on
water quality, and the secondary impacts on the Renton
service area are examples.
The existing service area divisions are the same as
shown for Alternative A, No Action, Figure 3-2 illustrates
the sewerage service subareas.
Treatment Plants
The average daily flow for the Puget Sound plants, as
described in the Draft Facility Plan (Metropolitan Engineers,
1977) from 1973-1975 daily records, was 118 million gallons
per day (mgd) from West Point, 7.5 mgd at Alki, 3.4 mgd at
Carkeek Park, and 1.5 mgd at Richmond Beach. Details on
average and peak flows are discussed in the Draft Facility
Plan.
Operation of the four Puget Sound plants is centralized
under the West Point division. More detailed discussions
on operations and the existing unit processes at the Metro
primary treatment plants can be found in the Draft Facility
Plan and site-specific EIS documents.
The four Metro treatment plants discharging effluent
to Puget Sound currently provide primary treatment for waste-
water. Primary treatment is a general term encompassing
coarse screening, grit removal, influent solids sedimenta-
tion with skimming of floatables, and sludge disposal.
The only liquid stream leaving the Metro treatment
plants is effluent from wastewater treatment. Small volumes
of this effluent are sometimes treated further and used on
the plant grounds for lawn and shrubbery irrigation and
fertilization, but the major portion is discharged to Puget
Sound through submarine outfalls. Three of the outfalls
(at Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park, and West Point) were de-
signed concurrently. The Alki plant and associated outfall
were designed and constructed independently at an earlier
date.
The general dimensions of all four outfalls and their
locations are shown in Table 3-1.
122
-------
SUBAREA LEGEND
(T) NORTH LAKE WASHINGTON
(2) NORTHWEST LAKE WASHINGTON
(?) EAST LAKE WASHINGTON
(7) SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON
(?) SOUTHWEST LAKE WASHINGTON
(?) NORTH LAKE SAMMAMISH
(?) SOUTH LAKE SAMMAMISH
(8) GREEN RIVER
(5) ELLIOTT BAY
(W) ALKI
(fi) LAKE UNION
@ CARKEEK PARK
(l3) RICHMOND BEACH
123
FIGURE 3-2 SEWERAGE SERVICE SUBAREAS
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
TABLE 3-1
OUTFALL DETAILS
Plant
Richmond Beach
Carkeek Park
West Point
Alki
Peak
Cap.
(mgd)
10
20
325
30
Length
(ft)
1,600
2,100
3,650
1,400
Max .
Depth
(ft)
110
200
240
80
Dia.
(in)
30
33
96
42
Diffuser Ports
No.
10
12
200
Diameter
(in)
6.5
5.5,
6 & 7
4.5, 5.0
& 5.75
none
Spacing
(ftl
5
4
3
-
Receiving waters which may be affected by Metro's
sewerage system are monitored in a Metro program which began
in 1961 and has had the cooperation and approval of a review
board appointed by the State Department of Ecology. More than
600 monitoring stations measure a variety of physical, chemi-
cal, bacteriological, and ecological parameters. These sta-
tions are located in all waters which may be affected by
Metro's operations. Parameters monitored include coliform
bacteria, dissolved oxygen, toxicant concentration, benthic
conditions, and productivity.
Collection System and Combined Sewer Overflows
The collection system in the planning area varies in
age, material of construction, and condition. The first
sewers in the area were constructed within the limits of the
City of Seattle in the 1880's. In addition to the transfer
of domestic and industrial wastewaters, the collection system
was built to provide a convenient available conduit for a
variety of waters, for which disposal was required to pre-
vent localized problems. These waters included storm re-
lated surface runoff, subsurface embankment drainage, struc-
ture foundation drains, reservoir drainage, and lake flush-
ing waters.
Originally, the collection system discharged raw sewage
into Lake Washington, Lake Union, the Duwamish River, and
124
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Puget Sound. Later in the 1930's, some of the raw sewage
discharges to Lake Washington were intercepted and treated at
localized treatment plants (consisting of Imhoff tanks) or
diverted to saltwater. However, combined sewer overflows
during rainy periods and poor quality effluents from the
treatment plants continued to degrade the water quality of
Lake Washington. The raw sewage discharge to saltwater in-
creased pollution along the waterfronts.
With the establishment of Metro and the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 1958, Metro became responsible for
transporting the sewage collected by the local agencies to
one of the Metro sewage treatment facilities. Since then,
Metro has also assumed control of some existing facilities
and constructed new facilities to implement the comprehen-
sive wastewater treatment plan. Currently, Metro serves 33
cities and special districts which provide the basic operation
and maintenance services for the local collection systems,
Metro's facilities include major interceptors, pump stations
tunnels, and siphons.
In addition to the pump stations and various transport
systems, Metro employs a storage and diversion system for
its wastewater flows. This system of in-line storage and
regulation known locally as the computer augmented treatment
and disposal system (CATAD), reduces the volume and frequency
of combined sewer overflows. CATAD consists of 17 existing
regulator stations in the West Point service area which have
the capability to store wastewater flows in their immediately
preceding upstream interceptor sewers. This regulated stor-
age is employed during rainstorms to permit flows in excess
of the treatment plant capacity to be stored and then released
slowly to the plant as the storm flow subsides. The system
reduces the number of combined sewer overflow occurrences
per year. Figure 3-3 shows the location of the CATAD regula-
tor stations and drainage areas.
Reduction of combined sewer outflow is affected also by
the City of Seattle's partial sewer separation program. The
program was initiated in 1968 and financed by $75 million in
Forward Thrust funds plus $6 million in Metro funds.
Before separation, the city had a total of 1,413 miles of
combined sewers and about 105 combined sewer overflows or out-
falls which discharged a mixture of raw sewage and stormwater
into Lake Washington, Lake Union and the Ship Canal, Green
Lake, the Duwamish River estuary, Elliott Bay and Puget Sound.
It is estimated that 57 percent, or 807 miles, of the total
combined sewers were overloaded and would flood during heavy
rainfall. Completion of the Forward Thrust separation program
will result in the construction of 274 miles of new storm
125
-------
l/z SCALE |«j MILES
Fiaure 3-3
CATAD REGULATOR STATIONS AND
DRAINAGE AREAS
126
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
drains and 54_separate stormwater overflow outfalls, with a
corresponding relief on the remaining sewer lines and over-
flow structures. Out of a total of 50,576 sewered acres in
the city, 18,000 acres will be separated by this phase of
the program, including all of the area draining to Lake
Washington.
Overflows occur in the Seattle area at 110 different
locations, of which 30 are listed under Metro NPDES permits
and the remainder are the responsibility of the City of
Seattle. Despite the presence of two jurisdictions, the
system functions as one entity.
Figure 3-4 shows the location of combined sewer over-
flows in the Seattle area. Table 3-2 tabulates the estimated
annual volumes of overflows into the various receiving water
bodies.
The volume of combined sewer overflows discharged
through an overflow structure depends primarily on the dura-
tion and intensity of the rainstorm as well as the size
and capacity of the collection system downstream of the
structure. Other factors which affect the overflow volume
are the time of day, the season, and the period of time since
the last storm occurred.
Sludge Management
The solids produced by municipal wastewater treatment
include grit, screenings, and sludge. Sludge is the largest
in volume of these three; its processing and disposal is one
of the more complex problems faced in the field of waste-
water treatment. The problems of handling raw sludge are
complicated by the high moisture content (95-98%), which
results in large volumes. Since sludge contains most of
the pollutant materials of greatest concern (such as stable
organics, nitrogen, heavy metals, oil, phosphorus and patho-
gens) , its potential impact on public health and the environ-
ment during processing and final disposal must be considered
in planning alternatives.
Six basic disposal methods have been utilized by Metro
over the past ten years. These include deep water disposal,
sanitary landfill disposal, soil rehabilitation, beach front
earth fill, disposal on forest land and disposal on agri-
cultural land. A summary of Metro sludge disposal experience,
and the range of land application options available to Metro
are presented in the Draft Facility Plan.
127
-------
M
Figure 3-4
Combined Sewer Overflow Loeafio
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
TABLE 3-2
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(1975)
Water Body
Combined Sewer Overflows
Volume Solids BOD
million gal/yr tons/yr tons/yr
Lake Washington
Lake Sammamish
Portage Bay/Montlake
Cut
Lake Union
Ship Canal/Salmon
Bay
Duwamish/Green River
Elliott Bay
Alki Beach
TOTAL
16
0
195
42
186
251
358
5
1053
15
0
177
38
169
227
325
5
956
4
0
48
10
46
62
89
1
260
*Adapted from Draft Facility Plan (June 1977 revisions)
129
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
The general pattern of Metro sludge management is cen-
tralized treatment; all sludges from the Metro treatment
plants except Alki are processed at the West Point facility.
Originally, sludge was disposed to Puget Sound. This
decision was made in 1965 following a review of alternative
methods of digested sludge disposal that included landfill,
barging, incineration, and deep water disposal through a
submarine outfall. In response to the subsequent require-
ments of the 1965 Water Quality Act, the state of Washington
issued a directive in 1971 that required Metro to cease dis-
charge of digested sludge to Puget Sound by January 1972. As
a result, Metro then provided a dewatering facility for the
digested sludge to reduce its volume before hauling it by
truck to the Cedar Hills landfill site.
After removal of digested sludge from Puget Sound, the
Metro Council established an ongoing research policy to
evaluate recycling of sludge, particularly as a soil condi-
tioner in forest lands. Preliminary results of a feasibility
study at Pack Forest, however,indicated that some potential
adverse impacts such as (1) excess nutrient release into
groundwater and stream systems, particularly nitrates, (2)
microbial contamination, and (3) heavy metal contamination
occurred. In addition there are certain engineering and
economic problems associated with sludge and wastewater
which must be considered. However, personnel at Metro and
the University of Washington believe the problems can be
managed and the recycling concept is worthwhile.
Under existing conditions, the organic solids captured
in the primary sedimentation tanks at Alki, Carkeek Park,
and Richmond Beach are digested separately at the three
plants. The digested sludge from Carkeek Park and Richmond
Beach is trucked to the Interbay pumping station for transfer
to the West Point treatment plant, subsequently recaptured
in the sedimentation tanks at West Point, and pumped to the
West Point digester. The pumping of sludge from Interbay
pumping station to West Point alleviates the additional
traffic passing through Discovery Park enroute to the West
Point plant. The digested sludge from Alki now goes directly,
in an undewatered form, to the Cedar Hills county landfill
holding basins,thus bypassing both redigestion at West Point
and the West Point dewatering facilities. This is only
because the solids concentration of Alki sludge is relatively
high.
Raw, undigested sludges from both the primary and sec-
ondary treatment processes at Renton are also conveyed to the
West Point plant by pumping through twin 12^-inch diameter
force mains to the Elliott Bay interceptor sewer, where the
sludge mixes with the rest of the wastewater flow in that
130
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
sewer and is then recaptured in the sedimentation tanks at
West Point.
In addition to the organic solids from Richmond Beach,
Carkeek Park, and Renton, the organic matter from the West
Point system is captured in the West Point sedimentation tanks
and anaerobically digested. The digested solids are then
dewatered by means of a centrifuge or vacuum filter and
trucked away to Cedar Hills landfill for disposal. Currently,
both the digestion capacity and dewatering capacity at West
Point are insufficient to cope with existing solids loadings,
but a centrifuge for dewatering is on order.
The fine and coarse grit materials, primarily inorganic
in nature and removed during the initial treatment steps at
the five plants, are hauled by truck directly to a landfill
site for disposal.
Sludge quantities from the Metro plants average about
35 tons/day of dry solids, thus amounting to about 13,000
dry tons/year. Sludge disposal costs amount to $110 per dry
ton or approximately $1.4 million annually. Table 3-3
summarizes present and future estimated sludge quantities
from the Metro treatment plants.
TABLE 3-3
SLUDGE QUANTITIES
West Carkeek Richmond
Point Renton Alki Park Beach
1973
(tons/day) 36* 13 1.2 0.6 0.4
2005
(tons/day) 102-143** 55-93 2.8-4.0 1.7-2.4 2.6-3.9
*West Point loads include the loads from the other four plants.
**The higher estimates are from consideration of potential lime
treatment of the wastewater.
Metro's sludges are disposed of under the constraints
set by the State Department of Ecology National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, namely, that
all solids shall be disposed of in a manner that prevents
their entry into the waters of the state, and that leachates
from the solids shall not cause any adverse effect on ground-
water or surface water quality. Any proposed plan for solids
disposal must be approved by the Department of Ecology,
The Metro sludge is trucked to Cedar Hills landfill,
operated by King County, and located as shown in Figure 3-5.
Currently, the Metro treatment plants'35 tons per day of
131
-------
Figure 3-5
King County Cedar Hills
Landfill
SANtTA
NOFttt
KING COUNT
ALCOHO,tl
REHABIUI
CENTER!:
iNGYSLUDGE'lLAGO
OPERA
BUILDING
BORROW PIT
FOR LANDFILL.
COVER MATERIAL
VC SEWER—
METRO RENTON
VIA CEDAR RIVER TRUN
UMBiSTATION
132
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
sludge for landfill compares to 1,000 tons per day from
municipal refuse also trucked to the site for disposal.
Forty to fifty percent of the Metro sludge currently goes
to the Pack Forest research site.
Renton
The Renton service area and treatment plant are not
part of the proposed alternatives in the Draft Facility Plan,
which addresses the four Puget Sound plants and the possible
alternatives to them. However, the selection of a regional
alternative will affect the Renton service area and plant,
so they are described briefly here.
The Renton treatment plant is located on the Green-
Duwamish River, 13 miles upstream of the river mouth. The
existing service area of the plant, shown in Figure 3-1 and
equivalent to that under Alternative A, extends from north
of the northern King County line to Lake Tapps on the south.
The plant presently serves an area of about 373 square miles,
but the ultimate service area is 435 square miles. Lake
Washington forms approximately 25 miles of its western
border; its most easterly point is about 18 miles inland
from Puget Sound. Lake Sammamish, with an area of about
4,700 acres, lies in the north-central portion; there are
many smaller lakes within this service area. There are
three principal rivers (the Green-Duwamish, Cedar, and the
Sammamish) and numerous minor creeks and streams within
this area.
Presently there are 15 incorporated cities located
within the Renton service area: Redmond, Kirkland, Bellevue,
Beaux Arts, Clyde Hill, Medina, Yarrow Point, Hunts Point,
Mercer Island, Issaquah, Kent, Renton, Algona, Tukwila, and
Auburn.
The treatment plant provides secondary treatment for
the wastewater generated in the area. The design capacity
of the plant is 36 mgd based on average flow, and 96 mgd
peak flow. The primary treatment includes grit removal and
primary sedimentation for the removal of settleable solids.
Secondary treatment is by the activated sludge process,
where organic matter is treated biologically and assimilated
to form floes, which are settled in the secondary sedimenta-
tion tanks. The effluent from these tanks is chlorinated
for disinfection, followed by dechlorination to remove the
chlorine residual prior to discharging to the Green-Duwamish
River. Sludge handling facilities are not available at
Renton. The raw sludge and waste activated sludge generated
133
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
from the various processes are pumped to the West Point
treatment plant.
For the period 1972 through 1975, the Renton treatment
plant was reported to remove 75 to 98 percent of the BOD
loading in the influent wastewater. Similarly, suspended
solids are reduced by 39 to 97 percent. The removal figures
are within the range expected for secondary treatment. Al-
though the treatment plant has been operating satisfactorily,
several treatment upsets have been experienced in the past.
During summer, as the plant flow declines and temperatures
rise, nitrification occurs and results in poor settleability
of the sludge. During winter, with increasing flows and de-
creasing temperature, bulking occurs and produces poor sludge
settleability.
The force main transferring sludge to West Point has
been a source of operation and maintenance problems, especially
during the summer months, due to the production of hydrogen
sulfide. The Renton sludge also has been a major cause of
treatment upsets reported at the West Point plant, due to the
sludge rising in the primary sedimentation tanks. It is worth
noting here that the Renton treatment plant receives the
leachate from the Cedar Hills landfill. The chemical analysis
of the leachate is not available; however, it is expected to
contribute an appreciable amount of heavy metals and other
pollutants to the Renton plant.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
The development of the regional alternatives was based
primarily on four issues. From these objectives, different
combinations were assembled in terms of alternatives for
service area, treatment plant site, treatment process, com-
bined sewer overflow control, collection system, water con-
servation, sludge management, and beneficial re-use of
wastewater. The result was the description of eight regional
alternatives planned to service populations until the year
2005.
Issues
Four major issues were developed in the early stage of
the facilities planning process (Metropolitan Engineers,
1977). They included:
(1) Water quality
134
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
(2) The law (PL 92-500)
(3) Costs
(4) Site impacts
Other issues included decentralization and growth.
Since the number of regional alternative arrangements
was so large, these issues were used to reduce that number
to a manageable set. The four issues cannot be met equally
by all alternatives; some trade-offs are inherent in the
selection process. For example, water quality might be im-
proved under one alterantive, but at a higher cost or with
greater site impacts relative to other alternatives.
Under the first issue, water quality, the alternatives
consider various types of treatment (primary, enhanced
primary, secondary, advanced waste treatment) along with
combined sewer overflow control. The EIS analyzes the impact
of the combinations, as developed in the Facility Plan.
Under the second issue, the law, the alternatives con-
tain two that are considered to comply with environmental
requirements pursuant to SEPA and NEPA (A and B), two that
do not comply with PL 92-500 (C and D) but address a local
water quality problem of combined sewer overflows, and four
(E, F, G and H) that provide secondary treatment pursuant
to PL 92-500 requirements.
The third issue, cost, is important to Metro customers
and taxpayers. Cost for wastewater facilities was a con-
straint in facility planning. In addition, cost is linked
to the legal issue because eligibility for federal and state
funding is related to compliance with PL 92-500.
The fourth issue, site impacts, was an important concern
in the Facility Plan because existing plants at West Point,
Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach are in park land and/or
residential settings.
Local versus centralized wastewater management systems
were also addressed in the selection of the alternatives in
the Facility Plan since they have different implications in
terms of growth, potential re-use of wastewater and sludge,
and degree of treatment required. Under the present Compre-
hensive Plan, West Point and Renton are the major plants,
treating over 90% of the wastewater generated in the Metro
service area. Decentralization would provide for local
plants to serve the inland areas, thus reducing the service
areas tributary to West Point and Renton and increasing the
potential for effluent and sludge re-use for agricultural
purposes and land application.
135
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Certain alternatives were considered briefly but dis-
carded because of overriding concerns. For example, no
alternative contains tertiary treatment for the plants dis-
charging to Puget Sound because of high costs, energy use, and
the uncertain value of marginal water quality benefits. An
alternative proposing complete elimination of combined sewer
overflows with complete upgrading of existing facilities to
secondary treatment was similarly discarded because of high
costs.
Disposal methods prohibited by law were also rejected
in the planning process. Ocean dumping of sludge was not
considered, in order to comply with the DOE directive that
required Metro to cease discharge of sludge to Puget Sound
in 1972. Secondary or higher levels were considered to treat
effluent discharged to inland freshwaters.
Wastewater Management System Components
The system components considered in the development of
regional alternatives included service areas, treatment
plants (sites, process and effluent discharge mode), collec-
tion and transfer systems, combined sewer overflow control,
sludge management, pretreatment, infiltration/inflow, bene-
ficial re-use of reclaimed water and other factors, which
are presented briefly in the following discussion. Details
on these and other elements of alternatives development are
described in the Facility Plan.
Service Area Alternatives
Population projections for existing service areas (com-
parable to Alternative A in Figure 3-1) were made as des-
cribed in Chapter II. Various combinations of service areas
were evaluated in terms of their effect on size, number,
and location of treatment plants; the process required for
discharge at that location; and need for new transfer inter-
ceptors to accommodate alterations in service areas. Miti-
gating potential site impacts of upgraded plants was an
objective of some alternatives that would reduce the service
area and flow to existing plants (as at West Point) or elim-
inate the need for a plant entirely (as at Alki).
Although a large number of system-wide alternatives
can be attained theoretically by various service area con-
figurations and treatment plant combinations to meet different
goals, the general drainage pattern of the area and the align-
136
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ment of existing interceptors set by the Comprehensive Plan
reduce the number of practical alternatives. Furthermore,
the capital already invested in present wastewater manage-
ment facilities (including treatment plants and collection
systems) restricts the range of cost-effective alternatives.
Treatment Plants
Plant siting alternatives were considered since site
constraints at some existing locations were identified. For
example, impact on park use or residential neighborhoods,
need for shoreline fill, decentralization potential, and
other related topics led to considering alternative plant
sites.
Treatment process. Treatment process options were
major influences on alternatives development and were, in
turn, affected by discharge requirements for particular
types of surface waters, site constraints, costs, and legal
requirements. Processes evaluated in order of increasing
treatment effectiveness and cost were primary, enhanced
primary, secondary, secondary plus nitrification and fil-
tration, and advanced waste treatment.
Primary treatment, which removes approximately 60 per-
cent of solids and 30 percent of the oxygen demanding
materials (biochemical oxygen demand, BOD) from wastewater
by settling, was an option for treatment prior to discharge
to saltwater. Treated primary effluent would contain appro-
ximately 115 mg/1 BOD and 110 mg/1 suspended solids. En-
hanced primary treatment, which would use chemical addition
to improve effluent quality to approximately 75 mg/1 BOD and
30 mg/1 solids, was another option for plants discharging to
saltwater. Secondary treatment, which removes 85 percent or
more of solids and BOD by aeration, biological oxidation and
clarification after primary treatment, was an option for dis-
charge to saltwater and the Duwamish River. Nitrification
(to remove nitrogen compounds that demand oxygen) and filtra-
tion (to remove more solids) following secondary treatment
were considered for discharge to the Duwamish River. For
inland treatment plants discharging to freshwater lakes or
rivers, advanced waste treatment was proposed. Enhanced
primary, secondary, nitrification, denitrification (to remove
nitrates), granular carbon adsorption (for organics removal)
filtration, and ion exchange (to remove salts) processes in
series were proposed for the advanced waste treatment
process.
137
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
For achieving secondary treatment standards, several
different processes were considered: physical/chemical, tower
trickling filters, rotating biological contactors, activated
biofliters, and activated sludge.
According to the Facility Plan and related pilot plant
tests, the only treatment process which could reliably meet
the BOD and suspended solids requirement (85 percent removal
in dry weather, 30 mg/1 in effluent in wet weather) without
excessive costs or the addition of an expensive second step in
the process is air activated sludge. Second best for relia-
bility and cost at the small plants is the rotating biologi-
cal contactor system with chemical additions; at the large
plants tower trickling filters followed by granular filtra-
tion was judged second best. Physical/chemical treatment
could not meet the BOD removal objective.
Collection System and Combined Sewer Overflow
Collection system analyses of combined or separate
sewers were made prior to developing alternatives. Alterna-
tives for combined sewer overflow (CSO) control included
facilities such as holding tanks, regulator stations, service
area modifications, plant siting and capacity, and wet
weather treatment. The regional alternatives differ in their
commitment to combined sewer overflow controls. Some alterna-
tives offer little or no improvement over the present situa-
tion; others are directed toward overflow reduction. Some
alternatives would facilitate the phaseout of treatment
plants at either West Point, Alki, or both.
CSO alternatives were based on a priority for control
based on receiving water body sensitivity. Using a geo-
graphic inventory of v/ater use areas, aquatic life habitats
and relative risk to pollutant loadings based on physical
characteristics, the Draft Facility Plan identified three
levels of sensitivity in terms of pollution risk. Areas
subject to CSO's and relative control priority based on risk,
summarized in Figure 3-6, were used in alternatives developed.
Sludge Management
In formulating sludge management alternatives, key ele-
ments considered were the location of sludge processing
facilities, degree of consolidation, process, transport
methods and ultimate disposal and re-use method. The loca-
tion of sludge processing is particularly influenced by the
138
-------
Aj
^.
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
location of the treatment plants in the various alternatives
and site constraints at West Point, Alki and Carkeek Park.
The sludge processing options are affected primarily by the
ultimate mode of sludge disposal and re-use. Since all the
selected alternatives in the Facility Plan involve continua-
tion of the present disposal method of landfill at Cedar
Hills, the process options were not investigated in detail
and were limited to the various technical options available
in the market for sludge dewatering.
The continuation of the present Metro sludge disposal
to Cedar Hills landfill and study of forestry application
was selected on a short-term basis while research and plan-
ning on sludge management and disposal continues. Continua-
tion of the present practice was recommended in the Facility
Plan due to land availability for sludge disposal at exist-
ing sites and flexibility. The requirement for large commit-
ments of money and energy to other sludge treatment and dis-
posal methods was also a factor in the Facility Plan re-
commendation. However, in the interim Metro will continue
experimental forestry applications and will experiment with
incineration, pyrolysis, agricultural and park use, and land
reclamation.
The interim sludge disposal method proposed in the Draft
Facility Plan would have little or no effect on the useful
life of the Cedar Hills landfill, according to Metro calcu-
lations. The useful life of the landfill is projected at
about thirty years under current practices where primary
sludge contributes only 3 percent of the daily landfill
load. If the wastewater facilities include secondary treat-
ment, there would be an increase in the sludge production
by a factor of 1.8; this extra load would reduce the useful
life of the sanitary landfill by one year. If further
physical/chemical treatment were used (including lime and
alum), the greatest reduction in the life of the sanitary
landfill would be five years.
These figures are based on the assumption that the land-
fill site could not be re-used. However, if the sludge
could be excavated after a few years, the same sludge lagoon
could be used indefinitely. There is research underway to
determine if this sludge can be adequately dried out in the
sludge lagoons. The Cedar Hills landfill site, because of
its location in a wet climate, has a negative evaporation
potential of 20 inches/year. Although the Cedar Hills site
has incorporated dewatering techniques such as sand drainage
and seeding, it has not been determined whether the sludge
will dry out.
Various other disposal and/or re-use options were con-
sidered briefly and to varying degrees in the Facility Plan;
140
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
however, they were rejected as immediate measures. These
options include ocean dumping, Puget Sound outfall, land
reclamation, incineration, pyrolysis with municipal refuse,
public or commercial fertilizer, agricultural use, park
use and landfill. Reference is made here to the Facility
Plan for further information and future plans.
Sludge transportation alternatives were also evaluated
and related to opportunities at different regional process-
ing centers. For more detail, the reader is referred to
the Draft Facility Plan.
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
Prior to the development of wastewater management al-
ternatives and sizing of transport and treatment systems
for projected future loading requirements, measures for
potential flow and waste reduction were investigated. Such
measures, if found acceptable and economical, may decrease
system operations and maintenance costs, extend the useful
life of existing wastewater collection and treatment facili-
ties, and reduce the size and therefore the costs of future
facilities. Flow and waste reduction measures include such
items as collection system rehabilitation to reduce infiltra-
tion and inflow, domestic water conservation, and industrial
pretreatment of wastewater. Industrial waste reduction, in
both volume and strength, could also reduce loads on present
and future facilities and prevent the introduction of some
toxic or undesirable pollutants into the wastewater stream
where they may disrupt treatment processes or contaminate
either the discharged effluent or the waste residuals.
Infiltration/inflow (I/I). Infiltration is water which
enters the sewer system from groundwater seepage to defective
pipes, pipe joints, connections or manhole wells; inflow is
water discharged to the system from roof leaders, yard drains,
stormwater runoff and similar sources. Infiltration and inflow
add considerably to the volume of the wastewater in a collec-
tion system and hence increase the cost of wastewater trans-
portation and treatment. PL 92-500 (Section 201(g)(3) and
(4)) requires applicants for treatment works grants to
demonstrate that sewer systems tributary to those treatment
works are not subject to excessive infiltration/inflow (I/I).
Excessive I/I is defined as the quantity of infiltration/in-
flow which can be economically eliminated from a sewer system
by rehabilitation, as determined by a cost-effective analysis
that compares the costs of correcting the infiltration/inflow
conditions with the total costs for transportation and treat-
141
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ment of the infiltration/inflow.
In compliance with PL 92-500, detailed infiltration
analyses were conducted on the collection system in the
Metro service area. The results of the analyses showed that
the infiltration in the West Point service area was not ex-
cessive, except in one component agency collection system.
At Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park and Alki, the infiltration
again was not found to be excessive; however, some areas at
Carkeek Park were close to having excessive I/I.
Inflow analyses were conducted also on the Richmond
Beach and Carkeek Park collection systems. By the removal of
roof drain connections from the Highland sewer district, a
reduction in inflow of one mgd to the Richmond Beach treat-
ment plant would appear to be cost-effective. Reducing in-
flow at Carkeek Park to the level determined to be cost-
effective would reduce peak flows at the treatment plant
from 26 mgd to 12.5 mgd. For West Point and Alki the majority
of the collection system is combined; therefore combined sewer
overflow control measures were adopted to store the peak wet
weather flows for discharge to the collection system after
the flow rate subsides. For West Point, inflow into all the
agencies'systems except the City of Seattle was not excessive;
combined sewer overflow studies would determine the cost-
effectiveness of inflow control measures. Such measures were
employed to a varying degree in the regional alternatives
which will be discussed later in this chapter.
Disconnection of drainage hookups to the sewer system
can reduce inflow appreciably. The major sources of storm-
water connections are catch basins, roof leaders, and yard,
basement, and foundation drains. Catch basins in streets
have usually been disconnected during Seattle's Forward
Thrust sewer separation programs; however, roof, yard and
foundation drains are usually left hooked up to sanitary
sewers.
Present city ordinances prohibit connection of these
drains to sanitary sewers, although connections still occur
to combined sewers. No effort to disconnect existing founda-
tion and roof drains from sanitary sewers has been made.
Adoption of measures such as animal control, regular
street sweeping and catch basin cleaning as well as control
of gasoline additives would reduce stormwater pollutant
loadings.
Domestic water conservation. In a combined sewer system
where storm flows and infiltration from a high groundwater
142
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
table constitute a large proportion of annual average flows,
the benefits of domestic water conservation are reduced over
a system that contains primarily dry weather flow. In
Seattle, infiltration to the West Point plant constitutes
30 to 45 percent of the average daily flows of 70 to 90
million gallons per day (mgd), while domestic or nonindustrial
flow appears to be about 30 mgd. Since the system is already
sized for much higher flows of up to 350 mgd, the domestic
flow is not a serious factor in overall system sizing. How-
ever, domestic flow may be a factor in the sizing of dry
weather facilities (such as dry weather secondary treatment)
or in expanding facilities developed to meet only sanitary
sewerage requirements in separate collection systems from
newly developed areas.
Approaches to domestic water conservation include flow
reduction or flow conservation devices, pricing structures,
educational programs, and mandatory conservation programs.
Such methods or a combination of these can reduce domestic
water consumption contributing to the wastewater flows in
new dwellings by as much as 50 percent.
The effect of dry weather flow reduction by domestic
water saving measures on treatment plant sizing has been
estimated by Metro and Metropolitan Engineers.
At West Point, a reduction of 50 percent in domestic
flows would decrease the domestic contribution from about
30 to 15 mgd. This reduction of 15 mgd would in turn de-
crease dry weather flows (70 to 90 mgd) by about 20 percent
and wet weather flows (350 mgd) by about 5 percent. Because
the system transports substantial volumes of infiltration
in dry weather and inflow in wet weather, the result of
major domestic water conservation efforts would have only
minor impacts on total flows.
The Draft Facility Plan indicates a potential reduction
in domestic water flows of 7 to 25 percent, (depending on
the extent to which measures are applied), but this would not
result in a comparable 7 to 25 percent decrease in waste-
water treatment plant size or cost. This is due to the fact
that the hydraulic capacity for both transfer and treatment
units (for all but those areas sewered within the last decade),
is dictated by infiltration and storm flows. Therefore,
domestic water conservation would not significantly influence
treatment units sized on the basis of peak flow.
Total solids loads reaching the wastewater treatment
plant would not change with domestic water conservation.
(In fact, the solids concentration in incoming wastewater
143
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
would increase as flows decrease and solids loads remain
constant) .
In the secondary treatment process, the aeration or oxi-
dation step for accelerating biological decomposition is based
on solids load, so the size of these facilities would not be
affected by water conservation. Industrial pretreatment
measures could influence this aspect of the design for West
Point or the Duwamish plant under Alternative F where in-
dustrial contributions are significant.
The second stage of secondary treatment,clarification
or settling, is sized on the basis of peak flow rates. Water
conservation has the potential to reduce peak flow rates if
the sewer system is not subject to infiltration-inflow; how-
ever, all of the service areas to the four Puget Sound plants
are subject to increased flow in wet weather. Accordingly,
as a practical matter, water conservation measures would not
change clarifier design recommendations so long as peak flows
are governed by wet weather influences. In a tight system
where infiltration-inflow is low, some savings in clarifier
sizing could result. For example, if 25 percent flow reduc-
tion were accomplished at Richmond Beach (the tightest sewer
system of the four in question), the two 65-foot diameter
secondary clarifiers shown in plant layouts could be reduced
to two 54-foot diameter tanks. A savings of approxi-
mately $210,000 would be associated with this example,or
approximately $30 per home for each of the 7,000 homes in
the Richmond Beach service area. The home owner would have
to pay for retrofit devices to convert to low water use,
which would likely be on the order of $30 per home. Other
costs for administering a mandatory conservation program at
Richmond Beach would also have to be considered.
Given that Richmond Beaeh is the area of highest poten-
tial effect from domestic water conservation, the relative
savings at the other plants would be less. For example, at
West Point, the minimum dry weather flow to the plant is 60
mgd, which occurs about 6 AM. It peaks at 110 mgd at 4 PM
and drops to 100 mgd from 6 PM to midnight. If it is
assumed that 40 mgd is the domestic input and that a 25 per-
cent decrease is possible, the flow could be reduced by
10 mgd. If the design point for maximum flow is 350 mgd
the reduction is about 3 percent which would have little
impact on the plant. In addition, low flow conditions create
problems in the interceptors currently; this reduction would
make the situation worse and could require the addition of
flushing water during low periods. The benefit would be a
small reduction in combined sewer overflow.
144
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
In addition to plant siting and effects of water conserva-
tion, the relationship to pumping costs and facility staging
was addressed by Metropolitan Engineers (1977) . Pumping
costs would be relatable to total wastewater flows; water
conservation measures clearly reduce energy costs and reduce
overall operation and maintenance costs.
Water conservation, if strictly followed, could affect
sewerage facility staging by delaying incremental expansions
for pumping or for elements of treatment facilities (for
example clarifiers) where wet weather flow is not the govern-
ing factor. Paralleling of the Kenmore interceptor may be
delayed beyond the year 2005 if water conservation is strict,
provided infiltration/inflow is held to a minimum. It should
be mentioned here that although present day sewer construc-
tion techniques permit the assumption that infiltration/in-
flow may be minimized, as a practical matter there are
illicit connections (such as yard and roof drains), and house
connections often yield infiltration/inflow flows through
lawn watering.
Changes in sewage characteristics can also result from
water conservation. Recent information from conscious water
conservation efforts in California has indicated sewage
flow reductions of 20 to 50 percent have been accompanied
by waste strength (concentration) increases of 40 to 75 per-
cent.
Although Metro does not have the authority to require
flow reduction measures at this time, subsequent action may
be possible if considered desirable by people of the area.
Among the most promising possibilities is charging residen-
tial customers by volume as measured by their water usage
rather than the flat fee now charged. Another possibility
is that EPA could require mandatory water conservation before
funding wastewater facilities, a topic now under considera-
tion by the federal government.
Industrial water use reduction. Since industrial water
use, both present and projected, represents only 10 to 20
percent of the total wastewater flow in the Metro service
area, any major reduction in the water use will not contribute
significantly to the reduction of the wastewater flows. Fur-
thermore, factors restraining industries from excessive water
consumption, such as the cost of water to industry and the
industrial cost recovery (ICR) system required by PL 92-500,
act at the present as possible incentives to industry to
maximize its wastewater reduction potential. Further reduc-
tions in water use are expected to come as a result of Metro's
new industrial surcharge program based in part on flow con-
145
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
tributions. At this time it is hard to predict the impact
of this measure on the extent of water reduction.
Pretreatment. Treatment to remove pollutants at their
source before they enter the sewerage system is known as
pretreatment. It can reduce mass pollutant loadings on
facilities and prevent the introduction of pollutants which
might disrupt the treatment process, contaminate the dis-
charged effluent or affect the waste residuals. Pretreat-
ment efforts are generally focused on large (industrial or
commercial) contributors of pollutants such as toxic metals.
Pretreatment requirements are regulated by PL 92-500,
as well as state and local laws. The Municipality of Metro-
politan Seattle has the responsibility of transporting,
treating and disposing of industrial wastes considered
acceptable by local, state and federal regulations. In-
dustrial growth in the area served by Metro is encouraged
as treatment processes are utilized to achieve maximum
acceptance.
Most of the industrial wastes generated in the Seattle
area discharge into the Metro sewer system or will be
connected in the near future. Of the 425,000 Metro users,
only 200 are known to discharge more than 50,000 gallons per
day or to discharge toxic materials. The concentration of
industries along the Duwamish River, Elliott Bay, Lake Union
and the Ship Canal places them in the West Point service
area. Therefore, some industrial flows can comprise part of
the combined sewer overflows to those water bodies. For
more detail on industries, the Draft Facility Plan should
be consulted.
To assess the contribution of industries to the pollut-
ant loads and the potential benefit of pretreatment, a
rough metal balance was made on the West Point treatment
plant influent (Metropolitan Engineers, 1976). Table 3-4
presents the heavy metals contribution of industrial sources,
the water supply system and urban runoff. It can be con-
cluded from the table that for cadmium and chromium, indus-
tries contribute over one half of the wastewater metals load.
Although definitive requirements by the EPA for pretreatment
have not been finalized, the merits of pretreatment for
specific industries discharging into Metro sewer system can
be justified. More stringent pretreatment requirements
would reduce the heavy metal loads to the treatment plants
and improve the effluent quality discharged into Puget Sound.
Sludge quality also would improve, and the potential for its
re-use could be enhanced because the possibility for generat-
146
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ing adverse impacts on forested land or agricultural appli-
cation would be reduced.
TABLE 3-4
WEST POINT INFLUENT METALS LOAD BALANCE (LB/DAY)
Element
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Copper
Zinc
Chromium
Water
Supply
0.24
1.4
0.8
39.7
121.5
—
Industrial
Waste
4.3
27
13.2
13.6
26
45
Urban
Runoff
0.61
49
—
10.2
36
3.7
Ren ton
Transfer
1.15
12.6
8.0
68.5
50.5
10.3
Total
Load
6.3
90
(22)
131
234
(59)
Plant
Influent
6.5
103
56
205
420
93
Beneficial Re-use of Reclaimed Water
Section 201(g)(2)(B) of PL 92-500 states that appli-
cants for treatment plant construction grants should satis-
factorily demonstrate that the works proposed for grant
assistance will take into account and allow to the extent
practicable the application of technology at a later date
which will provide for the reclaiming or recycling of water
or otherwise eliminate the discharge of pollutants. These
concepts were evaluated in the Draft Facility Plan, as
summarized below.
In order to assess the possibility of reclaimed water
re-use in the service area, the potential market sites for
re-use and the corresponding water quality and degree of
treatment were defined.
At the present, treated effluents from West Point,
Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach are discharged to Puget
Sound. Potential beneficial uses of the reclaimed water in
the service areas include landscape irrigation of public
parks and ground, agricultural irrigation, forest land
irrigation, industrial operations, Ship Canal lockage water,
and lake rehabilitation.
Agricultural re-use. The application of reclaimed
wastewater for agricultural re-use, particularly for irriga-
tion and fertilizer value, was evaluated in the Draft Facility
Plan as summarized below.
147
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Water quality requirements for irrigation focus primarily
on microbiological and chemical considerations. With the
use of reclaimed water, the microbiological quality is of ut-
most importance, and the requirement may vary depending on
the type of crop being irrigated and the intended use of
the crop. The chemical composition is also an important
factor. The dissolved solids content, heavy metals concen-
tration, cadmium:zinc ratio, and sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR) are of interest when considering the land application
of wastewater.
Agricultural lands are limited in the Puget Sound region.
In the Cedar and Green River basins it has been estimated
that about 20,000 acres were cropped in 1968, of which approxi-
mately 15 percent were irrigated. Most of the crop lands
are located in flood plains and are subject to seasonal high
water table. Agricultural irrigation would be costly and
difficult to implement. Distribution and storage facilities
would be required, together with buffer zones around the
irrigated areas, strict operational controls and surface and
groundwater quality monitoring. Problems in using reclaimed
water on agricultural lands include the following:
• Urban encroachment continues to reduce the
area in crops.
• Farms are generally of small size (about 60
acres average).
• Use of pasture land requires a high degree of
wastewater disinfection (23 total coliform per
100 ml), and, for food crops, filtration of
wastewater is required before application.
• Much of the area is subject to flooding, which
could move sediments with high concentrations
of heavy metals and phosphorus into surface
waters.
• Much of the area would require subsurface drain-
age systems to eliminate high water table.
Reclaimed wastewater facilities and operational require-
ments would cost more than irrigation from conventional ground
or surface water sources for nearly all lands in the region.
Therefore, crop irrigation with wastewater is not justified
economically. Irrigation use would not reduce the require-
ments for secondary treatment with complete disinfection.
Forest lands having suitable soils for irrigation have
been identified within a distance of 50 miles from Seattle.
148
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Wastewater irrigation of forest lands might increase timber
production, although evidence to date suggests a 10 percent
decline in natural seedling growth; undewatered sludge appli-
cations to forest stands provide moisture and nutrients for
growth as well as added organic matter to improve forest
soils. Forest irrigation was investigated under the RIBCO
program, and it was found that the annual costs for storage
and distribution of wastewater outweighed the value of in-
creased timber production. Undewatered and dewatered sludge
applications are subjects of recent Metro research projects
and may prove feasible in some areas around Puget Sound. It
should be noted that Metro is currently providing the Univer-
sity of Washington with secondary treated effluent from
Renton for use in forest irrigation studies conducted in con-
junction with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Industrial re-use. Major industry in the Seattle area
is concentrated in the Duwamish valley and presently has a
water demand of over 20 mgd. Potential usage and estimated
costs to transport effluent to industry were weighed against
the present inexpensive, abundant, freshwater supplies al-
ready in use. A minimal potential exists for industrial
use of reclaimed wastewater, according to the Draft Facility
Plan. Considerable recycling and in-house conservation
practices by industry are anticipated due to the recent
introduction of industrial waste surcharges, an industrial
cost recovery program and federal pretreatment regulations.
This would further diminish the potential market for reno-
vated water.
Stream flow augmentation. Stream flow augmentation by
treated wastewater discharge, although not often recognized
as such, is the oldest form of re-use. Currently, all waste-
water collected within the area served by the four Puget
Sound plants is discharged to marine waters; however, if
unsewered areas were served by inland plants, stream dis-
charge and flow augmentation to the Sammamish River and for
lake flushing could be considered as effluent re-use modes.
High levels of treatment would be required, involving nutri-
ent removal as well as special attention to public health
issues. It should be emphasized that the State Department
of Ecology has a policy discouraging discharge of treated
wastewater in the Lake Washington drainage basin. However,
despite the regulatory policy, it must be recognized that
currently, during summer months, low influent flows to Lake
Washington are exceeded by lake losses due to ground seepage
and evaporation, hence the interest in lake discharge from
a water resource standpoint. The DOE indicates, however,
that treated sewage would not necessarily be considered an
149
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
improvement over saltwater; even high quality effluents with
a large amount of nitrogen or phosphorus will cause sub-
stantial algae problems in Lake Washington. Also, as a
result of lack of flushing water from the lake, saline Puget
Sound waters enter the Ship Canal during lock operation.
Analogous to stream flow augmentation, wastewater effluent
could be added upstream of the locks to ensure a positive
net outflow and prevent the current saline intrusion. Again,
the impacts of this effluent on nutrients, bacteria or
toxicants would have to be considered along with costs rela-
tive to more efficient lockage or more storage on the Cedar
River.
Reclamation for other uses. Other potential effluent
re-uses include groundwater recharge, direct re-use as munici-
pal water supply and recreational re-use.
The deliberate recharge of treated wastewater to ground-
water basins by either surface methods or injection face a
number of technical and legal problems. Virus contamination,
nitrogen and mineral accumulation, and water extraction rights
all have to be considered. For the study area, natural re-
charge through the large surface water areas of Lake Washing-
ton and Lake Sammamish ensure groundwater supplies in excess
of extraction requirements, rendering recharge unnecessary.
Reclamation of wastewater for domestic consumption or
for body contact recreation represents the most advanced
form of re-use and requires more consideration of technical,
political and psychological factors. It is unlikely, accord-
ing to the facilities planning engineers, that these forms
of water reclamation would be justifiable in the Seattle
metropolitan area, where abundant local sources of high
quality water offer greater potential at lower cost. The
Seattle area enjoys a wealth of salt and freshwaters; con-
sequently, wastewater re-use for recreational purposes has no
real potential.
150
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
REGIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Eight alternatives on the regional level are being
considered and evaluated by the Draft Facility Plan. These
alternatives differ in the degree to which issues such as
cost, water quality, site impacts, and compliance with the
law are addressed. The regional alternatives consist of
one "no-action" alternative, one alternative in line with
the present comprehensive plan for the study area, two
which emphasize combined sewer overflow abatement with
minimal treatment upgrading, and four alternatives which
achieve secondary treatment with variations on combined
sewer overflow controls, site impacts and re-use options.
The eight alternatives are summarized below and in
Figure 3-1. They are described in more detail in subse-
quent sections of this chapter. Mixtures of component
elements could be blended to design hybrid alternatives as
described at the end of this section.
Alternative A - No Action
No capital expenditure would be made for expansion,
modification or upgrading of treatment plants or construc-
tion of new interceptors during the planning period (until
2005). Alternative A is evaluated to meet SEPA "no action"
requirements.
Alternative B - Metro Comprehensive Plan
(No Action Pursuant to PL 92-500)
Plant upgrading and transfer interceptor construction
would be done according to the Metro Comprehensive Plan.
Alternative B is also evaluated as the "no action" alternative
pursuant to PL 92-500 and NEPA requirements; therefore, it
serves as the baseline for other alternatives in the EIS.
Puget Sound plants at West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park, and
Richmond Beach would be retained with primary treatment.
Improved sludge management and disinfection practices would
be provided in Alternative B and all following alternatives.
Four new transfer interceptors and improvements to the Alki
outfall would be included.
151
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C - Major Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Major portions of combined sewer overflows would be
controlled by transfer from fresh to saltwater and/or by
upgraded treatment. The existing Puget Sound plants would
be upgraded to provide enhanced primary treatment by physi-
cal/chemical treatment of solids during the summer. A new
wet weather enhanced primary treatment plant would be con-
structed in the lower Duwamish industrial area, and the
Alki plant would be abandoned, both in 1995. Five new
transfer interceptors would be built. Nineteen holding
tanks would be built to control combined sewer overflows.
One new outfall to Elliott Bay would discharge wet weather
flows. The Duwamish plant effluent would be treated.
Alternative D - Partial Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Wet weather combined sewer overflows would be reduced
to Lake Washington, Lake Union and the West Seattle shore-
line and transferred to saltwater. The four Puget Sound
plants would be upgraded to enhanced primary treatment with
chemical addition during the summer for improved solids re-
moval. Eight holding tanks would be built to control combined
sewer overflows. One new outfall to Elliott Bay would dis-
charge wet weather flows. Four new transfer interceptors
would be constructed.
Alternative E - Secondary
Secondary treatment would be added to the West Point,
Alki and Richmond Beach wastewater treatment plants by 1985.
The Carkeek Park plant would provide primary treatment for
wet weather flows only beginning in 1985; dry weather flows
would be pumped to West Point. The Carkeek Park plant could
be abandoned probably in 1995 (depending on City of Seattle
sewer separation programs). Five new transfer interceptors
would be constructed.
Alternative F - Secondary/Southern Strategy
Secondary treatment would be provided at Richmond
Beach and West Point (with a reduced service area). A major
new secondary treatment facility would be constructed in
the Duwamish industrial area in 1985; the Alki plant would
152
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
be abandoned at that time. A new outfall off Alki Point
would be built for discharging effluent from the Duwamish
(and Renton) plants. The Carkeek Park plant would provide
primary treatment for wet weather flows only beginning in
1985; dry weather flows would be pumped to West Point. The
Carkeek Park plant would be abandoned, probably in 1995
(depending on the City of Seattle sewer separation program).
Seven new transfer interceptors would be built to accommodate
changes in treatment plant service areas.
Alternative G - Secondary/West Point Phaseout Option
Secondary treatment would be provided at the Alki and
Richmond Beach plants. West Point would continue as a
primary treatment plant for wet weather flows only- beginning
in 1985. A new secondary treatment plant in the Interbay
area (Commodore Way or Golf Park sites) would be constructed.
The Carkeek Park plant would provide primary treatment for
wet weather flows only beginning in 1985; dry weather flows
would be pumped to West Point. The Carkeek Park plant would
be abandoned, probably by 1995 (depending on the City of
Seattle sewer separation program). Six new transfer inter-
ceptors would be built to accommodate changes in treatment
plant service areas.
Alternative H - Deconsolidation/Reclamation
Secondary treatment would be provided at West Point,
Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach. Areas of growth
would be served by new inland plants with local effluent
and sludge re-use possible. Advanced waste treatment would
be provided at new North and South Lake Sammamish plants. A
new secondary plant at Kenmore would discharge treated
effluent to Puget Sound through a new outfall off Richmond
Beach. Three new transfer interceptors would be built.
Other Alternatives
Various combinations of components from the various
regional alternatives could be selected to compose a new
alternative, designed to achieve a different blend of
objectives on site effects, costs, water quality, legal
compliance, or other factors. Some of the new hybrid alterna-
tives which have been suggested as of July 1977 are summarized
below:
153
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
1. Secondary plus combined sewer overflow control
was suggested by several persons attending the May 25, 1977
regional workshop on the Facility Plan and EIS. This type
of combination, which suggested no specific sites for
secondary treatment, would improve water quality relative to
alternatives with only secondary treatment or CSO control.
For the comparable CSO reduction in Alternative C, capital
costs for secondary alternatives E through H would be approxi-
mately $100,000,000 more than respective secondary alterna-
tives .
2. A combination of the West Point Phaseout Option
(Alternative G) plus the Southern Strategy (Alternative F)
was suggested. This could involve constructing two new
treatment plants and (depending on facilities siting) could
reduce CSO's. Although not calculated yet, both water
quality improvement and costs would appear to increase. Site
effects on the new plant sites would occur, but would be
balanced by a greater potential for parkland uses at West
Point.
3. Another proposed variation includes (1) phase-down
of West Point to a wet weather plant only, possibly with
enhanced primary but not secondary treatment; and (2) con-
struction of the new Duwamish plant with secondary capability
and sufficiently large capacity so that it can handle the
dry weather load now carried by West Point, Alki, and Carkeek.
West Point would then continue to serve as a wet weather
plant, and Alki and Carkeek would be phased out. Dewatered
sludge could be phased out. Dewatered sludge could be handled
at West Point or facilities could be added at Renton and/or
Duwamish to process it. The major advantage of this proposal
is that it would permit West Point to phasedown while avoid-
ing the practical problems of building an Interbay plant.
4. Another alternative would be a mixture of A (No
Action) and H (Deconsolidation/Reclamation). It is responsive
to the comments that a limited future interceptor service
alternative might have beneficial impacts and it recognizes
the merits of the Kenmore proposal.
This alternative would consist of no plants on Lake
Sammamish; growth in that area would use existing Metro
interceptors and feed to Kenmore or West Point, or be on
permanent septic tanks coupled with management and inspec-
tion systems.
In addition, either (1) the Kenmore plant with a pipe-
line to Puget Sound would be constructed or (2) effluent
from north Lake Washington would be routed to the Richmond
Beach or Lynnwood plants and more south Snohomish develop-
154
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ment would be put on permanent septic tanks with management
and inspection systems. With money saved from not building
the Kenmore plant, it is possible that the Duwamish plant
could be built according to revised alternative, described
above in item 3.
If Black Diamond wants to be served by Metro, a small
decentralized system to serve Black Diamond-Lake Sawyer
could be built, eliminating interceptor connections to
Renton.
This alternative would create more opportunities for
local regulation of growth, but costs have not been cal-
culated. The transfer of treated wastewater flows to salt-
water rather than Lake Sammamish would benefit lake water
quality relative to it.
5. The Alternatives Selection Task Force of the Citi-
zens Water Quality Advisory Committee (CWQAC) has developed
24 new combinations that combine various features of alterna-
tives. All contain secondary treatment to comply with PL 92-
500 requirements. Addition of CSO controls to secondary
alternatives (E, F, G, or H) or combinations of secondary
alternatives (such as F and G) have been proposed in terms
of several options: (1) holding tank CSO controls, (2) re-
taining Carkeek Park as a wet weather plant with eventual
phaseout, (3) constructing a Duwamish wet weather treatment
plant. The CWQAC task force also summarized advantages and
disadvantages of these new combinations in terms of plant
CSO control, legal requirements, potential for effluent re-use,
shoreline fill, plant size, financial effects, water quality
and other factors. The task force envisions CWQAC narrow-
ing down the alternatives to a smaller number for input into
the facilities planning process.
On June 28, 1977, after preliminary task force work,
the full committee of CWQAC selected six "hybrid" alterna-
tives which seemed the most appealing for further develop-
ment. All assume secondary treatment, combined sewer over-
flow controls, and a Duwamish plant. Other factors important
in CWQAC's selection were abandoning the Alki plant, reducing
expansion at existing plants, deemphasizing relocation of
the West Point plant, deconsolidation and reclamation of
sludge and/or effluent. The six hybrid alternatives suggested
by CWQAC are as follows: Alternative F-2 (Alternative F,
plus wet weather treatment capacity at Duwamish plant and
holding tank CSO controls), Alternative F-3 (Alternative F,
plus wet weather treatment capacity at Duwamish, holding tank
CSO controls, and Carkeek retained as wet weather plant),
Alternative H-3 (Alternative H, plus Duwamish wet weather
plant, holding tank CSO controls, and conversion of Carkeek
155
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
to wet weather plant), Alternative F/G-3 (Alternatives F/G,
plus wet weather treatment capacity at Duwamish plant, holding
tank CSO controls, and retention of Carkeek Park for wet
weather treatment), Alternative F/H-2 (Alternatives F/H,
plus wet weather capacity for Duwamish plant and holding tank
CSO controls) and Alternative F/H-3 (Alternatives F/H, plus
wet weather capacity for Duwamish plant, holding tank CSO
controls, and retain Carkeek for wet weather).
6. For Alternative F, three alternative plant sites
in the Duwamish area were identified by the City of Seattle.
Site Number 1 is the Boeing Oxbow parking lot, which is
bordered on the east by East Marginal Way, on the west by
West Marginal Way and approximately bisected by the 30th
Avenue bridge. This site is presently owned by Boeing and
is large enough to accommodate a Duwamish treatment plant.
Site Number 2 is northwest of Site Number 1, it is bordered
by the Duwamish to the east, 96th Street to the south, 15th
Avenue South to the west and 91st Street to the north.
According to Metro staff, Site Number 2 is too small for
the Duwamish plant and is owned by Seattle City Light. Site
Number 3, located north of Site Number 2, is bounded to the
east by the Duwamish, to the south by Donovan, to the west
by 15th Avenue, and to the north by Cloverdale. Site Number
3 is owned by the City, but Metro staff indicate it is too
small for the proposed Duwamish treatment plant
Several points on these new potential alternatives are
worth mentioning. First, the possible combinations are
large, so it may be efficient for those involved in the
Facility Plan/EIS process to determine which features of
alternatives (such as CSO control to Lake Washington, aban-
doning Alki, converting West Point or Carkeek Park to a
wet weather plant to contain site expansion, or use of
Interbay or Duwamish plants) are desirable or undesirable.
Then the options can be narrowed down to a manageable number.
Second, the new alternatives suggested to date incorporate
few if any components that have not been included in one of
the eight regional alternatives. Therefore, blending would
not mean developing entirely new concepts or components.
Third, all suggested recombinations include secondary treat-
ment plus some form of CSO control.
Determinations on hybrid alternatives would be made
before the final EIS is complete.
IMPACT ANALYSIS METHOD
The analysis of environmental impacts was based on
156
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
information on existing conditions (Chapter II) plus details
on population, wastewater flow, loads, costs, site require-
ments, energy consumption, sludge truck traffic, employment
and other relevant information. Much of the background
material for analyses is available in the Draft Facility
Plan.
Impacts of these and other factors are described in the
Draft EIS in the remaining portions of Chapter III. Each
alternative is described, then followed by a discussion of
its impacts to the year 2005. Finally, impacts of all
alternatives are summarized.
The analysis evaluates several components of impacts:
(1) Cause - such as combined sewer overflow, change
in wastewater flow and loads, plant siting;
(2) Effect - such as changes in water quality or
biology, costs, impact on recreation;
(3) Quality - beneficial or adverse;
(4) Magnitude - such as major, minor, significant;
(5) Extent - large or small area;
(6) Duration - long- or short-term;
(7) Reversibility - reversible or irreversible;
(8) Probability - general terms for the likelihood
of impact;
(9) Relationship to alternative - direct (primary) or
indirect (secondary) impacts.
Measures that could mitigate adverse impacts are pre-
sented, followed by a listing of unavoidable adverse im-
pacts.
Impacts are described numerically to the extent possible,
Where quantitative information is not available or is un-
certain, the impacts are presented in narrative form.
Growth impacts are described in two places, first as
they affect water quality under each alternative, and second
in a separate section on generated growth impacts.
A numerical matrix was used as part of the impact
analysis in the Preliminary Draft EIS. The matrix involved
157
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
numerical determinations of the degree of impact and sig-
nificance of impact for each alternative on approximately
150 impact categories. The two numbers were multiplied
together, with the products added to give a rating by
alternative for the physical environment, the biological
environment, the human environment and natural resources/
energy. The totals for each alternative were then compared.
It was deleted from the Draft EIS at the request of EPA,
DOE, and Metro primarily because of difficulties in quantita-
tively relating future impacts to uncertainties in existing
data and in defining clearly the differences among alterna-
tives. However, it is possible that a revised version of the
matrix could be used in the Final EIS.
158
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ALTERNATIVE A
NO ACTION
The description of Alternative A and its projected im-
pacts to the year 2005 are presented in this section.
Description
Alternative A represents the no action alternative in
which the existing facilities would continue to operate with
no capital improvements or new construction.
The major wastewater facilities contained in Alternative
A are illustrated in Figure 1-2. Major features of the al-
ternative are summarized in Table 3-5, including treatment
plants, effluent discharges and combined sewer overflows.
The alternative is further described below in terms of
service area, treatment plants (location, treatment process,
effluent disposal site), combined sewer overflow control,
and sludge management. The indirect or secondary effects of
the facilities proposed under this alternative on the Renton
plant are also described.
Service Area
The service area of Alternative A would be as shown
in Figure 3-1. No changes would be made in the service
area relative to existing conditions.
Treatment Plants
The wastewater treatment facilities under Alternative A
would be as shown in Table 3-5. The West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach plants would continue to
provide primary treatment; treated wastewater would be dis-
charged through the existing outfalls at each plant.
The West Point treatment plant would treat 104 mgd
average, 350 mgd peak flows. This would represent no
change over 1975 flows in anticipation of continuing sewer-
age service to 510,000 people. Some of the remaining
321,000 would locate in the already sewered areas, but plant
capacity would not be increased.
159
-------
Flow (mgd) 2005
(average/peak)
Disposal
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
TABLE 3-5
ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION
SUMMARY
TREATMENT PLANTS
WEST POINT
Primary
104/350
Puget Sound
ALKI
Primary
10/30
Puget Sound
CARKEEK PARK
Primary
3.5/20
Puget Sound
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (2005)
TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGES
HAJOR NEW TRANSFER FACILITIES
RICHMOND BEACH
Primary
2.5/9
Puget Sound
(Millior
Lake Washington
Lake Sammamish
Portane Bay/Montlake Cut
Lake Union
Ship Canal/Salmon Bay
Elliott nay
AU'i Beach
Duwamish/Green River
FLOW
i Gallons/Yr)
16
0
195
42
186
35S
5
251
SOLIDS
(Ton/Yr)
15
0
177
38
169
325
5
227
BOD
(Ton/Yr)
4
0
48
10
46
39
1
62
Ucst Point
•>lki
Carkeek Park
Richmond Beach
"enton
FLOW
(Million Gallons/Yr)
-!3, 100
3,650
1,330
910
12,050
SOLIDS
(Ton/Yr)
1 u , 0 0 0
910
380
230
750
BOD
(Ton/Yr)
1 •'. , 4 0 0
1,220
DlO
300
760
RENTON*
Secondary
33/96
•Not included ln proposed PaciUty Plan for Puget Sound plant
160
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
The average flow at Alki, Richmond Beach and Carkeek
Park would increase to be 10, 2.5 and 3.5 mgd respectively
due to increases projected for the sewered population in these
service areas. However, no modifications in the plants would
be made since the plants were sited to handle a dry weather
flow that corresponds to the volume of sewage that would be
expected from the 2005 populations.
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
In Alternative A, combined sewer overflows would not
change relative to existing conditions. No new facilities
for controlling CSO's would be built, but the present in-line
storage system would continue to be operated in its present
manner.
Sludge Management
The sludge management system for Alternative A would
continue as under existing conditions, with West Point
functioning as the regional sludge management facility.
Anaerobically digested sludge from Carkeek Park and Richmond
Beach would be trucked to the Interbay pumping station for
further transfer to West Point influent, subsequent settling,
anaerobic digestion and dewatering. Digested sludge from
Alki would be trucked, undewatered, to the Cedar Hills land-
fill. Untreated sludge from Renton plus the solids from
West Point influent would be anaerobically digested at West
Point, dewatered, and trucked to Cedar Hills landfill and
the Pack Forest site. Methane gas produced by anaerobic
digestion would be used to the extent possible at the West
Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach plants.
Renton
Although the Renton service area and treatment plant
are not included in the facilities for Alternative A, the
alternative would have secondary or indirect impacts
on the Renton plant. Since no action would be taken, Renton
capacity would remain at 33 mgd average, 96 mgd peak be-
cause no major change would be made in the sewered popula-
tion within the service area. Secondary air activated sludge
treatment would be continued before discharging wastewater
to the Duwamish. Sludge from primary and secondary settling
facilities would be treated at West Point.
161
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
Primary Impacts
The direct impacts of this alternative are described
below in terms of geology, soils and topography; air quality
and odors; water quality; biology; energy and natural re-
sources; and the human environment. Indirect impacts of
this alternative and the effects of Renton discharge are
summarized in a later section on secondary impacts.
Geology, Soils and Topography
Because no site modifications are included, the No
Action Alternative would have no impact on slopes and soil
stability, erosion and deposition, topography and soil pro-
file, or shorelines.
Risk of damage from earthquakes, a function of location
and soil properties, would continue. Any potential damage
is expected to be minor and of limited extent. Structures
on fill, peaty, soft, or loosely consolidated soils would
be at greatest risk.
The outfalls would continue to affect the character of
the surface of marine sediments which lie in preferred plume
positions, by influencing organic content, grain size, and
chemistry. Shoreline sediments would continue to be occa-
sionally subject to similar effects associated with efflu-
ent on eastside beaches.
Impacts of future sludge disposal practices at the
Cedar Hills landfill and the Pack Forest experimental site
would continue to be monitored. For Cedar Hills, the use-
ful life is expected to continue for 30 years (approximately
to 2007) under projected sludge loadings for this alterna-
tive.
Air Quality and Odors
The trucking of sludge from Richmond Beach to West Point
and from West Point, Carkeek Park, and Alki to the Cedar
Hills landfill would emit approximately 480 grams of hydro-
carbons, 3020 grams of carbon monoxide, and 2200 grams of
nitrogen oxides per day. Operating personnel traffic to
wastewater treatment plants would generate approximately
2460 grams of hydrocarbons, 31,700 grams of carbon monoxide,
and 4050 grams of nitrogen oxides per day. The combined
162
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
emissions would be less than 0.01 of 1% of Seattle's total
daily emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitro-
gen oxides. The air pollutants emitted under this alterna-
tive would have a negligible, long-term, adverse, reversible
impact on the air quality of the Seattle area. Trucking to
Pack Forest would involve more vehicle miles of traffic and
also pollutants, but the overall contribution to the airshed
would be minor.
Because there are no changes in the treatment plants
under this alternative, the potential for odor problems at
each plant would continue as at present. CSO's and their
associated odors would continue as at present in Lake Washing-
ton, Portage Bay, Lake Union, the Ship Canal, and Elliott Bay.
The potential odor problems associated with this alternative
would have a minor, adverse, long-term, reversible impact on
the environmental quality of the Seattle area.
Water Quality
Under the No Action Alternative, combined sewer over-
flows-would not be further controlled and would continue at
present levels until 2005. Additional sewered population
within the Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach service area
would increase wastewater flows and loads from these plants
to Puget Sound, but West Point flows and loads would remain
as under existing conditions. Principal areas of interest
for water quality impacts are Lake Washington, Lake Union/
Ship Canal, Duwamish Estuary and Puget Sound.
Lake Washington. Information available to project future
combined sewer overflow (CSO) impacts on Lake Washington is
limited. Metro data on present overflow quality is available
for one overflow point (Madison Park) during two storms
sampled in August 1976. Data, summarized in Table 3-6, in-
dicates certain contaminants such as PCB's, several pesti-
cides, mercury and cadmium exceeded EPA water quality
criteria for freshwater life. Based on dye studies, water
moves rapidly to shore toward a bathing beach, so public
health impacts of water quality are also of interest.
Under Alternative A, combined sewer overflows would
continue at their present levels: approximately 16 million
gallons per year, carrying 15 tons of suspended solids and 4
tons of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (Metropolitan
Engineers, 1977). Flows and loads are approximate, since
CSO's can vary with rainfall patterns, time since last
storm and other factors. Loads of toxicants, nutrients,
163
-------
TABLE 3-6
SELECTED WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
LEVELS IN MADISON PARK OVERFLOW, AUGUST 1976
AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Parameter
Levels in
Overflow
U.S. EPA WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Nickel
PCBs
<0.004-0.061 mg/1 0.0004 mg/1 Salmonids
0.004 other freshwater life
0.01-0.04 mg/1 0.3 mg/1
0.0005-0.003 mg/1 0.00005 mg/1
<0.02-0.07 mg/1 0.1 mg/1
0.63 yg/1 0.001 yg/1
Pesticides
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.007-0.03 yg/1 0.003 yg/1
DDT/DDE/DDD 0.002-0.53 yg/1 0.001 yg/1
Heptachlor 0.002-0.003 yg/1 0.01 yg/1
Lindane 0.009-0.787 yg/1 0.01 yg/1
Source: Metro Staff; Combined Sewer Overflow Studies,1976;
U.S. EPA Proposed Water Quality Criteria, 1975
164
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
microorganisms and other factors have not been calculated
due to insufficient information.
The adverse impacts of continued CSO's on water quality
of the lake as a whole are expected to be minor, since the
flows from 41 CSO points along the western shore of the lake
would be small in comparison to the lake volume (6,900,000
million gallons). Impacts would be limited to the western
shore, intermittent, and continuing through the planning
period. Many changes in water quality (temperature, dissolved
oxygen, microorganisms) would be reversible; however, accumula-
tion of toxicants such as PCB's, pesticides, and heavy metals
would tend to make these effects irreversible. Temporarily
elevated coliform counts from combined sewer overflows moving
toward bathing beaches (diluted about 8:1) following storms,
would cause regulatory agencies to close beaches for health
reasons.
Lake Union/Ship Canal. Information for projecting future
impacts of combined sewer overflows to Lake Union/Ship Canal
is limited. Of the 32 CSO points along the waterway, one
at Roanoke Street (discharging to Lake Union) was sampled in
August, 1976 (Metro Staff, 1976). Data shown in Table 3-7
for Roanoke Street indicates several metals and pesticides
exceeded EPA criteria for freshwater life. BOD concentra-
tions of 10-29 mg/1 and suspended solids concentrations of
48-148 mg/1 were measured in the same survey.
According to calculations in the Draft Facility Plan
(Metropolitan Engineers, 1977), CSO's to Lake Unon and the
Ship Canal/Salmon Bay would continue at current levels under
Alternative A. Thus, combined sewer overflows to Lake Union
would total 42 million gallons, carrying 38 tons of solids
and 10 tons of BOD per year. Similarly, the CSO flow would
continue at 186 million gallons to Ship Canal/Salmon Bay
per year, with 169 tons of solids and 46 tons of BOD. Fig-
ures are approximate since CSO loads and flows are some-
what variable. Furthermore, total discharge of toxic mate-
rials has not been calculated.
Effects of overflows would probably be minor in the
Ship Canal, which is relatively well flushed. Lake Union,
however, has poor circulation and would receive from four
major and four minor overflows about 42 million gallons per
year. In the absence of data, it is estimated that projected
increases would probably have a minor but extensive, adverse
impact on water quality.
165
-------
TABLE 3-7
SELECTED PARAMETERS IN THE ROANOKE STREET OVERFLOW,
AUGUST 1975, AND U.S. EPA PROPOSED WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR FRESHWATER LIFE
Parameters
Overflow
U.S. EPA 1975 Criteria
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
PCBs
Pesticides
Aldrin/Dieldrin
DDT/DDE/DDD
Heptachlor
Lindane
<0.004-0.031 mg/1 0.0004 Salmonids
0.004 mg/1 others
<0.01-0.06
0.0004-0.0018
<0.02-0.02 mg/1
0.59 yg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.00005 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.001 yg/1
0.001-0.03 yg/1 0.003 yg/1
0.003-0.118 yg/1 0.001 yg/1
0.001-0.009 yg/1 0.01 yg/1
0.02-0.04 yg/1 0.01 yg/1
Source: Metro Staff; Combined Sewer Overflow Studies,1976;
U. S. EPA Proposed Water Quality Criteria,1975
166
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
Other freshwaters. The No Action Alternative is not
projected to directly affect water quality in the Cedar,
Sammamish or Green Rivers or in Lake Sammamish.
Duwamish estuary. The direct effects on water quality
due to combined sewer overflows are described in this sec-
tion; indirect impacts from Renton treatment plant effluent
are described in a later section. Relative to Renton effluent,
the effects of CSO's are expected to be minor since they would
contribute a total of approximately 251 million gallons per
year to the Duwamish, compared to an annual Renton flow of
12,050 million gallons in 2005.
Information on which to project water quality effects
from CSO's to the Duwamish is limited. During August 1976,
surveys of the Hanford overflow to the Duwamish indicated
mercury, PCB's and two pesticides in the overflow exceeded
EPA criteria for freshwater life, as shown in Table 3-8.
Quality is expected to be variable depending on storm
characteristics. According to the facilities planning
engineers, annual CSO flows to the Duwamish in 2005 (as in
1975) would be 251 million gallons, carrying 227 tons of
suspended solids and 62 tons of biochemical oxygen demand.
Annual toxicant loads have not been calculated because only
limited information exists.
Unlike Renton effluent, CSO's would contain completely
untreated wastes eight times higher in oil, grease and
other constituents. They would also continue to contribute
plugs of material with major rains. The highly probable
effects on nearshore areas from toxicants and heavy metals
could be significant, because of the volume discharged, but
localized in nature for identifiable impacts. However,
pollutants from the Duwamish are known to move toward West
Point beaches so toxicants could have more far reaching ad-
verse irreversible impacts. Impacts would be long-term
since CSO's are intermittent but continuing. Inputs of
greater volume and concentration from industrial sources and
Renton are felt to be more significant overall, however, for
water quality in the Duwamish.
Puget Sound. Water quality in Puget Sound is expected
to be influenced by treatment plant discharges and some
combined sewer overflows to Elliott Bay and off Alki Beach.
Flows from West Point and CSO's would continue at 1975
levels, but wastewater discharged off Alki, Carkeek Park
and Richmond Beach would increase by 21, 33 and 52 percent
relative to existing conditions. Overall, the effect on
Puget Sound from Metro wastewater facilities would continue
167
-------
TABLE 3-8
HANFORD OVERFLOW TO THE DUWAMISH
SELECTED PARAMETERS IN OVERFLOW, AUGUST 1976 ,
COMPARED TO USEPA CRITERIA, 1975
Parameter
Overflow
Criteria
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
PCBs
Pesticides
Aldrin/Dieldrin
DDT/DDD/DDE
<0.004-0.078 mg/1 0.0004 mg/1 (Salmonids)
0.004 mg/1 (other FW)
0.005 mg/1 (marine)
<.01-.07 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.0006-0.0014 mg/1 0.00005 mg/1 (FW)
0.0001 mg/1 (marine)
<0.2-0.11 mg/1
2.51 yg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.001 yg/1
0.02, 0.003 yg/1 0.003 yg/1
0.01 (DDE only) 0.001
Source: Metro Staff; Combined Sewer Overflows Study, 1976
U.S. EPA Proposed Water Quality Criteria, 1975
168
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
essentially at present levels.
The No Action Alternative would have no effect on the
temperature or salinity of Puget Sound. Nturients discharged
from West Point have apparently resulted in a 15 to 20% in-
crease in 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 year primary production extremes
within a mile north and south of the treatment plant and an
over-enrichment of waters at West Point beaches reflected
in intertidal plants and animals. As municipal and industrial
flows and combined sewer overflows are expected to increase
in the future, an additional nutrient load would be placed
on the Sound which would increase the magnitude of observed
effects. The adverse impact on the Sound would probably be
moderate, because of the size of the flows; felt throughout
the waters off West Point; of long duration, because the
discharge will continue through the planning period; and
reversible for parameters other than metals and toxicants.
Suspended solids discharged by CSO's along Alki Beach
and Elliott Bay would continue at present levels, causing
adverse impacts judged to be minor, because the effects are
incremental. Impacts would also be extensive, because a
large area is affected, and of long duration, primarily be-
cause of induced biological stresses. Additional solids
loads could deposit within pores of sand, changing the sub-
strate chemistry and the structure of the environment for
benthic fauna. Offshore and nearshore, the solids load should
cause no measurable difference from the present system.
From the standpoint of microbiology and related public
health concerns, the adverse impacts of continued CSO's and
nearshore discharge from the Alki outfall would be signifi-
cant, as violations of state fecal coliform standards for
commercial shellfish waters would continue. Impacts would
be extensive, as the entire shoreline in the Metro area
appears to be affected, and long-term, as the occurrence of
problems is intermittent but continuing. Effects would be
reversible, as pathogens are generally inactivated after a
certain period. Intertidal and nearshore subtidal clams
would probably be unsafe at times due to bacterial or viral
contamination from wastewater treatment plants or CSO dis-
charges.
The effects of heavy metals input on Puget Sound,
which would continue and increase slightly under Alternative
A, are not well understood. Although the Puget Sound Interim
Studies have made a concerted effort at assessing existing
impacts, the issue is complex and additional studies are
needed for more complete understanding of the relative
heavy metals loading from various sources (Metro wastewater
plants, other municipal facilities, industrial discharge,
169
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
non-point sources of water pollution including CSO's, vessels
and aerial fallout) as well as the fates of the metals in
Puget Sound. Nearshore and offshore waters are presently
high in lead and cadmium, but these levels are not attribut-
able to Metro from existing data. Estimates of inputs for
copper, lead and zinc, shown in Table 2-7 previously, suggest
that the West Point facility and other municipal plants are
sources of minor or equal importance with other man-caused
sources. The net effect by 2005 of increasing heavy metals
loads from Metro outfalls and CSO's under Alternative A on
intertidal nearshore and offshore waters is unknown.
Toxicants and PCB's are not thoroughly understood in the
existing discharge situation, which would continue under
Alternative A. It is possible that toxicants in Metro dis-
charges are adversely affecting beaches at present, but the
levels of toxic constituents in Metro's wastewater and in
receiving waters have not been fully determined. The Metro
plants receive both domestic and industrial wastes, but de-
tailed measurements of toxicants have yet to be made. Im-
pacts at some beaches may be more likely due to CSO's or
outflows from the industrialized Duwamish area (including
Renton effluent), which flow from the Duwamish River estuary
into Elliott Bay and move toward West Point. Contributions
of toxicants to nearshore and offshore waters would probably
be less, primarily because CSO's and the Duwamish discharge
would be likely to reach them only in small amounts.
For PCB's, which could accumulate in water bodies, the
Toxic Substances Act of October 1976 prohibits their manu-
facture, sale, or use, other than in a totally enclosed en-
vironment, after January 1, 1978. All manufacture of PCB's
is prohibited as of January 1, 1979 and all distribution as
of July 1 of that year. Although PCB's are now in wide use,
it is expected that as of 1978-1979 their presence in over-
flows and treatment plant effluents in the study area will
begin to decline. However, future growth in commerical
and residential areas may produce greater inputs of other
toxicants to Puget Sound through sewage effluent and CSO's.
As many toxicants and PCB's do not degrade readily, such
chemicals already in local waters will be available for biotic
uptake and concentration for a long time. For the facilities
planning period, their presence is considered to be long-
term and essentially irreversible.
Dissolved oxygen in Puget Sound is expected to be
affected to a minor extent around outfalls under Alternative
A, as it is under present conditions. Water quality profiles
170
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
of the waters around the four Metro outfalls were made at
established stations on one day in January, 1975 and two days
in August 1974 as part of the Puget Sound Interim Studies
(Environmental Quality Analysts, November 197.4 and May 1275) .
The results, shown in Tables 3-9 and 3-10, are shown as dis-
solved oxygen (DOE) and turbidity (% light transmittance)
measurements at standardized depth increments. As the oxygen
figures are interpolated from actual sampling depths and
rounded-off to the nearest tenth mg/1, the investigators
estimate the accuracy of the data to be 0.1 mg/1. At the sta-
ions closest to the West Point outfall (1/8 mile radius)
sampled in summer (W001-W006) the DO at depths below 130-150
feet appears to be decreased by 0.1 to 0.6 mg/1 more than at
other stations near the outfall and elsewhere. Assuming the
West Point effluent has a BOD of 100 mg/1, after an initial
dilution of 140:1 at the diffuser, the effluent could exert
an oxygen demand on surrounding waters of the magnitude of
the effect observed.
The low DO values observed at depths to 300 feet, however,
are well below the observed lowest depth of the rising efflu-
ent plume (150 feet), based on depression in light trans-
mittance or tubidity. In addition, stations both near and
far (W145, W146) from the outfall tended to show lower DO
values in intermediate and deep waters at slack tide, with
higher DO values observed at all stations at flood or ebb
tides. It has been suggested by the investigators (J. Robert-
son, personal communication, 1977) that the observed pattern
in DO values are the result of localized changes in the verti-
cal distribution of deep water masses, probably as the result
of tidal currents. The deep waters of Puget Sound enter the
central basin from Admiralty Inlet and age as they flow south
at depth, gaining in nutrients and losing oxygen, such- that
these waters may have a characteristic DO of less that 6 mg/1.
Deep water is entrained upwards by an effluent plume, which
creates a localized upwelling condition. From the above
information, the writers conclude that the lower DO values
in the water column below 165 feet are due to variations in
the distribution of central basin deep waters.
At the same time, the vertical extent of the West Point
effluent plume was most clearly evident at one station (W001,
summer) at slack water, as a 50% increase in turbidity and
perhaps a 0.5 mg/1 drop in DO between 65 and 150 feet (Table
3-9). Other stations equally close to the outfall at which
the effluent field was discernible at similar depths by tur-
bidity changes showed no or only very small concomitant
decreases in DO of 0.1 to 0.3 mg/1 (W002-W006). As 0.1 mg/1
is the stated limit of accuracy of the data, and changes in
DO with depth of 0.2 to 0.4 mg/1 occur at the same depths
at stations far from the outfall, the observed differences
171
-------
TABLE 3-9
Woter Quality Profile Data West Point 8/27/74 - 8/28/74
f"llu" 111
1137 l 153 1212
1 1 2 0 J 3 3 j u j
J:r,
•^
-;',:
'i
ftOO J
,J 1 3 '
i i j j
la HI
.. lj, JIJO
1 1 j2 MOO
J13/
u!9
,H3o
,Dlt
1 '0
J»05
* i 4 1 .i i 4 ,;
030 'o'jy
.. ]"i
1J10
1 J 3 J
03 1
.,.,„
..'• 56
55
' 55
55
52
) 51
48
> 47
47
47 45
53 52
55 56
55 17
57
60
62
61
58
56
46
47
47
45
44
44
44
46
46
16
50
53
53
54
56
55
55
51
49
47
48
49
53
57
59
57
58
58
46
50
52
54
54
54
53
51
51
49
48
10
45
54
56
57
56
56
59
57
56
56
55
53
51
48
49
18
48
47
8
39
53
57
57
56
55
55
59
57
56
55
54
53
51
49
4B
47
47
36 37
54 41
60 47
60 46
57
55
56
59
59
59
58
56
55
51
50
50
50
49
48
35
44
55
59
60
58
57
58
58
56
55
55
54
50
• 3
3
45
55
57
58
57
56
59
59
58
54
55
56
57
57
57
56
54
54
54
16
39
50
53
56
56
54
53
54
53
51
50
50
48
47
16
45
45
45
45
18
40
53
57
58
56
55
56
57
55
56
55
54
52
50
49
47
45
44
43
45
45
56
57
56
57
56
56
57
60
61
58
58
57
56
53
54
54
54
54
26
52
56
66
67
57
61
62
58
47
47
52
54
55
56
56
55
52
51
53
54
54
54
53
53
53
53
53
53
"Omitted in the average presented In discussion
because of duplication
Source: Environmental Quality Analysts,
Beach, Carkeek Park, West Point,
'Report on Study of Wastewater Discharge
Alki Point Submarine Outfalls." Report
172
Areas at the Richmond
to Metro, November 1974
-------
TABLE 3-10
STATION W129
TINE 1111
HUB M001 M002
1059 1140 1155
W083
1349
N004
1400
W005
1417
W006
1427
W131
1221
M132
1336
W133 H134
1032 1502
W135
1448
DISSOLVED
0 a
5
10
15
20
25
3D
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
15
80
65
90
95
a a 10.67
11.75
10.00
8.91
6.72
8.55
8.49
8.51
8.55
8.47
8.43
8.38
8.43
8.49
8.58
8.59
8.59
8.53
8.61
10.55
10.46
9.53
9.31
9.03
8.92
8.90
8.97
8.90
8.88
8.82
8.78
8.71
8.76
8.88
8.89
9.07
9.00
9.11
9.11
10.67
10.90
9.53
8.91
8.84
8.83
8.80
8.83
8.79
8.67
8.45
8.47
8.35
8.49
8.42
8.60
8.74
8.68
8.58
10.91
11.08
9.96
9.72
9.00
8.84
8. 78
8.78
8.82
8.77
8.73
8.71
8.65
8.76
8.77
8.78
8.75
8.74
8.78
8.79
10.66
10.73
9.97
9.44
9.37
9.20
8.98
8.91
8.86
10.10
11.85
12.55
11.54
10.00
9.17
8.92
8.74
8.58
8.55
8.52
8.47
8.41
8.49
8.30
8.38
8.41
8.41
10.72
10.69
9.65
9.21
9.04
8.97
8. 88
8.81
8.78
8.72
8.60
8.54
8.60
8.59
8.53
8.52
8.52
8.51
8.54
a 10.70
10.89
9.56
9.05
8.84
B.72
8.63
8.58
8.62
8.61
8.57
8.54
8.53
8.62
8.65
8.63
8.58
8.68
8.74
8.76
10.61
10.79
9.84
9.21
8.97
8.83
8.79
8.83
8.75
8.70
8.61
8.51
8.60
8.68
8.65
8.67
8.69
8.66
8.61
8.54
W136 W137 W1JB
1441 813 921
OXYGEN (MG/L)
10.52 a a
10.78
9.76
9.18
8.93
8.78
8.78
W139 M140
1009 1517
a 10.28
119. 56
9.59
9.23
8.09
9.02
9.01
8.97
8.93
8.90
8.87
8.74
8.70
8.65
8.71
8.78
8.81
8.82
8.80
W141 H142- W143 H144 H14S
1552 1648 835 855 947
10.89 10.84 a a a
10.82 10.85
9.49 10.85
9.15
9.09
8.96'
8.99
8.94
8.85
8.81
B.62
8.62
8.54
8.51
8.67
8.68
8.69
8.77
8.78
8.72
M146
1533
10.57
10.60
9.74
9.17
9.00
8.96
8.90
8.77
8.69
8.65
HI 47
1615
10.42
10.46
9.71
9.23
8.94
8.81
8.74
8.65
8.69
8.71
8.63
8.54
8.52
8.49
8.42
8.46
8.50
8.44
8.20
W148
1636
10.50
10.44
9.66
9.36
9.22
9.18
9.14
9.06
HYDROGEN ION CONCENTRATION (PH)
0
5
10
15
20
25
36
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.7B
7.70
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.71J
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.6S
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.70
7.70
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.68
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.70
7.78
7.70
7.71
7.71
7.72
7.71
7.7B
7.70
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.68
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.70
7.7B
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.79
7.75
7.74
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.72
7.72
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.79
7.76
7.74
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.81
7.77
7.74
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7'. 76
7.75
7.74
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.68
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.67
7.68
7.68
7.76
7.75
7.74
7.74
7.73
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.72
7.72
7.75
7.72
7.7B
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7. 70
7.78
7.75
7.73
7.72
7.7B
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.71
7.71
7.79
7.75
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.7D
7.70
7.71
7.71
7.75
7.74
7.73
7.73
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.75
'7.73
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.76
7.73
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.74
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.7i)
7. 70
7.70
7.71
7.71
7.77
7.75
7.73
7.72
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.69
7,69
7.69
7.69
7.6»
7.69
7.69
7.69
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.79 7.74
7.75 7.72
7.74 7.76
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.69
7.70
7.70
7.7B
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.71
7.74
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.74
7.74
7.73
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.71
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.71
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.71
7.71
7.72
7.71
7.72
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.77
7.75
7.73
7.72
7.71
7.70
7.7B
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.79
7.75
7.74
7.73
7.71
7.71
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.69
7.7B
7.70
7.70
7.7B
7.77
7.75
7.75
7.73
7.72
7.71
7.71
7.71
LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE (»)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5i)
55
60
65
70
75
86
IiS
0
21
46
47
44
43
45
53
55
55
54
55
54
56
1
22
44
43
43
43
43
45
49
55
55
54
55
55
2
24
47
46
41
M4
55
54
54
55
54
53
50
49
49
0
27
47
46
[41
1.43
51
55
55
54
55
54
53
C.0
58
5H
4V
4
36
45
47
50
51
51
52
53
55
5?
56
55
56
e^'
52
52
:..'
2
32
47
50
51
51
52
53
54
56
.r
5S
'j6
^7
[,5
*,2
5;
y*
•j ^
13
23
45
47
49
51
53
54
54
53
53
^ 5
55
55
rj 5
33
'.,1
52
0
10
20
22
34
51
53
53
50
e
28
46
49
50
50
51
53
52
52
54
55
54
55
55
S4
•" *
r '
0
31
48
48
47
49
51
49
50
52
53
54
54
54
54
r,4
5CJ
i7
':»
9
24
42
47
49
50
48
50
53
54
55
57
5^
its
57
57
56
C.6
52
ill
6
26
46
48
50
51
54
55
55
54
56
57
56
56
56
57
55
54
54
"
6
25
45
46
48
52
53
54
55
56
57
55
56
55
56
56
57
57
56
55
0
15
41
49
52
51
51
16
28
47
48
48
50
54
54
54
53
53
53
53
50
49
46
5
29
46
48
49
5k)
50
51
52
53
55
57
59
59
58
55
55
IS
6
16
36
45
46
49
49
52
54
55
56
57
56
56
56
57
56
!>7
57
^7
7
26
45
50
52
53
55
56
55
55
56
57
58
58
57
56
57
57
57
8 6
23 26
45 46
47
47
51
52
56
58
59
58
58
59
58
55
56
57
53
54
54
10
35
49
51
51
50
51
54
55
56
55
56
54
54
51
6
18
3V
49
51
53
53
53
56
56
5B
60
60
60
63
63
59
5v
5V
ill
3
8
35
48
50
51
51
53
56
57
57
57
58
59
Ss
SB
57
•*6
55
57
9
28
46
50
51
52
53
55
55
54
9
28
40
47
51
51
52
52
53
53
56
58
58
57
56
57
56
5*
S4
0
21
38
42
41
47
43
39
MfilfurK.'ti'in of Dissolved
Source:
Environmental Quality Analysts, "Winter Studies of Wastewater Discharge
Areas at the Carkeek Park and West Point Submarine Outfalls." PSIS
Report to Metro, May 1975.
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
at these stations are not considered by the writers to be
positively attributable to the effluent plume. In addition,
the Sound is variable in time as well as in space, and the
available data represent two to three days sampling.
In summary, the available Puget Sound Interim Studies
water quality data of existing conditions suggest that the
West Point effluent plume may affect DO by as much as 0,5
mg/1 in a limited area around the outfall and over limited
depths for the duration of a slack tide (about two hours,
four times in 24 hours). Since West Point wastewater flows
and BOD loads would be the same in 2005 under Alternative A
as they are presently, this minor effect would be expected
to continue. Decreases in DO at depth at slack tide are
considered to be due to mixing or entrainment of deep waters
having a characteristically low DO concentration.
Future DO, expected to be similar to present levels, has
been compared to water quality criteria to determine possible
significance of localized changes. Average minimum DO in
central Sound is 5.4 mg/1 at 165 feet and 330 feet; it is
6.6 mg/1 at the surface (0 feet) (Duxbury, 1976). Marine
water criteria for DO recommended by the National Technical
Advisory Committee (NTAC, 1968) were a minimum of 5 mg/1 for
coastal waters and minimum of 4 mg/1 in estuaries except
where natural conditions cause further depressed levels. As
central basin waters meet these criteria, the variations in
DO observed are judged not to have a measurable effect on
aquatic organisms.
Groundwater. Alternative A is not expected to affect
groundwater, since the effluent from all of the Metro treat-
ment plants, except Renton, would be discharged into Puget
Sound and is incapable of infiltrating groundwater. No direct
impacts on groundwater users, shown in Figure 3-7, are ex-
pected.
Flood hazard. No flood hazards are expected for Alterna-
tive A, as all sites are above the 100 year flood level.
Biology
The impacts of this alternative on terrestrial habitats,
shoreline habitats, Puget Sound, the Duwamish estuary, and
commercial and sport fisheries are described below. Since
wastewater treatment plant discharges and combined sewer
overflows would continue approximately under existing condi-
174
-------
Redmond
North Lake Sammamish
rt-ake
\Sammamff>t
\Lake
(Washington
South
Lake Sairanamish
Renton
Renton
Kent
Issaquah
Cedar Hills
Sanitary Landfill
~ Proposed
Georgetown-Kangley
Well fie Id
LEGEND
Cities Using Groundwater
^ Existing or Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities
with Inland Discharges
• Cedar Hills Sludge Disposal Site
Figure 3-7 Groundwater Impact Potential
175
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
tions, the impacts on biota would continue at present levels.
Terrestrial habitats. The No Action Alternative is ex-
pected to have no direct impact on terrestrial habitats, such
as urban, nonurban, forest and meadow lowland, as no con-
struction is involved.
Shoreline habitats. Since combined sewer overflows under
Alternative A would continue at present levels, impacts would
continue as under existing conditions.
Freshwater marshes in the study area occur in limited
areas along the southwestern shore of Lake Washington, in
the Ship Canal, Union Bay and Portage Bay. All marshes ex-
cept perhaps that at South Andrews Bay are subject to direct
combined sewer overflows of various magnitudes, approximately
as shown in Table 3-11.
While most individual overflows are relatively small in
terms of annual volumes, they are frequent and numerous.
In addition, these flows empty into inlets and bays with
limited-to-poor mixing and dilution. Based on very limited
sampling data (Metro Staff, 1976), overflows contain pesti-
cides, PCB's and metals, in addition to microorganisms, solids
and BOD. As CSO's are intermittent but continuing events,
their effect on sensitive marshland fishes, birds and other
life could be moderate-to-major, adverse, and irreversible
in the long run.
Marshland habitats are sensitive and exposed to unknown
but probably moderate intermittent and recurring stresses;
they may accumulate metals, pathogens, and toxicants in biota
which could have long-term detrimental effects on their be-
havior, physiology and reproduction. Effects on salmon
spawning areas result from siltation of nests or from direct
toxicity to the eggs and newly-hatched fish.
There is a small saltwater marsh in the study area on
Kellogg Island in the Duwamish estuary- A moderate sized
overflow point occurs just upstream of the island, but the
potential impact has not been investigated.
The intertidal. Future impacts on the intertidal zone
would be similar to existing conditions regarding wastewater
discharges and combined sewer overflows. Based on the Puget
Sound Interim Studies, effluent diluted 250:1 reaches areas
occupied by intertidal and nearshore species. The frequency
and distribution of this event have not been determined.
176
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
TABLE 3-11
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS EMPTYING INTO MARSHLANDS
Overflow
Receiving Water
Volume (mil/qal/yr)
038
039
040
041
042
044
047
176
171
W041
018
021
139
138
140
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Duwamish Estuary
Union Bay
Union Bay
Portage Bay
Portage Bay
Portage Bay
3.1 Westmore Slough
3.1 Westmore Slough
3.1 Lakewood Bay
3.1 Lakewood Bay
3.1 Lakewood Bay
3.1 North Brighton
Beach
3.1 Ranier Slough/
Atlantic City Pk
3.1 Ranier Slough/
Atlantic City Pk
3.1 Ranier Slough/
Atlantic City Pk
2.4 Kellogg Island
3.6
3.2
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Source: McGreevy 1973; Metropolitan Engineers 1977
177
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
Changes in the intertidal flora at West Point possibly
attributable to effluent nutrients have been described in
Chapter II of this report. Based on current patterns in
central Puget Sound, as delineated by the physical model,
similar effects very likely occur regularly at Alki due to
effluent coming up on eastside beaches. Onshore water move-
ment also occurs at Carkeek and Richmond Beach during part
of the tidal cycle. Septic tank seepage on the north side of
West Point and south of Perkins Lane at Magnolia Bluff may
contribute further pollutants to the intertidal in the form
of nitrates and pathogens. No measurable effects have been
found on the intertidal fauna, except increased limpet growth
at West Point. The continuation of this effect under Alterna-
tive A is judged to be adverse, of minor magnitude, limited in
extent to certain beaches, but of long duration.
Combined sewer overflows in the central Puget Sound
intertidal occur at 16 points (excluding Elliott Bay). Major
overflows are 002 at the West Point treatment plant, W027 at
Denny Way, and A004 at Alki. West Seattle beaches receive a
total of approximately 5 million gallons annually and Elliott
Bay 358 million gallons (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977).
Limited sampling of biota at the Denny Way overflow (Metro
Staff, 1976) indicated a highly disturbed situation reflected
in low diversity and abundance of organisms. The Denny Way
overflow itself met water quality criteria for receiving
waters (EPA, 1975) for all parameters except mercury: 0.0006
to 0.0016 mg/1 versus a criterion of 0.00005 mg/1. Copper
and zinc were generally two to three times higher in biota
at Denny Way as in sediments. Mercury was not measured at
Denny Way and metals levels in biota at other overflow points
were not examined.
As overflows generally contain metals and toxicants
which do not degrade and are bioconcentrated, the continued
overflows to Puget Sound may possibly have minor-to-moderate
adverse long-term effects, limited to certain intertidal areas
and generally irreversible, as metals and toxicants do not
degrade. Some evidence of this possibility was indicated in
the Puget Sound Interim Studies, in which levels of trace
metals in intertidal biota at outfall and background areas
were examined (Schell et al., 1977). Mercury in mussles and
lead in all organisms examined (a brown alga, a green alga,
mussels and clams) were higher at all outfall areas than at
background areas (Point No Point, Blake Island). Other trace
heavy metals which were higher at Metro outfall areas than at
background areas were cobalt in clams, zinc in clams and
mussels, copper in clams, chromium, selenium, and cerium in
mussels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration mercury
standards for shellfish (0.5 ppm) and the Canadian Food and
Drug Directorate lead level of 2 ppm net weight were not
178
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
exceeded in any sample. Standards for other metals have not
been set.
Eelgrass beds which occur near Carkeek and at Alki, could
continue to be subject to effluents brought up on the beach by
tidal currents; also subject to combined sewer overflows.
While eelgrass beds are highly productive, and have a unique
assemblage of plants and animals, including the larvae of a
number of fishes and curstaceans, they tend to be in organic-
rich sediments which may be anaerobic just below the surface.
Therefore, nutrients, BOD and suspended solids from any source
would probably affect them but little. Contaminants such as
metals, toxicants or pesticides could, however, be irreversibly
incorporated into organisms which become food for juvenile
commercial herring, flatfish, young salmon, or waterfowl. The
effect is presently unknown but judged to be adverse, probably
minor, limited in extent to certain areas and long-term.
Intertidal hardshell clams and subtidal geoducks occur
at Richmond Beach in small numbers, south of Carkeek, on the
beach south of West Point, at Alki, West Seattle beaches, and
at Lincoln Park. State standards for fecal coliforms in
shellfish waters have been exceeded at all sites sampled in
the study area. Whether the coliforms are due to treatment
plant effluents, to sewer overflows or to septic tank seepage
has not been determined. Shellfish are not monitored for
coliforms in the study area at present. With no action, it is
probable that bacterial standards will continue to be exceeded.
Puget Sound. The intertidal, nearshore subtidal, and
offshore bottom, free-swimming and planktonic organisms in
the study area would continue to be subject to effects of
combined sewer overflows, treatment plant effluents, runoff,
septic tank seepage, boat wastes, dredge spoil dumps, and
other pollutant sources.
Because phytoplankton productivity is subject to effects
of naturally varying chemical and physical parameters, it is
almost impossible to detect whether treatment plant effluent
nutrients affect the variation in algal population size and
growth stages in time and space. The only significant longi-
tudinal variation attributed to the West Point outfall is a
15-20% increase in the 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 year extreme values
for productivity at stations within a mile of the outfall.
As flows will continue, the continued effect is judged to
be adverse, moderate, reversible, limited in extent and of
long duration for phytoplankton. No effect on zooplankton
has been determined, perhaps due to sampling problems. In
the absence of any data, the effect is judged to be unknown.
179
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
Metals in effluent could be affecting and continue to
influence plankton. Metals in plankton near outfall areas
compared to background areas (Schell et al., 1977) showed
zinc and coppor significantly higher in plankton at outfall
areas than at the control station. Furthermore, the filter
feeding zooplankton take in particles of the size on which
metals adsorb.
The distribution of some nearshore and offshore benthic
organisms (foraminifera, worms, clams, snails) appears to be
correlated with typical plume positions for West Point and
Carkeek Park effluents, for which data are available, espe-
cially along the 50 foot contour. Studies on Alki and Rich-
mond Beach areas have not been performed. The existing and
continuing effect is considered to be adverse, moderate,
limited in extent, long-term as flows continue, and reversi-
ble for nearshore and offshore areas.
Nearshore free-swimming (nektonic) forms (juvenile sal-
mon, herring, and other commercial fishes that frequent the
outfall pipe, kelp, or eelgrass areas) could be occasionally
exposed to levels of chlorine and perhaps to other constitu-
ents at higher than "safe" levels in effluent. Localized
effects of effluents in nearshore areas could affect herring
populations directly or through their zooplankton prey and
thus affect salmon and other organisms which feed heavily on
herring in open waters (Miller et al., 1976).
The measured change in fish species composition under
recent conditions at West Point, discussed in Chapter II,
may reflect effluent-caused changes in benthic prey species
and/or toxicants. The cause of the slightly elevated inci-
dence of tumors in flatfish at West Point has not been identi-
fied, however. The overall effect is judged to be adverse,
major, but limited in extent, of long duration and probably
reversible.
While no data are available, it is possible that off-
shore nektonic organisms may also continue to be occasionally
affected by chlorine, pathogens or toxicants if they swim into
or through effluent, or if they feed in nearshore areas at
night. For marine organisms, a concentration of 0.02 mg/1
for 100 minutes is a recommended criterion (Brungs, 1976;
Mattice & Zittel, 1977). As peaks of total residual chlorine
at the diffuser of 0.02 and higher are common, it seems
possible that nektonic organisms congregating at the
outfall could be exposed to higher than "safe" levels of
chlorine during slack water periods. The potential effect
on these organisms is considered to be adverse, minor,
limited in extent, of short duration and reversible.
180
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
Among the factors contributing to the present concern
for potential and environmental impact of chlorination is
the formation of halogenated organic compounds, specifically
haloforms, in chlorinated effluents. The principal concerns
about these compounds as they relate to fish or shellfish
residue is that the incorporation of a halogen (chlorine,
bromine, iodine, fluorine) into an organic molecule increases
its attraction to fats in tissue which usually results in
increased toxicity and bioaccumulation. There is a growing
sentiment that alternate forms of disinfection to chlorination
be emphasized to protect auqatic life. Recent studies (Marine
Research, 1976; R. K. Kawaratani, personal communication)
have shown that haloforms occur in approximately the same
concentrations after disinfection of power station cooling
water (saltwaters) with any of chlorine, bromine, ozone, or
hydrogen peroxide.
Commercial and sport fisheries. The commercial and sport
fisheries that could be affected by continued treatment plant
discharges and combined sewer overflows include: salmon (spawn-
ing and rearing areas in Lake Washington, runs up the Duwamish
and Ship Canal, sport fishing at Harbor Island and Elliott
Bay and commercial fishing south of Alki), herring (commercial
fishing from north Alki to Harbor Island), steelhead (runs
up the Ship Canal and the Duwamish), and shrimp (fished in
Elliott Bay to Harbor Island and in Shilshole Bay at the mouth
of the Ship Canal). The Ship Canal and lower Duwamish, crucial
for the migration of juvenile salmonids, have a high potential
for stress on or contamination of these species. The magni-
tude of the actual present and future effects is unknown, but
could be substantial. The abnormal occurrence of salmon at the
south end of Lake Union is an example. The overall effect is
considered to be highly probable, adverse, moderate, revers-
ible, extensive and of long duration.
The Duwamish estuary. The biota of the Duwamish (which
includes anadromous fishes discussed above) are and would con-
tinue to be affected by CSO's and Renton treatment plant
secondary effluent (discussed in later section), as well
as by industrial inputs and runoff. Metro area treated waste-
water discharge and combined sewer overflows would continue at
existing levels.
Phytoplankton communities would be affected by freshwater
(effluent and CSO)flow in the estuary, which determines salin-
ity distribution and to a lesser extent nutrients (xvhich appear
not to be limiting). Blooms occur in summer when the tempera-
ture is high and freshwater flows are low. Present and future
discharges to the Duwamish are not believed to be increasing
181
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
productivity in the lower Duwamish where blooms occur. The
impact at present appears to be small, major CSO's to the
Duwamish not withstanding, but data are incomplete. CSO's
occur less often in summer, the time of plankton blooms.
Information on zooplankton is too sparse to determine effects.
It is known, however, that they ingest particles of the size
on which heavy metals adsorb. The potential effect is con-
sidered to be adverse, minor, extensive, of short duration,
and reversible.
The benthic organisms in the Duwamish (predominantly
worms) reflect somewhat stressed conditions, including low
dissolved oxygen, in summer. The impact on the benthic
habitat in the Duwamish to date has been adverse, major,
extensive and long-term. Low DO in the lower Duwamish could
affect salmonids by delaying migration or generally weaken-
ing the fish. The potential effect is considered to be ad-
verse, major, extensive (in the Duwamish), short-term and
reversible.
The observed effect on other resident fishes in the
Duwamish of primary interest is a high incidence of disease
and parasitism. PCB's, which have been implicated in fin
erosion, are high in the Duwamish. PCB's were high in the
Hanford sewer overflow sampled, however, so it is likely
that a portion of the PCB input is from this type of source.
The overall effect of Duwamish conditions on resident fishes
is considered to continue as negative, major, extensive,
and long-term. The effect of PCB's, pesticides and metals
is felt to be irreversible, even though their use will
be discontinued shortly, since they are not readily biode-
gradable.
Waterfowl found along the Duwamish, including Kellogg
Island where there is a small saltwater marsh, are near an
overflow (W041) discharging about 2.4 mil gal/yr. It is not
clear whether or not the overflow waters reach the marsh or
what future effects would be.
A clearer, more immediate danger to the island is from
development, which could certainly eliminate the marsh
habitat. Poor water quality could affect the birds' prey
species as well. If the latter were concentrating toxi-
cants, the birds could be affected over a'long period. The
effect on waterfowl of CSO's is unknown but considered to
be potential, moderate, adverse, limited, and short-term
for parameters other than metals and toxicants.
Freshwater environments. These habitats for a variety
of organisms, including sport and commercial fishes, would be
182
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
affected in the future by combined sewer overflows to the same
degree as at present.
1. Lake Washington. A number of combined sewer over-
flows discharge into salmon spawning areas. Nevertheless,
the lake is still in the process of changing from a eutrophic
to a meso-eutrophic or better state. Existing effects of CSO's
on biota, examined at one point only (Metro Staff, 1976),
indicated effects were limited but striking - no macrosopic
organisms were found anywhere near the outfall. If it is
assumed that this is typical, the effect of continued CSO's
on nearshore areas is judged to be highly probable, adverse,
limited to the western shore of the lake, and long-term. The
impacts of metals, toxicants and nutrients in the overflows
are judged to be irreversible as these tend to be recycled in
the lake. Effects on offshore lake biota from CSO's are
considered to be minor as CSO's tend to move along shore,
rather than into open waters.
•2. Lake Union/Ship Canal. In general, the biota are
those characteristically tolerant of somewhat degraded water
quality. The impacts of CSO's on this water are not well
understood. Samples from Roanoke Street outfall showed no
visible life anywhere near the outfall or the effluent plume.
Assuming this effect is typical of the 35 overflows (approxi-
mately 200 mil gal/yr) along the Lake Union/Ship Canal, the
present and future effects are potentially major on limited
areas near the outfalls. Inputs other than CSO's may pre-
dominate overall water quality, however, so CSO's are judged
to have moderate but extensive and long-term effects overall.
3. Other freshwaters. No impacts from CSO's are ex-
pected for Lake Sammamish, Sammamish River, Cedar River or
Green River.
Rare or endangered species and critical habitats. This
alternative would not affect endangered species since there
are none recorded from the study area. Critical habitats,
which include salmon spawning and rearing areas, fish migra-
tion routes, waterfowl resting areas, and lake shallows,
have been discussed in previous sections.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy and natural resources consumption are summarized
183
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
in Table 3-12 (based on the Draft Facility Plan).
Energy. Alternative A, a net of approximately 24 million
equivalent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 by the
Puget Sound plants. Included in this would be approximately
25 million kwh/year of electrical energy purchased. This
is equivalent to the amount of electrical energy 1250 house-
holds would consume per year, and constitutes approximately
0.13% of the projected electrical energy consumption of
Seattle in 2005 (Appendix E).
Table 3-12 shows the breakdown of total energy consump-
tion on a plant-by-plant basis. The greatest energy expendi-
ture would be for purchasing electricity. Chemicals account
for about 15-25 percent of energy consumption, and sludge
trucking for less than 5 percent. In the anaerobic digestion
of sludge, there is a net production of energy because of
methane formation. Under current practice, however, about
half of this methane is flared off.
The impact of the energy consumption would be adverse,
moderate in magnitude, long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine consumption would be 2440 tons for
the Puget Sound plants: 40 at Richmond Beach, 75 at Carkeek
Park, 2150 at West Point, 175 at Alki. West Point would also
use 65 tons per year of polymers to aid in the coagulation of
sludge.
The impact of chemical usage would be adverse, minor,
long-term, irreversible, and definite. The supply of chlorine
and polymer is highly reliable.
Human Environment
Alternative A has negative impacts in some categories
evaluated as "human environment" factors. A large number of
the categories, however, have negligible impacts including
Snohomish County plan/zoning, transportation patterns/systems;
housing availability, population distribution, local tax base,
shoreline use, cultural patterns, and waterfowl hunting.
Land use. Since Alternative A involves no construction,
there would be no change in land use at the existing treat-
ment plant sites. Building permits would be unnecessary,
and no permit would be required under the Shorelines Manage-
184
-------
TABLE 3-12
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE A
Ons ite Energy
Purchased electricity
(kwh x 106/yr)
Produced by digestion
(kwh x lOVyr)
Consumed by digestion
(kwh x lOVyr)
Offsite Energy
Chemicals (kwh x 10 ^/yr)
Sludge Trucking (kwh x 10 6/yr)
TOTAL
PLANT
Richmond
Beach
0.63
(0.32)
0.13
0.14
0.03
0.61
Carkeek
Park
0.97
(0.48)
0.19
0.25
0.03
0.96
West
Point
21.31
(16.44)
6.58
7.36
1.42
20.23
Alki
2.35
(0.85)
0.34
0.59
0.11
2.54
Total
25.26
(18.09)
7.24
8.34
1.59
24.34
00
Ul
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
ment Act.
Agency goals. Alternative A, because it includes no
construction, does not fulfill the King County Utilities
Development policy of "installing trunk utility lines in
advance or at the time of development", or its policy that
"where pollution conditions now exist, all possible steps
should be taken to correct such conditions." This alterna-
tive does not alleviate the frequent odor problem at Alki,
which (in addition to affecting the Alki residents directly)
conflicts with the PSCOG goal of maintaining the natural
beauty and liveability of the region. These impacts are
adverse, major,- long-term, reversible, and definite.
Employment. There would be no construction employment
under this alternative, since there would be no construction.
Operation and management employment would remain at current
levels: 66 employees at the Puget Sound facilities plus
other related Metro staff.
Costs. Under Alternative A there would be no capital
cost because no new faculties would be constructed, The
operation and maintenance costs (excluding Renton) would
be $5,170,000 per year (1976 dollars), as shown in Table 3-13
(Metropolitan Engineers, 1977).
The estimated average monthly user charge per equiva-
lent connection for the next 20 years would be $5.25 per
month, indicated in Table 3-14 (based on the Draft Facility
Plan). The average increase of $1.70 per month over present
rates would be due to inflation in operating costs.
Impact of cost would be adverse, minor, long-term,
irreversible and definite.
Social, recreational and cultural. Alternative A has
a negative impact on regional values and attitudes and
recreation.
Alternative A would not fulfill the goal of 54-64 per-
cent of the people interviewed, who indicated a preference
for secondary treatment. For more information, please see
Chapter II of this document.
Continued combined sewer overflows and dispersed primary
effluents could affect recreational opportunities at shell-
fishing sites. At public beaches, bacteria levels exceeding
186
-------
TABLE 3-13
Cost Estimate for Facility Plan Alternatives'
Capital Costs (in $ million ENR-CCI-2600)
B
D
E
H
Puget Sound
Plants1
Renton STP-1-*
Total
None
None
None
81.9
106.1
188
250. 8b
195.2
446
106.8
195.2
302
212.8
157.2
370
286. 5b
191.5
478
361.8°
157.2
519
307. 7d
94.3
402
CO
a In 1976 dollars
b Includes Duwamish plant
c Includes Interbay plant
d Includes construction of Kenmore, North Lake Sammamish, and South Lake
Sammamish plants.
Operation & Maintenance
$ Million per year
Puget Sound
Plants1
Renton STP1*
Total
5.17
1.93
7.1
6.88
3.22
10.1
8.35
5.95
14.3
6.35
5.95
12.3
8.23
5.37
13.6
8.82
4.38
13.2
9.03
5.37
14.4
12.72
4.38
17.1
Treatment plant including outfall and collection system
*No decision will be made on Renton service area facilities in this plan.
Based on Draft Facility Plan
-------
Table 3-14
Estimated Average Monthly User Charge Under Each Alternative
Per Equivalent Connection*, Dollars Including Renton
Period
Existing
Condition 1, Future
capacity is grant
eligible
1-5 years
6-10
11-15 "
16-20 "
Average 1-20 years
Amount
Percent increase over:
Existing rate
Alternative A
Condition 2, Future
capacity is not
grant eligible
1-5 years
6-10 "
11-15 "
16-20 "
Average 1-20 years
Amount
Percent increase over:
Existing rate
Alternative A
Connection Fee (lump sum)
Required to Equalize
Rates to Condition 1
Condition 3, no grant
funding
Average 1-20 years
Amount
Alternative3
A
3.55
4.70
4.85
5.50
6.00
5.25
48
—
4.70
4.85
5.50
6.00
5.25
•
48
— —
0
5.25
B
3.55
4.80
5.10
5.50
6.15
5.45
54
4
4.95
5.80
6.45
7.40
6.25
76
19
485
8.40
C
3.55
4.80
6.00
7.35
9.20
7.05
99
34
5.05
7.00
8.45
11.10
8.15
130
55
670
13.70
D
3.55
4.75
6.00
6. BO
7.65
6.40
80
22
4.95
7.20
8.05
9.55
7.65
115
46
760
11.10
E
3.55
4.85
6.70
7.30
7.85
6.80
91
30
5.10
7.40
9.00
9.70
8.00
125
52
690
12.75
F
3.55
4.90
6.65
7.20
8.20
6.85
93
30
5.30
8.30
9.15
10.75
8.60
142
64
1 , 060
13.80
G
3.55
5.00
7.40
8.05
8.70
7.45
110
42
5.25
8.76
9.60
10.55
R.75
146
67
750
15.20
H
3.55
5.05
7.20
8.85
9.55
7.85
121
50
5.45
8.95
11.25
12.10
9.70
173
85
1,065
15.20
*Metro employs a rate structure consisting of a flat charge based on a
residential equivalent factor. High strength users are surcharged beyond
the nominal rate. Currently there are 425,000 equivalent residential
connections.
a. Renton costs are reflected in this table, but decisions on Renton up-
grading will not be made in this plan.
188
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
health standards would continue in swimming areas in Lake
Washington. These impacts would be adverse, major, long-
term, reversible and probable.
Treatment plants would continue operations in or near
recreational areas at West Point, Alki and Carkeek Park.
Details of these impacts are described in each of the site-
specific EIS documents.
Health and safety. A negative impact could be associated
with bacteria exceeding bathing water criteria at Lake Wash-
ington public beaches.
Another highly unlikely safety hazard is accidental
leakage of chemicals when they are in transport, or handled
on site. Although nearly every U.S. water and wastewater
treatment facility uses chemicals, there have been very few
chemical-related accidents.
The health and safety problems related to sludge trans-
port and disposal would be as improbable as for any other
trucks in transit.
Since there would be no construction, there would be
no risk to health or safety in this category-
Legal and institutional. Alternative A does not comply
with PL 92-500 secondary treatment requirements nor the
Washington NPDES Regulations issued by DOE, which require
secondary treatment but do not specify a date. A fine as
high as $10,000 per day could be levied against Metro for
noncompliance if this alternative were implemented. The de-
tails of this are explained in Chapter II.
This impact would be adverse, major, long-term, probable,
but reversible (if a secondary treatment facility alternative
were implemented).
The Shorelines Management Regulations would not be appli-
cable, since Alternative A includes no construction. No
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permits would be required.
Aesthetics and nuisance. Currently, many of the waste-
water facilities are blocked from view either by trees or
bluffs, and odor is generally not a major problem except at
Alki. This situation would continue under Alternative A.
Aesthetics and nuisance related to Alternative A are adverse,
minor, long-term, reversible, and definite. For more details
189
-------
Alternative and Impacts
Alternative A
the site specific EIS (Volume II) series should be consulted.
Secondary Impacts
The secondary or indirect impacts of Alternative A
would result from expanding the Renton plant, sludge disposal
methods, and population growth to 2005. The effects of these
changes on water quality, energy and natural resources, and
the human environment are described below.
Water Quality
The indirect effects of the Renton discharge, unsewered
population growth around Lake Sammamish, and leachate from
sludge disposal are considered to be secondary impacts on
water quality for the Duwamish estuary, Lake Sammamish and
groundwater.
Direct effects of population growth on water quality from
combined sewer overflows and wastewater flows to treatment
plants have been described under primary impacts.
Duwamish estuary. With an average daily discharge of
33 million gallons, the Renton sewage treatment plant would
provide an insignificant amount of flow augmentation in
summer which may help alleviate summer water temperature
problems, but probably does not improve oxygen level. In
fact, the discharge may impair oxygen levels as Renton
secondary effluent would have a DOE of about 2 mg/1 and a
BOD of about 10-15 mg/1. Nutrients and Ammonia in the Ren-
ton discharge may degrade Duwamish water quality to a moderate
degree.
Lake Sammamish. Increasing urbanization around the lake
would result in addition of urban runoff, which would contrib-
ute loads of nutrients and toxicants to the lake unless con-
trolled.
Groundwater. By 2005, there would be an unsewered popula-
tion of 327,000 in the Metro area. If septic tanks are used
for waste disposal, a detrimental impact on groundwater could
result, but information is not available to discern the extent
of this impact. Other on-site waste disposal systems are
being considered in the Metro 208 plan.
190
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
Leachate runoff from sludge disposed at the Cedar Hills
sanitary landfill would not be a problem. The soil is quite
impervious, limiting groundwater flows to about a foot a
year. The leachate waters at Cedar Hills will be collected
in a system of pipes now under construction. Runoff streams
from the sludge basins visibly have good quality- Impacts
at the Pack Forest site will continue to be monitored there.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy. For Alternative A, a net of 28.13 million
equivalent kwh/year of energy per year would be consumed
by 2005 at Renton. Included in this would be 26.62 million
kwh/year of electrical energy purchased and 1.71 million
equivalent kwh/year required to produce the chemicals con-
sumed. There would be no sludge trucking nor energy considera-
tion for anaerobic digestion at Renton. The impact of the
energy consumption would be adverse, moderate in magnitude,
long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine would be the only chemical used at
Renton, at an annual rate of 500 tons. The impact of chemical
usage would be adverse, moderate, long-term, irreversible,
and definite. The supply of chlorine is reliable, however.
Human Environment
Secondary impacts on population, employment, and costo
are summarized below.
Population and employment. The No Action Alternative
would probably not change the growth pattern significantly
from the current trend. Since sewers would not be provided
in growth areas, growth could be either limited by the in-
effectiveness of on-site waste disposal systems or accommo-
dated by their effectiveness. The Puget Sound region has a
relatively high environmental quality, and this is expected
to continue to attract economic development. This impact
can be either beneficial or adverse depending on the
characteristics of the development which occurs and the
values of the people affected.
The commercial fishing industry would continue as it
presently is relative to possible impacts of wastewater
facilities.
191
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative A
Operation and managemerat employment at Renton would
include 21 personnel, plus other Metro related staff. Con-
struction would involve no employees, as no construction
is completed under this alternative.
Costs. If Alternative A is implemented, there would
be no capital costs for Renton, as indicated in Table 3-13,
since no new treatment facilities would be constructed.
Renton operation and maintenance would cost $1,930,000 per
year. The effect of this on user charge is noted in the
primary impact section, since user charges are determined on
a Metro-wide basis. Impact of cost would be adverse, minor,
long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Mitigation Measures
Because of the no action definition of Alternative A,
no mitigation measures can be proposed.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
All adverse impacts under Alternative A would be un-
avoidable. These would include impacts on water quality
from combined sewer overflows and primary effluent, related
impacts on biology and public health, continued use of plant
sites in parks or residential areas, and noncompliance with
PL 92-500.
192
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ALTERNATIVE B
METRO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(NO ACTION PURSUANT TO PL 92-500)
The description of Alternative B and its projected
impacts to the year 2005 are presented in this section.
Description
Alternative B continues system upgrading in accordance
with the Metro Comprehensive Plan with maintenance of pri-
mary treatment at West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Rich-
mond Beach. Alternative B represents no action pursuant to
Public Law 92-500.
Because the federal law (PL 92-500) is regarded as no
action under NEPA in the federal EIS, Alternative B is used
as the baseline for comparing impacts of other alternatives.
For comparative purposes, Alternative B impacts are also
described relative to existing conditions in the impact
section.
The use of Alternative B as a baseline is not intended
to imply that no action would be taken. In fact, there are
improvements proposed that Metro believes are significant.
Since these improvements would likely be made by Metro regard-
less of federal actions, Alternative B is actually a more
realistic "no action" alternative than Alternative A for
the year 2005.
The major wastewater facilities proposed for Alternative
B are illustrated in Figure 3-8. Major features of the
alternative are summarized in Table 3-15, including treat-
ment plants, effluent discharges and combined sewer overflows,
and major new transfer facilities. The construction schedule
and costs for proposed facilities are shown in Table 3-16.
The alternative is further described below in terms of
service area, treatment plants (location, treatment process,
effluent disposal site), combined sewer overflow control,
sludge management, primary impacts, mitigation measures
and unavoidable adverse impacts. The indirect implication
of the facilities proposed under this alternative on the
Renton plant are also described.
193
-------
X
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
Table 3-15
Alternative B - Metro Comprehensive Plan
(No Action Pursuant to PL 92-500)
(Baseline)
Improvement
Completed
Plow (mgd) 2005
(Average/Peak)
Disposal
WEST POINT
Primary
TREATMENT PLANTS
ALKI
Primary
CARKEEK PARK RICHMOND BEACH
Primary Primary
Sludge enlargement
Phase I 1985
Phase II 1995
142/350
Puget Sound
Improved outfall 1986
10/30
Puget Sound
None
3.5/20
None
2.5/9
Puget Sound Puget Sound
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (2005)
Lake Washington
Lake Sammamish
Portage Bay/Montlake Cut
Lake Union
Ship Canal/Salmon Bay
Elliott Bay
Alki Beach
Puwaiflish/Green River
Total
West Point
Alki
Richmond Beach
Carkeek Park
•Renton
TOTAL
Flow
(Million Gallons/Yr)
22.4
0
*228
56. 6
254
358
5.46
251
1175
TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGES
Flow
(Million Gallons/Yr)
56,200
3,650
912
1,530
31,350
93,642
Solids
(Tons/Yr)
20.4
0
241
51.4
231
325
4.95
227
1101
Solids
(Tons/Yr)
14,000
913
228
380
1,973
17,496
BOD
(Tons/Yr)
5.58
0
59.3
14.1
63.3
89
1.36
62
295
BOD
(Tons/Yr)
18,800
1,220
304
510
1,968
22,798
MAJOR NEW TRANSFER FACILITIES
Location
Second Kenmore
Interceptor
Year
Val Vue Connection (to West Point)
Redmond Connection Phase I
Redmond Connection Phase II
Completed
1983
1980
1987
1995
RENTON*
Secondary
1995
86/223
*Not included in proposed facilities plan for Puget Sound plants
195
-------
Table 3-16
Alternative B — Project Costs
and Construction Staging
Facility Component
Treatment Plants
Richmond Beach Misc. Improvements
Carkeek Park Misc . Improvements
West Point - Interim Improvements
West Point - Sludge Enlargement 2
West Point Sludge Enlargement 3
Alki Interim Improvements
Alki Plant Modifications
* Renton Interim Improvements
.Renton Enlargement 2
Renton Enlargement 3
Subtotal - Treatment Plants
Rehabilitation of Existing
Collection System
* Increased Transfer Capacity within
West Point Existing Sewered Area
Kenmore P. S. (Permanent)
Val Vue Connection (to West Point)
Redmond Connection - Stage 2
Increased Transfer Capacity and
Rehabilitation within Renton
Service Area
Subtotal Collection
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Montlake Regulator Station
Third five. W. Regulator Station
Subtotal Hold and Transport CSO
Total Capital Cost
Project Cost
5 million
ENR-CCI 2600
0.1
0.1
4.8
7.1
7.1
0.3
12.7
0.4
25.5
35.0
93.1
15. G
22.2
8.5
5.5
14.0
1.0
27.2
94.0
0.8 -
0.5
1.3
188.4
^H
••
•M
••
Mi
^H
••
^•1
••
O
in
0)
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
Service Area
The service area of Alternative B would be as shown in
Figure 3-1. Relative to existing conditions, the West Point
service area would be modified by transferring the North Lake
Sammamish service area to Renton by the Redmond connection,
and transferring Val Vue flows to West Point. To serve in-
creased flows from the North Lake Washington areas would re-
quire construction of a Kenmore parallel interceptor. The
Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park and Alki service areas would
not change.
The new transfer interceptors that would be needed to
facilitate the service area modifications would be the Red-
mond connection to Renton (1987 and 1995), the Val Vue con-
nection to West Point (1980), and the second Kenmore inter-
ceptor to West Point (1983) . The construction schedule for
these collection system modifications would be as in Table
3-16.
Treatment Plants
The wastewater treatment facilities under Alternative B
would be as shown in Table 3-15. Plant layouts are shown
in Figure 3-9. The West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park, and Rich-
mond Beach plants would continue to provide primary treatment,
discharged to Puget Sound. The Richmond Beach treatment
plant has primary capacity to serve projected 2005 flows. Car-
keek Park has primary capacity to serve all but peak storm
flow, which would continue to be bypassed during high flow
periods. West Point has adequate primary capacity to serve
2005 non-storm flows. Dry weather flow increases over existing
conditions would be attributed to additional sewered population
in the service areas.
Improvements outlined in the comprehensive plan would be
carried out. For example, more sludge digesters at West Point
would be provided in 1985 and 1995. At Alki, major improve-
ments would be made to the existing pretreatment and pre-
aeration works and chlorination facilities; the outfall would
be improved by extending it.
Combined Sewer Overflows
In Alternative B, combined sewer overflows would increase
by about 12 percent relative to existing conditions due to
197
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
METRO- RICHMOND BEACH WftSTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
PRIMARY TREATMENT
(EXISTING FACILITY)
METRO - CARKEEK PARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
P1PER CANYON Reap
50 0
PRIMARY TREATMENT
(EXISTING FACILITY)
Figure 3-9
Alternative B Plant Layouts (Sheet 1)
198
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
METRO - WEST POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FILTER PRESS BLDO.
PRIMARY TREATMENT
METRO-ALKI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
0 100 200
PRIMARY TREATMENT
(UPGRADED)
Figure 3-9
Alternative B Plant Layouts (Sheet 2)
199
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
population growth in the service areas. The current program
of maximizing existing in-line storage capacity for control
of combined sewer overflows would be continued with construc-
tion of regulator stations at Montlake (by 1978) and Third
Avenue West. However, overflows of combined sewage would
increase in the Lake Union Ship Canal area due to increased
flows from the northern West Point service area.
Sludge Management
The sludge management system for Alternative B would
be similar to the present situation, with expansion of
handling facilities to accommodate the added solids loads
from growth in service areas. Anaerobic digestion would be
provided, with methane used to the extent possible at plant
sites. West Point would remain as the major solids pro-
cessing center, receiving untreated Renton sludge in the
plant influent plus digested sludge trucked in from Carkeek
Park and Richmond Beach. Enlargement of sludge facilities
at West Point, specifically adding digesters and enlarging
dewatering capability, would be scheduled for 1985 and 1995.
The existing sludge digestion facilities at Richmond Beach and
Carkeek Park would be adequate to serve projected 2005 flows.
Processed sludge would be trucked to Cedar Hills landfill and
the Pack Forest research site.
Renton
Although the Renton service area and treatment plant
are not included in the proposed facilities for Alternative
B, the alternative would have secondary or indirect impacts
on the Renton plant. Due to an increase in the Renton
service area (transferred from West Point) and the projected
growth to 2005 in the Renton service area, the plant capacity
would be expanded in two stages (1985, 1995) to 86 mgd average,
223 mgd peak. Since no action would be taken pursuant to
PL 92-500, the treatment process would continue as secon-
dary treatment, discharging effluent to the Duwamish River.
Sludge would be treated at West Point, then trucked to dis-
posal sites.
200
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
Primary Impacts
The direct impacts from this alternative for the Puget
Sound plants are described below. Indirect impacts and the
effects from the Renton plant are described in a separate
section on secondary impacts.
Geology, Soils and Topography
Alternative B is expected to have a minor effect on
slope and soil stability, erosion, deposition, topography
and soil profiles from intended construction projects. Three
new digesters would be installed at West Point. The impacts
of this action are discussed in the West Point site document
which is Volume II of this series.
Impacts would continue at existing sludge disposal
sites; all alternatives contain the interim disposal site
at Cedar Hills which with the loadings under this alternative
would last 30 years under current practices. Other potential
disposal sites have been identified by the facilities planning
engineers, but no decision is anticipated in the Facility
Plan. Pack Forest research and impact analysis will continue.
Alternative B also includes the construction of the
Kenmore parallel interceptor along the northwest shore of
Lake Washington. If the "Lake Line" is chosen, it would
involve a 4000-ft section along the north shore of Lake
Washington and about five miles underwater to Matthews Park.
Construction can be expected to generate localized turbidity
and alteration of benthic sediments. Turbidity, accelerated
erosion and siltation potential are greatest at the interface
between shore and water sections where such problems are
difficult to control because the interface tends to be an
area of much activity- Any temporary onshore staging area
also has the potential for increasing local turbidity,
increasing shoreline and nearshore erosion and siltation
(Metropolitan Engineers Task D3, 1976).
The "Force Main" option, an option to the lake line route
of the Kenmore parallel, would use the Burke-Gilman Trail
as a land route. Because the Burke-Gilman Trail has already
been altered (serving formerly as a railroad line), use of
this route should have minimal long-term impact upon exist-
ing geology and soils. Adverse impacts should be limited
to the construction period (less than two years) and may
include dust, possible erosion and siltation, increased
201
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
turbidity in runoff and local drainage systems. Despite the
fact that the "Force Main" option is a land route, large
portions of it lie within the shoreline area, and care must
be taken to confine construction-related impacts to the
site itself and to prevent turbidity and siltation in the
lake (Metropolitan Engineers Task D3, 1976),
Present hazard risks would continue at existing sites.
Earthquake risk at the Kenmore parallel would be a function
of foundation stability. Depending on the structures
encountered, moderate or severe precautions would need to
be taken to protect the structure. Shore and lake bed sedi-
ments are expected to be of greater risk, however.
Air Quality and Odors
Sludge trucking traffic from Richmond Beach to West
Point and from West Point, Alki, and Carkeek Park to the
Cedar Hills landfill would emit approximately 710 grams of
hydrocarbons, 4435 grams of carbon monoxide, and 3230 grams
of nitrogen oxides per day. Emissions from sludge truck
traffic to the Pack Forest site would be greater due to
a longer travel distance. Operating personnel traffic to
wastewater treatment plants would generate approximately
3590 grams of hydrocarbons, 45,700 grams of carbon monoxide
and 5920 grams of nitrogen oxides. The combined emissions
would amount to less than 0.01 of 1% of Seattle's total
daily emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitro-
gen oxides. The air pollutants emitted under this alterna-
tive would have a negligible, adverse, long-term, reversible
impact on the air quality of the Seattle area.
The potential for odor problems at each of the treatment
plants would remain about the same as at present, because
the plants would continue primary treatment. Enlargement
of the sludge handling facilities at West Point in 1985
and 1995 would increase the potential for odor problems
there. The increase of combined sewer overflows from addition-
al sewered population (relative to 1975 conditions) to Lake
Washington, Lake Union, the Ship Canal, and Portage Bay
would increase the occurrences of odors arising from CSO's
in these areas. The potential odor problems associated
with this alternative would have a minor, long-term, adverse,
reversible impact on the environmental quality of the Seattle
area.
202
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
Water Quality
Population growth and expanding urbanization will in-
crease runoff and wastewater flows to treatment plants.
As a result, combined sewer overflows to Lake Washington,
Lake Union, and the Ship Canal would increase by about one-
third over present (1975) flows. The total treatment plant
flow to Puget Sound would increase by about 30 percent
relative to 1975.
Lake Washington. The primary effect on Lake Washing-
ton water quality would be from increasing CSO's at 41 points
along the lake's western shore. Data on combined sewer
overflow occurrence and quality are limited, as described
under Alternative A, particularly for potentially toxic
materials. Future overflows are expected to increase by
36 percent (relative to 1975) to 22.4 million gallons flow,
20.4 tons of solids and 5.6 tons of BOD per year (Metropoli-
tan Engineers, 1977). These inputs could have moderate
negative impacts, limited in extent to waters along the
western shore, as suggested by dye studies (Metro taff,
1976). The impacts are judged to be of long duration because
CSO's are intermittent but continuing, and reversible for
most parameters except PCB's, heavy metals, pesticides and
toxicants which accumulate in the lake. While PCB's have
been banned, the continued use of existing supplies will
affect water quality for some time. Elevated total coliform
Bacteria counts could result in unsanitary conditions (greater
than 1000 MPN/100 ml) for bathing for a few days after an
overfow.
Lake Union/Ship Canal. Because of additional sewered
population, combined sewer overflows to Lake Union/Ship Canal
would increase by about 36 percent (relative to 1975).
Information on present CSO occurrence and quality is limited,
as described under Alternative A.
Lake Union/Ship Canal receives overflows at 32 points
along its length for a total volume of 311 million gallons
per year under Alternative B. While data are limited, it
appears that nearshore freshwater organisms may be subjected
to high levels of mercury, PCB's and DDT and its derivatives,
as well as to BOD concentrations of 10-29 mg/1 and suspended
solids concentrations of 48-148 mg/1. Annual loadings of
BOD and solids to the Lake Union/Ship Canal would be 75 and
282 tons, respectively, about a 37 percent increase over
1975 conditions.
203
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
Adverse effects of overflows would probably be minor in
the Ship Canal, which is relatively well flushed. Lake Union,
which has poor circulation, would receive (from 4 major and
4 minor overflows) about 56.6 million gallons a year. The
impacts from the projected increase of CSO's of 36 percent
would probably be moderate, because the increase is not large,
but felt throughout the Ship Canal. Except for the accumula-
tion of heavy metals, PCB's, and pesticides, the adverse
effects of CSO's are reversible.
Other freshwaters. Lake Sammamish and the Green, Cedar
and Sammamish Rivers would not be directly affected by this
alternative.
Duwamish estuary. Impacts from combined sewer over-
flows on the Duwamish estuary would be the same as under
existing conditions or Alternative A. The adverse
impacts attributed to approximately 251 million gallons per
year of CSO's would be overshadowed by the 31,400 million
gallons per year discharged from Renton (described under
secondary impacts).
Puget Sound. Under Alternative B, wastewater flows to
Puget Sound would increase by about 30 percent relative to
existing conditions; most of the added flow would be from
West Point. The continuation of the Metro Comprehensive
Plan would produce no measurable effects on temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or salinity at the beaches or offshore.
Some localized impacts such as small decreases in dissolved
oxygen or increases in turbidity and nutrients near outfalls
would be expected to continue. A difference in Alternative B
relative to Alternative A would be the extension of the Alki
outfall, which would probably improve beach conditions
nearby. Overall, the effects of wastewater treatment plant
discharges would continue to be slightly adverse because
Metro inputs to Puget Sound would increase relative to present
conditions.
Combined sewer overflows to Elliott Bay and off Alki
Beach would remain at 1975 levels. From the standpoint of
microbiology and related public health concerns, the adverse
impacts of continued CSO's and discharge from the outfalls
would be significant, as violations of state fecal coliform
standards for commercial shellfish waters would continue.
Impacts would be extensive, because the entire shoreline
in the Metro area appears to be affected. Effects would be
long-term, as the occurrence of problems is intermittent
but continuing, and reversible, as pathogens are generally
204
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
inactivated after a certain period. Intertidal and nearshore
subtidal clams would probably be unsafe due to bacterial or
viral contamination from wastewater treatment plant or
CSO discharges.
The present effects of heavy metal discharges to Puget
Sound, which would continue under Alternative B, are not well
understood. Details on metals have been described under
existing conditions and Alternative A. Since wastewater
flows would increase under Alternative B, heavy metals would
also be expected to increase. With respect to metals, the
impacts of, Alternative B on Puget Sound water quality are
judged to be minor, limited in extent, and long-term along
beaches. Nearshore and offshore waters presently are high
in lead and cadmium concentrations, but these levels are
not attributable to Metro from existing data. Therefore, the
net effect of heavy metals from Metro outfalls and CSO's under
Alternative B on nearshore/offshore water is unknown, but
probably minor.
Toxicants would probably increase with the additional
wastewater flows of Alternative B. It is possible that
toxicants in Metro discharges are adversely affecting beaches
at present, but the levels of toxic constituents in receiv-
ing waters have not been determined. Impacts at some beaches
may be more likely due to CSO's or outflows from the indus-
trialized Duwamish area (including Renton effluent) which
flow from the Duwamish River Estuary into Elliott Bay and
move toward West Point. Contributions of toxicants to
nearshore and offshore waters would probably be smaller,
primarily because CSO's and the Duwamish discharge would be
likely to reach them only in small amounts.
With the banning of PCB manufacture, use and sale after
January 1978, the presence of these toxicants in effluents
and CSO's is expected to begin to decline. However, future
growth in commercial and residential areas may produce greater
inputs of other toxicants to Puget Sound through sewage
effluent and CSO's. As many toxicants and PCB's do not
degrade readily, such chemicals already in local waters will
be available for biotic uptake and concentration for a long
time. For the purposes of 20 year facilities planning,
their presence is considered to be long-term and essentially
irreversible.
Groundwater. Alternative B is not expected to exert
any direct impacts on groundwater quality. Effluents would
be discharged to Puget Sound and would not be capable of
infiltrating to groundwater.
205
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
Flood hazard. Floods are not expected to cause pro-
blems at any of the treatment plants because all of the sites
are above the 100 year flood level.
Biology. The impacts on terrestrial and shoreline habi-
tats, Puget Sound, the Duwamish estuary, freshwater environ-
ments, and rare or endangered species are described below.
Terrestrial habitats. Alternative B involves no site
expansions, but includes the construction of a Kenmore para-
llel interceptor. While the exact route of this line is unde-
cided, it is certain that some temporary minor disturbance
of terrestrial habitats would occur. The impacts of digesters
to be built at West Point are discussed in the site-specific
document which is Volume II of this series. No direct impacts
on non-urban terrestrial forest or prairie lowland habitats
are expected. Indirect impacts of population growth are
described in a separate section on growth.
Shoreline habitats. The effects of Alternative B on
shoreline habitats would result from increased overflows
to Lake Washington, Lake Union/Ship Canal, and Portage Bay
and from the construction of the Kenmore parallel interceptor.
The Kenmore parallel interceptor construction (4000 feet
along the northwest Lake Washington Shore, then under water
to Matthews Park) could cause turbidity, accelerated erosion
and siltation in nearshore waters and alteration of benthic
sediments, very possibly near salmon spawning areas. Benthic
organisms and salmon eggs could be buried; aquatic plants
could be affected by decreased light levels due to turbidity.
The effect could be major, but would be limited in extent to
nearshore areas along a part of Lake Washington; it would be
short-term and reversible as the biota readjust to new environ-
ment. Salmon would probably not return to silted areas for
spawning, as the fish require clean, well-aerated gravels.
Sewer overflows, BOD and solids loads to Lake Washington,
Lake Union and the Ship Canal would increase 36% relative to
existing conditions under Alternative B. It is assumed that
loadings of oil, grease, metals and toxicants would probably
increase similarly. PCB's would begin to decline after 1978,
unless reservoirs of these toxicants remain in the intercep-
tors to be partially flushed with each storm.
The increase in CSO's is judged to be moderate. Limited
information to date indicates effects of CSO's on freshwater
biota (Metro Staff, 1976) are sever, but limited in extent.
206
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
The projected 36% increase could probably increase the extent
and severity of the effect for a similar amount as more
organisims would be affected by the solids, BOD, metals,
pesticides, toxicants, oil and grease.
The intertidal. Elements of Alternative B which would
impact the intertidal are the extension and improvement of
the Alki outfall, increased flows and loads by 2005 from
all treatment plants (30 percent above existing conditions
at West Point, 21 percent at Alki, 33 percent at Carkeek and
52 percent at Richmond Beach), and continued sewer overflows
approximately at present rates.
Improvements to the Alki outfall would reduce the con-
centrations of nutrients, pathogens, solids and other para-
meters that may affect local intertidal biota. Increased
algae biomass at Alki may continue since it could be due to
nutrients being carried shoreward from the outfall during
part of the tidal cycle (Matsuda, personal communication,
1977) . Effects on the kinds and numbers of intertidal clams
are difficult to assess since, like algae, they are harvested
for food.
Eddy systems forming north and south of Alki Point and
West Point, and onshore water movement at Carkeek Park and
Richmond Beach during part of the tidal cycle could cause
diluted wastewater to reach beaches. Based on current
patterns and dye studies, the authors consider it highly
likely that effluent enters the intertidal zone at all out-
fall sites, but with unknown frequency. Effects found to
date on intertidal organisms which could be attributed to
effluent are primarily on the floral assembly - algae and
diatoms at West Point. Limpets, among the main consumers of
these plants, show increased growth rates. The expected 30
percent increase in flows from West Point (relative to 1975)
could have a concomitantly larger effect, especially if
industrial growth keeps pace with population growth.
At Alki, combined sewer overflows would continue to
contribute the equivalent of 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the
annual flow from the Alki facility (about half a day's flow),
0.5 - 0.6 percent of the solids and 0.1 percent of the BOD.
With respect to the intertidal, the improvement of the out-
fall would be more important than the continued level of
sewer overflows, although the overflows contain essentially
untreated wastes.
Major CSOrs would continue at present levels to Elliott
Bay, one of the few intertidal areas influenced by CSO's.
207
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
The adverse effects limited to CSO points that have been
observed to date would continue under Alternative B. Non-
degradable metals and toxicants would continue adverse.
irreversible impacts on biota. In contrast, the effects of
effluents appear to be minor-to-moderate, adverse, and affect
greater portions of the shoreline. The parameters which
appear to be most involved are nutrients. It is recognized
that a number of other parameters in effluents which may also
be having effects have not been measured. As metals are
generally higher in intertidal biota near outfall areas at
this time, and flows and loads are expected to increase in
the future, metals could increase to levels approaching U. S.
and Canadian standards for mercury and lead. While coliform
bacteria have not been measured in intertidal shellfish, the
overlying waters fail to meet State bacterial standards. As
edible shellfish are found near all four outfall sites, the
potential effects on public health of metals and pathogens
are a consideration. Eelgrass beds near Carkeek and Alki,
which are important feeding and breeding areas for commercial
fishes and their prey, could also be subject to effluent.
Nutrients, BOD and solids would probably affect these
already rich areas little; toxicants or pesticides could
accumulate, affecting the fishes, their prey and their pre-
dators. In the absence of data on metals, toxicants and the
frequency of exposure to pollutants, the magnitude of the
impact is unknown.
Puget Sound. The intertidal, nearshore subtidal, and
offshore bottom, free-swimming and planktonic organisms in
the study area would continue to be subject to effects of
combined sewer overflows at present levels, increased flows
and loads from treatment plant effluents, plus runoff, septic
tank seepage, boat wastes, dredge spoil dumps, and other
pollutant sources.
The difference in effects between 1975 conditions and
Alternative B would be due primarily to the improvement in
the Alki outfall and increases in effluent flows. Improving
the Alki outfall is not expected to affect phytoplankton
production. At West Point, additional nutrients.could generate
further increases in the phytoplankton productivity extremes
noted to date within a mile of the West Point outfall. Thus,
the potential effect is judged to be minor and limited in
extent,long-term, reversible and adverse, as the Sound is
naturally highly productive.
For zooplankton, the present effect is judged to be
unknown and future effects unpredictable. Metals would
probably remain higher in zooplankton near outfall areas than
at background areas, however (Schell et al., 1977).
208
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
The effects on the benthos identified in PSIS studies
(correlated with West Point and Carkeek plume positions)
would continue and perhaps increase. Although Richmond Beach
and Alki were not sampled, the benthic conditions at these
sites are probably similar, based on water circulation
patterns. Thus, the adverse effect of increasing flows would
continue to be moderate-to-major but probably somewhat more
extensive. The area affected by the Alki plume would be
transferred further offshore and the area presently affected
would probably return to a former condition.
Nearshore free-swimming (nektonic) forms (juvenile
salmon, herring, and other commercial fish that frequent the
outfall pipe, kelp, or eelgrass areas in daytime or at night)
could continue to be occasionally exposed to levels of chlorine
at higher than "safe" levels and perhaps to other constituents
in effluent.
Localized effects of additional effluents in nearshore
areas could affect herring populations directly or through
their zooplankton prey and thus affect salmon and other
organisms which feed heavily on herring in open waters (Miller
et al., 1976).
Changes detected in fish species composition at West
Point, discussed in Chapter II, would continue under Alterna-
tive B and could be more pronounced with larger flows in
the future. Impacts could result from effluent-caused
changes in benthic prey species and/or habitat changes due
to the outfall pipe itself. Higher disease incidence in
fish around the outfalls could continue, although the relative
influence of crowding, effluent toxicity and toxicants has
not been determined. The overall effect is judged to be
adverse, major, but limited in extent, of long duration
and probably reversible.
While no data are available, it is possible that offshore
nektonic organisms may also be occasionally affected by
chlorine, pathogens or toxicants if they swim into or through
the effluent field, or if they feed in nearshore areas at
night (Brungs,1976; Mattice & Zittel, 1977). Peaks of
chlorine at the diffuser of 0.02 mg/1 and higher may expose
nektonic organisms congregating at the outfall to chlorine
exceeding "safe" levels during slack water periods. The
potential effect on these organisms is considered to be
adverse, minor, limited in extent, of short duration and
reversible, even with increased effluent flows and no im-
provement in chlorination facilities.
209
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
Commercial and sport fisheries. Salmonid runs up the
Ship Canal and salmon spawning areas in Lake Washington could
be further affected by about a 36 percent increase in com-
bined sewer overflows (relative to 1975 flows). In Lake
Washington, reductions in dissolved oxygen, enrichment of
nutrients, and additional loads of toxicants could create
locally unfavorable conditions for commercial fish spawning
areas, as described under biology.
Herring off Alki would be affected by combined sewer
overflows at existing levels, but the extension of the Alki
outfall would be beneficial by limiting the concentration of
effluent reaching the beach or curtailing its presence there.
The Duwamish estuary. Combined sewer overflows to the
Duwamish would continue at approximately 251 million gallons
per year with impacts comparable to existing conditions or
Alternative A. Except at localized points near the overflow
points, effects of CSO's would be overshadowed by the Renton
wastewater treatment plant discharge (described under
secondary impacts), industrial discharges and urban runoff.
Freshwater environments. These are important habitats
for a variety of organisms, including sport and commercial
fishes.
1. Lake Washington. Combined sewer overflows, a number
of which discharge into salmon spawning areas, would increase
36 percent over 1975 levels. Based on limited sampling
at one overflow point, impacts of present overflows were
significant; no macroscopic life was found near the outfall.
With future increased overflows, the effects, already major
in limited areas along the western shore, would become
more extensive, long-term and irreversible (due to metals
and toxicants). Effects on offshore biota would probably
continue to be minor, as CSO's tend to move along shore
rather than into open waters.
The construction of the Kenmore parallel could cause
major, extensive, but short-term increases in turbidity
and generally disrupt 4000 feet of the shoreline and near-
shore waters and biota of northwest Lake Washington. Salmon
spawning areas, which require clean gravel, could possibly
be silted over. Construction noise would probably frighten
off fish and wildlife. The adverse effect is judged to be
major but limited, short-term and reversible. Offshore
areas would receive lesser effects.
210
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
2. Lake Union/Ship Canal. Increased CSO flows of about
36 percent(relative to 1975)would place further stress on
an already stressed biota. Overall impacts are unknown, but
data available at one overflow suggest that no visible life
exists near the outfall. Assuming this effect is typical
of all overflows along the canal, the effects of increased
flows would be major, limited in extent, though less so
than at present, long-term as CSO's could continue; and
irreversible if they contain toxicants and metals, which
seems likely.
3- Other freshwaters. Biota in Lake Sammamish,
Sammamish River, Cedar River and Green River could not be
directly affected by this alternative.
Rare or endangered species and critical habitats. No
listed endangered species are recorded from the study area.
Critical habitats, which include salmon spawning and rearing
areas, fish migration routes, waterfowl resting areas, and
lake shallows have been discussed in previous sections.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy and chemical consumption are summarized in
Table 3-17.
Energy. For Alternative B, a net of 25 million equi-
valent kwh/yr of energy would be consumed in 2005 by the
Puget Sound plants. Included would be 32 million kwn/year
of electrical energy purchased. This is equivalent to the
amount of electric energy 1600 households would consume per
year, and constitutes approximately 0.16% of the projected
electrical energy consumption of Seattle in 2005 (see
Appendix E).
Table 3-17 shows the breakdown of total energy consump-
tion on a plant-by-plant basis. The greatest energy con-
sumption would be in the form of electricity. Chemicals
account for about 10-25 percent of energy consumption and
sludge trucking for less than 3 percent. In the anaerobic
digestion of sludge, there sould be a net production of en-
ergy because of methane formation. It can be expected that
about half of the methane would be used at the plant and
about half would be flared off.
The impact of the energy consumption would be adverse,
211
-------
TABLE 3-17
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE B
Ons ite Energy
Purchased electricity
(kwh x 106/yr)
Produced by digestion
(kwh x I06/yr)
Consumed by digestion
(kwh x I06/yr)
Offsite Energy
Chemicals (kwh x 106/yr)
Sludge Trucking (kwh x 106/yr)
TOTAL
PLANT
Richmond
Beach
0.63
(0.32)
0.13
0.14
0.03
0.61
Carkeek
Park
0.97
(0.48)
0.19
0.25
0.03
0.96
West
Point
27.91
(29.85)
11.94
8.68
2.58
21.26
Alki
2.35
(0.85)
0.34
0.59
0.11
2.54
Total
31.86
(31.5)
12.60
9.66
2.75
25.37
N)
H
NJ
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
moderate in magnitude, long-term, irreversible and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine consumption would be 2,825 tons
annually; 40 tons at Richmond Beach, 75 tons at Carkeek Park,
2535 tons at West Point, and 175 tons at Alki. West Point
would also use 80 tons per year of polymers to aid in the
coagulation of sludge. The supply of chlorine and polymer
is highly reliable. The impact of chemical usage would be
adverse, minor, long-term, irreversible; and would definitely
occur if Alternative B is implemented in its present state.
Human Environment
Alternative B would have negative impacts on some as-
pects of the human environment.
Land use. The only new impacts on land would be due
to construction of the Redmond connection, Kenmore parallel
interceptor, the Val Vue connection, the Montlake and Third
Avenue regulator stations, and the Kenmore pump station.
Since the Kenmore parallel interceptor would pass within
200 feet of the Lake Washington shore, and the Montlake
regulator station may be built within 200 feet of the
Ship Canal, these would require a building permit from the
Shorelines Management Master Program of Seattle. These
land use impacts during construction would be adverse, major,
short-term, and definite.
Legal and institutional. Alternative B does not
comply with PL 92-500 nor the Washington NPDES Regulations
which require secondary treatment. A fine as high as
$10,000 per day could be levied against Metro for noncompli-
ance, explained in Chapter II. This impact would be adverse,
major, long-term, and probable.
Washington public health regulations for coliform
standards would still be exceeded at Lake Washington public
beaches. No U. S. Army Corps of Engineers permits would
be required.
Agency goals. It is speculative whether Alternative B
fulfills the King County Utilities Development policy of
"installing trunk utility lines in advance or at the time
of development", and its policy that "where pollution con-
ditions now exist, all possible steps should be taken to
213
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
correct such conditions." This alternative does not allevi-
ate the frequent odor problem at Alki, which (in addition
to affecting the Alki residents directly) conflicts with
the PSCOG goal of maintaining the natural beauty and live-
ability of the region. This alternative fulfills in part
the objectives of Goals for Seattle, that "The city should
undertake all means reasonable and feasible to ensure water
purity to meet health standards and protect the environment,
and to undertake efforts to meet Federal Water Pollution
Control Act requirements by 1984; and to ensure clean
water to protect wildlife, vegetation, and recreation areas.'
These impacts on a whole are adverse, major, long-term, re-
versible, and definite.
Employment. There would be about 150 employees for
five years required for the construction involved in Alver-
native B. Operation and management employment would require
a total of 86 employees at West Point, Alki, Richmond Beach,
and Carkeek Park.
Costs. For Alternative B, the estimated capital costs
for constructing new treatment facilities, collection sys-
tems, effluent disposal sites, sludge handling and disposal
facilities (excluding Renton) would be $81,900,000 (1976
dollars) as summarized in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engi-
neers, 1977). This is 0.09 percent of the $95,902 billion
estimated by the EPA for implementation of PL 92-500 through-
out the country (EPA, 1976). The operation and maintenance
costs (excluding Renton) would be $6,880,000 per year, as
•shown in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977).
The estimated average monthly user charge per equi-
valent connection for the next 20 years would be $5.45 per
month if all future facilities to 2005 are grant eligible,
as shown in Table 3-14. User charges would be $6.25 per
month if future capacity beyond 1985 is not grant eligible
and $8.40 per month if no future facilities are grant
eligible. Since Alternative B does not comply with the
secondary treatment requirement of PL 92-500, which is a
condition for grant funding, it appears that the probable
user charge would be $8.40 per month, an amount $4.85 greater
than the present monthly user charge. Impact of cost would
be adverse, moderate, long-term, irreversible, and definite.
If the requirements of PL 92-500 for secondary treat-
ment are disregarded, a substantial legal fine may be levied,
as indicated in the section on legal and institutional impacts
214
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
Social/ recreational and cultural. Alternative B would
not fulfill goals expressed by 54 to 64 percent of the citizens
interviewed (HRPI, 1976).
Recreational areas in Lake Washington, in Carkeek Park,
near West Point and near Alki could be adversely affected by
combined sewer overflows, wastewater treatment plants and
treated effluent. In particular, bacteria exceeding bathing
standards in Lake Washington and commercial shellfish stan-
dards at Puget Sound beaches would continue. Since West Point,
Alki and Carkeek Park plants would not be expanded, impacts
on nearby parks and recreational areas would remain as at
present. For more information, see the water quality and
biology sections of this document and site-specific documents.
Archeological and historical. Because information on
the presence of archeological sites along the interceptor
routes, near the proposed regulators or at the Kenmore pump
station is not available, archeological impacts for these
projects are not known. Further analysis would be recommen-
ded before final design. At treatment sites, no activity
would affect archeological sites. There are no acknowledged
historical sites in the vicinity of the proposed construction
under Alternative B.
Health and safety. A negative impact would be associa-
ted with coliform bacteria exceeding bathing standards at
Lake1 Washington public beaches and with consumption of shell-
fish from Metro area beaches.
Another highly unlikely safety hazard is accidental
leakage of chemicals when they are in transport, or handled
on site. Although nearly every U. S. water and wastewater
treatment facility uses chemicals, there have been very few
chemical-related accidents.
The health and safety problems related to sludge trans-
port and disposal would be as probable as for any other
trucks in transit.
Construction risks would be the same as for any other
similar construction; they would be adverse, moderate,
short-term and improbable.
Aesthetics and nuisance. Currently, many of the waste-
water facilities are blocked from view either by trees or
bluffs, and odor is generally not a major problem except
at Alki. This situation would continue under Alternative B.
215
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
These aesthetic and nuisance impacts related to Alternative B
would be adverse, minor, long-term, reversible, and definite.
Construction of the interceptors and regulator stations
would cause an adverse, minor, short-term, reversible, and
probable impact, especially at the Montlake regulator sta-
tion, where construction would occur along a major bridge
across the Ship Canal.
Secondary Impacts
The secondary impacts of Alternative B would result from
expanding the Renton treatment plant, sludge disposal methods
and population growth. The effects of these changes on water
quality, biology, energy, natural resources and the human
environment are described below.
Water Quality
Renton expansion. Under Alternative B, Renton would
be expanded significantly. Average flows of 86 mgd would
equal about 60% of Duwamish summer low flows. The resulting
flow augmentation could help alleviate temperature problems
which develop in summer, but probably would not improve
oxygen levels because secondary effluent has a DO of about
2 mg/1 and a BOD of about 10 mg/1. In fact, the Renton
effluent could have adverse impacts at low flow periods
when dissolved oxygen in the lower Duwamish reaches criti-
cal levels. The severity of this problem has been reduced
in the past five years by sewage and industrial waste
improvements, but a substantial increase in the Renton dis-
charge could reverse this trend as the ammonia discharged
would consume oxygen for oxidation to nitrate, further de-
pleting oxygen levels in the river. CSO's to the Duwamish
would add about 1 percent or about 3 days of Renton's
projected flow of 86 mgd at 13 points.
The total solids load to the Duwamish from both CSO's
and Renton would increase from 980 tons/year (1975) to
2200 tons/year over the next 30 years,. Nutrients and
ammonia levels could be significantly affected by the
increases in Renton effluent. Metals and toxicants discharged
from Renton are unknown, or are expected to be minor. Levels
will remain low only so long as the undigested sludge is
transferred to West Point.
The overall adverse impact from the increase in Renton
216
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
discharge is expected to be significant because the flow
is large relative to the Duwamish flow. Impacts would be
long-term, because the increased discharge will continue
through the planning period and, except for any increases in
toxicant and heavy metal concentrations, reversible.
Sludge disposal. Leachate runoff at the Cedar Hills
sanitary landfill would not be a problem. The soil is quite
impervious, limiting groundwater flow to approximately one
foot per year. The leachate waters at Cedar Hills will be
collected in a system of pipes presently under construction.
Runoff streams from the sludge basins visibly have good
quality. Impacts at the Pack Forest site will be monitored.
Biology
Discharges of 86 mgd (average) of secondary effluent
from Renton would have an effect on the toxicity, temperature,
ammonia, and DO levels of the Duwamish.
Chlorine residuals (probably in the monochloramine
form) could be toxic in the estuary. Studies to date (Buck-
ley and Matsuda, 1973) indicate that 29% of the Renton eff-
luent is toxic (TL 50 for 96 hours), primarily due to chlo-
rine residuals of 0.2 mg/1. Under this alternative, the
chlorine residual below Renton may at times exceed safe
levels (0.05 to 0.01 times the chlorine residual of 0.2
mg/1, or 0.01 to 0.02 mg/1 chlorine residual). At present
effluent flows, migrating fish are not expected to be af-
fected due to mitigating factors, including effluent plume
avoidance by migration. Larval or juvenile fish, however,
are far less able to avoid the effluent plume and thus may
be exposed for longer periods. With the expansion of the
facility to 86 mgd, the effluent would comprise about half
of the river's summer low flow, such that fish would be ex-
posed to levels of chlorine exceeding safe levels.
The increased freshwater flow would also change the
salinity distribution, such that summer blooms may consist
of freshwater rather than marine phytoplankton, and mean
better flushing of the estuary. The zooplankton would
probably also change, but to a lesser degree. The benthos
would continue to be stressed by CSO's, low DO, and nutrient
enriched sediments, although more flow could mean better
dilution in summer. The net effect on the benthos of the
various minor benefits and major negative impacts is major,
negative, and extensive. The effect on migratory fishes
would also be major, adverse, extensive, and of long duration
217
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
due to constantly increased levels of ammonia, low DO, CSO's,
and chlorine, discussed previously. The effect on other
fishes could also be major and adverse. Waterfowl could
leave if their prey species are adversely impacted. The
effects are considered to be reversible.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy and natural resources used at the Renton plant
are described below.
Energy. For Alternative B, a net of 52 million equi-
valent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 at Renton,
Included would be 49 million kwh/year of electrical energy
purchased, and 3 million equivalent kwh/year required to
produce the chemicals consumed. There would be no sludge
trucking, nor energy consideration for anaerobic digestion.
The impact of the energy consumption would be adverse,
moderate in magnitude, long-term, irreversible and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine would be the only chemical used,
at an annual rate of 1020 tons. The supply of chlorine is
reliable. The impact of chemical usage would be adverse,
moderate, long-term, irreversible and definite.
Human Environment
Population and employment. Population distribution
under Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A.
For more detail on impacts attributable to growth, the
reader is referred to the separate growth section of this
chapter.
Operation and maintenance employment at Renton would
include 41 personnel as well as related Metro staff. Con-
struction would involve approximately 200 employees for
five years.
Costs. If Alternative B is implemented, capital costs
for construction at Renton would be $106,100,000, as indicated
in Table 3-13. Renton operation and maintenance would cost
$3,220,000 per year. The effect of this on user charge is
noted in the primary impact section, since user charges
218
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
are determined on a Metro-wide basis. Impact of cost would
be adverse, moderate, minor, long-term, irreversible, and
definite.
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures are suggested to aid in the
reduction of adverse impacts resulting from the implementation
of this alternative.
An improved chlorine feed system can be designed to
prevent chlorine levels in the Alki,Carkeek Park and Richmond
Beach sewage treatment plant effluent from exceeding safe
levels. This could be achieved by matching chlorine feed
rates to effluent discharge and/or installing a chlorine
contact tank, which would maximize the effectiveness of chlor-
ination treatment. Currently chlorine is injected into the
effluent flow at a constant rate, regardless of wastewater
flow through the treatment facilities. This causes fluctua-
ting chlorine residuals. Control of chlorine residuals at
West Point could be achieved by installing a chlorine contact
tank.
Flow augmentation to the Green/Duwamish Rivers during the
summer months could aid in reducing the oxygen deficit of
this river. Renton discharges would be equal in magnitude
to the summer flows of the Duwamish River. Some augmentation
is already currently provided by Hansen Dam, located on the
upper reaches of the Green River.
The possible silting over of salmon spawning grounds
during the construction of the Kenmore parallel (Lake Line
Option) called for under Alternative B would cause impacts,
both environmental and economical. Chinook lake spawning
occurs in water depths of one to eight feet wher^ there is
gravel, sand, and groundwater seepage. Spawning
occurs in autumn and intragravel development continues until
early March. Timing construction to avoid impacts on salmon
nests would restrict building activities to six months, March
through August. Therefore it is recommended that an evalua-
tion study be made on the Force Main option to determine
its possible impacts. Not enough information is presently
available to consider this option. If the "Lake Line" option
is chosen, more detailed environmental analyses should be
made of possible impacts of the pipe before construction
begins.
Visual nuisance of the wastewater treatment facilities
could be mitigated by landscaping to shield facilities.
219
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative B
Odor of the wastewater treatment facilities can be
mitigated, in part, by not allowing the collection system to
become anaerobic. Under anaerobic conditions, gases such as
methane and noxious sulfur dioxide are emitted.
The energy impact can be in part defrayed by using more
of the methane gas which is produced by anaerobic digestion.
Nearly half of this methane gas is burned off under current
practices. However, facilities for storing methane gas
for plant or off-site uses may not be cost-effective.
The high coliforms levels at public beaches could be
reduced by using the CATAD (Computer Augmented Treatment and
Disposal) system to plan the discharge of combined sewer
overflows at sites remote from the public beaches as a
first preference.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Under Alternative B (Metro Comprehensive Plan - No
Action Pursuant to PL 92-500) the following adverse impacts
would be unavoidable.
Construction
Sludge trucking
Combined sewer overflows
Primary effluent - effect on water quality
Land use
Aesthetic nuisance of plant location
Noncompliance with Public Law 92-500
Operation and maintenance and capital costs
Energy expenditures
For further details on unavoidable impacts, the reader is
referred to the preceding analysis.
220
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ALTERNATIVE C - MAJOR COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL
The description of Alternative C and its projected
impacts to the year 2005 are presented in this section.
Description
Alternative C emphasizes improving those local water
quality problems that result from combined sewer overflows.
This alternative would control approximately 40 percent of
the CSO's (relative to Alternative B), stressing higher con-
trol levels to more sensitive inland freshwaters. CSO's
to Lake Washington, Portage Bay, Lake Union and the Ship
Canal would be reduced by 80 percent or more relative to
Alternative B, while CSO's to Elliott Bay would increase.
To achieve this level of CSO control would require construc-
tion of a major new plant in the Duwamish to treat wet
weather flows.
The major wastewater facilities proposed for Alternative
C are illustrated in Figure 3-10. Major features of the
alternative are summarized in Table 3-18, including treat-
ment plants, effluent discharges and combined sewer over-
flows, and major new transfer facilities. The construction
schedule and costs for proposed facilities are shown in
Table 3-19.
The alternative is further described below in terms of
service area, treatment plants (location, treatment process,
effluent disposal site), combined sewer overflow control
and sludge management. The indirect impacts of the facilities
proposed under this alternative on the Renton plant are
also described.
Service Area
The service area of Alternative C would be as shown in
Figure 3-1. The West Point service area would be reduced
by annexing, the eastern half of the North Lake Washington
and North Lake Sammamish service areas to Renton by the
North Creek-Hollywood connection and serving Val Vue at
Renton. Growth in the west North Lake Washington area
could be served by the existing Kenmore interceptor by pro-
vision of an off-line storage facility for intermittent,
peak, storm-influenced flows. Provision of additional wet
weather capacity in the southern West Point area would
221
-------
Figure 3-10
Facility Plan Alternative C
Major CSO Control
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
TABLE 3-18
ALTERNATIVE C - MAJOR CSO REDUCTION
SUMMARY
WEST POINT
Enhanced
Primary
Phase I
Enhanced
Primary
Improvement
Completed
Flow (mgd)
in 2005
(aver age/ peak)
Disposal
1985
139/350
Puget Sound
Existing
Outfall
19B3
10/30
Puget Sound
Outfall
Extended
TREATMENT PLANTS
CARKEEK PARK
Phase II
Abandoned
1995
0/0
Enhanced
Primary
3.5/20
Puget Sound
Existing
Outfall
RICHMOND BEACH
Enhanced
Primary
2.5/9
Puget Sound
Existing
Outfall
Enhanced
Primary
0/250
Secondary +
Nitrification
and Filtration
99/259
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (2005)
Lake Washington
Lake Sammamish
Portage Bay/M
Lake Union
Ship Canal
Elliott Bay Be
Alki Beach
Duwamish/Green River
TOTAL
FLOW SOLIDS
(Million Gallons/Yr) (Tons/Yr)
ake
Cut
in
y
0.19
6
35.8
4.14
28.0
448
.0.15
186
0.17
0
32.4
3.76
25.4
406
0.14
168
BOD
(Tons/Yr)
u.
0
B.
1.
6.
112
0,
46
,05
91
,03
97
.04
TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE
West Point
Alki (Phase II)
Carkeek Park
Richmond Beach
FLOW
(Million Gallons/Yr)
57,600
0
1,530
912
SOLIDS
(Tons/Yr)
11,200
0
297
177
BOD
(Tons/Yr)
15,100
0
404
241
Duwamish (wet
and Renton weather)
96,056
12,372
MAJOR HEW TRANSFER FACILITIES
Location
Alki Connection to West Point and Duwamish
Redmond Connection Stage I
Redmond Connection Stage II
North Creek-Hollywood Connection
Val Vue Connection to Renton
1,514
17,259
Year Completed
1995
1983
1995
1990
1980
*Not included in proposed facilities plan for Puget Sound plants
223
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Table 3-19
Alternative C — Project Costs
and Construction Staging
lacility Component
Treatment Plants
Richmond Beach Upgrade to Enhanced
Primary Treatment
Car keek Park - Interim Improvements
Carkeek Park - Upgrade to Enhanced
West Point Interim Improvements
West Point - Upgrade to Enhanced Primary
Treatment
Alki Interim Improvements
Alki Upgrade to Enhanced Primary
Treatment
Alki - Abandon 1996 (See Alki Connection,
below}
Renton - Interim Improvements
Ren ton - Enlargement 2 and Upgrading
. (Nitrification, Filtration, Sludge)
Renton - Enlargement 3
Duwamish (wet weather)
Subtotal Treatment Plants
Collection System
Abandon Existing Treatment Plant
Alki Connection to West Point
(Dry weather) and Duwamish
(Wet weather)
Rehabilitation of Existing Collection
System
Increased Transfer Capacity Within West
Point Existing Sewered Areas
Holding Tank - Kenmore P.S.
Redmond Connection - Stage 1
Redmond Connection - Stage 2
North Creek - Hollywood Connection
Val Vue Connection (to Renton)
Renton - Increased Transfer Capacity
and Rehabilitation within Renton
Existing Sewered Areas
Subtotal Collection
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Mon tlake Regulator Station
Lake Washington CSO Holding 10-year
Storm; Belvoir Holding Tank , Rainier
Beach and Say res Park Regulator Sta .
North Interceptor Parallel Line
( 1-yr storm)
Ballard Para 1 lei Trunk (1-yr storm)
Alki CSO Holding (10-yr storm; Murray,
Barton and S. W. Alaska Holding Tanks)
Duwamish CSO Holding (0.1-yr storm,
Norfolk , Michigan , Brandon, Diagonal
Ave. Holding Tanks)
Elliott Bay CSO Holdi ng and Transport
(0. 1-yr storm Han ford- Lander
Connection ; Regulator stations on
North Interceptor Overflow Line;
S. Magnol ia Ht ; Modifications to
Denny R. S. }
Subtotal Hold +• Transport CSO
Total Capital Cost
Project Cost
5 Million
ENR-CCI 2600
1.1
0.1
1.5
4.8
13.2
0.3
3.3
0.4
79.5
57.0
51.0
212.2
31.6
18.0
2.8
5.1
17.0
3.0
8.0
7.8
27.3
120.6
0.8
6.9
73. 5
2.7
3.6
5.8
7.t,
11 .9
112.8
445.6
^m
^H
••
^
^M
^M
O
00
m
n
o>
2000 1
| 2005 |
*Renton facilities are not part of the proposed facilities plan.
224
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
accommodate abandonment of the Alki plant. During non-
storm flows, Alki sewage would be treated at West Point,
and during storm flows at the new Duwamish wet weather
plant. System rehabilitation work would be undertaken in
the Carkeek Park and City of Lake Forest Park drainage basins
to reduce excess infiltration/inflow.
The new transfer facilities that would be needed to
facilitate the service area modifications would be: the
Alki connection to West Point (dry weather) and Duwamish
(wet weather) in 1995, the Redmond connections to Renton
(1983 and 1995), the North Creek-Hollywood connection to
Renton (1990), and the Val Vue connection to Renton (1980).
The construction schedule for these collection system
modifications are shown in Table 3-19.
Treatment Plants
The wastewater treatment facilities under Alternative C
would be as shown in Table 3-18. West Point, Carkeek Park
and Richmond Beach would be upgraded to enhanced primary
treatment for improved removal of suspended solids. Accord-
ing to the Draft Facility Plan, Richmond Beach modifications
would be provided by 1981, with the other two plants
modified by 1985. For the West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park
and Richmond Beach facilities, the addition of chemicals
for enhanced primary treatment would only occur during the
summer; in other seasons, primary treatment would be provided.
A new treatment plant in the Duwamish industrial area
would be completed in 1995 to treat wet weather or storm
flows only; enhanced primary treatment would be used for
solids removal. Projected average wet weather effluent qual-
ity from the Duwamish plant according to the facilities
planning engineers would be 50 mg/1 suspended solids and
BOD and 700 fecal coliforms per 100 ml. With this new
Duwamish facility, the Alki plant could be abandoned in
1995; interim modifications of enhanced primary treatment
would begin in 1983.
All facilities could be constructed within the exist-
ing plant boundaries. Plant layouts are shown in Figure 3-11,
The plant capacities at Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach
and Alki (interim) would remain as they are under Alternative
B. Some service area modifications would reduce the West
Point dry weather flow slightly in comparison to Alternative
B.
225
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
ENHANCED PRIMARY
ENHANCED PRIMARY
METRO - WEST POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FILTER PRESS BLOG
ENHANCED PRIMARY
Figure 3-11
Alternative C Plant Layouts, (Sheet 1)
226
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
METRO-ALKI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
ENHANCED PRIMARY
METRO- ALKI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
. |l iA_l I 1,
r~f—
1 nrir~i
ill ! i
ABANDON
METRO-DIAGONAL AVENUE SOUTH STORMWATER
TREATMENT PLANT (DUWAMISH)
EXISTING DUWAMISH
PUMPING STATION -
CHLORINE CONTACT CHANNEL
(IF REQUIRED)
SEDIMENTATION
200 0 ZOO 400
WET WEATHER PLANT - - PRIMARY
Figure 3-11
Alternative C Plant Layouts, (Sheet 2)
227
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
The four Puget Sound plants would continue to discharge
the treated effluent through existing outfalls to Puget
Sound. During the period before Alki is abandoned (1995) ,
the existing outfall would be improved and extended.
The new Duwamish wet weather plant would discharge
treated storm flows to the nearby Duwamish River. The wet
weather flows would be discharged near the Duwamish plant
at the junction of the East and West Waterways south of
Harbor Island. The 84-inch diameter outfall would discharge
at the river bottom (45 feet deep) and contain a diffuser
section for a 20:1 dilution of effluent.
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
In Alternative C, combined sewer overflows would be
controlled to a greater degree than in any other alternative.
Overall, a 40 percent reduction in combined sewer overflows
to all water bodies would result. This alternative con-
centrates on controlling overflows to the inland freshwater,
believed to be more sensitive than the saltwater of Puget
Sound or Elliott Bay. Table 3-18 summarizes the CSO's that
would remain under Alternative C.
Overflows to Lake Washington and the West Seattle shore-
line (Alki Beach) would be controlled to one overflow event
every ten years, Lake Union-Ship Canal to one overflow event
per year, and the Duwamish and Elliott Bay to ten overflows
per year. This would be achieved by construction of both
city and Metro storage and transport capacity, and Metro
treatment capacity by construction of a 250 mgd wet weather
plant in the lower Duwamish. Combined sewer holding and
transport would be staged through 1996 with priority assigned
according to receiving water sensitivity.
The 19 proposed collection system projects to control
combined sewer overflow are summarized in Table 3-19,
detailed in Table 3-20, and generally mapped in Figure 3-10.
Projects include pumping stations, holding tanks, trunk lines
and regulator stations. Information on exact sites is not
available in the Draft Facility Plan. The engineers have
indicated installations would be underground and adjacent to
existing regulators in parking lots, empty lots and existing
right-of-way.
Combined sewer overflows from some of the northern
West Point service areas would be transferred from inland
freshwaters through the North interceptor to Elliott Bay.
A new outfall, 11 feet in diameter and 1200 feet long, would
228
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
TABLE 3-20
Collection System Projects to Hold and Transport
Combined Sewer Overflows
Alternative Facility Plan
Component Project ABCDEFGH
East Marginal Way pump station
and upstream:
1. Rainier Beach regulator
station X X
2. South Norfolk Street
holding tank X
Rainier-Hanford system;
3. Sayres Park regulator
station X X
4. Hanford-Lander connection
to Duwamish plant, sized
for combined sewer over-
flow X
Other Duwamish river points:
5. Michigan Street holding
tank X
6. Brandon Street holding
tank X
7. Diagonal Avenue holding
tank X
Alki area:
8. Murray Avenue holding
tank, 0.1-year storm X
9. Murray Avenue holding tank,
10-year storm X
10. Barton holding tank X
229
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Table 3-20 (continued)
Alternative Facility Plan
Component Project ABCDEFGH
11. S. W. Alaska holding
tank X
Laurelhurst trunk:
12. Belvoir holding tank,
1-year storm X
13. Belvoir holding tank,
10-year storm X
Upper Lake Washington trunk
(Montlake system):
14. East Lee Street pump
station, sized for com-
bined sewer overflow X X
Lake Union, Portage Bay,
and Salmon Bay:
15. Montlake regulator
station XXXXXXXX
16. North interceptor
parallel line, 0.1-year
storm, including inlet
structures and outfall
to Elliott Bay X
17. As above, except 1-year
storm X
18. Dexter holding tank, 0.1-
year storm X
19. Dexter holding tank,
1-year storm X
20. Third Avenue West
regulator station X X X X X
21. Ballard parallel trunk X
230
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Table 3-20 (continued)
Alternative Facility Plan
Component Project ABCDEFGH
Elliott Bay:
22. Denny Way regulator
station modifications X
23. Regulator stations on
North interceptor
parallel X
24. South Magnolia holding
tank X
231
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
be constructed to discharge at a 50-foot depth west of
Terminal 91 near the Interbay area, as indicated in Figure
3-10. Peak flows of 161 mgd could be discharged; no treat-
ment would be provided for these wet weather combined sewer
flows to Elliott Bay.
Sludge Management
West Point would continue as the major regional sludge
processing center under Alternative C. However, sludge
presently digested at West Point from Renton would be treated
and processed at Renton. Richmond Beach digested sludge
would be trucked to West Point, and Duwamish sludge would
be sent to West Point by the Elliott Bay interceptor after
each storm. The solids processing facilities at West Point
and Alki would be expanded as required to handle the addition-
al solids loads from enhanced primary treatment and increas-
ing flows. All sludge would be processed by anaerobic
digestion; the product, methane gas, would be used to the
extent possible at the plant sites. The interim sludge
disposal sites would be at the Cedar Hills landfill and
the Pack Forest experimental site.
Renton
Although the Renton service area and treatment plant
are not included in the proposed facilities for Alternative
C, the alternative would have indirect impacts on the Renton
plant. The Renton plant would be enlarged in two stages,
completed in 1985 and 1995, to an ultimate capacity of
99 mgd average, 259 mgd peak. Because treated effluent would
be discharged to the Duwamish, the need for improved waste
treatment has been recognized. Future facilities would in-
clude secondary treatment plus nitrification (to convert
nitrogen-containing compounds to nitrates) and filtration
(to reduce effluent suspended solids). Renton sludge would
be processed at Renton by anaerobic digestion.
Primary Impacts
The direct impacts from this alternative for the Puget
Sound plants are described below in terms of effects on
geology, soils and topography; air quality and odors;
water quality; biology; energy and natural resources and the
human environment. Indirect impacts from this alternative
232
-------
Alternatives and IMpacts
Alternative C
and the effects of Renton discharge are summarized under
a later section on secondary impacts.
Geology, Soils and Topography
Alternative C involves the construction of a Duwamish
plant, and combined sewer overflow control projects, con-
version of Alki to a pump station, and chemical precipitation
of effluents, with resulting increases in sludge production.
Construction impacts on land resources are discussed in the
accompanying site documents.
Earthquake damage risk would continue at existing
sites and be correlated with physical factors at new sites
as expressed in more detail in Chapter II. Holding tanks
constructed in lowland areas, for which sites are unde-
termined, probably have potentially high earthquake damage
risk and would need to be constructed with that in mind.
These tanks may also permanently affect wetland and shore-
line areas and shore protection structures.
Impacts would continue at existing sludge disposal
sites. All alternatives include the interim disposal
site at Cedar Hills which with the loadings under this
alternative would last 30 years under current practices or
under Alternative C. Impacts would be monitored at the
Pack Forest Sludge disposal site. Other potential disposal
sites have been identified by the facilities planning
engineers, but no decision is anticipated in the Facility
Plan.
Construction waste disposal may cause limited but
long-term effects on the site chosen. The impact is set
by judgment as no sites have been identified and the
magnitude of the impact is a function of site. It is
expected to be minor, however.
For the nineteen collection system projects for CSO
control, most effects on land resources would be due
to excavation: disturbance of soil profiles, temporarily
increased erosion and deposition, and potential problems at
construction waste sites due to disposal of excavated mater-
ials. The new facilities would be subject to a minor risk
of earthquake damage as are all structures in the study area.
The North interceptor parallel and the Ballard parallel
trunk would, in addition, cross the Ship Canal upstream of
the locks about three miles and 1.5 miles east of Shilshole
Bay, respectively. Construction would disturb bottom
233
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
sediments over a limited area for a short time (about six
months). The impacts are considered to be reversible on
geology, soils and topography.
Irreversible impacts would result from the construction
of a tunnel more than a mile long and 11 feet in diameter
under the northwest portion of Queen Anne Hill from the Ship
Canal to the Interbay station. Disposal of about 27,000
cubic yards of excavated material could have major impacts
on disposal sites chosen.
Construction of the outfall to Elliott Bay from the
North interceptor would require dredging of bottom sediments,
which would be replaced as backfill and covered with riprap
to minimize erosion by currents. Construction would tem-
porarily disturb sediments; rock riprap would permanently
change the local character of the bottom.
Air Quality and Odors
The trucking of sludge to West Point and from West
Point, Carkeek Park, and Renton to the Cedar Hills landfill
would emit approximately 440 grams of hydrocarbons, 2755
grams of carbon monoxide, and 2010 grams of nitrogen oxides
per day. Treatment plant personnel traffic would emit about
4790 grams of hydrocarbons, 60,935 grams of carbon monoxide,
and 7895 grams of nitrogen oxides per day. The combined
emissions would amount to less than 0.01 percent of Seattle's
total daily emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and
nitrogen oxides. The air pollutants emitted under this al-
ternative would have a negligible, long-term, adverse, re-
versible impact on the air quality of the Seattle area. Use
of the Pack Forest research site would increase emissions
but the impact would still be negligible.
Upgrading the Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park, West Point
and Alki plants to enhanced primary treatment would not
noticeably increase the potential for odor problems in
these areas. The construction of a new enhanced primary
treatment plant in Duwamish in 1995 would increase the
liklihood of odors escaping in this area. The abandonment
of the Alki plant in 1995 would eliminate the potential for
odor problems there. The substantial reduction in CSO's
to Lake Washington, Portage Bay, Lake Union, the Ship Canal
and Elliott Bay would significantly reduce the occurrence
of odors arising from CSO's in these areas.
The construction of the collection system projects
listed in Table 3-20 and mapped in Figure 3-10 would result
in temporary, localized increases in particulates (dust)
234
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
and in engine emissions (exhaust fumes). These problems
will be intensified for projects in the Duwamish Valley
(Norfolk, Michigan, Brandon, Diagonal Way, Hanford-Lander
Connection) and in the Interbay Valley (North interceptor
parallel including outfall) where air circulation can be
restricted and trap air pollutants. Air pollution potential
would be smallest at Magnolia and West Seattle where air
mixing is good. Some odor would be expected if existing
sewer lines were opened in summer months.
The overall potential odor problems associated with
this alternative would have a minor, long-term, adverse,
reversible impact on the environmental quality of the
Seattle area.
Water Quality
Alternative C provides for upgrading the West Point,
Alki (interim improvement), Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach
plants to enhanced primary treatment and constructing a new
wet weather enhanced primary plant in the Duwamish area.
The most significant improvements in water quality under
this alternative, however, would result from the substantial
reduction of CSO's to inland waters.
Construction of combined sewer overflow holding and
transport systems listed in Table 3-20 and mapped in Figure
3-10 result in long-term benefits to some freshwaters as
discussed below but short-term adverse impacts on water
quality would also follow.
Erosion of excavated materials would increase runoff
turbidity, probably increasing turbidity in receiving
waters. The effect, however, could be the same or less
negative than from existing overflows. The reversible
effect is judged to be negligible-to-minor over baseline
conditions, limited in extent and short-term.
Lake Washington. A 99% reduction (relative to Alter-
native B)in CSO s to Lake Washington would be significant
and have long-term, beneficial impacts on Lake Washington
water quality, especially in nearshore waters where mixing
and dilution are limited. Overflows to Lake Washington
would be limited to once in 10 years. Sanitary water
quality would improve; the potential for coliform bacteria
exceeding bathing standards near overflow points would
probably be eliminated. While overall pollutant loads to
235
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Lake Washington from CSO's are uncertain and unknown rela-
tive to other sources, the improvement could be significant
on a local basis. Lake Washington nearshore areas are con-
sidered sensitive waters with DO lower than "natural". Some
of this is partially due to the Sammamish River, which drains
into Lake Washington, and is subject to frequent coliform
violations, high nutrient concentrations, and temperature
violations. Overall, impacts would be beneficial, limited
in extent, and long-term.
Lake Union/Ship Canal. CSO control under Alternative
C would mean a substantial reduction (relative to Alternative
B) in flow,- BOD and solids loadings of 93 percent to Lake Un-
ion and 89 percent to the Ship Canal/Salmon Bay. Overflows to
Lake Union'would be limited to once per year. Lake Union/
Ship Canal is considered a sensitive water body subject to
water quality violations, which are currently occasional-
to-frequent in occurrence. The benefit of nearly complete
CSO control on water quality is expected to be minor, be-
cause the water would still be dregraded by other sources,
but extensive in this water body. Benefits would be
long-term, because the reduction in CSO's would continue
through the planning period.
Excavation in the Ship Canal would also generate turbi-
dity due to sediment excavation. At the same time, however,
metals, toxicants and perhaps pathogens in the sediments
would possibly reenter the water column and become available
for biologic uptake by free-swimming organisms. The possible
adverse impact is considered to be minor and limited in
extent.
Duwamish Estuary. Pollutant loadings of CSO's to the
Duwamish would be reduced 26% for annual flow volume and
tons BOD and solids. CSO's presently contribute annually
about 12% of Renton's daily flow (1975 data) or about 43
days' flow. With the expansion of Renton, the reduced
levels of CSO's will constitute less than 1% or about three
days of Renton's average daily flow. Overflows would be
limited to ten events per year. The beneficial effects from
the control of CSO's would be significant, because the
pollutant flow is substantially reduced; extensive, because
the reduction in CSO's would benefit Elliott Bay as well as
the Duwamish estuary; and long-term because the reduction
will continue through the planning period.
Duwamish overflow control may be significant for para-
meters such as metals, oil and grease, pesticides and
PCB's which are long-term pollutants that affect freshwater
236
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
and estuarine life when present in exceedingly low concentra-
tions. The beneficial effects of CSO control could be over-
shadowed, however, by the serious, adverse effects of the
Renton expansion.
The Duwamish wet weather facility proposed in Alterna-
tive C would discharge up to 250 mgd (387 cfs) of chlorin-
ated primary effluent at a depth of 45 feet to the Duwamish
estuary just south of Harbor Island. The effluent from
this major new point source is expected to contain approxi-
mately 50 mg/1 each of BOD and suspended solids and have
a fecal coliform MPN of 700/100 ml plus undetermined con-
centrations of nutrients, metals and other parameters
(Metropolitan Engineers, 1977). A diffuser section is
expected to provide a 20:1 dilution of the effluent.
The effluent would probably rise to a level of neutral
buoyancy based on salinity and/or surface. Neutral buoyancy
could be at the interface between the salt wedge and overlying
fresh waters of the estuary. The effluent, characterized
by low dissolved oxygen and about 2.5 mg/1 BOD after dilution,
could further reduce oxygen levels in estuarine waters.
Based on limited combined sewer overflow quality data (Metro
staff, 1976; Metropolitan Engineers, 1977) the effluent could
contain about 1.5 mg/1 total phosphorus, 0.5 mg/1 nitrates
and 1 mg/1 ammonia. Disinfection at the facility could
introduce potentially toxic chlorine residuals to the receiv-
ing waters.
Puget Sound. Alternative C would result in essentially
a continuation of present treated wastewater loads to Puget
Sound. Localized changes would be attributed to combined
sewer overflows.
For the Sound as a whole, Alternative C would contain
increased wastewater treatment plant flows, relative to
existing conditions, but total loads of solids and BOD
would remain at present levels due to improved removal
processes in enhanced primary treatment. For comparison,
the combined West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond
Beach plants discharged 48,000 million gallons of primary
effluent in 1975, which contained approximately 20,000
tons of suspended solids and 16,000 tons of BOD. Projections
for 2005 under Alternative C would be approximately 60,000
million gallons, but the suspended solids and BOD would
remain at approximately 12,000 and 16,000 tons per year
respectively. Compared to Alternative B, wastewater flows,
solids and BOD to Puget Sound would decrease by approximately
4, 25 and 24 percent, respectively, under Alternative C.
237
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Thus, the regional water quality impacts to Puget Sound
from wastewater treatment plant discharge should be similar
to existing conditions (described in Chapter II) or to
Alternative A. Small localized decreases in dissolved
oxygen, plus minor increases in turbidity, nutrients, and
toxicants should continue near the outfalls or in areas near
beaches where diluted effluent could be dispersed. Slight
improvements in these factors relative to the baseline
Alternative B should result as indicated by decreases in
wastewater flows and loads. During seasons other than
summer (when enhanced primary treatment would be provided)
discharge of primary effluent would continue and could
affect local areas to a minor degree near outfalls.
At Alki, combined sewer overflows would be virtually
eliminated and the plant abandoned in 1995. In the interim,
improvements to the outfall would be beneficial, as described
under Alternative B. Control of the combined sewer over-
flows near Alki would remove one source of nutrients, sus-
pended solids and bacteria, that could be affecting the
local beach. It is likely that bacterial water quality
would improve in Alki shell-fishing areas with curtailment of
CSO's and improvements in the outfall.
Other changes would occur in Elliott Bay, where com-
bined sewer overflows would increase to 448 million gallons
per year (compared to 358 million gallons per year under
either Alternative B or existing conditions). Corresponding
increases in nutrients, toxicants, bacteria, suspended
solids, BOD and other parameters would occur during and
following storms. Although the facilities planning engin-
eers have indicated the outfall from the Interbay area to
Elliott Bay will achieve a storm water dilution of approx-
imately 100:1, preliminary independent calculations indicate
that the projection is optimistic. Therefore, the estimated
impact on local water quality near the outfall would be
adverse, minor, long-term, limited and reversible (except
for some metals and toxicants which could accumulate).
Pathogens could increase in waters of Elliott Bay and
along West Point's south beach, as the unchlorinated
effluent would be carried in that direction by net water
circulation. The effluent would also tend to surface along
shores due to the shallow discharge depth.
Other freshwaters. Alternative C would not directly
affect Lake Sammamish, Cedar River, Green River or Sammamish
River water quality.
238
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Groundwater. The effluent from each of the treatment
plants, except Duwamish, would be discharged into Puget
Sound and would be incapable of infiltrating groundwater.
Impacts of sludge disposal at Cedar Hills and Pack Forest
would be monitored.
Flood hazard. Floods are not expected to cause problems
at any of the treatment plants because each of the sites is
above the 100 year flood zone.
Biology
Discharge of up to 250 mgd of wet weather primary efflu-
ent to Elliott Bay would stress resident biota/although the
discharge would be diluted. Major CSO control would relieve
pressures on biota in the Duwamish, Lake Union/Ship Canal,
at Alki, and Lake Washington. Transfers of CSO's from in-
land waters would increase CSO's to Elliott Bay- Pathogens
in shellfish at Alki would be substantially reduced probably
due to CSO reduction and extension of the Alki outfall. Waste-
water treatment plant loads to Puget Sound would have essen-
tially the same impacts as under existing conditions, which
would be an improvement relative to Alternative B.
Terrestrial habitats. The effects on regional terres-
trial habitats are expected to be negligible, as new facili-
ties would be in urban areas. Site impacts for the Duwamish
plant are discussed in the Alki document which is Volume II
of this series.
The construction of the collection system projects to
hold and transport combined sewer overflows listed in Table
3-20 and generally mapped in Figure 3-10 are expected to
impact terrestrial ecology minimally as holding tanks and
regulators would be built under already paved-over or other
highly disturbed areas. Construction noise and vibrations,
however, would temporarily frighten away birds and mammals
from construction sites in residential areas.
Shoreline habitats. Since overflows would be reduced
approximately 99 percent to Lake Washington, 90 percent to
Lake Union/Ship Canal, and 26% to the Duwamish (from 1975
and Alternative B levels), loadings of solids, BOD, pathogens,
metals, ammonia, nutrients, and toxicants would be greatly
reduced. The benefit to the shoreline areas of Lake Washing-
ton and the Ship Canal would probably be moderate-to-major,
239
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
and long-term. The effects of former inputs of metals and
toxicants are irreversible, but loadings of these chemicals
would stabilize.
The intertidal. Elements of Alternative C affecting the
intertidal area are a reduction in CSO's at Alki, increased
effluent discharges from the Metro outfalls until 1995, when
Alki is abandoned; upgrading of effluents to enhanced primary
treatment levels> and improvement of the Alki outfall then
abandonment in 1995.
CSO's to Alki/West Seattle beaches would be almost elim-
inated, very probably reducing the amount of metals, solids,
BOD, nutrients, oil, grease, pathogens, and toxicants impring-
ing on biota and available for uptake and concentration.
Limited data available (at Denny Way) on effects of CSO to
saltwaters indicate adverse effects are moderate-to-severe,
limited in extent, of long duration and probably irreversible
for metals, toxicants. The potential benefit of reduction of
CSO's would be moderate, also limited and long-term. Metals
and toxicants levels would stabilize in biota in time, and
the intertidal communities could gain in abundance and
diversity at the outfall points.
For impacts of treatment plants on the intertidal, up-
grading to enhanced primary treatment would reduce BOD, solids,
metals and phosphates concentrations in effluent. The levels
of nitrates would be as at present, however, and it is these
nutrients that can become limiting in the Sound. Assuming
effluent from all plants enters the intertidal occasionally,
the potential enrichment effect of effluents would continue
and increase, except at Alki where effects would be reduced
or eliminated with improvements and eventual abandonment of
the outfall.
Since chlorination facilities would operate under present
conditions with no upgrading, overchlorination and under-
chlorination would be common. Underchlorination would prob-
ably maintain fecal coliform levels in excess of state shell-
fish standards, and overchlorination could produce chlorine
residues toxic to intertidal and eelgrass bed organisms. When
Alki is abandoned, these effects would be eliminated. With
respect to solids, oil, grease, and toxicants, Alternative C
would result in a moderate benefit to the intertidal. With
respect to potential chlorine toxicants, nutrients, metals
and pathogens, there would be little change in or even an
increase over present levels of impact except, eventually,
at Alki.
240
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Puget Sound. Effects on nearshore and offshore waters
from Alternative C would be from increased effluent flows
and some pollutant loads, the extension and abandonment of
the Alki outfall, the effects of additional CSO discharge to
Elliott Bay, and continuation of chlorination practices.
Nutrient loads would increase, with a similar increase in
potential over-enrichment problems.
Offshore phytoplankton and zooplankton would continue
to be affected by nutrients in dispersing effluent plumes,
such that productivity extremes would continue to be
affected. The extended Alki outfall would place the effluent
closer to mid-channel where major algae blooms develop. It is
not known whether or not any new effects would occur as a
result. The effect is considered to be adverse, moderate,
reversible, limited in extent and of long duration.
The distribution of some nearshore and offshore benthic
organisms, which does appear to be correlated with character-
istic plume positions for West Point and Carkeek effluents,
would be maintained. Although enhanced primary does remove
solids and BOD, the loading would remain at 1975 levels with
the increase in flows.
Offshore and nearshore free-swimming organisms may con-
tinue to be occasionally affected if they swim into or through
an effluent patch, or if they feed in nearshore areas at night.
The effect is considered to be minor, limited in extent to
plume areas, and of short duration, as overchlorination is
short-term but continuing.
The composition, diversity and abundance of fishes off
the outfalls would probably change little as overall loads to
the Sound through the outfalls would remain approximately at
existing levels. The evidence of tumorous flatfish at West
Point, to the extent the effluent and perhaps the pipe it-
self are involved, would probably not change. The effect is
considered to remain adverse, major, limited in extent to
outfall areas, of long duration and probably reversible.
With the abandonment of the Alki outfall, the effects of
this point source would be eliminated, probably with benefits
to the benthic nearshore and offshore environments. The pipe
itself would continue to be attractive to fish that feed on
attached animals. Any metals or toxicants in these organisms
would probably remain.
Effects on intertidal and nearshore biota could be sub-
stantial from a large point source of up to 161 mgd of un-
treated combined sewer effluent discharged to Elliott Bay.
Effects are considered to be major, but limited in extent,
241
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
of long duration as flows are intermittent but continuing,
and irreversible for metals and toxicants.
Commercial and sport fisheries. Reducing sewer overflows
to Lake Washington,Lake Union/Ship Canal, and to the Duwamish
would improve the quality of these waters which are important
migration, spawning and rearing areas to migrating salmonids.
Reducing CSO's to Alki/West Seattle would benefit herring
fishing associated with those areas. In contrast, increasing
CSO's to Elliott Bay could affect fish migration areas.
The Duwamish estuary. Sewer overflows would be reduced
under Alternative C by about one-third. At the same time,
the Renton plant would be greatly expanded. As the overflows
would be 0.5% or the equivalent of about two days of Renton's
flow, the facility's effects are considered to be more impor-
tant overall. The Renton plant is discussed in a subsequent
section on secondary impacts. The effects of the CSO control
alone are considered to be a minor, long-term benefit to
limited areas of the estuary ecological community.
A new Duwamish wet weather plant would discharge up to
250 mgd of chlorinated primary effluent to the Duwamish
estuary south of Harbor Island. While effects on biota
have not been predicted, in being characterized by low DO and
a BOD of 2.5 mg/1 after dilution, the effluent could possibly
affect the DO levels and thus the biota in the lower estuary.
Coho and chum salmon, and winter steelhead and searun cut-
throat trout migrate upstream in the wet season in the Green-
Duwamish Basin (November through April) and could be affected
by effluent's depression of DO or by residual chlorine.
Resident fishes could be similarly affected. The effluent
would probably not affect algal productivity to a great ex-
tent as blooms occur in summer when effluent flows would be
insignificant. Further study of effluent dispersal, currents
and biota would be required to outline more specifically
the effluent's effects on the biota of the lower Duwamish
estuary.
Freshwater environments. CSO control under Alternative
C would be a major benefit to freshwater environments. No
Kenmore Parallel is planned under this alternative, so con-
struction would not affect shoreline areas.
1. Lake Washington. An almost complete reduction of
CSO's to this lake would mean a major, long-term benefit to
limited areas of the western shore of the lake, including
242
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
slamon spawning areas and perhaps bathing beaches which record
high bacterial counts after a storm overflow. Offshore organ-
isms, which are affected less by overflows, would in turn be
benefited less by CSO control. Metals and toxicants already
in the lake would continue to affect the shoreline biota,
however.
2. Lake Union/Ship Canal. The magnitude of the impacts
of overflows on the biota in this water are unknown. Of the
observed problems, the amount that can be attributed to over-
flows has not been determined. A reduction would clearly be a
benefit, but of undeterminable magnitude. As this water is
an important salmonid migration route, major overflow reduc-
tions are considered to have a moderate positive impact, ex-
tensive in the water body, and of long duration.
The Ballard parallel trunk and the North interceptor
parallel would be constructed across the Ship Canal. Con-
struction would last approximately six months. The Ship
Canal is a critical waterway for the migration of salmon
and trout of the Lake Washington drainage. Fish suscepti-
bility to natural mortality and predation for the period of
construction could increase due to excavation of the bottom,
physical obstacles, noise, turbidity, and possible resus-
pension of toxic elements in the sediment. The effect is
considered to be potentially substanial, but highly limited
in extent and probably of short duration and reversible ex-
cept for toxic elements.
Operation of these lines, however, would decrease CSO's
to the Ship Canal and the western shore of Lake Washington,
thereby reducing water-quality induced stresses on migrating
and spawning slamonids in the long run.
Other freshwaters. No direct biological impacts are
projected.
Rare and endangered species. No impacts are expected as
no listed endangered species are recorded from the study area.
Critical habitats, which include salmon spawning and rearing
areas, fish migration routes, waterfowl resting areas, and
lake shallows have been discussed in previous sections.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy. For Alternative C, a net of approximately 36
243
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
million equivalent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in
2005 by the Puget Sound plants. Included in this would be
29 million kwh/year of electrical energy purchased. This
is equivalent to the amount of electrical energy 1450 house-
holds would consume per year, and constitutes approximately
0.15 of the projected electrical energy consumption of Seattle
in 2005 (Appendix E).
Table 3-21 shows the breakdown of total energy consump-
tion on a plant-by-plant basis. The greatest energy con-
somption would be in the form of electricity. Chemicals
would account for about 10-30 percent of energy consumption,
and sludge trucking for 5-30 percent. In the anaerobic di-
gestion of sludge, there is a net production of energy be-
cause of methane formation; about half of the methane would
be flared off and the remainder would be used at the plants.
The impact of the energy consumption would be adverse,
moderate in magnitude, long-term, irreversible and definite.
Chemicals. Annual chemical consumption under Alternative
C would be 2045 tons of chlorine, 41.5 tons polymer, 5610 tons
lime, 7430 tons alum and 575 tons ferric chloride per year,
shown in Table 3-21. The supply of chlorine, alum and polymer
is highly reliable. Lime and ferric chloride are in moderate
supply (HRPI, 1976). The impact of chemical usage would be
adverse, long-term, irreversible and definite.
Human Environment
Alternative C would cause a 40 percent decrease in com-
bined sewer overflows, enhancing the quality, healthfulness,
and overall aesthetics of the Metro area freshwaters. However,
this alternative does not comply with PL 92-500.
Land use. A number of parcels of land would have to be
made accessible for holding tanks, regulators and interceptors.
Land use would in general not change at the treatment plant
sites with the installation of advanced primary treatment
facilities because no new land would be required. Alki's
abandonment in 1995 would create the potential for increased
recreational land if the buildings are demolished and the
area landscaped. Such changes are optional and not costed
into the alternative, however.
Interceptors, holding tanks and regulators may
be installed underground, and would therefore have no impact
244
-------
TABLE 3-21
ENERGY AND CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE C
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Onsite Energy
Purchased electricity
(kwh x 106/yr)
Produced by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
Consumed by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
Offsite Energy
Chemicals (kwh x 106/yr)
Sludge Trucking
(kwh x 106/yr)
TOTAL
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION
(tons per year)
Chlorine
Polymer
Lime
Alum
Ferric Chloride
PLANT
Richmond
Beach
0.66
0.36
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.72
35
0.6
40
135
0
Carkeek
Park
1.05
0.62
0.25
0.33
0.03
1.04
60
5.2
70
240
0
West
Point
25.67
16.64
6.66
15.20
1.31
32.20
2140
35
5500
7055
575
Alki
1.36
^
1.36
0
0
0
0
0
Duwamish
0.46
0.04
0.04
0.54
10
0.7
0
10
0
Total
29.20
17.62
7.05
15.73
1.50
35.86
2245
41,5
5610
7430
575
to
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
on land use once construction is complete. Construction
impacts experienced vary with the existing land use, however.
In the primarily industrial Duwamish area, the new Duwamish
wet weather facilitiy would probably be located at the Diag-
onal Way site, which was once the site of a wastewater treat-
ment facility, since abandoned. The Norfolk holding tank
Duwamish holding tank, Hanford-Lander Connection and most
of the Alki-Duwamish connection would also be built in the
Duwamish industrial areas where most construction impacts
on land use would be less important than in residential areas.
Other projects in industrial-commercial areas include the
Ballard parallel trunk, portions of the Interbay outfall
line and the Dexter holding tank.
Residential or park areas would be affected by the
Barton, Murray, and Alaska holding tanks in West Seattle, plus
construction at the Alki facility, the Alki-Duwamish connec-
tion, the North interceptor parallel, the Rainier Beach and
Sayres Park regulator stations along Lake Washington, and
the Belvoir holding tank near Union Bay. The Kenmore holding
tank and pump station on Lake Washington and the Magnolia
holding tank would also be constructed in residential or
park-like areas. A number of these projects could also re-
quire Shoreline Management Permits if within 200 feet of
shores, including the North interceptor parallel, the Ballard
parallel trunk, the Montlake regulator, the Alki-Duwamish
connection and some of the holding tanks and regulators.
2. Legal and institutional. Alternative C does not
comply with PL 92-500 nor the Washington NPDES Regulations,
which require secondary treatment. A fine as high as $10,000
per day could be levied against Metro for noncompliance, as
explained in Chapter II. This impact would be adverse,
major, long-term, and probable.
The Shorelines Management Regulations would be applicable
as stated above. The likelihood of meeting bacterial standards
for swimming in Lake Washington would be increased with CSO
reduction. Probably no U.S. Corp of Engineers permits would
be required.
Agency goals. Alternative C was originally established
to address Metro's best practicable treatment (BPT) goal of
identifying and solving water quality problems in the Metro
service area. In relation to Alternative B, Alternative C
reduces combined sewer overflows by approximately 40% over-
all to Lake Washington, Portage Bay/Montlake Cut, Lake Union,
Ship Canal/Salmon Bay, Alki Beach and the Duwamish. Solids
and BOD loads from West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Rich-
246
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
mond Beach would be reduced by 25 and 24 percent, respectively,
compared to Alternative B. For impacts on water quality,
see the discussion in that section.
It is speculative whether this alternative fulfills the
objectives of Goals for Seattle, which states, "the city
should undertake efforts to meet Federal Water Pollution
Control Act requirements by 1984." This alternative alle-
viates the frequent odor problem at Alki after 1995, which
(in addition to affecting the Alki residents directly) ful-
fills the PSCOG goal of "maintaining the natural beauty and
liveability of the region."
Employment. There would be approximately 400 employees
for 5 years required for the construction involved in Alterna-
tive C. Operation and management employment would require a
total of 96 employees at West Point, Alki, Richmond Beach, and
Carkeek Park along with other Metro staff.
Costs. For Alternative C, the estimated capital cost
for construction of new treatment facilities, collection sys-
tems, combined sewer overflow controls, effluent disposal
site, sludge handling and disposal facilities (excluding
Renton) would be $250,800,000 (1976 dollars) as summarized
in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977). This is 0.26
percent of the $95,902 billion estimated by the EPA for im-
plementation of PL 92-500 throughout the country (EPA, 1976).
The operation and maintenance costs (excluding Renton) would
be $8,350,000 per year, as shown in Table 3-13 (Metropoli-
tan Enaineers, 1977).
The estimated average monthly user charge per equivalent
connection for the next 20 years would be $7.05 per month if
all future facilities to 2005 are grant eligible, as shown in
Table 3-14. User charges would be $8.15 per month if future
capacity beyond 1985 is not grant eligible, and would be
$13.70 per month if no future facilities are grant eligible.
Since Alternative C does not comply with the secondary treat-
ment requirement of PL 92-500, which is a condition for grant
funding, it appears that the probable user charge would be
$13.70 per month, an amount $5.30 greater than the average
charge for Alternative B of $8.40. Impact of cost would be
adverse, moderate, long-term, irreversible, and probable
(depending on funding eligibility assumptions).
Since the requirements of PL 92-500 for secondary treat-
ment would not be met, a substantial legal fine may be levied,
as indicated in the section on legal and institutional impacts.
247
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Any change in neighborhood property values as a result
of the location of interceptor, holding tank or regulator
construction sites in the proposed area would exist only for
the duration of construction, probably about six months.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest what these changes
might be.
Social, recreational and cultural. Alternative C would
not fulfill a goal of complying with secondary treatment as
expressed by 54 to 64 percent of citizens surveyed (HRPI,
1976). This is considered adverse, major, long-term revers-
ible and probable.
CSO control at Lake Washington swimming beaches and Ship
Canal boating regions could make these areas more pleasant for
recreation. This is considered favorable, minor, long-term,
irreversible and probable.
Impacts on the parks or recreational areas near West
Point, Carkeek Park and Alki (until abandoned) would remain
at existing levels, as described in the site-specific EIS
volumes.
Recreational opportunities in the West Seattle area could
be increased if the Alki treatment plant buildings are demol-
ished on abandonment of the facility in 1995 and the area
landscaped. These measures are optional, however, and not
costed into the facilities planning alternative.
Archeological and historical. Information is not avail-
able to determine if archeological sites are present in areas
affected by construction of interceptors, holding tanks, or
pump stations. The Diagonal Avenue site is across the Duwamish
River from a recently discovered, archeologically significant
region. Before construction occurs at Diagonal Avenue, this
site should be investigated.
Acknowledged historical sites are listed in Appendix F.
Available maps are not accurate enough to determine the exact
location of these sites. It should be determined whether the
Belvoir and Naval Reserve holding tanks conflict with his-
torical sites in those areas, and whether the North interceptor
parallel conflicts with Hiram Chittenden Locks.
Health and safety. Shellfishing areas along saltwater
beaches near wastewater treatment plants could be benefited
by improved water quality from enhanced primary treatment
and improved disinfection practices. Combined sewer over-
248
-------
Alternatives arid Impacts
Alternative C
flow reductions off Alki Beach and an improved outfall there
(1983-1995) may improve local areas where shellfish and algae
are harvested for consumption. However, since the cause(s)
of present contamination leading to coliform levels exceeding
commercial shellfishing levels has not been determined, the
future impacts cannot be projected with certainty. Another
contributing factor under Alternative C is that primary treat-
ment would continue except in summer; therefore, it is con-
ceivable that bacterial levels could at times continue to
exceed commercial shellfishing standards.
At Lake Washington beaches, virtual elimination of com-
bined sewer overflows would remove a source of bacterial
contamination and increase the likelihood that body-contact
recreation (swimming) standards would be achieved.
A highly unlikely safety hazard is accidental leakage
of chemicals when they are in transport, or handled on site.
Although nearly every U.S. water and wastewater treatment
facility uses chemicals, there have been very few chemical-
related accidents.
The health and safety problems related to sludge trans-
port and disposal would be as probable as for any other
trucks in transit.
Construction hazards would include local increases in
air pollution, creation of an attractive hazard for neighbor-
hood children, possible increased risk of automobile accidents
due to street blockages and traffic congestion, and safety
risks to workmen.
Aesthetics and nuisance. Aesthetic and nuisance factors
from wastewater treatment plants would continue at existing
levels. Unless controlled by a new Metro program (under con-
sideration) , odor would continue to be a problem at Alki until
its abandonment in 1995. For more details, the reader is
referred to Chapter II (existing conditions) and the site-
specific EIS series.
Construction of the interceptors and regulator stations
would cause an adverse, minor, short-term, reversible, and
probable impact, especially at the Montlake regulator station,
where construction would occur along a major bridge across
the Ship Canal.
Community character and appearance could be temporarily
affected by various construction activities, including con-
struction traffic through the neighborhood and equipment
stored on-site, contruction noise, and vibration. Erosion
249
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
of excavated material could result in muddy runoff in the
surrounding downhill streets.
Odor would probably not be a problem in cooler months
in construction of holding tanks and regulators. Some odor
problems could occur if sewer lines were opened in warm
summer months, periods of low flow and concentrated sewage.
Where CSO's are controlled, long-term odor reduction would
occur.
There would be some aesthetic impacts from construction
equipment, the possible removal of vegetation and the gen-
erally disrupted appearance of the site. The degree of aes-
thetic and nuisance impacts is determined by the extent to
which the surrounding community views those impacts as adverse,
In some cases, these have been seen as substantial (Metro,
Montlake Regulator Station Draft EA Technical Appendix
October 1975. Final EA March 1976).
Neighborhoods affected1 by the construction of Metro
combined sewer overflow control facilities would be West
Seattle, Rainier Beach and Sayres Park areas on Lake Washing-
ton, the Belvoir district near the University, and Magnolia.
Since the interceptors, holding tanks and regulator stations
would be installed underground, there would be no impact on
community aesthetics once construction is completed.
Commercial enterprise. One of the important primary
impacts of Alternative C concerns commercial fisheries. Im-
provements in the water quality and biologic conditions result-
ing from CSO control to freshwater spawning areas and some
migration routes would benefit presently affected fisheries.
Such improvements are significant because of the economic
importance of the fisheries presently concerned with product
quality due to water pollution limitations.
Secondary Impacts
The secondary impacts of Alternative C would be caused
by the expansion of Renton, population growth, and leachate
from sludge disposal. Impacts on water quality, biology,
energy and natural resources, and the human environment are
described below. The direct impacts on water quality from1
population growth and its effect on wastewater treatment
plant flows have been described under primary impacts.
250
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Water Quality
Duwamish estuary. Under Alternative C, the Renton
plant would be expanded significantly. Average daily flows
of 99 mgd would equal 70 percent of Duwamish summer low flows,
The resulting flow augmentation could help alleviate tempera-
ture problems which develop in summer, but probably will not
improve oxygen levels due to the residual BOD. The addition
of nitrification and filtration following secondary treatment
should remove most ammonia and solids prior to discharge.
Therefore, the toxicity associated with ammonia plus metals
(and perhaps other toxicants) associated with solids should
be reduced relative to Alternative B. Since nitrification
would convert ammonia to nitrates, these nutrients would be
readily available in the Duwamish. Although improved rela-
tive to Alternative B, the overall adverse impact of the
Renton expansion is expected to be significant, because of
the large size of the discharge relative to the Duwamish
flow, and extensive, becuase the discharge could affect
Elliott Bay as well as the Duwamish. Effects would be long-
term and reversible.
Groundwater. By 2005, there would be an unsewered popu-
lation of 24,000 in the Metro area, which could presumably
use septic tanks. Because the unsewered population would be
small (as in Alternative B) and groundwater use is limited,
any impacts would be minor.
Leachate runoff at the Cedar Hills sanitary landfill
would not be a problem. The soil is quite impervious, limit-
ing groundwater flows to about a foot a year. The leachate
waters at Cedar Hills will be collected in a system of pipes
which is now under construction. Runoff streams from the
sludge basins visibly have good quality.
Surface waters. Increasing urbanization around fresh-
waters(such as Lake Sammamish) could adversely affect water
quality from increased amounts of urban runoff.
Biology
The Renton facility expansion to 99 mgd average would
affect Duwamish biology since the effluent would comprise
about 70 percent of the river's summer flow.
251
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
Phytoplankton communities would change, due to the in-
creased freshwater flows, as would zooplankton. The estuarine
waters would also carry an increased summer silt load due
to extra flow, reducing transmittance of light. This could
have a decreasing effect on phytoplankton bloom levels. Zoo-
plankton, which are suspension feeders, ingest not only
phytoplankton but other particulates of various sizes. If
the latter are from contaminated sediments and are resuspended
by increased flows, the contaminants may enter the generalized
food chain which includes zooplankton, small fish, and larger
fish. In addition, contaminants in sediments could also be
taken in directly by worms and other deposit feeders which
are, in turn, consumed by fishes, birds and other vertebrates.
The Renton effluent would stress all of these organisms,
due to its DO of about 2 mg/1. The increase freshwater flow
would also change the salinity distribution, such that summer
blooms may consist of freshwater rather than marine phytoplank-
ton. The additional flow would also mean better flushing of
the estuary. Nitrogen inputs would be in the form of nitrates,
which are not oxygen demanding as is ammonia, but which could
contribute to algal productivity extremes in the estuary.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy. For Alternative C, a net of 64 million equivalent
kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 at Renton. In-
cluded in this would be 51 million kwh/year of electrical
energy purchased, 1 million kwh/year required to produce the
chemicals consumed. A net of 5 equivalent kwh/year would be
produced by the process of anaerobic digestion, although only
about half of this would probably be used. The impact of the
energy consumption would be adverse, moderate in magnitude,
long-term, irreversible and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine, lime, and polymer would be used
at annual rates of 1160, 9080 and 1315 tons, respectively at
Renton. The supplies of chlorine and polymer are reliable;
lime is in moderate supply. The impact of chemical usage
would be adverse, moderate, long-term, irreversible, and
definite.
Human Environment
Land use, population and employment. The major CSO
reduction alternative would probably result in a slight facili-
252
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
tation of regional growth over the long-term due to the im-
provement of preservation of freshwater quality. It is con-
cluded that such protection of water quality will contribute
to the continuation of the region's current national image
as a desirable place to live due to the generally high
quality of the natural environment. While the specific
cause-effect relationships which contribute to such impacts
are difficult if not impossible to quantify, it is reasonable
to expect that nationally more economic growth will tend to
occur in the regions of higher environmental quality. If
regions, such as Puget Sound, which presently have a relatively
high environmental quality, maintain or improve these condi-
tions, it is logical to expect that the encouragement to
economic development will be greater than if they are allowed
to deteriorate. This impact can be either beneficial or ad-
verse depending on the characteristics of the development
which occurs and the values of the people affected.
Operation and management employment at Renton, a secondary
impacted facility would include 76 people, as well as other
Metro related staff. Construction would involve approximately
350 employees for 5 years.
Costs. If Alternative C is implemented, capital costs
for construction at Renton would be $195,200,000 (1976 dol-
lars) as indicated in Table 3-13. Renton operation and main-
tenance would cost an estimated $5,950,000 per year. The
effect of this on user charge is noted in the primary impact
section, since user charges are determined on a Metro-wide
basis.
Impact of cost would be adverse, moderate, long-term,
irreversible and definite.
Social, recreational and cultural. The secondary bene-
ficial impact on boating in Lake Washington and the Ship
Canal is considered to be minor and of a limited extent but
long-term and important. The impacts would result from im-
proved wet weather management. Swimming would be signifi-
cantly benefited by Alternative C due to the improvement
in Lake Washington resulting from better combined sewer over-
flow control.
Commercial enterprise. The expansion of the Renton sewage
treatment plant under this alternative is expected to have an
adverse, long-term, and reversible impact on commercial
fisheries in the Duwamish due to the reductions in water
quality discussed previously.
253
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
-Alternative C
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures are suggested to aid in the
reduction of adverse impacts resulting from the implementa-
tion of this alternative.
An improved chlorine feed system can be designed to
prevent chlorine levels in the Alki, Carkeek Park, and Rich-
mond Beach sewage treatment plants' effluent water from
exceeding dangerous levels. This could be achieved by match-
ing chlorine levels to effluent discharge, and/or installing
a chlorine contact tank, which would maximize the effective-
ness of chlorination treatment. Currently chlorine is in-
jected into the effluent flow at a constant rate, manually
adjusted on a daily basis. Hourly variations in flow cause
a fluctuating chlorine residual. Control of chlorine resi-
duals at West Point could be achieved by installing a chlo-
rine contact tank.
Pretreatment of industrial wastes could be provided be-
fore sewage enters the West Point plant. If current prac-
tices continue, influent flows at this facility would occa-
sionally contain slugs of cadmium, mercury, and arsenic.
Socioeconomic studies should be conducted in the Duwamish
area to determine what the people in this community think of
Diagonal Way or other sites. To date only preliminary informa-
tion has been collected. Meetings with the Duwamish community
are being arranged.
Under this alternative, a mitigation measure for con-
trolling solid and metal loads in effluent water would be
to use the enhanced primary treatment of alum or other chemi-
cals year round.
Visual nuisance of the wastewater treatment facilities
can be mitigated by (1) designing new facilities and additions
to existing facilities using natural geographical conditions
(e.g., bluffs) and (2) landscaping the facilities.
Odor of the wastewater treatment facilities can be
mitigated, in part, by not allowing the system to become
anaerobic. Under anaerobic conditions, noxious gases such
as methane and sulfur dioxide are emitted. Other odor
control measures are being evaluated by Metro.
The energy impact can be in part defrayed by using more
of the methane gas which is produced by anaerobic digestion.
Nearly half of this methane gas is flared off under current
practices. However, studies on the cost-effectiveness of
254
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative C
storing and/or transporting excess methane should be conducted
before a recommendation is made.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Under Alternative C (Major CSO Control), the following
adverse impacts would be unavoidable
Construction
Sludge trucking
Primary and enhanced primary effluent - effect on
water
Land use changes
Aesthetic nuisance of plant location
Noncompliance with PL 92-500
Operation and maintenance (0 & M) and capital costs
Energy expenditures.
For greater detail on unavoidable adverse impacts, the
reader is referred to the preceding analysis of impacts.
255
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ALTERNATIVE D
PARTIAL COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL
The description of Alternative D and its projected
impacts to the year 2005 are presented in this section.
Description
Alternative D addresses the local problem of combined
sewer overflows by providing partial CSO control. Those
areas most sensitive to overflow impacts, namely Lake Wash-
ington and Lake Union, would receive substantial CSO reduc-
tion (83 and 61 percent, respectively) compared to Alterna-
tive B. However, the overall CSO control in the study area
would be only 16 percent by volume of flow relative to
Alternative B. Puget Sound treatment plants would provide
enhanced primary treatment in this alternative.
The major wastewater facilities proposed for Alterna-
tive D are illustrated in Figure 3-12. Major features of
the alternatives are summarized in Table 3-22, including
treatment plants, effluent discharges and combined sewer over-
flows, and major new transfer facilities. The construction
schedule and costs for proposed facilities are shown in
Table 3-23.
The alternative is further described below in terms of
service area, treatment plants (location, treatment process,
effluent disposal site), combined sewer overflow control,
sludge management. The indirect impacts of the facilities
proposed under this alternative on the Renton plant are also
described.
Service Area
The service area of Alternative D would be as shown in
Figure 3-1. The Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park and Alki
service areas would remain the same as in existing conditions,
Some reductions of the West Point service area would result
by transferring flows from part of the North Lake Washington
and all of the North Lake Sammamish sewerage service subareas
to Renton.
The new transfer interceptors that would be needed to
facilitate the service area modifications would be the Red-
mond connections (two stages completed in 1983 and 1995),
256
-------
Figure 3-12
Facility Plan Alternative 0 -
Partial CSO Control
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
TABLE 3-22
ALTERNATIVE D- PARTIAL COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW REDUCTION
SUMMARY
TREATMENT PLANTS
Improvement
Completed
Flow (mgd) 2005
{unless phased)
Disposal
WEST POINT ALKI CARKEEK PARK RICHMOND BEACH
ihanced Primary Enhanced Primary Enhanced Primary Enhanced Primary
1985 1985 1985" 1981
129/350 10/30 3.5/20 2.5/9
Puget Sound Puget Sound Puget Sound Puget Sound
Outfall
Extended
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (2005)
FLOW SOLIDS BOD
(Million Gallons/Yr) (Tons/Yr) (Tons/Yr)
Lake Washington 3.76 3.41 0.94
Lake Sammamish 00 0
Portage Bay/Montlake Cut 147 133 36.5
Lake Union 22 20.1 5.52
Ship Canal/Salmon Bay 128 116 31.8
Elliott Bay 433 392 108
Alki Beach 4.47 4.06 1.11
Duwamish/Green River 251 227 62
TOTAL 989.4 895.6 245.9
TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE
FLOW SOLIDS BOD
(Million Gallons/Yr) (Tons/Yr) (Tons/Yr)
West Point 54,000 10,500 14,200
Alki Beach 3,650 710 964
Carkeek Park 1,530 297 404
Richmond Beach 912 177 241
Renton 36,050 753 1,508
TOTAL 96,142 12,437 17,417
MAJOR NEW TRANSFER FACILITIES
Location Year Completed
Redmond Connection stage I 1983
Redmond Connection Stage II 1995
North Creek Hollywood Connection 1990
Val Vue Connection (to Renton) 1980
RENTON*
Secondary -f-
Nitrification
and Filtration
1995
99/259
Duwamish
*Not included in proposed facilities plan for Puget Sound plants
258
-------
Table 3-23
Alternative D — Project Costs
and Construction Staging
Facility Component
Treatment Plants
Richmond Beach Upgrade to Enhanced
Primary Treatment
Carkeek Park - Interim Improvements
Carkeek Park - Upgrade to Enhanced
'Primary Treatment
West Point - Interim Improvements
West Point - Upgrade to Enhanced Primary
Treatment
Alki Interim Improvements
Alki Upgrade to Enhanced Primary
^ Treatment
^Renton - Interim Improvements
Renton - Enlargement II and Upgrading
Ren ton - En la rgemen t III
Subtotal - Treatment Plants
(Including Outfalls)
Collection System
Rehabilitation of Existing Collection
. System
Increased Transfer Capacity Within
West Point Existing Sewered Areas
Kenmore P.S. (Permanent)
Holding Tank Kenmore P.S.
Redmond Connection - Stage 1
Redmond Connection - Stage 2
North Creek - Hollywood Connection
Val Vue Connection (to Renton)
Increased Transfer Capacity and Rehabili-
tation within Renton Existing Sewered
Areas
Subtotal Collection System
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Montlake Regulator Station
Lake Washington CSO Holding - Rainier
Beach and Sayres Park Regulator
Stations and a Holding Tank at
Belvoir Pump Station; 1/yr level
Lake Washington Holding + Transport
North Int. Parallel Line, Dexter
Holding Tank, HT at Murray P.S.
10/yr level
Subtotal - Hold and Transport CSO
Total Capital Cost
Project Cost
$ Million
ENR-CI - 2600
1.1
0.1
1.5
4.8
13.2
0.3
14.7
0.4
79.5
57.0
172.6
15.6
2.3
5.1
17.0
3.0
8.0
7.8
27.3
86.6
0.8
6.7
34.7
42.2
301.4
••
^m
IM
I^H
mm
••
^m
^m
O
0>
O
en
(T)
m
ID
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
the North Creek-Hollywood connection (1990) and Val Vue
connection to Renton (1980) .
Construction schedule for these collection system modi-
fications would be as in Table 3-23.
Treatment Plants
The wastewater treatment facilities under Alternative D
would be as shown in Table 3-22. The four Puget Sound plants
would be upgraded to enhanced primary to provide treatment
during the remainder of the planning period (2005). The
chemical addition for enhanced primary treatment would only
be applied during the summer months; during the remainder of
the year the four plants would operate with primary treat-
ment.
The enhanced primary or primary effluent would be dis-
charged to Puget Sound through the existing plant outfalls
at West Point, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach. The Alki
outfall would be extended and improved.
The Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach plant capaci-
ties would remain as in Alternative B since no changes would
be made to the service areas. The West Point average flow
would be reduced to 129 mgd due to reductions in the service
area and transfer of some flow to Renton. However, no change
in the existing plant size would result.
All plants would fit on the existing plant property and
would involve only minor additions for chemical storage and
application. Plant layouts would be as in Alternative C
(except the Alki abandonment phase), shown in Figure 3-11.
Improvements would be complete by 1981 at Richmond Beach and
by 1985 at West Point, Alki and Carkeek Park.
Combined Sewer Overflow
In Alternative D, combined sewer overflow controls
would result in substantial flow reductions to Lake Washing-
ton (83 percent), Lake Union (61 percent), and the Ship
Canal (50 percent), relative to Alternative B. By providing
both Metro and City holding and transport facilities, shown
in Figure 3-12, overflows to Lake Washington would be con-
trolled to one event per year, and in Lake Union and along
the West Seattle shoreline to ten events per year. Little
control of other overflows beyond the existing CATAD (Com-
260
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
puter Augmented Treatment and Disposal) system, is provided
in this alternative.
In controlling CSO's to freshwaters, this alternative
would transfer some flows to saltwater. As a result, CSO's
to Elliott Bay would increase from 358 million gallons per
year (in existing conditions or Alternative B) to 433 million
gallons per year in Alternative D. To discharge these un-
treated storm water flows, a new 1200 foot outfall would
be constructed to Elliott Bay from the-Interbay area, as
shown in Figure 3-12. It would discharge peak flows of 80
mgd at a 50 foot depth west of Terminal 91.
The facilities that would be constructed to achieve
partial CSO control would be as in Tables 3-20 and 3-22.
Figure 3-12 shows general locations at the holding tanks.
Sludge Management
The sludge management system for Alternative D would
continue with West Point as a major regional sludge pro-
cessing center. However, Renton sludge, presently treated
at West Point, would be treated at Renton under this alterna-
tive. At the four Puget Sound plants, solids handling facili-
ties would be expanded as required to handle the additional
solids load from increasing flows and enhanced primary
treatment.
Richmond Beach digested sludge would be trucked to West
Point for dewatering. Dewatered sludge from Alki, Carkeek
Park, West Point and Renton would be trucked to the Cedar
Hills landfill and the Pack Forest site as an interim sludge
disposal procedure.
Anaerobic digestion would be used for sludge treatment
at West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach. The
methane gas produced by the process would be used to the
extent possible at each site.
Renton
Although the Renton service area and treatment plant are
not included in the proposed facilities for Alternative D,
the alternative would have secondary or indirect impacts on
the Renton plant. Due to revisions in service areas, the
Renton plant would receive some flows that would otherwise
have been treated at West Point.
261
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
The Renton plant would be expanded to handle increasing
flows in two stages, completed in 1985 and 1995, to an
ultimate capacity of 99 mgd for average and 259 mgd for peak
flow. Because the effluent would continue to be discharged
to the Duwamish, it would be treated by an upgraded process
beyond secondary. Nitrification (for converting organic
nitrogen compounds to nitrates) and filtration (for better
solids removal) would be provided.
Sludge would be processed at Renton by anaerobic diges-
tion, dewatered there, and trucked to the Cedar Hills land-
fill.
Primary Impacts
The direct impacts from this alternative for the Puget
Sound plants are described below in terms of effects on
geology, soils and topography; air quality and odors; water
quality; biology; energy and natural resources and the
human environment. Indirect impacts from this alternative
and the effects of Renton discharge are summarized under
a later section on secondary impacts.
Geology, Soils and Topography
Construction impacts on land resources at treatment
plant sites are discussed in the accompanying site docu-
ments (Volume II of the EIS).
Earthquake damage risk would continue at existing sites
and be correlated with physical factors at new sites as ex-
pressed in Chapter II. Holding tanks constructed in lowland
areas, for which exact sites are undetermined, have poten-
tially high earthquake damage risk and would need to be
constructed with that consideration. These tanks may also
permanently affect wetland and shoreline areas and shore
protection structures. Since Alternative D includes fewer
holding tanks than Alternative C, impacts associated with
tanks would be less than for Alternative C.
Impacts would continue at existing sludge disposal
sites. As in Alternative C, the additional sludge from
enhanced primary treatment and larger flows would not affect
the expected 30 year life of the Cedar Hills landfill site.
Impacts would be monitored there and at Pack Forest.
Construction waste disposal may cause minor, limited,
262
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
but long-term effects on the site chosen. The impact is
set by judgment as no sites have been identified and the
magnitude of the impact is a function of site.
The seven proposed collection system projects to hold
and transport CSO's under Alternative D, listed in Table 3-20
and approximately mapped in Figure 3-12, could have local
impacts. Since holding tanks, regulator stations, and
interceptor sewer would be placed underground, excavation
would disrupt soil profiles, temporarily accelerate erosion
and deposition, and could cause problems at excavation waste
disposal sites. The new facilities would be subject to the
usual minor risk of earthquake damage. More specific im-
pacts cannot be projected because information on sites is
not available. Construction at the North parallel inter-
ceptor, installed along the north shore of Lake Union and
across the Ship Canal 3 miles east of Shilshole Bay, would
disturb bottom sediments over a limited area and for a short
time (six months). These impacts on soil and sediments
would be reversible.
Irreversible impacts would result from the construction
of a tunnel more than a mile long and 7 feet in diameter
under the northwest portion of Queen Anne Hill from the
Ship Canal to the Interbay station. Disposal of almost
9,400 cubic yards of excavated material could have serious
adverse effects on the disposal sites chosen.
Air Quality and Odors
Trucking sludge from Richmond Beach to West Point and
from West Point, Carkeek Park, Alki and Renton to the Cedar
Hills landfill would emit approximately 435 grams of hydro-
carbons, 2710 grams of carbon monoxide, and 1975 grams of
nitrogen oxides per day. Treatment plant personnel traffic
would emit approximately 4205 grams of hydrocarbons, 53510
grams of carbon monoxide, and 69,30 grams of nitrogen oxides
per day. The combined emissions would amount to less than
0.01 percent of Seattle's total daily emissions of hydrocar-
bons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. The air pollut-
ants emitted under this alternative would have a negligible,
long-term, adverse, reversible impact on the air quality of
the Seattle area. Emissions would increase for sludge trans-
port to Pack Forest, but the overall impact on air quality
would be negligible.
Upgrading the Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park, Alki and
West Point plants to enhanced primary treatment will not
noticeably increase the potential for odor problems in
263
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
these areas, as described under Alternative C. The substan-
tial decrease of CSO's into Lake Washington and Lake Union
would appreciably reduce the associated odors at overflow
points. CSO's and their odors would be reduced somewhat in
Portage Bay and the Ship Canal. The odor problems associated
with the plants and CSO's under this alternative would have
a minor, adverse, long-term, reversible impact on the area's
environmental quality.
The construction of enhanced primary treatment facilities
and proposed collection system improvements listed in Table
3-20 and shown in Figure 3-12 would cause temporary increases
in particulates (dust) and engine emissions (exhaust fumes)
over limited areas. These problems would be intensified for
projects in the Interbay Valley (North interceptor parallel
and outfall) where air circulation can be restricted, en-
trapping air pollutants. The pollution potential would be
least in West Seattle where air circulation is best. Some
release of odors could be expected if existing sewer lines
are opened in warm summer months.
Water Quality
Provision for enhanced primary treatment at the West
Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach plants, with
partial CSO control will have mixed impacts on water quality.
Construction of CSO holding and transport facilities
(listed in Table 3-20 and shown in Figure 3-12) would result
in long-term benefits but short-term adverse impacts on water
quality. Erosion of excavated areas would increase runoff
turbidity, probably increasing turbidity in receiving waters.
This reversible effect could be less noticeable than that of
a combined sewer overflow, and would be of limited extent.
Lake Washington. Alternative D would reduce the flow,
solids and BOD of CSO's to Lake Washington by 83 percent
relative to Alternative B. Overflows to Lake Washington
would be limited to one overflow per year. Benefits to
Lake Washington water quality from lower inputs of bacteria,
metals, nutrients and toxicants would be approximately the
same as in Alternative C. The difference under Alternative
D would be from the remaining 3.76 million gallons per year
of combined sewer overflows, which could produce localized
water quality degradation in the immediate vicinity of over-
flow points following storms. Because of the small CSO
volume (relative to the lake volume) and circulation patterns,
CSO's would not be expected to affect areas other than shore-
264
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
lines. Overall, the substantial reduction in CSO's would
have beneficial, limited, minor, long-term and reversible
impacts.
Lake Union/Ship Canal. Under Alternative D, combined
sewer overflows to Lake Union and the Ship Canal/Salmon
Bay would be reduced by 61 and 50 percent, respectively, re-
lative to Alternative B. Overflows to Lake Union would
be controlled to 10 events per year. Because present water
quality is subject to coliform bacteria excesses, dissolved
oxygen depletion during fish migration seasons, floatables,
oil and poor circulation, improvements in water quality from
CSO reduction are important. However, since not all water
quality conditions are believed to stem from CSO's, reducing
overflows by 50 percent or more would probably not have a
major effect on receiving water quality. Overall, reductions
in CSO's would be beneficial, extensive (over the entire
Ship Canal plus Lake Union), minor in effect, long-term,
and reversible.
Excavation in the Ship Canal would disturb sediments,
temporarily increasing turbidity. Metals, toxicants and
possibly pathogens in the sediment could reenter the water
column and become available for biologic uptake by free-
swimming organisms. This adverse impact on water quality
is considered to be minor and of limited extent.
Other freshwater. Alternative D would not directly
affect Lake Sammamish, Green River, Cedar River, or Sam-
mamish River.
Duwamlsh estuary. Since Alternative D would not con-
trol combined sewer overflows to the Duwamish, impacts would
be as in Alternative B or existing conditions. Effects of
CSO's would be overshadowed, except in localized areas,
by the Renton treatment plant discharge.
Puget Sound. Impacts on Puget Sound from enhanced
primary (during summer) and primary (during other seasons)
treated effluent from the West Point, Carkeek Park and
Richmond Beach plants would be as described under Alternative
C. Regional impacts on water quality would be improved
relative to Alternative B, but would represent essentially
a nondegradation situation or continuation of existing
pollutant loads to the Sound.
One difference in Alternative D relative to the other
enhanced primary treatment alternative (C) would be that the
265
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
Alki treatment plant would be used throughout the study
period. Flow would be equivalent to Alternative B, but
pollutant loads of solids and BOD would be reduced by
about 22 percent. Considering that bacteria, toxicants
and other materials would also be reduced and that the
outfall would be improved, a minor beneficial, long-term
impact would occur. Similarly, an 18 percent reduction in
combined sewer overflows at Alki Beach could benefit the
water quality nearshore. However, the remaining plant dis-
charge and CSO's could still have adverse effects on water
quality near Alki Beach.
Combined sewer overflows to Elliott Bay of 433 million
gallons per year would represent a 21 percent increase over
Alternative B, since the CSO's formerly reaching inland
waters would be transferred to saltwaters of Elliott Bay.
With the new Elliott Bay outfall off Interbay (discharging
up to 80 mgd peak flows), adverse impacts on water quality
would be approximately the same as Alternative C, wherein
448 million gallons per year would be discharged.
Construction of the outfall to Elliott Bay disturb sedi-
ments, increasing turbidity and possibly resuspending heavy
metals and toxicants for a period of about 6 months. The
discharge of up to 80 mgd of untreated storm water and sew-
age could adversely affect nutrients and microbiological
quality in nearshore and intertidal waters. The contribution
of heavy metals and toxicants to sediments would also be in-
creased. The adverse impact on Puget Sound water quality is
judged to be moderate, intermittent but continuing, and,
except for the accumulation of heavy metals and toxicants,
reversible.
Groundwater. Since the West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park
and Richmond Beach plants would discharge to Puget Sound,
no direct impacts on groundwater from these plants are ex-
pected. At Cedar Hills and Pack Forest sludge disposal sites,
impacts on groundwater would be monitored.
Flood hazard. Floods are not expected to cause problems
at any of the treatment plants because all sites are above
the 100 year flood level.
Biology
Biological effects from enhanced primary treatment
and partial CSO control are described below.
266
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
Terrestrial habitats. No regional impacts are expected
from treatment plant operation. The construction of the
collection system projects to hold and transport CSO's are
not expected to adversely affect terrestrial ecology as
the facilities would be built beneath already paved or
other highly disturbed areas. Noise and vibrations from
construction work could frighten birds and small mammals
away from construction sites in residential areas.
Shoreline habitats. Marshes and shoreline areas of Lake
Washington would receive moderate long-term benefits from
83 percent CSO control relative to Alternative B and re-
duced inputs of toxicants, metals, oil and grease, pathogens,
BOD, and solids that can accumulate in tissues or be immedi-
ately toxic. Biota in limited areas at outflow points would
probably remain lower in diversity and abundance due to
toxic materials already in the sediment and from occasional
overflows. Some salmon spawning areas could still be
occasionally stressed.
Marshes along the Ship Canal at Union Bay and Portage
Bay would receive 36 to 50 percent less overflow than in
Alternative B, a benefit considered to be moderate-to-minor.
The magnitude of the overall influence of CSO's on ecological
communities in this water are unknown. CSO control would
probably be a moderate-to-minor benefit to the immediate
overflow areas, assuming the data on Roanoke (Metro Staff,
1976) are typical. The remaining overflows would continue
to have a negative, limited, long-term impact.
The Kellogg Island salt marsh would receive about the
same overflow loading as at present. The effect of over-
flows on this marsh has not been examined.
The Intertidal. Intertidal organisms would be affected
by increased nutrient loads, about 25 percent above exist-
ing conditions due to higher flows, but the discharge of
nitrogen-containing nutrients from wastewater treatment
plants would be approximately the same as under Alternative
B. Therefore, the effects of nutrient loads on intertidal
alge and algae grazers would be as in Alternative B. Im-
pacts of metals, pathogens and toxicants would be approxi-
mately as in Alternative C.
At Alki, the eelgrass beds would benefit from extending
the outfall and improving effluent dilution. The effect of
chemical precipitation of solids would be beneficial, but
minor, since solids, BOD and some toxicants would remain
about at present levels while nutrients would increase. The
267
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
18 percent reduction in CSO's would have a minor positive
effect in the intertidal at Alki Beach.
Puget Sound. Since total wastewater flows and pollutant
loads to Puget Sound would be virtually the same as under
Alternative C, impacts would be equivalent. Included would
be (1) changes in the distribution of some nearshore and
offshore benthic organisms, which would probably be correlated
with wastewater plume positions, (2) nutrient enrichment
of plankton and some attached algae, which could affect the
magnitude of blooms, (3) changes in the composition, diver-
sity, abundance and possibly tumor incidence of fish around
outfalls and (4) effects of over- and under-chlorination of
wastewaters.
Since Alternative D includes the Alki plant (which would
be abandoned in 1995 under Alternative C), impacts of that
discharge would be in addition to other effects on Puget
Sound. The extended Alki outfall would place the effluent
closer to mid-channel where major algae blooms develop, but
it is not known whether or not new effects would occur.
Therefore, impacts on plankton blooms are considered adverse,
negligible to moderate, minor, limited, long-term and
possible.
Commercial and sport fisheries. Herring fisheries at
West Seattle would be slightly benefited by the 18% decrease
in CSO's to the eelgrass bed areas due to the reduction in
metals, toxicants, oil, and grease. The salmon and trout
runs up the Duwamish through Elliott Bay, however, would
continue to be potentially threatened by overflows containing
BOD, solids, metals, and toxicants. CSO's to the Ship Canal
through Lake Washington fish run would decrease, with some
moderate benefit to these fish populations. Sport shellfish
would probably continue to be a potential health risk as fecal
coliforms in the waters exceed state shellfish standards.
Effects on juveniles of commercial species that feed in
nearshore areas potentially affected by effluents would be
unchanged from present, except that eelgrass beds would be
less affected. The above effects are considered to be
reversible, extensive on the fisheries, and of long duration.
The discharge of up to 80 mgd of untreated sewage from
the North parallel interceptor through a new outfall into
Elliott Bay at a depth of 50 feet could adversely affect
algal productivity and nektonic and intertidal organisms.
Because Elliott Bay is an important area for commercial
shrimp and fishes, the adverse, long-term impact of the
outfall could be moderate to major, and, except for the
268
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
accumulation of toxicants, reversible.
The Duwamish estuary. Impacts of combined sewer over-
flows would be as described under Alternative B, but would
be overshadowed by Renton discharge except at localized
points. In terms of flow, suspended solids and BOD, combined
sewer overflows would contribute 0.7, 30, and 4 percent,
respectively, of the Renton flow in 2005.
Freshwater environments. The effects of Alternative D on
freshwaters due to reduced CSO's to certain waters, such as
Lake Washington and Lake Union are discussed below.
1. Lake Washington. Since CSO pollutant loads would
be reduced substantially (83 percent relative to Alternative
B) benefits, to the sensitive, productive nearshore areas
would be major, limited to the western shore, and long-term.
Offshore areas would be affected less, but the overall nutri-
ent load and BOD to the lake would also be reduced.
Salmon spawning areas would be far less threatened by
siltation and exposure to toxic elements.
2. Lake Union/Ship Canal. CSO reductions of 50 to 61
percent (relative to Alternative B) would constitute a
moderate improvement, but these waters would still receive
approximately 150 million gallons of sewer overflows annually.
The magnitude and extent of the effect on biota is unknown,
but it is possible that CSO's have been cumulatively causing
stresses to migrating salmon and trout. Effects at the one
overflow sampled indicated clearly severe if limited negative
effects on biota - no life was found at the overflow point
or near the plume.
Sewer overflows may, however, be significant contribu-
tors of nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) aggravating the
overenrichment of Lake Union (Metropolitan Engineers, 1976).
The benefit of CSO reduction to the Ship Canal and to Lake
Union is judged to be moderate but long-term.
Construction of the North parallel interceptor across
the Ship Canal, a critical waterway for migrating salmon
and trout of the Lake Washington drainage, would last approxi-
mately six months. Fish susceptibility to natural mortality
and predation would increase for the period of construction
due to disruption of the canal bottom, implacement of physi-
cal obstacles, increases in turbidity, and possible resus-
269
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
pension of toxic substances in the sediment. The effect is
believed to be cnsiderable, although limited in extent and
of short duration.
Operation of the North parallel interceptor, however,
would remove CSO's from the Ship Canal and the western shore
of Lake Washington, thereby reducing the water quality-induced
stress on migrating and spawning salmonids in the long term.
Other waters. No impacts are expected on the biota
of the Sammamish River, Cedar River, Green River or other
waters of the study area.
Rare and endangered species. No impacts are antici-
pated under Alternative D for listed species as none are re-
corded from the study area. Critical habitats such as
salmon spawning, rearing and migration areas, and waterfowl
areas have been discussed previously.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy and chemical consumption are summarized in
Table 3-24.
Energy. For Alternative D, a net of 34 million equiva-
lent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 by the
primarily impacted plants (all but Renton). Included in this
would be 28 million kwh/year of electrical energy purchased.
This is equivalent to the amount of electrical energy 1400
households would consume per year, and constitutes approxi-
mately 0.14 percent of the projected electrical energy con-
sumption of Seattle in 2005 (Appendix E).
Table 3-24 shows the breakdown of total energy consump-
tions on a plant-by-plant basis. The greatest energy con-
sumed is in the form of electricity. Chemicals account for
about 10-30 percent of energy consumption and sludge trucking
for 5-30 percent. In the anaerobic digestion of sludge,
there is a net production of energy because of methane
formation. It can be expected that about half of the methane
will be flared off; half would be used at the plant. The
impact of the energy consumption would be adverse, moderate
in magnitude, long-term, irreversible and definite.
Annual chemical consumption for enhanced primary treat-
ment would be a total of 5410 tons lime, 535 tons ferric
270
-------
TABLE 3-24
ENERGY AND CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE D
to
ENERGY CONSUMPTION :
Onsite Energy
Purchased electricity
(kwh x I06/yr)
Produced by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
Consumed by digestion (kwh x 10^/yr)
Off site Energy
Chemicals (kwh x 106/yr)
Sludge Trucking (kwh x 106/yr)
TOTAL
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION
C12
CaO
FeCl3
Alum
Polymer
PLANT
Richmond
Beach
0.66
0.36
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.72
35
40
-
135
0.6
Carkeek
Park
1.05
0.62
0.25
0.33
0.03
1.04
60
70
-
240
5.2
West
Point
23.79
15.35
6.14
14.08
1.13
29.79
1985
5135
535
6545
35
Alki
2.47
1.13
0.45
0.77
0.04
2.60
145
165
-
540
10
Total
27.97
17.46
6.98
15.34
1.32
34.15
2225
5410
535
7460
50.2
>
I-1
rt
> 3
H PJ
rt rt
(D H-
H <
3 fD
PJ [fl
rt
H-fu
< 3
CD d
UH
O
rt
CO
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
chloride, and 7460 tons alum. Disinfection with chlorine
would require 2225 tons per year, and sludge thickening
or solids removal would require 50.8 tons/year of polymer.
A plant-by-plant breakdown of chemical consumption would be
as shown in Table 3-24. The supply of chlorine, alum, and
polymer are highly reliable. Lime and ferric chloride
are in moderate supply.
The impact of chemical usage would be adverse, minor,
long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Human Environment
Alternative D would cause a 16 percent decrease in
combined sewer overflows, partially enhancing the quality,
healthfulness, and overall aesthetics of the Metro area water-
ways. However, this alternative does not comply with PL 92-
500.
Land use. Land would have to be made accessible for
interceptors and connections for North Creek-Hollywood,
Redmond, and Val Vue; CSO holding tanks at Belvoir, Dexter,
Murray, Kenmore, and other sites, and regulator stations
at Montlake, Rainier Beach, Sayres Park, and North intercep-
tor. Any of these developments which occur within 200
feet of shoreline would require a permit from the Shorelines
Management Master Program of Seattle. These would include
the North Creek-Hollywood Connection, the North interceptor
parallel, the Montlake regulator, and may include some of
the holding tanks. The interceptors and regulators would
be underground, and therefore would have no impact on land
use after construction. This alternative maintains land
use at the Alki, West Point, Carkeek Park, and Richmond
Beach plants.
Legal and institutional. Alternative D does not comply
with PL 92-500 nor the Washington NPDES Regulations which
require secondary treatment. A fine as high as $10,000 per
day could be levied against Metro for noncompliance if this
alternative were implemented. The details of this are
explained in Chapter II. This impact would be adverse,
major, long-term, and probable.
The Shorelines Management regulations would be applic-
able. Washington public health regulations for coliform
standards would probably not be exceeded at Lake Washington
public beaches. Probably no U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
permits would be required.
272
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
Agency goals. Alternative D was originally established
to address Metro's best practicable treatment (BPT) goal of
identifying and solving water quality problems in the Metro
service area. In relation to Alternative B, Alternative D
reduces but does not eliminate combined sewer overflows to
Lake Washington, Portage Bay/Montlake Cut, Lake Union, Ship
Canal/Salmon Bay and Alki Beach, but increases CSO's to
Elliott Bay. For impacts on water quality, see the dis-
cussion in that section.
However, it is speculative whether this alternative
fulfills the objectives of Goals for Seattle, which states,
"the city should undertake efforts to meet Federal Water
Pollution Control Act requirements by 1984." This alterna-
tive does not alleviate the frequent odor problem at Alki,
which (in addition to affecting the Alki residents directly)
conflicts with the PSCOG goal of "maintaining the natural
beauty and liveability of the region."
Employment. There would be approximately 200 employees
for five years required for the construction involved in
Alternative D. Operation and management employment would
require a total of 76 employees at West Point, Alki, Richmond
Beach and Cartfeek Park along with other Metro staff.
Costs. For Alternative D, the estimated capital cost
for constructing new treatment facilities, collection sys-
tems, combined sewer overflow controls, effluent disposal
sites, sludge handling and disposal facilities (excluding
Renton) would be $106,800,000 (1976 dollars) as summarized
in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977). This is 0.11
percent of the $95,902 billion estimated by the EPA to be
required for implementation of PL 92-500 throughout the
country (EPA, 1976). The operation and maintenance costs
(excluding Renton) would be $6,350,000 per year, as shown
in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977).
The estimated average monthly user charge per equivalent
connection for the next 20 years would be $6.40 per month
if all future facilities to 2005 are grant eligible, as
shown in Table 3-14. User charges would be $7.65 per month
if future capacity beyond 1985 is not grant eligible and
would be $11.10 per month if no future facilities are grant
eligible. Since Alternative D does not comply with the
secondary treatment requirement of PL 92-500, which is a
condition for grant funding, it appears that the probable
user charge would be $11.10 per month, an amount $2.70
greater than the average expected charge for Alternative B of
$8.40.
273
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
Impact of cost would be adverse, moderate, long-term,
irreversible, and definite.
If the requirements of PL 92-500 for secondary treat-
ment not complied with, additional costs could result from a
substantial legal fine which may be levied, as indicated
in the section on legal and institutional impacts.
Social, recreational and cultural. Alternative D would
not fulfill a goal of 54 to 64 percent of people surveyed
(HRPI, 1976) that expressed a preference for secondary
treatment.
CSO control at Lake Washington beaches and Ship Canal
boating regions could make these areas more pleasant for
recreation. This is considered favorable, minor, long-term,
reversible, and probable.
Impacts on the parks or recreational facilities near
the West Point, Alki and Carkeek Park plants would continue
as under present conditions. For more detail, the site-
specific EIS documents should be consulted.
Archeological and historical. Information is not avail-
able to determine if archeological sites are present in areas
affected by construction of interceptors, holding tanks or
pump stations.
Acknowledged historical sites are shown in Appendix F,
but available maps are not accurate enough to determine the
exact location of these sites. It should be determined
whether the Belvoir holding tanks conflict with historical
sites in this area, and whether the North interceptor parallel
conflicts with Hiram Chittenden Locks.
Health and safety. In Puget Sound there may be health
problems related to the ingestion of shellfish in the regions
adjacent to wastewater outfalls if these facilities have only
enhanced primary or primary treatment of wastes or if the
areas are near combined sewer overflow points. These impacts
could continue under Alternative D.
Another highly unlikely safety hazard is accidental
leakage of chemicals when they are in transport or handled
on site. Although nearly every U.S. water and wastewater
treatment facility uses chemicals, there have been very
few chemical-related accidents.
274
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
The health and safety problems related to sludge trans-
port and disposal would be as probable as for any other trucks
in transit.
Construction hazards would be the same as for any other
similar construction.
Aesthetics and nuisance. Since treatment plants would
receive only minor modifications for enhanced primary treat-
ment, aesthetics and nuisance factors would not change
appreciably relative to present conditions. Odor could con-
tinue to be a nuisance at Alki during the duration of the
study period, but Metro is currently considering odor control
possibilities. Overall, impacts are considered adverse,
minor, long-term, reversible and definite.
Construction of the collection system improvements
designed to hold and transport CSO's could temporarily de-
grade community character and appearance. The noise,
vibrations, storage arrangements and traffic of construc-
tion machinery could affect residents in the Kenmore , Matthews
Park, Belvoir, Sayres Park, and Rainier Beach areas. Erosion
of excavated material could result in muddy runoff down
surrounding streets. Odor from sewers opened during construc-
tion of interceptors and holding tanks would probably not be
a problem in cooler months. If sewers were opened during
the summer periods of low flow and concentrated sewage,
there could be some odor. The overall degree of nuisance
caused by construction activities is determined by the extent
to which the surrounding community objects to these impacts.
In some cases, the nuisance has been strongly felt (Metro,
Montlake Regulator Station Draft EA, Technical Appendix,
October 1975; Final EA March 1976). Communities which would
be affected are Kenmore, Matthews Park, Belvoir and Interbay.
Since the interceptors, holding tanks and regulator stations
would be installed underground, there would be no impact on
community aesthetics once construction is completed.
Secondary Impacts
The secondary or indirect impacts of the alternative
would result from expanding the Renton treatment plant and
population growth. The effects of these changes on water
quality, biology, energy, natural resources and the human
environment are described below.
275
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
Water Quality
Secondary impacts on water quality from Renton effluent
discharge to the Duwamish would be as described for Alterna-
tive C. Additional population would increase urban runoff
to freshwaters, and could have a minor impact on groundwaters
in unsewered areas, as described in Alternative B.
Biology
Secondary impacts from Renton treatment plant discharge
on phytoplankton, zooplankton, deposit feeders, fishes and
birds would be as described under Alternative C.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy. For Alternative D, a net of 63 million equiva-
lent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 at Renton.
Included in this would be 57 million kwh/year of electrical
energy purchased, 1 million kwh/year for sludge trucking, and
11 million equivalent kwh/year required to produce the chemi-
cals consumed. A net of 5 equivalent kwh/year would be pro-
duced by the process of anaerobic digestion, although only
about half of this would probably be used. The impact of
the energy consumption would be adverse, moderate in magni-
tude, long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine, lime and polymer would be used
at annual rates of 1160, 9080, and 1315 tons, respectively-
The supplies of chlorine and polymer are reliable; lime is
in moderate supply- The impact of chemical usage would be
adverse, moderate, long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Human Environment
Land use, population and employment. The partial com-
bined sewer overflow control alternative would probably
result in a slight facilitation of regional growth over the
long term due to the improvement or preservation of water
quality in inland waters as described under Alternative C.
Operation and management employment at Renton would
be 76 people as well as other Metro related staff. Construc-
276
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
tion would involve approximately 350 employees for five
years.
Costs. Capital costs for construction at Renton would
be $195,200,000 (1976 dollars), as indicated in Table 3-13.
Renton operation and maintenance would cost $5,950,000 per
year.^ The effect of this on user charge is noted in the pri-
mary impact section, since user charges are determined on a
Metro-wide basis. Impact of cost would be adverse, moderate,
long-term, irreversible and definite.
Social, recreational and cultural. The secondary bene-
ficial impact from improved wet weather management on
swimming and boating is considered to be minor and of limited
extent (primarily for Lake Washington) but long-term and
important.
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures are suggested to aid in the
reduction of adverse impacts resulting from the implementa-
tion of this alternative.
An improved chlorine feed system can be designed to
prevent chlorine levels in the Alki, Carkeek Park, and Rich-
mond Beach sewage treatment plant effluent from exceeding
dangerous levels. This could be achieved by matching chlorine
levels to effluent discharge, and/or installing a chlorine
contact tank, which would maximize the effectiveness of
chlorination treatment. Currently chlorine is injected into
the effluent flow at a constant rate, manually adjusted on
a daily basis. Hourly variations in flow cause a fluctuating
chlorine residual. Control of chlorine residuals at West
Point could be achieved by installing a chlorine contact tank.
Pretreatment of industrial wastes could be provided
before sewage enters the West Point plant. If current
practices continue, influent flows at these facilities would
occasionally contain slugs of cadmium, mercury, and arsenic.
Under this alternative, a mitigation measure for con-
trolling solid and metal loads in effluent water would be
to use the enhanced primary treatment of alum or other
chemicals year round.
Visual nuisance of the wastewater treatment facilities
277
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative D
can be mitigated by (1) designing new facilities and additions
to existing facilities utilizing natural geographical condi-
tions (e.g., bluffs) and (2) landscaping the facilities.
Odor of the wastewater treatment facilities can be
mitigated, in part, by not allowing the system to become
anaerobic. Under anaerobic conditions, noxious gases such
as methane and sulfur dioxide are emitted. At Alki, odor
control measures independent of the remaining facilities
could be implemented by Metro.
The energy impact can in part be defrayed by using
more of the methane gas which is produced by anaerobic
digestion. Nearly half of this methane gas is flared off
under current practices. However, it would have to be
determined whether methane storage and/or transport facilities
would be cost-effective.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Under Alternative D, the following adverse impacts
would be unavoidable.
• Construction impacts
• Sludge trucking
• Primary and enhanced primary effluent - effect on
water quality
• Land use changes
• Aesthetic nuisance of plant location
• Noncompliance of PL 92-500
• Operation and maintenance (0 & M) and capital costs
• Energy expenditures
For greater detail regarding unavoidable adverse impacts,
the reader is referred to the preceding impact analysis..
278
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ALTERNATIVE E
SECONDARY
The description of Alternative E and its projected
impacts to the year 2005 are presented in this section.
Description
Alternative E would provide secondary treatment at the
West Point, Alki and Richmond Beach treatment plants. The
Carkeek Park plant would function as a primary treatment
plant for wet weather flows only, beginning in 1985.
The major wastewater facilities proposed for Alternative
E are illustrated in Figure 3-13. Major features of the
alternative are summarized in Table 3-25, including treat-
ment plants, effluent discharges and combined sewer over-
flows, and major new transfer facilities. The construction
schedule and costs for proposed facilities are shown in
Table 3-26.
This alternative is further described below in terms of
service area, treatment plants (location, treatment process,
effluent disposal site), combined sewer overflow control,
and sludge management. The indirect implications on the
Renton plant of the facilities proposed under this alterna-
tive are also described.
Service Area
The service areas of Alternative E are shown in Figure
3-1. The Alki and Richmond Beach service areas would not
change relative to their existing areas. For West Point,
the North Lake Sammamish service subarea would be trans-
ferred to Renton (as in Alternative B), the Carkeek Park
service subarea for dry weather flow would be added begin-
ning in 1985, the Val Vue area would be transferred from
Renton, and increased North Lake Washington flows would be
added by the Kenmore parallel.
The new transfer interceptors that would be needed to
facilitate the service area modifications would be the
Carkeek Park to West Point interceptor (1985), the second
Kenmore (parallel) interceptor (1983) to West Point, the
Val Vue transfer from Renton to West Point (1980), and the
Redmond connections to Renton (1988 and 1995) .
279
-------
-------
Disposal
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
TABLE 3-25
ALTERNATIVE E - SECONDARY
SUMMARY
TREATMENT PLANTS
WEST POINT
CARKEEK PARK RICHMOND BEACH
Phase I Phase II
Secondary Secondary Primary
1985 1983 1981
145.5/350 10/30 3,5/20
Puget Sound Puget Sound Puget Sound
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
FLOW
(Million Gallons/Yr)
Lake Washington 23.0
Lake Sammamish 0
Portage Bay 232
Lake Union 58.1
Ship Canal 261
Elliott Bay 358
Alki Beach 5.46
Duwamish/Green River 251
TOTAL 1188.6
Primary
(Wet weather)
1985
0/20
Puget Sound
(2005)
SOLIDS
(Tons/Yr)
20.9
0
247
52.7
236
325
4.95
227
1113.6
Secondary Secondary +
Nitrification
and Filtration
1981 1995
2.5/8 86/223
Puget Sound Duwamish
BOD
(Tons/Yr)
5.72
0
60.8
14.4
64.9
89
1.36
62
298.2
TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE -
FLOW
(Million Gallons/Yr)
West Point 57,900
Alki Beach 3,650
Carkeek Park 0
Richmond Beach 912
Renton 31,350
TOTAL 93,812
Location
Carkeek to West Point Interceptor
Second Kenmore Interceptor
Val Vue Transfer (from Renton)
Redmond Connection Main Project
SOLIDS
(Tons' /Yr)
J,600
228
0
57.1
663
4,548
Year
Redmond Connection Additional Capacity
BOD
(Tons/Yr)
3,600
228
0
57.. i
1,308
5,193
Completed
1985
1983
1980
1988
1995
*Not included in proposed facilities plan for Puget Sound plants
281
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
TABLE 3-26
Alternative E — Project Costs
and Construction Staging
Facility Component
Treatment Plants
Richmond Beach Secondary
Carkeek Park Interim Improvements
West Point Interim Improvements
West Point Secondary Treatment
Alki Interim Improvements
. Alki Secondary Treatment
j^Renton Interim Improvements
^Renton Enlargement II and Upgrading
Rent on Enlargement III
Co I lection System
Accommodate Carkeek Abandonment
Increased Transfer Capacity Within
West Point Existing Sewered Areas
Second Kenmore Interceptor
Kenmore P. S. (Permanent)
Val Vue Transfer (from Ren ton )
Redmond Connection (to Ren ton)
Main Project
Additional Capacity
Increased Transfer Capacity and
Rehabi litation within Ren ton
Existing Sewered Areas
Subtotal Collection System Except
CSO, Extensions
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Montlake Regulator Station
Third Avenue West Regulator Station
Subtotal Hold and Transport CSO
Total Capital Cost
Project Cost
5 Million
ENR-CCI 2600
6.0
0.1
4.8
115.2
0.3
26.2
0.4
65.5
46.0
264.5
7.4
18.0
22.2
8.5
5.5
14.0
1.0
27.3
103.9
0.8
0.5
1.3
369,7
••
^M
—
MB
^
0
o>
o>
^m
i
0
2
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
Construction schedule for these collection system modi-
fications would be as in Table 3-26.
Treatment Plants
The wastewater treatment facilities under Alternative E
are shown in Table 3-25. The West Point, Alki and Richmond
Beach plants would be upgraded to secondary treatment by the
air activated sludge processes for improved removal of
suspended solids, oxygen-demanding materials, and other
parameters. These improvements would be completed by 1981
at Richmond Beach, 1983 at Alki and 1985 at West Point.
Chlorine contact and dechlorination facilities are identi-
fied and costed, should such facilities be mandated.
At Carkeek Park, interim improvements would be completed
by 1981 to allow implementation of local sewer rehabilita-
tion. The Carkeek Park plant would continue to provide
primary treatment to both dry and wet weather flow until
1985. At that time, the Carkeek Park plant would continue
to provide primary treatment to wet weather flow, but dry
weather flow would be transferred to West Point. The Carkeek
Park plant could be abandoned, probably in 1995 (depending
on the City of Seattle sewer separation program).
The proposed plant layouts are shown in Figure 3-14.
The existing plant property at Richmond Beach could accommo-
date secondary treatment. At Alki, expansion of the plant
boundaries into the adjacent ballfields would be necessary
for the secondary clarifiers. No changes in the area at
Carkeek Park are needed. Air activated sludge at West
Point would require 12 acres of shoreline fill for the
aeration tanks and secondary clarifiers. (An option that
would require less area at West Point would be secondary
treatment with tower trickling filters rather than activated
sludge, but this is not the proposed option in the Draft
Facility Plan and is not included in the costs. Therefore,
its impacts are not described in the Draft EIS.)
The dry weather plant capacity at West Point would in-
crease by 3.5 million gallons per day (mgd) relative to
Alternative B, due to the added flows from Carkeek Park.
The Alki and Richmond Beach plant capacities would be as in
Alternative B because no service area modifications are
planned.
Treated secondary effluent would be discharged to Puget
Sound from the existing outfalls at West Point, Alki and
283
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
METRO-RICHMOND BEACH WftSTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
SECONDARY
METRO-ALKI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECONDARY
METRO - CARKEEK PARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
ABANDON (INTERIM, WET
WEATHER PLANT)
Figure 3-14
Alternative E Plant Layouts, (Sheet 1)
284
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
METRO - WEST POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
SECONDARY CLARIRER
POWER 6LDG.
A.S, THICKENER
FILTER PRESS BLOB.
AERATION TANKS
MAINTENANCE BLOB. ADDITION
ADMINISTRATION BLDfi. ADDITION
SECONDARY
(AIR ACTIVATED SLUDGE)
Figure 3-14
Alternative E Plant Layouts (Sheet 2)
285
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
Richmond Beach. The Carkeek Park outfall would discharge
primary treated storm water.
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
In Alternative E, combined sewer overflow volumes would
increase by two to three percent, relative to Alternative
B, to Lake Washington, Portage Bay, Lake Union, and the
Ship Canal. The current program of maximizing available in-
line storage capacity for control of combined sewer overflows
would be continued by construction of the Montlake and Third
Avenue West regulator stations. Excessive infiltration/in-
flow would be removed from the Highlands, Carkeek Park, City
of Seattle, and City of Lake Forest Park service areas.
Sludge Management
Additional sludge digestion facilities would be required
at West Point, Alki, and Richmond Beach to handle the in-
creased solids produced by secondary treatment. Anaerobic
treatment would be used for sludge digestion; the methane
gas produced would be used to the extent possible at each
site.
Richmond Beach digested sludge would be trucked to West
Point for dewatering. Dewatered sludge from Alki and West
Point would be trucked to Cedar Hills landfill and Pack
Forest. Renton sludge would be handled at Renton rather
than West Point.
Renton
Although the Renton service area and treatment plant
are not included in the proposed facilities for Alternative
E, the alternative would have indirect impacts on the Renton
plant. The service area for Renton would be increased as
the West Point service area is reduced. The treatment plant
would be enlarged to service growth in two stages (completed
in 1985 and 1995) up to an average capacity of 86 mgd (223
mgd peak). Nitrification and filtration (following secondary
treatment) and dechlorination would improve effluent quality
before discharge to the Duwamish River. Sludge would be
treated by anaerobic digestion, dewatered, and trucked to the
Cedar Hills landfill or Pack Forest.
286
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
Primary Impacts
The direct impacts from this alternative for the Puget
Sound plants are described below in terms of effects on
geology, soils and topography; air quality and odors; water
quality; biology; energy and natural resources and the
human environment. Indirect impacts from this alternative
and the effects of Renton discharge are summarized under a
later section on secondary impacts.
Geology, Soils and Topography
Alternative E includes substantial site expansions at
the West Point, Alki and Richmond Beach sites to accommodate
secondary treatment. Shoreline fill, which may locally
affect microcurrents and sediment transport, is included at
West Point. Since the impacts are site-specific, they are
described in Volume II of the EIS series for West Point,
Alki, and Richmond Beach.
The effects of the Kenmore Parallel Interceptor, to be
constructed under this alternative, are considered to be of
potential regional significance since salmon spawning areas
in Lake Washington could possibly be affected. Impacts
for geology, topography and soils from this construction
could involve siltation, accelerated erosion and seismic
risk, as described under Alternative B. Impacts would
continue at existing sludge disposal sites. Since the
amount of sludge from secondary treatment would be approxi-
mately twice that from primary treatment, this alternative
could reduce the 30 year useful lifetime of the Cedar Hills
landfill by about one year if all sludge were disposed of
there.
Construction waste disposal sites may be subject to al-
terations in topography or soils, but these limited impacts
would depend on the sites, which have not been selected.
Air Quality and Odors
Sludge trucking traffic from West Point and Alki to the
Cedar Hills landfill would emit approximately 415 grams of
hydrocarbons, 2585 grams of carbon monoxide and 1880 grams
of nitrogen oxide per day. Operating personnel traffic
to wastewater treatment plants would generate approximately
5190 grams of hydrocarbons, 66,010 grams of carbon monoxide
287
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
and 8550 grains of nitrogen oxide per day- The combined
emissions would be less than 0.01 percent of Seattle's
total daily emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
and nitrogen oxides. The air pollutants emitted under this
alternative would have a negligible, long-term, adverse,
reversible impact on the air quality of the Seattle area.
Upgrading the Richmond Beach, Alki, and West Point plants
to secondary treatment increases the possibility of odors
escaping in these areas. Because secondary treatment plants
are larger and more complex than primary plants, expose more
water surface area to the air and subject the water to more
perturbation, there is a greater likelihood for odors being
released into the surrounding neighborhood from secondary
treatment plants. Various practical measures can be employed,
however, to control treatment plant odors and are discussed
in the section on mitigation measures. Abandoning the Carkeek
Park plant (probably by 1995) would reduce the potential for
odor problems in the Carkeek area. The slight increase of
CSO's into Lake Washington, Lake Union, and the Ship Canal
will increase the potential for odors from CSO's in these
areas. The potential for odor problems associated with this
alternative could be said to have an adverse, long-term,
reversible, minor impact on the environmental quality of the
Seattle area.
Water Quality
Upgrading the West Point, Alki and Richmond Beach plants,
potential phasing out the Carkeek Park plant, and allowing
combined sewer overflows to continue would produce mixed
beneficial and adverse effects on water quality. Principal
areas of interest are Lake Washington, Lake Union/Ship Canal,
Duwamish Estuary and Puget Sound.
Lake Washington. The principal impacts on Lake Washington
would result from continued combined sewer overflows (CSO's),
which would increase from a 1975 level of 16 million gallons
per year to a 2005 value of 23 million gallons per year. This
alternative would represent a 3 percent increase over the
baseline Alternative B. The adverse impacts on bacterial
counts along the western shore beaches, changes in temperature
and turbidity, and persistent accumulation of toxicants,
heavy metals and nutrients would be approximately the same
as for Alternative B.
Similarly, the construction of the Kenmore Parallel could
possibly have significant effects limited in extent to near-
288
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
shore waters, but possibly of long duration on water quality
in Lake Washington from increased turbidity/ disruption of
sediments, introduction of metals, hydrocarbons and other
materials and resuspension of nutrients and chemicals in the
sediment (as described under Alternative B).
Lake Union/Ship Canal. Combined sewer overflows and
loads to Lake Union and the Ship Canal would increase by
2 to 3 percent relative to Alternative B. As described
earlier for Alternative B, the effects would probably be
minor since the Ship Canal is well flushed and regularly
dredged.
Other freshwaters. Lake Sammamish water quality would
not be directly affected by this alternative.
Duwamish estuary. Impacts from combined sewer overflows
on the Duwamish estuary would be the same as Alternative B
and existing conditions. The adverse effects attributed to
approximately 250 million gallons per year of CSO's would
be incremental and overshadowed by the 31,600 million gallons
per year discharged from Renton (described under secondary
impacts of this alternative).
Puget Sound. The total flow of 62 billion gallons per
year under Alternative E from the wastewater treatment plants
would be equivalent to the flow of Alternative B; however,
the loads of suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) would be reduced by about 75 to 81 percent respectively-
These loads would decrease relative to existing conditions by
about 65 percent for solids and 75 percent for BOD. The
secondary treatment process would also remove more of the
potential toxicants (heavy metals, certain organic materials)
and improve disinfection of bacteria and viruses relative
to primary treatment. Reductions in nutrients would be small,
particularly for nitrogen which can be a limiting nutrient
in the Sound.
Overall, the alternative should produce a net benefit to
Puget Sound water quality in two areas. First in localized
areas around outfalls, the lower BOD loads could produce a
small improvement in dissolved oxygen. Second, improved
capability for disinfection should benefit nearshore areas
and beaches by reducing bacterial counts there. These bene-
fits, relative to Alternative B, would be long-term, revers-
ible, and minor.
289
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
Combined sewer overflows would not be controlled to
Elliott Bay or off Alki Point, Therefore potential con-
tamination of nearshore and intertidal waters with bacteria,
solids, toxicants and other materials would continue to
produce minor, long-term, reversible, adverse impacts, as
described in Alternative B.
Groundwater. Alternative E is not expected to exert
any direct impacts on groundwater quality. The effluent
from West Point, Alki and Richmond Beach wastewater facili-
ties would be discharged into Puget Sound and thus incapable
of infiltrating groundwater. Impacts at sludge disposal
sites would be monitored.
Flood hazard. Floods are not expected to cause problems
at any of the treatment plants in Alternative E because all
of the sites are above the 100 year flood level.
Biology
The impacts of this alternative on terrestrial, shore-
line and intertidal habitats; Puget Sound; the Duwamish
estuary; freshwater environments; and rare and endangered
species are described in this section.
Terrestrial habitats. No direct regional impacts are
expected on urban terrestrial, non-urban terrestrial, forest
or meadow lowland habitats. Impacts at sites are discussed
in Volume II of the EIS series for West Point, Alki, Carkeek
Park and Richmond Beach.
Shoreline habitats. Since combined sewer overflows
to marshes and shorelines would increase 2 to 3 percent
relative to Alternative B (approximately 40 percent over
existing conditions), the effects from sediments, metals,
oil, toxicants, organics and nutrients could have moderate,
adverse, long-term, irreversible impacts. Increases in BOD
and nutrients would be moderate, adverse, short-term and
reversible. For more detail, see Alternative B.
Constructing the Kenmore parallel interceptor could
possibly have an adverse effect on the salmon spawning areas
and wildlife habitat of northwest Lake Washington. For more
detail, the reader is referred to Alternative B.
290
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
The intertidal. Combined sewer overflows to Puget Sound
at Alki/West Seattle and Elliott Bay would continue at the
same level as Alternative B. Impacts have been described
previously.
Nutrients, which appear to be implicated in increased
growth rates of intertidal plants at West Point, would prob-
ably not be removed in significant amounts by secondary
treatment and would therefore enter Puget Sound in increased
amounts. This is considered to be a moderate adverse im-
pact, limited on beaches, long-term and reversible. Coli-
form bacteria in shellfish could decrease if chlorination
facilities are improved, and with the extension of the Alki
outfall. Bacterial and pathogen inputs from CSO's would con-
tinue, however, and it is impossible to determine whether
or not state bacterial standards for shellfish waters would
be met. Better chlorination and dechlorination would also
reduce the risk of occasional chlorine toxicity, for which
the magnitude is unknown.
The reduction in solids, BOD, and metals is considered
to be a minor limited benefit, as effects from these param-
eters have not been demonstrated on the intertidal. Metals
levels are slightly higher near outfall areas, but below
existing standards. Toxicant levels in effluents are unknown,
but removals in secondary treatment would be a positive
effect. The benefit of metals and toxicants removals would be
long-term.
It is not known which affects the intertidal community
more overall: CSO's or effluents. Effluent quality is
generally fairly well known (except for toxicants and trace
elements), but its frequency of contact with the intertidal
is not. CSO quality, on the other hand, is poorly known, but
frequency of occurrence has been evaluated.
Alternative E also includes a Carkeek-West Point Inter-
ceptor along the shore of Puget Sound and crossing Shilshole
Bay. Assuming the line would be underground the disruption
of the shoreline habitat would be severe but temporary and
limited. The substrate could be removed and turbidity
generated, similar to the effects of the Kenmore parallel
on lake shores. The regional impact is judged to be minor.
Puget Sound. Secondary treatment would include improved
disinfection, better kill with reduced chlorine dosage: BOD,
solids, and metals and toxicant loads would be significantly
reduced. Nutrient inputs would increase moderately. The ex-
tension of the Alki outfall would reduce impacts to the near-
shore areas, but add nutrients to a mid-channel area where
291
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
plankton blooms develop. CSO's to Puget Sound waters would
be as in baseline conditions.
Nearshore and offshore phytoplankton could be affected
by 35% more nutrients than at present, and the distribution
of phytoplankton may be altered through extension of the
Alki outfall. The probable net effect is considered to be
moderate, negative, probably limited in extent to within a
mile or so of outfalls, long-term and reversible. The
effect on zooplankton is not determinable. Offshore free-
swimming and bottom dwelling organisms would be exposed to
effluents containing substantially less solids, metals and
toxicants.
The apparent influence of the effluent plumes on benthic
community composition would continue and increase slightly
due to nutrients; effects due to solids and organic matter
would decrease. The abundance of clams and worms at the 150
foot contour could become less pronounced.
The composition of fish assemblages near the outfalls
may or may not change with secondary treatment. Some fishes
may be attracted to the organisms on the pipe or to the pipe
itself and would remain. Fishes which may be attracted by
prey species favored by effluent-caused changes in the bottom
or the water column may also remain, although the waters and
substrates would be affected less. Any effects on fishes are
transient in this area. The slightly elevated incidence of
tumors on flatfish may or may not change with secondary treat-
ment of effluent as the cause or causes of the occurrence is
unknown.
The Carkeek-West Point interceptor would cross Salmon
Bay, which is a critical area for migratory fish species of
the Lake Washington drainage basin and supports many of the
marine species found in the Seattle area. The bay is also a
resting and feeding area for migratory water birds. Alterna-
tives in the water quality due to laying of the pipe could
increase migratory fish susceptibility to natural mortality
and predation during the period of construction.
Other organisms which may be affected include geoduck
beds, octopus, and bottomfish stocks. The impact is judged
to be major but temporary, highly limited and probably re-
versible. The effects of reducing Carkeek to a wet weather
facility are described in the site document which is Volume
II of this series.
Commercial and sport fisheries. Salmonid runs up the
Ship Canal through Lake Wasington would be further affected
292
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
by a 40 percent increase in CSO's to those waters relative to
existing conditions (2 to 3 percent increase over Alternative
B), as would salmon spawning areas in the lake, due to further
reductions in DO, over-enrichment of nutrients and metals and
toxicants loads. Possible negative impacts are considered
under Alternative B.
Herring fisheries at Alki would be exposed to baseline
levels of CSO's, but the extension of the Alki outfall would
provide a benefit in that effluent would reach the beaches
less often or not at all, depending on design.
Juvenile herring and salmonids feeding in eelgrass beds
and other nearshore areas occasionally affected by effluents
benefit somewhat by the decrease in toxicants and metals load-
ings which could build up in time in their prey. With im-
proved chlorination and dechlorination, the possibility of
chlorine toxicity would probably be elimianted. The benefit
is considered to be minor-to-moderate, and long-term as
effluent flows and CSO's would continue.
The Duwamish estuary. Overflows to the Duwamish would
continue at baseline levels, as described under Alternative
B. Since CSO's would represent 0.8, 34, and 5 percent of
Renton flow, solids, and BOD, the impacts of CSO's (except
for localized areas) would be small in comparison.
Freshwater environments. Alternative E would affect
freshwaters by increasing combined sewer overflows to Lake
Washington and Lake Union/Ship Canal.
1. Lake Washington. CSO's to Lake Washington would
increase about 2 to 3 percent over Alternative B; minor
effects would be similar to those described for Alternative
B.
2. Lake Union/Ship Canal. The impacts of combined sewer
overflows would be approximately the same as for Alternative
B.
3. Lake Sammamish, Sammamish River, Cedar River, Green
River, other freshwaters. No impacts are expected.
4. Rare and endangered species. No rare or endangered
species are recorded from the study area.
293
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy and chemical consumption are summarized in Table
3-27.
Energy. For Alternative E, a net of 87 million equivalent
kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 by the Puget
Sound plants. Included in this would be 86 million kwh/year
of purchased electrical energy. This is equivalent to the
amount of electrical energy 4300 households would consume
per year, and constitutes approximately 0.43 percent of the
projected electrical energy consumption of Seattle in 2005
(see Appendix E).
Table 3-27 shows the breakdown of total energy consump-
tion on a plant-by-plant basis. The greatest energy con-
sumption would be in the form of electricity. Chemicals
account for about 5-25 percent of energy consumption, and
sludge trucking for less than 5 percent. In the anaerobic
digestion of sludge, there is a net production of energy
because of methane formation.
The impact of the energy consumption would be adverse,
moderate in magnitude, long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Chemicals. Annual chlorine consumption would be a total
of 2350 tons/year at all facilities. Lime and ferric
chloride would be used at West Point, with annual consumption
of 2975 and 520 tons, respectively- At Alki, 5 tons/year
of polymer would be consumed.
The impact of chemical usage would be adverse, minor,
long-term, irreversible, and definite. The supplies of
chlorine and polymer are highly reliable; lime and ferric
chloride are in moderate supply.
Sulfur dioxide (710 tons per year) would be used to
dechlorinate effluent water.
Human Environment
Alternative E has many beneficial impacts on the human
environment.
Land use. Major land use changes would include expansion
294
-------
to
10
TABLE 3-27
ENERGY AND CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE E
Onsite Energy
Purchased electricity
(kwh x I06/yr)
Produced by. digestion
(kwh x I06/yr)
Consumed by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
Offsite Energy
Chemicals (kwh x 10 /yr)
Sludge Trucking (kwh x 10^/yr)
TOTAL
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION:
Chemicals (tons/yr)
S02a
CaO
FeCl3
Polymer
PLANT
Richmond
Beach
2.20
0.42
0.17
0.12
0.10
2.17
35
10
-
~
Carkeek
Park
0.46
-
0.46
^
-
•"•
West
Point
77.25
20.00
8.00
12.47
1.19
78.91
2170
655
2975
520
"••
Alki
6.07
1.28
0.51
0.59
0.03
5.92
145
45
-
5
Total
85.98
21.7
8.68
13.18
1.32
87.46
2350
710
2975
520
5
(a) S02 may be used for a mitigation measure if dechlorination
by EPA standards.
is required
H
rtrr
CD I-1-
H <
3 CD
P> W
CD
pj
O
ft
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
of all existing wastewater treatment facilities except Carkeek
Park (which could be phased out) and rights-of-way for the
following interceptors: Redmond connection, Val Vue connec-
tion, Carkeek Park connection, and Kenmore parallel intercep-
tor. In addition, land would have to be made available for
the Montlake and Third Avenue West regulator stations, and
the Kenmore pumping station. If the Carkeek Park connection,
the North Creek-Hollywood connection, and the Kenmore CSO
holding tank or pumping station are within 200 feet of the
shoreline (of Puget Sound or Lake Washington) permits would
have to be obtained from the Shorelines Management Master
Program (SMMP) for Seattle and King County. These land use
impacts during construction would be adverse, moderate, short-
term, reversible and definite.
Expansion at the West Point, Carkeek Park and Richmond
Beach facilities would also depend on these SMMP permits
(at Richmond Beach, the permit would be obtained from King
County). At West Point, shoreline fill would occur. The
impact of these on land uses could be adverse, moderate-to-
major, long-term and irreversible.
Legal and institutional. Alternative E would fulfill
the requirements of PL 92-500 and Washington NPDES regula-
tions that secondary treatment be provided.
Timing is a matter of consideration: under the Alterna-
tive E time schedule of the Draft Facility Plan, secondary
treatment would be completed in 1985. Under Section 201 of
PL 92-500, secondary treatment should be completed by July
1, 1977, but it is recognized that that deadline could not
be met. Now NPDES requirements for secondary treatment plant
timing are dependent on completion of planning and design.
Although the construction schedule shown in the Draft Facility
Plan indicates all secondary treatment facilities will be com-
pleted by 1985, the EPA will require secondary treatment by
1983. A detailed compliance schedule will be developed on
completion of the Facility Plan and EIS by June 30, 1978.
Permits from the Shorelines Management Master Program
for Seattle would have to be obtained at any location within
the Seattle city limits where construction occurs within 200
feet of shoreline, as explained under land use considerations.
Agency goals. Alternative E fulfills the King County
comprehensive plans of "taking all possible steps to abate
pollution" and "installing utility lines in advance of the
time of development." Alternative E fulfills in part the
objectives mentioned in Goals of_ Seattle to "undertake all
means reasonable and feasible to ensure water purity to meet
296
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
health standards and protect the environment. ... to meet
the goals of PL 92-500, . . . and to ensure clean water to
protect wildlife/ vegetation, and recreation areas."
Employment. It has been estimated that the construction
involved in this alternative would require the employment of
approximately 350 workers until 1985. Operation and mainte-
nance would require 115 employees at the West Point, Carkeek
Park, Richmond Beach, and Duwamish facilities.
Costs. For Alternative E, the estimated capital cost for
constructing new treatment facilities, collection systems,
effluent disposal sites, and sludge handling and disposal
facilities would be $212,800,000 (1976 dollars) (excluding
Renton) as summarized in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineer,
1977). This is 0.22 percent of the $95,902 billion estimated
by the EPA for implementation of PL 92-500 throughout the
country (EPA, 1976). The estimated operation and maintenance
costs (excluding Renton) would be $8,230,000 per year, as
shown in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977) .
The average Metro monthly user charge per equivalent
connection for the next 20 years would be $6.80 per month
if all future facilities to 2005 are grant eligible, as shown
in Table 3-14. User charges would be $8.00 per month if
future capacity beyond 1985 is not grant eligible. They
would be $12.75 per month if no future facilities are grant
eligible. Since Alternative E complies with the secondary
treatment requirement of PL 92-500, which is a condition for
grant funding, it appears that the probable user charge would
be either $6.80 or $8.00 per month, an amount $1.60 to $0.40
below the average expected user charge in Alternative B of
$8.40 per month.
Impact of cost would be adverse, moderate, long-term,
irreversible, and definite.
Social, recreational and cultural. As surveyed by HRPI,
54 to 64 percent of the people interviewed in districts adja-
cent to the wastewater facilities (HRPI, 1976) expressed a
preference for secondary treatment as required by PL 92-500.
Alternative E would fulfill that goal, which is considered
beneficial, important, long-term, reversible, and would
definitely occur. Impacts in the regions close to the facili-
ties are discussed in respective site-specific documents,
Volume II of the EIS.
Impacts on the parks and recreational facilities close
297
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
to the West Point and Carkeek Park facilities are explained
in those respective site-specific documents. Because sec-
ondary treatment would require site expansion, this alterna-
tive would eliminate a ballfield next to Alki, increase the
potential for incompatibility with Discovery Park near West
Point, and continue plant operation at Carkeek Park.
Since only the Montlake and Third Avenue West regulator
stations and the Kenmore parallel interceptor are installed
for control of combined sewer overflows, there still may be
coliform levels exceeding health standards at swimming
beaches along Lake Washington. This is considered adverse,
major, long-term, reversible, and po-ssible if Alternative E
is implemented.
Archeological and historical. It has been determined
that any archeological sites which may have occurred at
West Point, Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach, and Alki would
have already been destroyed by former construction; there-
fore, any more construction could not destroy archeological
sites (Jerry Jermann, 1976). Of the historical sites listed
in Appendix E, none are known to be present at proposed con-
struction sites.
Health and safety. A negative impact could be associated
with coliform bacteria violations at Lake Washington public
beaches.
Another highly unlikely safety hazard is accidental leak-
age of chemicals when they are in transport, or handled on
site. Although nearly every U.S. water and wastewater treat-
ment facility uses chemicals, there have been very few chemi-
cal-related accidents.
The health and safety problems related to sludge trans-
port and disposal would be as improbable as for any other
trucks in transit.
Construction risks to safety would be the same as for
other construction of a similar nature; they would be adverse,
minor, last only for the duration of construction, may be
reversible, and are unlikely.
Aesthetics and nuisance. Introducing secondary treat-
ment at West Point, Richmond Beach, and Alki would generate
some site-specific nuisance impacts for local residents as
discussed in more detail in Volume II for various sites.
However, surveys and public workshops have generally indicated
298
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
that in the locales of these facilities "cleaning up the
environment" was considered a higher priority by more people
(60 percent) than such aesthetic issues as hiding the facility
(6 percent) (HRPI, 1976). These aesthetic and nuisance im-
pacts are rated as adverse, minor, long-term, reversible,
and definite.
Interceptor construction would be a short-term, revers-
ible, local, and probable nuisance, especially the Carkeek
Park Connection and Kenmore parallel interceptor, which go
along shoreline areas.
Secondary Impacts
The secondary or indirect impacts of the alternative
would result from expanding the Renton treatment plant and
population growth. The effects of these changes on water
quality, biology, energy, natural resources and the human
environment are described below.
Water Quality
Impacts on the Duwamish estuary and on groundwater are
described.
Duwamish estuary. Under Alternative E, Renton would be
expanded from 33 mgd to 86 mgd average daily flow, and
from 96 mgd to 223 mgd peak flow. It would be upgraded with
nitrification and filtration. At a design capacity of 86 mgd,
Renton flow would equal about 60 percent of Duwamish summer
low flows. The resulting flow augmentation could help allevi-
ate temperature problems which develop in summer, but prob-
ably will not improve oxygen levels. Nutrients levels could
be significantly affected by the increases in Renton efflu-
ent. Metals and toxicants inputs from Renton are expected
to be minor. The net adverse impact is expected to be
significant, because of the size of the discharge relative
to the Duwamish flow; long-term because the increased dis-
charge will continue through the planning period; and exten-
sive, because pollutants from the Duwamish can affect beaches
over a wide area. Impacts would be similar to those described
under Alternatives C and D.
Groundwater. Impacts of population growth would be as
described under Alternative B.
299
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
Biology
Secondary impacts on biology would be primarily on the
Duwamish estuary as a result of the expansion of Renton.
Relative to Alternative B, solids and BOD loads would de-
crease by about 66 and 34 percent respectively. Solids
loads would be as in existing -conditions, but BOD would in-
crease. In the summer especially, temperature, nitrates,
and dissolved oxygen levels in the estuary would be affected
by the Renton effluents which would comprise over half the
river's flow.
The increased freshwater flow would also change the
salinity distribution, such that summer blooms may consist
of freshwater rather than marine phytoplankton and mean
better flushing of the estuary. Nitrogen inputs would be in
the form of nitrates, which are not oxygen demanding as is
ammonia, but which could contribute to algal productivity
extremes in the estuary. The zooplankton would probably be
indirectly affected but to an undetermined degree. The
benthos would be further stressed by CSO's, low DO and nutri-
ent enriched sediments. The net effect on the benthos is
very probably major, negative and extensive in the estuary
and of long duration with continuing flows. The effect on
migratory and other fishes would also be major, adverse,
extensive and of long duration due to low DO and CSO's.
Waterfowl could leave if their prey species are adversely
affected. The effects are considered to be reversible.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy and chemical use are described below for the
Renton plant.
Energy. For Alternative E, a net equivalent of 56
million kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 at Ren-
ton, a secondary impact in this alternative. Included in
this would be 49 million kwh/year of electrical energy pur-
chased; 1 million kwh/year for sludge trucking, and 11
million equivalent kwh/year required to produce the chemicals
consumed. A net of 4 equivalent kwh/year would be produced
by the process of anaerobic digestion. The impact of the
energy consumption would be adverse, moderate in magnitude,
long-term, irreversible and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine, lime, alum, and sulfur dioxide
300
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
would be used with annual consumption rates of 1020, 7955,
1145, and 305 tons respectively. The impact of chemical
usage would be adverse, moderate, long-term, irreversible,
and definite. The supplies of chlorine and alum are reli-
able; lime is in moderate supply.
Human Environment
Secondary impacts on population and costs are summarized
below.
Population. The Secondary Alternative would probably
result in a slight facilitation of regional growth over the
long term due to the improvement or preservation of water
quality. It is concluded that such protection of water
quality will contribute to the continuation of the region's
current national image as a desirable place to live due to
the generally high quality of the natural environment. While
the specific cause-effect relationships which contribute to
such impacts are difficult if not impossible to quantify,
growth will tend to occur in the regions of higher environ-
mental quality- If regions, such as Puget Sound, which
presently have a relatively high environmental quality, main-
tain or improve these conditions, it is logical to expect that
the encouragement to economic development will be greater than
if they are allowed to deteriorate. This growth-related im-
pact can be either beneficial or adverse depending on the
characteristics of the development which occurs and the values
of the people affected.
Costs. If Alternative E is implemented, capital costs
for construction at Renton, a secondary impact, would be
$157,200,000, as indicated in Table 3-13. Renton operation
and maintenance would cost $5,370,000 per year. The effect
of this on user charge is noted in the primary impact section,
since user charges are determined on a Metro-wide basis.
Impact of cost would be adverse, moderate, long-term, irre-
versible, and definite.
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures are suggested to aid in the
reduction of adverse impacts resulting from the implementa-
tion of this alternative.
301
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative E
Pretreatment of industrial wastes could be provided
before sewage enters the West Point plants. If current
practices continue, these facilities would occasionally
receive slugs of cadmium, mercury and arsenic.
The possible silting over of salmon spawning beds during
construction of the Kenmore parallel could be mitigated in
several ways. Since chinook salmon lake spawning occurs in
autumn and intragravel egg development continues until early
March, construction could be timed so that activities are
conducted from March through August only. This could raise
construction costs. Alternatively, construction specifica-
tions, techniques and management could minimize adverse
effects. More information is needed to fully evaluate the
Kenmore parallel or other optional interceptor routes.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Under Alternative E (Secondary), the following adverse
impacts would be unavoidable:
Construction impacts
Sludge trucking
Combined sewer overflows
Land use changes
Aesthetic nuisance of plant locations
Operation and maintenance and capital costs
Energy expenditures
Chemical consumption
For greater detail regarding unavoidable impacts, the
reader is referred to the preceding impact analysis.
302
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ALTERNATIVE F
SECONDARY/SOUTHERN STRATEGY
The description of Alternative F and its projected
impacts to the year 2005 are presented in this section.
Description
Alternative F provides secondary treatment at West
Point and. Richmond Beach and a new plant in the lower
Duwamish to serve the southern West Point and Alki service
areas, thus allowing Alki to be abandoned. Effluent from
the Duwamish plant would be discharged through a new tunnel
and outfall to Puget Sound off Alki Point. Renton effluent
would be transferred from the Green/Duwamish River to the
Duwamish site for joint disposal off Alki Point. Carkeek
Park would be converted to wet weather treatment, with dry
weather flows transferred to West Point.
The major wastewater facilities proposed for Alternative
F are illustrated in Figure 3-15. Major features of the
alternative are summarized in Table 3-28, including treat-
ment plants, effluent discharges and combined sewer over-
flows, and major new transfer facilities. The construction
schedule and costs for proposed facilities are shown in
Table 3-29.
The alternative is further described below in terms of
service area, treatment plants (location, treatment process,
effluent disposal site), combined sewer overflow control and
sludge management. The indirect impacts of the facilities
proposed under this alternative on the Renton plant are also
described.
Service Area
The service areas of Alternative F would be as shown in
Figure 3-1. The Richmond Beach service area would remain as
it presently exists. The West Point service area would be
reduced substantially due to transfer of the southern portion
of the present service area to the new Duwamish plant.
Further reduction would be by transfer of the North Lake
Sammamish and eastern portion of the North Lake Washington
sewerage service subareas to Renton. The dry weather flow
from the present Carkeek Park subarea would be added to West
Point. The Duwamish plant would serve the present Alki, the
303
-------
-------
TABLE 3-28
ALTERNATIVE F - SECONDARY/SOUTHERN STRATEGY
Process
Improvements
Complete
Flow (mgd) 2005
(unless phased)
average/peak
Disposal
SUMMARY
TREATMENT PLANTS
WEST POINT ALKI DUWAMISH CARKEEK PARK RICHMOND BEACH
Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II
Secondary »rimary Abandoned Secondary Primary Primary Secondary
(Wet weather)
1985 1978 1985 1985 1981 1985 1981
97/350 10/30 0/0 45/145 3,5/20 0/20 2.5/8
Puget Puget To New Existing Puget Puget
Sound Sound Duwamish Outfall Outfall Sound Sound
Plant to Dry Weather
Puget to West
Sound Point
off
Alki Point
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (2005)
FLOW SOLIDS BOD
(Million Gallons/Yr) (Tons/Yr) (Tons/Yr)
Lake Washington 15.4 14.0 3.83
Lake Sanunamish 00 0
Portage Bay 188.8 166 40.7
Lake Union 38.9 35.3 9-68
Ship Canal 175 158 43.5
Elliott Bay 304 275 76
Alki Beach 0.15 0.14 0.04
TOTAL 973.3 875.4 235.8
TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE
FLOW SOLIDS BOD
(Million tallons/Yr) (Tons/Yr) (Tons/Yr)
West Point 40,200 2,510 2,510
Duwamish and Renton 54,300 3,400 3,400
Carkeek Park 00 0
Richmond Beach 912 57.1 57.1
TOTAL 95,412 5,967 5,967
MAJOR NEW TRANSFER FACILITIES
Location Year Completed
Carkeek-to-West Point interceptor 1985
Alki-to-Duwamish interceptor 1985
Ilanford-Lander Connection 1985
Redmond Connection stage I 1983
Redmond Connection Stage II 1990
North Creek Hollywood Connection 1990
Val Vue Connection (to Renton) 1980
RENTON*
Secondary
1995
99/259
Outfall via
Duwamish
Plant to
Puget Sound
off Alki Point
*Not included in proposed facilities plan for Puget Sound plants
305
-------
Table 3-29
Alternative F — Project Costs
and Construction Staging
Pacility Component
Treatment Plants (including outfalls)
Richmond Beach Add Secondary Treatment
Carkeek Park - Interim Improvements
Car keek Park - Abandoned
West Point Interim Improvements
West Point - Add Secondary Treatment
Alki - Interim Improvements
Alki - Abandoned 1985
Duwamish Secondary
. Duwamish Outfall
Ren ton Includes Digestion but no Further
Sludge Handling
\; Ren ton Interim Improvements
* Renton - Outfall to Duwamish Plant
Subtotal Treatment Plants
Including Outfalls
Collection System
Accommodate Plant Abandonment
Carkeek Park Connection (to North Int.,
P.S. at North Beach)
Alki Connection (to Duwamish )
Hanford-Lander Connection
Rehabilitation of Existing Collection
System ($0- 2 million Richmond Beach
System; Rest West Point and Duwamish
Systems)
" Increased Transfer Capacity Within West
Point Existing Sewered Areas
Kenmore P.S- (Permanent)
Holding Tank - Kenmore P.S.
Redmond Connection Stage 1
Redmond Connection - Stage 2
North Creek Hollywood Connection
Val Vue Connection (to Renton )
Increased Transfer Capacity and Rehabili-
tation within Existing Renton Sewered
Areas
Subtotal - Collection System Except
C30, Extensions
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Montlake Regulator Station
Third Ave. W. Regulator Station
Subtotal Hold and Transport CSO
To t a 1 Cap i t a 1 Co s t
Project Cost
$ Million
ENR-CCI 2600
6.0
0.1
4.8
81.2
0.3
115.0
33.8
0.4
46.2
38.5
48.1
374.4
7.4
4.2
2.4
18.0
2.8
5.1
17.0
3.0
8.0
7.8
27.3
103.0
o.e
0.5
1.3
478.7
mm
mm
mm
^m
mm
O
to
(T>
m
o
o
0
i
*Renton facilities are not part of the proposed facilities plan,
306
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
southern part of the Elliott Bay and southwest Lake Washing-
ton subareas for both dry weather and wet weather treatment.
The new transfer interceptors that would be needed to
facilitate the service area modifications would be the Car-
keek to West Point transfer (1985), Alki to Duwamish transfer
(1985), Hanford Lander connection (1985), Redmont connections
to Renton (1983 and 1990), North Creek-Hollywood connection
to Renton (1990) and Val Vue connection to Renton (1980).
The construction schedule for these collection system
modifications would be as in Table 3-29.
Treatment Plants
The wastewater treatment facilities under Alternative F
would be as shown in Table 3-28. Secondary treatment would
be provided at West Point, Richmond Beach and the new
Duwamish plant. Plant layouts are shown in Figure 3-16.
At West Point, flow would be reduced due to decreases
in the service area. With oxygen activated sludge, second-
ary treatment can be added to the existing plant site by
1985 with no shoreline fill required. (Optional air activ-
ated sludge, which would require more land, including fill is
not included as the proposed option in the Draft Facility
Plan and is not analyzed in the draft EIS). Secondary
effluent would be discharged through the existing outfall to
Puget Sound following dechlorination. The plant layout would
be as shown in Figure 3-16.
At Richmond Beach, the plant capacity would be as in
Alternative B, since no changes to the service area are pro-
posed. Secondary treatment by activated sludge and dechlor-
ination would be provided at the existing site by 1981 with
no shoreline fill. Effluent would be discharged to Puget
Sound by existing outfall. The plant layout would be ident-
ical to that shown in Alternative E Figure 3-14.
The new Duwamish plant, to be completed in 1985, would
provide air activated sludge secondary treatment and dechlor-
ination for 45 mgd dry weather and 145 mgd wet weather capac-
ity by 1985. Through a connection to Alki, the secondary
effluent would be discharged through a new outfall to be
constructed off Alki Point. The Renton plant effluent would
also be discharged, through a connection to the Duwamish
site, through this new outfall.
Several alternatives were considered in the facilities
307
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
METRO - WEST POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
•FILTER PRESS BLDG.
CRYOGEMC OXYGEN PLANT
-MAINTENANCE BLDG ADDITION
-WAS THICKENER
ADMINISTRATION BLDG ADDITION
SECONDARY - - OXYGEN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
METRO-HARBOR AVENUE S.W. TREATMENT PLANT
(DUWAMISH)
POWER BLDG
EFFLUENT PUMPING
REQUIRED)
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
SECONDARY - - AIR ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Figure 3-16
Alternative F West Point and Duwamish Plant Layouts
308
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
planning process for the Duwamish plant site. The proposed
site is at Harbor Avenue, S.W. as shown in Figure 3-16, but
other possibilities are still being considered. The draft
EIS will use the Harbor Avenue site as the alternative for
impact analysis.
At Alki, interim improvements would be made in 1981.
The plant would continue to provide primary treatment until
1985, when it would be abandoned. Both wet and dry weather
flow would be transferred to the new Duwamish plant for
treatment and disposal off Alki.
At Carkeek Park, interim improvements in 1981 would be
followed by conversion of the plant to primary treatment of
wet weather flows only in 1985. Dry weather flows would be
transferred to West Point by the North Beach pumping station
and new transfer interceptor for secondary treatment and dis-
charge off West Point. The plant layout would be as in
Alternative E, shown in Figure 3-14.
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
In Alternative F, combined sewer overflows would be
reduced by about 17 percent in the study area, relative to
Alternative B. Lake Washington, Portage Bay, Lake Union,
Ship Canal and Elliott Bay would have CSO flows reduced by
15 to 31 percent. CSO's at Alki would be virtually elimin-
ated. No reduction in CSO's to the Duwamish River would
occur.
The current program of maximizing available in-line
storage capacity for control of combined sewer overflows would
be continued by construction of regulator stations at
Montlake and Third Avenue West. A combination of reduced
northern service area, and increased southern service area
peak capacity at the Duwamish Plant would also reduce
current overflow levels.
(More CSO control is an option for this alternative
depending on larger sizes for treatment plants, especially
the Duwamish plant, but is not part of the proposed alter-
native in the Draft Facility Plan.)
Sludge Management
The sludge management system for Alternative F would
include sludge digestion at West Point, Richmond Beach,
309
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
Carkeek Park and Duwamish sites to handle the additional
solids loads from secondary treatment. Anaerobic digestion
would stabilize sludge, with methane used to the extent
possible at each site. Richmond Beach digested sludge
would be trucked to West Point for dewatering. Dewatered
sludge from West Point and Duwamish would be trucked to
Cedar Hills landfill and Park Forest, although other sludge
transport opportunities are available at Duwamish. Renton
sludge would be digested at Renton rather than at West Point.
Renton
Although the Renton service area and treatment plant
are not included in the proposed facilities for Alternative
F, the alternative would have indirect impacts on the Renton
plant. Because service area modifications would transfer
waste loads from new growth areas to Renton, the plant would
be expanded in two stages (1985 and 1995) to a capacity of
99 mgd average weather (259 mgd peak). Renton effluent would
be transferred to the Duwamish plant through a connection
completed in 1985, and discharged with Duwamish effluent off
Alki Point through a new outfall. Since the effluent would
not be discharged to the more sensitive Duwamish River,
treatment beyond activated sludge secondary is not included.
Dechlorination would be provided. Sludge would be processed
at Renton by anaerobic digestion, dewatered and trucked to
the Cedar Hills landfill and Park Forest.
Primary Impacts
The direct impacts from this alternative for the Puget
Sound plants are described below in terms of effects on
geology, soils and topography; air quality and odors; water
quality; biology; energy and natural resources and the human
environment. Indirect impacts from this alternative and the
effects of Renton discharge are summarized under a later
section on secondary impacts.
Geology, Soils and Topography
Since Alternative F involves expansion and construction
at several sites, a new Duwamish plant, and major tunnel and
interceptor from Alki to the new plant, impacts on slope
stability, erosion, topography and soil profile are consid-
ered. The Duwamish plant and tunnel impacts are discussed
310
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
in the Alki document. The proposed alternative would have
limited but long-term shoreline impacts and could cause
problems from disposal of construction waste. Sludge dis-
posal would be as in other secondary treatment alternatives,
with accelerated sludge deposition rates but no substantial
change in impact at the sludge disposal site, as described
in the section on sludge management.
Impacts would continue at existing sludge disposal
sites. Since the amount of sludge from secondary treatment
would be approximately twice that from primary treatment,
this alternative could reduce the 30 year useful life of. the
Cedar Hills landfill by about one year if all sludge were
disposed of there.
Air Quality and Odors
The trucking of sludge from Richmond Beach to West
Point and from West Point and Duwamish to the Cedar Hills
landfill would emit approximately 425 grams of hydrocarbons,
2645 grams of carbon monoxide, and 1930 grams of nitrogen
oxides daily. Treatment plant personnel traffic would emit
approximately 5-340 grams of hydrocarbons 67965 grams of car-
bon monoxide, and 8805 grams, of nitrogen oxides daily,. The
combined emissions from sludge trucking and personnel com-
muting would amount to less than 0.01 percent of Seattle's
total daily emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and
nitrogen oxides. The air pollutants emitted under this
alternative would have a negligible, long-term, reversible,
adverse impact on air quality in the Seattle area. Trucking
to Park Forest would generate more air pollutants, but the
overall effect on air quality would be negligible.
Upgrading the West Point and Richmond Beach plants to
secondary treatment and constructing a new secondary treat-
ment plant at Duwamish would increase the potential for odors
escaping in these areas, as described under Alternative E.
Abandoning the Carkeek Park and Alki plants would elim-
inate the likelihood for odor problems in these areas. The
decrease in CSO's to Lake Washington, Portage Bay, Lake Union,
the Ship Canal and Elliott Bay would slightly decrease the
occurrence of odors arising from CSO's in these areas. The
potential odor problems associated with this alternative
could be said to have a minor, long-term, adverse, reversible
impact on the environmental quality of the Seattle area.
Water Quality
311
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
Impacts on water quality from Alternative F would result
from secondary treatment at West Point and Richmond Beach,
control of some combined sewer overflows by increased wet
weather treatment plant capacity, construction of a new sec-
ondary treatment plant at Duwamish, abandonment of Alki and
conversion of Carkeek Park to a wet weather plant.
Lake Washington. The volume, solids and BOD of CSO's
to Lake Washington would be reduced 31 percent relative to
the baseline, Alternative B, beginning in 1982. The benefit
to water quality would be minor, due to the continued CSO
discharge of 15.4 million gallons per year carrying 14 tons
of suspended solids and 3.83 tons of BOD. Impacts would be
limited to the waters adjacent to the four Metro overflow
points to Lake Washington and of long duration because the
CSO reduction will continue through the planning period
(to 2005).
Lake Union/Ship Canal. Overflows to Lake Union and
the Ship Canal, and their loadings of solids and BOD, would
be decreased 31 percent by 2005 relative to the baseline,
Alternative B. The benefit would be minor, due to the
continued 214 million gallons per year (mgy) discharge from
CSO's carrying 193 tons of solids and 53 tons of BOD.
Impacts would extend throughout the Ship Canal and be of
long duration. For nondegradable contaminants such as
nutrients, toxicants, and heavy metals, impacts could be
irreversible.
Other freshwaters. Alternative F would directly impact
other freshwaters.
Duwamish estuary. Combined sewer overflows to the
sensitive Duwamish area would continue unabated. The impacts
from the discharge of heavy metals, pesticides, and some PCB's
into Duwamish waters would be as described for Alternative E.
Puget Sound. The discharge of Renton and Duwamish
secondary effluent through an .improved outfall off Alki would
substantially affect water quality in the Alki area. At a
flow of 54 billion gallons per year, the discharge through
the extended Alki outfall would be about 25 percent greater
than the present West Point discharge. All of the effects
currently caused by the West Point discharge could be
assumed to occur from the Alki outfall as well. The dis-
charge of suspended solids off Alki would increase almost
312
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
three times relative to the baseline alternative, and that of
BOD by almost two times. The nutrient enrichment effect ob-
served within a mile of West Point would probably occur at
Alki. Because the Duwamish and Renton service areas include
considerable industry, the heavy metals and toxicant content
of the Alki discharge would increase, irreversibly raising
the toxicant and heavy metals concentrations in sediment off
Alki. The extension of the Alki outfall and the 97 percent
control of the Alki Beach CSO's would substantially improve
the microbiological quality of Alki beaches.
With the addition of Renton flows, the total annual
Metro treated wastewater discharge to Puget Sound of approx-
imately 95 billion gallons compares with 37 billion gallons
in 1975 and 62 million gallons in 2005 under Alternative B.
However, since secondary treatment would be provided, loads
of BOD and suspended solids would be reduced by 72 and 63
percent respectively compared to Alternative B (61 and 48
percent relative to 1975 levels). Therefore, benefits to
Puget Sound for dissolved oxygen, toxicants, bacteria and
turbidity should result from Alternative F. Impacts would
be extensive and long-term.
Nutrient (nitrogen) reduction from secondary treatment
would be very minor, so nutrient contributions from Metro
facilities would still cause minor, adverse impacts at beach
and nearshore areas.
Microbiological quality would be improved to a minor
degree as in other secondary alternatives, but continued CSO's
would still produce minor, limited problems on beaches. Near
shore, no microbiological degradation is anticipated. The
adverse impacts along beaches from continued but somewhat
reduced heavy metals loadings would be minor, because metals
do not reach the beaches in high concentrations. Impacts
would be limited (because the metals are not known to spread
over a wide area), long-term (because the discharges will
continue through 2005) and irreversible (because heavy metals
do not degrade but accumulate in sediments). Heavy metals
would probably have no impact offshore.
CSO discharge to Elliott Bay would be 15 percent less
than for Alternative B, so minor improvements in water qual-
ity should result. The 97 percent reduction of combined
sewer overflows off Alki Beach would produce beneficial im-
pacts as described under Alternative C.
Groundwater. Alternative F is not expected to exert any
primary impacts on groundwater quality. The effluent from
all wastewater facilities is discharged to Puget Sound and is
313
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
incapable of infiltrating groundwater. Potential impacts at
Cedar Hills and Park Forest sludge disposal sites would be
monitored.
Flood hazard. Floods should not cause problems for any
of the treatment plants in Alternative F because all of the
sites are above 100 year flood levels.
Biology
Under Alternative F, changes in treatment plant dis-
charge and combined sewer overflows would affect biology as
described below.
Terrestrial habitats. No regional impacts are expected,
Impacts at treatment plant sites are described in Volume II
of the EIS series.
Shoreline habitats. CSO pollutants loads to Lake
Washington and to Lake Union/Ship Canal marshes would be
reduced by a small amount (8-15 percent) (Metropolitan
Engineers, 1977). The effects are not expected to change
from baseline levels.
The intertidal. The main changes on the intertidal
would result from reducing combined sewer overflows to salt-
water (15 percent at Elliott Bay and 97 percent at Alki
relative to Alternative B), instituting secondary treatment,
and establishing a major discharge from Duwamish and Renton
plants off Alki Point.
Assuming that effluents from all Puget Sound outfalls
come onshore occasionally, the major reduction in loads rel-
ative to baseline levels due to secondary treatment would be
a benefit to the intertidal. It is recognized that effluent
has been found only on one occasion at West Point, but the
same eddy patterns that develop north and south of West Point
and have been implicated in the effect appear at Alki, and
onshore water movements appear to occur during part of each
tidal cycle at Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach based on the
results of the University of Washington physical model. The
total effluent load to the intertidal is unknown.
The reduction in overflows to the intertidal is judged
to be a moderate benefit, limited in extent along the beaches,
314
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
but of long duration for solids, BOD, nutrients, metals and
toxicants.
Overall, nutrient loads (from CSO's and effluents),
which appear to have the most discernable effect on the
intertidal, would be reduced. Effects on intertidal algae
near West Point would remain at existing conditions but less
than Alternative B. Further changes in the diversity and
abundance of intertidal plants and animals would probably
continue, however, as the pattern of natural succession may
have been affected. Effluent from the new outfall at Alki
may or may not reach shore, depending on design.
Dechlorination facilities could reduce the occurrence
of chlorine residual peaks that may exceed safe levels for
marine life in receiving waters. Better disinfection and
CSO control could reduce the fecal coliform bacterial levels
in shoreline waters such that state standards for shellfish
waters might be met and potential health risks to shellfish
consumers be reduced.
At the same time, Alternative F includes a Carkeek-West
Point interceptor (along the shore of Puget Sound and cross-
ing Shilshole Bay), for which construction impacts are
expected to be major, adverse, but limited in extent and
temporary. The regional impact is judged to be minor. The
substrate would be removed and much turbidity generated,
locally destroying benthic communities and reducing light
levels.
Puget Sound. As in the intertidal, the loads of BOD,
solids, metals and toxicants would be reduced to nearshore
and offshore waters. Loads of nutrients would increase due
to the new flows through Alki.
Offshore phytoplankton would probably be affected by
the higher nutrient loads in the increased flows off Alki,
and the distribution may be altered through extension of the
outfall. The major new plume would discharge near one of the
two areas in the Central Sound where algae blooms develop.
The present increase detected in primary productivity ex-
tremes in the vicinity of West Point could very well appear
similarly near the new Alki outfall, from which effluent dis-
charge would be over 25 percent greater. The resulting
effect on the algal productivity of central Puget Sound is
considered to be a moderate, negative impact, extensive and
of long duration as flows continue, but reversible.
Coliform bacteria levels in waters could decrease,
reducing possible health risks from consuming shellfish, as a
315
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
result of improved chlorination facilities and extension of
the Alki outfall. Bacterial and virus inputs to Puget Sound
from overflows would also be decreased. Whether state fecal
coliform standards would be met cannot be determined at this
time. Improved chlorination and dechlorination could also
reduce the risk of occasional chlorine toxicity of unknown
magnitude to animals near the outfalls.
The apparent influence of the West Point and Carkeek
effluent plumes on benthic community composition would be
reduced at Carkeek after its abandonment, and probably cont-
inued at West Point with flows continuing at about present
levels. Similar effects may very well occur at Alki and
Richmond Beach, but these areas have not been sampled.
Effects of nutrients would be about the same, as these are
not removed significantly by secondary treatment. Solids
and BOD loads, however, would be substantially reduced so
the roles of these parameters in maintaining observed pat-
terns in animal distribution and abundance could also be
reduced.
The composition of fish assemblages and incidence of
tumorous flatfish near the outfalls may or may not change with
secondary treatment of effluents as the attractions for part-
icular species to the outfalls have not been identified. It
would be useful to monitor the incidence of tumorous fishes
at Alki with the installation of the new outfall and greatly
increased discharges at that point.
The Carkeek-West Point interceptor would cross Salmon
Bay, which is critical for migratory fish species of the Lake
Washington drainage basin and supports many of the marine
species found in the Seattle area. The bay is also a resting
and feeding area for migratory water birds. Alterations in
the water quality due to laying of the pipe could increase
migratory fish susceptibility to natural mortality and pred-
ation for the period of construction. Other organisms which
may be affected include geoduck beds, octopus and bottom fish
stocks. The impact is judged to be major but temporary,
highly limited and probably reversible. The effects of re-
ducing Carkeek to a wet weather facility are described in the
site document which is Volume II of this series.
Commercial and sport fisheries. Salmonid runs up the
Ship Canal and through Lake Washington would experience small
(31 percent relative to Alternative B) reductions in over-
flows, BOD and solids loads. Impacts of these and other
inputs, such as turbidity, nutrients, metals and toxicants
would be essentially as under existing conditions and sim-
ilar to effects described under Alternative A. Overflows to
316
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
the Duwamish would also continue at Alternative A and B
baseline levels. The effect of removing Renton effluent from
the Duwamish is discussed in a subsequent section on second-
ary impacts.
Herring fisheries and eelgrass beds at Alki would prob-
ably benefit from the essential elimination of overflows to
the Alki/West Seattle beaches in Alternative F and from the
extension of the Alki outfall. Juveniles and larval herring,
salmonids and bottom fish feeding inshore in areas occasion-
ally affected by effluents would probably benefit from the
decrease in toxicants and metals loadings which otherwise
could accumulate in their prey- The beneficial impact could
be minor-to-moderate, possibly somewhat limited in the cen-
tral Sound and long-term as effluent discharges continue.
The construction of the Carkeek-West Point interceptor
could disrupt fish migration and freshwater-saltwater tran-
sition areas in Shilshole Bay through excavation of the
bottom, physical obstacles, noise, turbidity and possible
resuspension of toxic elements in the sediment. The result
could be increased fish mortality and predation. The ad-
verse impact is considered to be major, but limited in extent
and of short duration.
The Duwamish estuary. Combined sewer overflows to the
Duwamish would remain as in Alternative B and existing cond-
itions, for which impacts have been described previously.
Effects from removing Renton discharge are discussed under
secondary impacts.
Freshwater environments. Alternative F provides minor
CSO control to freshwaters.
1. Lake Washington. Since CSO reduction would be minor
(31 percent less than Alternative B), moderate, limited,
negative impacts would continue along the western shore.
Minor impacts could occur in offshore waters, as overflows
tend to move along shore rather than into deeper waters
immediately. Lake shore and shallows biota would continue to
be exposed to BOD, solids, sediments, nutrients, metals,
toxicants, pesticides, oil and grease and pathogens.
2. Lake Union/Ship Canal. CSO flows and loads would
continue essentially at 1975 ("and Alternative A levels) for
which impacts have been described, and would be about 31
percent lower than Alternative B. The stress on the biota of
317
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
these waters would be essentially unchanged from present
levels, but less than in Alternative B.
3. Lake Sammamish, Sammamish River, Cedar River, Green
River, and other waters. No impacts are expected.
Rare and endangered species. No listed species are
recorded from the study area. Sensitive habitats were dis-
cussed previously.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy and chemical consumption are summarized in Table
3-30.
Energy. For Alternative F, a net of 81 million equiv-
alent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 by the
West Point, Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park and Duwamish plants.
Included would be 77 million kwh/year of electrical energy
purchased. This is equivalent to the amount of electrical
energy 3800 households would consume per year, and consti-
tutes approximately 0.38 percent of the projected electrical
energy consumption of Seattle in 2005 (Appendix E).
Table 3-30 shows the breakdown of total energy consump-
tion on a plant-by-plant basis. The greatest energy con-
sumption would in the form of electricity. Chemicals account
for about 10-20 percent of energy consumption, and sludge
trucking for less than 5 percent. In the anaerobic digestion
of sludge, there would be a net production of energy because
of methane formation.
The impact of the energy consumption would be adverse,
moderate-to-high in magnitude, long-term, irreversible and
definite.
Chemicals. Annual chlorine consumption would be 2285
tons for all facilities. In addition, West Point and Duwamish
would use lime and ferric chloride, with annual consumptions
of 3645 and 725 tons, respectively. Sulfur dioxide use for
dechlorination would require 665 tons per year.
The impact of chemical usage would be adverse, minor,
long-term, irreversible and definite. The supplies of chlor-
ine and sulfur dioxide are highly reliable. Lime and ferric
318
-------
CO
(-•
vo
TABLE 3-30
ENERGY AND CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE F
Onsite Energy
Purchased electricity
(kwh x 106/yr)
Produced by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
Consumed by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
Offsite Energy
Chemicals (kwh x I06/yr)
Sludge Trucking
(kwh x 106/yr)
TOTAL
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION:
Chemicals (tons/yr)
C12
so2
CaO
FeCl3
PLANT
Richmond
Beach
2.20
0.42
0.17
0.12
0.10
2.17
35
10
-
—
Carkeek
Park
0.46
—
_
-
0.46
-
-
-
—
West
Point
52.43
15.43
6.17
9.19
0.92
53.28
1490
450
2295
470
Alki
1.36
^
_
-
1.36
-
-
-
—
Duwamish
20.25
3.79
1.52
4.82
0.87
23.67
760
205
1350
255
Total
76.70
19 ..64
7.86
14.13
1.89
80.94
2285
665
3645
725
>
H
ft
rt-rt-
(D H-
n <
3 fl>
fl) CO
ft
n>
o
t^-
(0
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
chloride are in moderate supply.
Human Environment
Alternative F has both beneficial and adverse impacts
to the human environment.
Land use. Major land use changes would include space
for a new Duwamish facility and rights-of-way for the fol-
lowing interceptors: North Creek-Hollywood connection,
Redmond connection, Val Vue connection, Carkeek Park connec-
tion, and Alki connection to Duwamish. In addition, land
would have to be made available for the Montlake and Third
Avenue West regulator stations, and the Kenmore pumping
station and CSO holding tank. If the Carkeek Park connec-
tion, the North Creek-Hollywood connection, and the Kenmore
CSO holding tank or pumping station are within 200 feet of
the shoreline (of Puget Sound or Lake Washington), permits
would have to be obtained from the Shorelines Management
Master Program for Seattle and King County. The impact of
these land uses would be adverse, major, short-term, definite
and reversible.
Expansion at the West Point, Carkeek Park and Richmond
Beach facilities would also depend on these SMMP permits
(at Richmond Beach, the permit would be obtained from King
County). The impact of these installations on land use would
be adverse, major, long-term, irreversible (because of the
financial constraints related to moving a secondary treat-
ment facility) and definite.
In the Duwamish region, many sites have been considered.
The one evaluated in detail for Alternative F is at Harbor
Avenue S.W., an undeveloped site in an industrial area.
Since the area is on filled, former delta land, it may be in
the state-designated Duwamish flood zone, necessitating a
county permit before development.
Legal and institutional. Alternative F would fulfill
the requirements of PL 92-500 and Washington NPDES regula-
tions that secondary treatment be established. This impact
is beneficial, major, long-term, reversible, and definite.
Relationship to NPDES and EPA timing requirements for secon-
dary treatment would be as described for Alternative E.
Permits from the Shorelines Management Master Program
for Seattle would have to be obtained at any location within
320
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
the Seattle city limits where construction occurs within 200
feet of shoreline, as explained under land use considerations.
Agency goals. Alternative F, which implements second-
ary treatment, fulfills certain King County and Goals for
Seattle objectives as described under Alternative E.
It is speculative whether alternative satisfies the
PSCOG goal of "encouraging conservation efforts and maxi-
mizing utilization of utilities and services before increasing
supply," when the fully built facility at Alki is abandoned.
However, this alternative does fulfill the PSCOG goal of
"maintaining the natural beauty and liveability of the
region," at Alki, at least, by removing the facility at that
site, but not until 1985. The Alki plant is currently in
a residential district, and has been the focus of much
vocal opposition due to odors.
For the facility placed in the Duwamish region to re-
place Alki, no surveys were available for the Draft EIS of
the Duwamish residents and businessmen to determine their
response. Such a survey was recommended to more fully assess
impacts of this alternative and is now being conducted by
Metro. The potential advantage of greater compatibility of
land uses achieved by locating a wastewater treatment plant
in an industrial rather than residential area should be
compared with any potential disadvantage of losses in employ-
ment opportunities and regional tax base.
Employment. It has been estimated that the construction
involved in this alternative would require the employment of
450 workers for five years. Operation and management would
require 119 employees at the West Point, Carkeek Park, Rich-
mond Beach and Duwamish facilities.
Costs. For Alternative F, the estimated capital cost
for constructing new treatment facilities, collection systems,
effluent disposal sites, sludge handling and disposal facili-
ties (exluding Renton) would be $286,500,000 (1976 dollars),
as summarized in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977).
This is 0.30 percent of the $95.902 billion estimated by the
EPA for implementation of PL 92-500 throughout the country
(EPA, 1976). The operation and maintenance costs (excluding
Renton) would be $8,820,000 per year, as shown in Table 3-13
(Metropolitan Engineers, 1977).
The estimated Metro average monthly user charge per
equivalent connection for the next 20 years would be $6.85
per month if all future facilities to 2005 are grant
321
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
eligible, as shown in Table 3-14. User charges would be
$8.60 per month if future capacity beyond 1985 is not grant
eligible and would be $12.75 per month if no future facil-
ities are grant eligible. Since Alternative F complies with
the secondary treatment requirement of PL 92-500, which is
a condition for grant funding, it appears that the probable
user charge would be either $6.85 or $8.60 per month, an
amount $1.55 below or $0.20 above the average expected user
charge in Alternative B. Impact of cost would be adverse,
moderate, long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Social, recreational and cultural. Alternative F
would fulfill the goal of 54 to 64 percent of those inter-
viewed (HRPI, 1976) who expressed a preference for secondary
treatment as described under Alternative E.
Alki residents would not have a wastewater treatment
plant in their area after 1985, which is considered a minor
cultural advantage for them; however, the impact of a nearby
wastewater treatment plant would be transferred to the
Duwamish residents and business community-
When the Carkeek Park connection is installed, there
may be a temporary effect on accessibility to recreational
swimming. Commercial and sport fishing may improve due to
better water quality, as explained in the biological section
of this EIS. Recreational shellfishing may be less of a
health risk when there is secondary treatment and improved
chlorination of wastes before they enter Puget Sound.
Impacts on the parks or recreational facilities close
to the West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park facilities are ex-
plained in those respective site-specific documents. Since
only the Montlake and Third Avenue West regulator stations
would be installed for control of combined sewer overflows,
there still may be coliform levels exceeding health stand-
ards at swimming beaches along Lake Washington. This is
considered adverse, major, long-term, reversible, and
possible.
Archeological and historical. It has been determined
that any archeological sites which may have occurred at
West Point, Carkeek Park, and Richmond Beach would have
already been destroyed by former construction; therefore,
any more construction could not destroy archeological sites
(Jerry Jermann, 1976). Archeological sites at the Harbor
Avenue location have not been determined. None of the
historical sites listed in Appendix F are known to be present
at proposed construction sites.
322
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
Health and safety. The major negative impact would be
associated with fecal coliform violations at Lake Washington
public beaches.
Another highly unlikely safety hazard is accidental
leakage of chemicals when they are in transport, or handled
on site. Although nearly every U.S. water and wastewater
treatment facility uses chemicals, there have been very few
chemical-related accidents.
The health and safety problems related to sludge trans-
port and disposal would be as probable as for any other
trucks in transit.
Under Alternative F, oxygen activated sludge would be
installed at West Point. With this method of secondary
treatment, oxygen is mixed into the activated sludge basin
for the respiratory functions of the microorganisms which
digest sewage. If this oxygen comes in contact with hycro-
carbons (such as gasoline) in the presence of a spark, there
could be an explosion. However, this situation should never
arise. Oxygen activated sludge facilities are designed to
provide continuous monitoring of hydrocarbon concentration.
Far below dangerous hydrocarbon levels, an alarm will sound,
and oxygen would be vented to bypass the activated sludge
basin. The impact of an explosion could be adverse, major,
long-term, reversible, but would be highly unlikely. For
the oxygen activated sludge facilities used around the
country, there have not been any incidences yet of explo-
sions.
Construction risks to safety would be the same as for
other construction of a similar nature; they would be adverse,
minor, last only for the duration of construction, may be
reversible, and are unlikely.
Aesthetics and nuisance. Introducing secondary treat-
ment at West Point, Duwamish and Richmond Beach would
generate some site-specific nuisance impacts for local
residents, as discussed in more detail in Volume II for var-
ious sites. However, surveys and public workshops have
generally indicated that people in the locales of these
facilities thought "cleaning up the environment" was more
important than such aesthetic issues as hiding the facility
(5 to 8 percent) (HRPI, 1976). These aesthetic and nuisance
impacts are rated as adverse, minor, long-term, reversible,
and definite.
A local benefit would occur by abandoning the Alki
facility, which gives off odor, and can be seen from nearby
323
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
residences and streets. Data on the Duwamish site is not
available yet.
Interceptor construction would be a short-term, revers-
ible, local, and probable nuisance, especially for the
Duwamish-Alki tunnel. Blasting, often associated with tun-
neling, could disturb local residents in this highly popu-
lated district.
Secondary Impacts
The secondary or indirect impacts of the alternative
would result from expanding the Renton treatment plant and
population growth. The effects of these changes on water
quality, biology, energy, natural resources and the human
environment are described below.
Water Quality
Duwamish estuary. Diverting the Renton discharge to
Puget Sound would substantially reduce the degradation of
water quality in the Duwamish. By the year 2005, this action
would protect the Duwamish from Renton discharges planned for
other alternatives in the range of 86-99 mgd. The Duwamish
summer low flow would no longer be augmented by Renton, but
the water quality even then would probably be better with-
out the solids, BOD, nutrients, and ammonia of the Renton
effluent. The net beneficial effect of removing the Renton
effluent from the Duwamish would be major, because Renton
discharges a considerable quantity of effluent which exerts
a considerable effect on Duwamish water quality- Impacts
would be limited to the Duwamish River and estuary and long-
term because the benefits would extend through the planning
period.
Groundwater and surface waters. Impacts of population
growth (additional urban runoff to surface waters) and some
unsewered population (possible effects of septic tank leachate
on groundwater) would be as described for Alternative B.
Biology
With removal of Renton discharge to the Duwamish, the
river flow would be lower in summer, but the oxygen demand
324
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
and high nutrients levels in Renton's effluent would no
longer be acting on the biotic communities; therefore, the
maximum size of algae blooms could decrease somewhat. Be-
cause the Duwamish is an important estuarial zone for
migrating fish, an improvement in water quality could decrease
fish mortality, although temperature would continue to be a
problem in summer. The overall impact is judged to be a
moderate-to-major, long-term benefit to the biota of the
estuary, although overflows would continue at baseline levels.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy. For Alternative F, a net of 53 million equiv-
alent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 at Renton.
Included in this would be 56 million kwh/year of electrical
energy purchased; and 5 million equivalent kwh/year required
to produce the chemicals consumed. There would be no sludge
trucking. A net of 7 equivalent kwh/year would be produced
by the process of anaerobic digestion. The impact of the
energy consumption would be adverse, moderate in magnitude,
long-term, irreversible and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine and sulfur dioxide would be the
only chemicals used, at annual rates of 1160 and 350 tons,
respectively. The impact of chemical usage would be adverse,
moderate, long-term, irreversible and definite. The supplies
of chlorine and sulfur dioxide are reliable.
Human Environment
Land use, population and employment. Impacts on region-
al population growth would be as described under Alternative
E and in the separate growth section.
One of the most important secondary impacts of Altern-
ative F concerns commercial fisheries. Improvements in water
quality and biologic conditions would result in benefits to
the fisheries affected. Although the benefits to Puget Sound
from secondary treatment may be difficult to measure and the
benefits attributable to improved wet weather management
would be intermittent, the improvements would be expected.
Operation and management employment at Renton would
include 72 people, plus other Metro related staff. Construc*-
tion would involve approximately 350 employees for 5 years.
325
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
Costs. If Alternative F is implemented, capital costs
for construction at Renton would be $191,500,000, as indicated
in Table 3-13. Renton operation and maintenance would cost
$4,380,000 per year. The effect on user charges is noted
in the primary impact section, since user charges are deter-
mined on a Metro-wide basis. Impact of cost would be adverse,
moderate, long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Social, recreational and cultural. Some minor benefits
to swimming and boating would result from limited CSO control
to Lake Washington, Lake Union and the Ship Canal.
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures are suggested to aid in the
reduction of adverse impacts resulting from the implement-
ation of this alternative.
A preconstruction monitoring/evaluation study should be
undertaken at Alki to determine possible effects of Altern-
ative F on the biota in the area. Under Alternative F, the
Alki outfall would be expanded to discharge flows from
Duwamish and Renton, which would be 25 percent larger than
the West Point flow under Alternative F. Little information
is available concerning the marine and benthic organisms,
water quality, or current patterns in this region.
Pretreatment of industrial wastes could be provided
before sewage enters the West Point plants. If current prac-
tices continue, influent to these facilities would occas-
ionally contain slugs of cadmium, mercury and arsenic.
Socioeconomic studies are being conducted in the Duwamish
area to determine reaction to the Harbor Avenue or optional
sites.
Visual nuisance of the wastewater treatment facilities
can be mitigated by (1) designing new facilities and addi-
tions to existing facilities utilizing natural geographical
conditions (e.g., bluffs) and (2) landscaping the facilities.
Odor of the wastewater treatment facilities can be mit-
igated, in part, by not allowing the system to become anaero-
bic. Under anaerobic conditions, noxious gases such as meth-
ane and sulfur dioxide are emitted. Interim odor control
measures for Alki are being evaluated by Metro.
The energy impact can be in part defrayed by utilizing
326
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative F
more of the methane gas which is produced by anaerobic diges-
tion. Nearly half of this methane gas is flared off under
current practices. However, it should be determined whether
methane storage and transport would be cost-effective.
The high coliform levels at public beaches could be
reduced by using the CATAD (Computer Augmented Treatment and
Disposal) system to plan the discharge of CSO overflows at
sites remote from the public beaches as a first preference.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Under Alternative F - Secondary/Southern Strategy, the
following adverse impacts would be unavoidable:
• Construction impacts
• Sludge trucking
• Combined sewer overflows
• Land use changes
• Aesthetic nuisance of plant location
• Operating and maintenance (0 & M) and capital costs
• Energy consumption
For greater detail regarding unavoidable impacts, the
reader is referred to the preceding impact analysis.
327
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ALTERNATIVE G
SECONDARY/WEST POINT PHASEOUT OPTION
The description of Alternative G and its projected im-
pacts to the year 2005 are presented in this section.
Description
Alternative G would provide a new secondary treatment
plant in the Interbay area. Several sites were evaluated
in the Draft Facility Plan, including the Golf Park (Garbage
Dump) and Commodore Way sites. After incorporating public
input and site considerations, the Golf Park site was chosen
for the Interbay area treatment plant in the Draft Facility
Plan. However, since there has been so much public reaction
to the optional Commodore Way site, the impacts of locating a
plant there are also evaluated in this EIS.
With the Interbay plant, it may be possible to phase out
the West Point plant in the future if service area flows are
reduced greatly. In the interim, West Point would function
as a wet weather primary treatment plant. Dry weather flows
from Carkeek Park would be transferred to Interbay. Alki and
Richmond Beach would be upgraded to secondary treatment.
The major wastewater facilities proposed for Alternative
G are illustrated in Figure 3-17. Major features of the
alternative are summarized in Table 3-31, including treat-
ment plants, combined sewer overflows, and major new trans-
fer facilities. The construction schedule and costs for
proposed facilities are shown in Table 3-32.
The alternative is further described below in terms of
service area, treatment plants (location, treatment process,
effluent disposal site), combined sewer overflow control,
and sludge management. The indirect impacts of the facili-
ties proposed under this alternative on the Renton plant are
also described.
Service Area
The service areas of Alternative G would be as shown
in Figure 3-1. Major changes included are described below.
The Interbay service area would remain the same as for
West Point in Alternatives B and E. North Lake Sammamish
would be transferred to Renton via the Redmond connection.
328
-------
Rgura3-17
Facility Plan Allfrnaii,* G - -
Secondary/We*! Point Ptiaieoui
-------
TABLE 3-31
ALTERNATIVE G - SECONDARY/WEST POINT PHASEOUT OPTION
SUMMARY
WEST POINT
Primary
Improvement 1979 1985
Complete
Flow (mgd) 2005 99/350 0/350
{unless phased)
average/peak
Disposal Puget Puget
Sound Sound
10/30
Puget
Sound
TREATMENT PLANTS
CARKEEK PARK
Phase I Phase II
Primary Abandoned
1985 1995**
0/20
Puget Sound
(Dry Weather
to Interbay)
0/0
To Interbay
RICHMOND BEACH
Secondary
Secondary
Puget
Secondary +
Nitrification
and Filtration
145.5/200
West Point Outfall
{Dry Weather);
New Elliott
Bay Outfall
(Wet Weather)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (2005)
Lake Washington
Lake Sammamish
Portage Bay
Lake Union
Ship Canal
Elliott Bay
Alki Beach
Duwamish/Green R
TOTAL
West Point
Alki Beach
Carkeek Park
Richmond Beach
Renton
TOTAL
FLOW
(Million Gallons/Yr)
23.u
0
232
58.1
261
358
5.46
251
SOLIDS
(Tons/Yr)
0
247
52.7
236
325
4.95
227
TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE
FLOW
(Million Gallons/Yr)
57,700
3,650
0
912
31,350
SOLIDS
(Tons/Yr)
3,890
228
0
57.1
663
93,612 1,839
MAJOR NEW TRANSFER FACILITIES
Location
Carkeek-to-Interbay Connection
West Point-to-Interbay Connection
Second Kenmore Interceptor
Val Vue Transfer (from Renton)
Redmond Connection (to Renton) - Main Project
BOD
(Tons/Yr)
5.72
0
60.8
14.4
64.9
89
1.36
62
Year Completed
1995
1985
1963
1980
1988
Redmond Connection (to Renton) - Additional Capacity 1995
*Not included in proposed facilities plan for Puget Sound plants
**Dependent upon City of Seattle sewer separation program
330
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
Table 3-32
Alternative G — Project Costs
and Construction Staging
Facility Component
Treatment Plants
Richmond Beach Secondary
Carkeek Park - Interim Improvements
Carkeek Park Abandon
West Point - Interim Improvements
West Point - Conversion to Wet Weather
Plant
Interbay - Early Construction
Interbay - Main Construction
Interbay Outfall to Elliott Bay
Alki - Interim Improvements
j^Alki - Secondary Treatment
JL Ren ton - Interim Improvements
^Renton - Enlargement II and Upgrading
Renton - Enlargement III
Subtotal - Treatment Plants
Collection System
Accommodate Carkeek Abandonment
North Interceptor Reconnections
(Accommodate Interbay Plant)
Rehabilitation of Existing Collection
System
"Increased Transfer Capacity Within
Interbay Existing Sewered Area
Second Kenmore Interceptor
Kenmore P. S. (Permanent)
Val Vue Transfer (from Renton)
Redmond Connection (to Renton) -Main
Project
Redmond Connection (to Renton )-
Additional Capacity
Increased Transfer Capacity and Rehabili-
tation within Renton Existing Sewered
Area
Subtotal - Collection Except CSO
Extensions
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Montlake Regulator Station
Third Avenue West Regulator Station
Subtotal, Hold and Transport CSO
Total Capital Cost
.Project Cost
5 Million
ENR-CCI 2600
6.0
0.1
4.8
0.2
.4.5
230.6
15.4
0.3
26.2
0.4
65.5
46.0
400.0
7.4
14.0
18.0
22.2
8.5
5.5
14.0
1.0
27.2
117.8
0.8
0.5
1.3
519.1
wm
MB
Mi
MB
Mi
MB
MB
F-
^m
^m
BBl
o
03
01
(O
a\
O
en
m
o
o
o
(VI
m
0
O
CM
*Renton facilities are not part of the proposed facilities
plan.
331
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
Val Vue would be transferred to Interbay. To serve increased
North Lake Washington flows would require construction of the
Kenmore parallel interceptor. (Although transfer options
other than the Kenmore parallel are possible, it is included
in the Draft Facility Plan and EIS as the proposed action.)
The new transfer interceptors that would be needed to
facilitate the new service area modifications would be the
North interceptor reconnection to Interbay (1985) , the Carkeek
to Interbay connection (1985), West Point to Interbay connec-
tion (1985), Val Vue transfer from Renton to Interbay (1980),
Redmond connections to Renton (1988, 1995) and the Kenmore
parallel (1983). Construction schedule for these collection
systems modifications would be as in Table 3-32.
Treatment Plants
The wastewater treatment facilities under Alternative G
would be as shown in Table 3-31.
The proposed facility in the Interbay area would be at
the Golf Park site (also known as the Garbage Dump site),
as shown in Figure 3-18. Air activated sludge would be pro-
vided by 1985, requiring 32.6 acres to treat 145 mgd average
weather and 200 mgd peak flows forecast for 2005. Treated
wastewater would be discharged through the existing West
Point outfall during dry weather. The wet weather flows
from Interbay would be discharged through a new Interbay
outfall to Elliott Bay. The Elliott Bay outfall would be 1200
feet long, discharging at a 50 foot depth west of Terminal
91. According to the facility planning engineers, diffusers
on the outfall and its depth would produce a 100:1 dilution
of wastewater. Independent preliminary calculations
indicate the projected dilution may be optimistic. (The
optional Interbay site would be at Commodore Way as shown
by the plant layout in Figure 3-18. Although not part of
the Facility Plan proposal under Alternative G, this option is
considered in the Draft EIS because of the public interest
that has surrounded it. Secondary treatment by air activated
sludge would be provided. In dry weather, effluent would be
discharged to Puget Sound via the existing West Point outfall;
in wet weather, it would be discharged through the new Inter-
bay outfall to Elliott Bay.)
(As an option, secondary effluent from the Interbay area
plant could be used for lockage flushing water in the Ship
Canal during the summer, but this is not part of the proposed
alternative.)
West Point would function as a primary plant only during
332
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
METRO-COMMODORE WAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (INTERBAY
SECONDARY--AIR ACTIVATED SLUDGE
METRO-GOLF PARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT (INTERBAY)
rfi!«BS.gP
\ r-SECONDARY
YY""'™
>CT CHANNEL I 3
SECONDARY - - Al R ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Figure 3-18
Interbay Layouts
Comprehensive Plan
Service Area
333
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
wet weather, beginning in 1985. Effluent would be discharged
through the existing outfall. The plant layout would be as in
Alternative B, since no structural modifications would be made
in the conversion to a wet weather plant. (Chlorine contact
and dechlorination facilities would be options, not included
in the proposed alternative.)
Secondary treatment by air activated sludge would be pro-
vided at Richmond Beach by 1981 and at Alki by 1983. The
capacities for each plant and layouts would be as shown under
Alternative E (Figure 3-14). Discharge of 10 mgd average; 30
mgd peak flow at Alki would be through the existing outfall.
Similarly, at Richmond Beach, the 2.5 mgd average, 8.0 mgd
peak flow would be discharged to Puget Sound through the exist-
ing outfall. Present plant boundaries would be sufficient for
secondary treatment at Richmond Beach, but not at Alki, where
expansion into the ballfield area would be necessary.
Effluents from West Point, Alki, Richmond Beach, and
Interbay would be chlorinated and dechlorinated prior to dis-
charge .
At Carkeek Park, the existing plant would be converted to
wet weather flow only, with primary treatment beginning in
1985. Dry weather flow would be transferred to the Interbay
plant for secondary treatment and discharge to Puget Sound
through the West Point outfall. It could be phased out and
abandoned in 1995, depending on the City of Seattle sewer
separation program.
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
In Alternative G, combined sewer overflows would be in-
creased slightly relative to Alternative B, since the flows
from the North Lake Washington sewerage service subarea, ex-
pected to increase with growth there, would go to Interbay.
Approximately 3 percent increase in flows to Lake Washington,
Portage Bay, Lake Union and the Ship Canal would result.
The current program for maximizing existing in-line stor-
age capacity for control of combined sewer overflows would
be continued with construction of regulator stations at
Montlake and Third Avenue West.
Sludge Management
The sludge management system for Alternative G would use
334
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
anaerobic sludge digestion at Interbay, Richmond Beach and
Alki. Additional capacity would be required at Richmond
Beach and Alki to handle the larger amounts of solids from
secondary treatment. At West Point, digesters would be used
for sludge storage during storms; afterwards, sludge would
be pumped to Interbay for treatment. Renton sludge would be
processed at Renton. Richmond Beach digested sludge would be
trucked to West Point for dewatering. Dewatered sludge from
Interbay and Alki would be trucked to Cedar Hills landfill
and Pack Forest.
Renton
Although the Renton service area and treatment plant are
not included in the proposed facilities for Alternative G,
the alternative would have indirect impacts on the Renton
plant. Based on an increased service area transferred from
Interbay to Renton and additional growth in the present Ren-
ton service area, the plant would be expanded in two stages
(1985 and 1995) to 86 mgd dry weather, 223 mgd wet weather
capacity. Upgrading beyond secondary to nitrification and
filtration would be provided since the plant would continue
to discharge to the Duwamish River. Sludge would be digested
anaerobically at Renton, dewatered, and trucked to the Cedar
Hills landfill and Pack Forest.
Primary Impacts
The direct impacts from this alternative for the Puget
Sound plants are described below in terms of effects on
geology, soils and topography; air quality and odors; water
quality; biology; energy and natural resources and the human
environment. Indirect impacts from this alternative and the
effects of Renton discharge are summarized under a later
section on secondary impacts.
Geology, Soils and Topography
Site-specific impacts of treatment plant construction
and upgrading on slopes, stability, erosion, and deposition
are discussed in Volume II of the EIS series, but negligible
on the regional level.
Alternatives G also includes the construction of the
Kenmore parallel interceptor which may run along the northwest
335
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
shore of Lake Washington. Impacts such as accelerated erosion
and deposition potential, alteration of benthic sediments and
seismic risk would be as described under Alternative B.
Impacts would be monitored at sludge disposal sites at
Cedar Hills landfill and Pack Forest. With the larger
volumes of sludge from secondary treatment and higher waste-
water flows, the projected 30 year useful life of the land-
fill could be shortened by one year if all Metro sludge were
disposed of at Cedar Hills.
Construction waste disposal may cause limited but long-
term effects on the site chosen. The impact is set by judg-
ment as no sites have been identified and the magnitude of
the impact is a function of site. It is expected to be minor,
however.
Air Quality and Odors
Trucking sludge from Richmond Beach to Interbay and from
Interbay, Alki, and Renton to the Cedar Hills landfill would
emit approximately 440 grams of hydrocarbons, 2740 grams of
carbon monoxide and 1995 grams of nitrogen oxides per day.
Personnel traffic would generate approximately 6080 grams
of hydrocarbons, 77340 grams of carbon monoxide, and 10020
grams of nitrogen oxides per day. The combined emissions
would amount to less than 0.01 percent of Seattle's total
daily emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitro-
gen oxides. Implementation of Alternative G would have a
negligible, long-term, adverse, and reversible impact on air
quality in the Seattle area. For sludge trucking to Pack
Forest, air pollutant emissions would be higher due to the
longer travel distances, but the overall impact on regional
air quality would be negligible.
Upgrading Alki and Richmond Beach plants to secondary
treatment and constructing a new secondary treatment plant
in Interbay will increase the potential for odors escaping
in these areas. Because secondary treatment plants are
larger and more complex than primary plants, expose more
water surface area to the air and subject the water to more
perturbation, there is a greater likelihood for odors being
released into the surrounding neighborhood from secondary
treatment plants. Various practical measures can be employed,
however, to control treatment plant odors and are discusssed
in the section on mitigation measures. At Alki, odor control
measures are being evaluated now by Metro. Site-specific
EIS documents contain more detail on odors.
336
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
Limiting West Point to a wet weather plant only would
reduce the possibility of odors there during the dry season.
The samll increase in CSO's at Lake Washington, Lake Union,
and the Ship Canal will increase slightly the occurrence of
CSO-derived odors in these areas. CSO's and their associated
odors will decrease in Portage Bay. The potential odor prob-
lems associated with this alternative could be said to have a
minor, long-term, reversible, adverse impact on the environ-
mental quality of the Seattle area.
Water Quality
Upgrading the Alki and Richmond Beach plants to secondary
treatment, providing a new secondary treatment plant at the
Golf Park site in Interbay and restricting the West Point
and Carkeek Park plants to treating storm flows only would
have mixed impacts on water quality.
Lake Washington. Under Alternative G, the yearly volume
of CSO's to Lake Washington would be about 3 percent greater
than under Alternative B. The adverse effects on lake water
quality from these increases would be minor, because the in-
creases are relatively small, but long-term, because the dis-
charges would continue through the planning period. Except
for the accumulation of nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides,
and PCB's added to the lake by CSO's, the water quality im-
pacts are reversible.
Installation of the Kenmore interceptor along the shore-
line of Lake Washington would produce impacts on water quality
from sediment disturbance as described under Alternative B.
Lake Union/Ship Canal. In Alternative G, the yearly
volume of CSO's to the Lake Union/Ship Canal would be 3 per-
cent greater than under Alternative B. Therefore, impacts
would be essentially the same as described for Alternative B.
Secondary effluent from the proposed Interbay (Golf Park)
treatment plant might be discharged into the Ship Canal for
lockage in the summer months. Because the Ship Canal is al-
ready subject to occasional to frequent occurrences of viola-
tions of state standards for coliforms and dissolved oxygen
and to algal blooms (especially in summer) the discharge of up
to 145 mgd of secondary effluent would cause major, adverse
impacts on water quality. The secondary effluent would be
higher in nutrients, temperature and BOD, and lower in DO
than the receiving waters, and would be disinfected. These
337
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
factors could directly or indirectly aggravate the existing
water quality stress on migrating fish. The effect is con-
sidered to be long-term (because discharges would continue
through the planning period) and reversible (unless fish
populations are seriously affected by summer discharges over
a number of years).
If the effluent from the Interbay plant is discharged to
Puget Sound through the West Point outfall, the effect on the
Ship Canal of a 3 percent increase in CSO's would be minor
(because the increase is not great) and long-term (because
the increased discharges would continue through the planning
period). Except for the increased accumulation of PCB's,
pesticides, and heavy metals, impacts would be reversible.
Other freshwaters. Alternative G would not directly
affect other freshwaters such as Lake Sammamish, Green River,
Cedar River or Sammamish River.
Duwamish estuary. Combined sewer overflows would be the
same as under Alternative B, for which impacts have been des-
cribed. In 2005, CSO flows, solids and BOD would represent
0.8, 34, and 5 percent respectively of the Renton treatment
plant discharge on an annual basis.
Puget Sound. Alternative G would discharge treated
effluent flows and pollutant loads to Puget Sound through
West Point, Alki and Richmond Beach outfalls in amounts
essentially identical to Alternative E. Thus, even though
Alternative G would contain an Interbay rather than West
Point plant for dry weather treatment, the fact that efflu-
ent would be discharged through the West Point outfall in
dry weather would produce regional water quality impacts on
Puget Sound that would be essentially identical to those
described under Alternative E.
Since combined sewer overflows to Elliott Bay and Alki
Beach would remain as in Alternative B, impacts of CSO's would
be as described for Alternative B.
The discharge of up to 200 mgd secondary effluent from the
Interbay plant to Elliott Bay through a new outfall could
affect water quality in the vicinity of the outfall. However,
since information on discharge frequency, volume or quality is
not yet available, water quality impacts cannot be evaluated
fully- Preliminary calculations indicate diluted wastewater
could surface, producing a visible boil. Localized increases
in dissolved oxygen could occur.
338
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
Groundwater. Treatment plant discharges to Puget Sound
would not affect groundwater. Impacts of sludge disposal on
groundwater near the Cedar Hills and Pack Forest sites would
be monitored.
Flood hazard. No flood hazards are expected for Alterna-
tive G, as all sites are above 100 year flood levels.
Biology
Several elements of Alternative G including treatment
plant discharge and combined sewer overflows could affect the
biology of the study area.
Terrestrial habitats. The possibility of eventual phase-
out of the West Point treatment facility would allow the pre-
sent site to return to more natural conditions suitable for
wildlife and vegetation. This minor benefit is discussed in
the West Point site analysis, Volume II of this EIS series.
Other direct impacts on regional terrestrial habitats are
judged to be negligible.
Shoreline habitats. Effects of combined sewer overflows
to marshes in Lake Washington and the Ship Canal would be
essentially the same as for Alternative B. Similarly, impacts
from the Kenmore parallel interceptor construction on Lake
Washington salmon spawning areas would be as described in
Alternative B.
The intertidal. Combined sewer overflows at Alki Beach
and to Elliott Bay would affect intertidal biota through
nutrient, toxicant and microbiological inputs to the same
degreee as described under Alternative B. Impacts for treat-
ment plant discharges would include diluted effluent adding
nutrients and toxicants to beaches that contain algae, shell-
fish and eelgrass beds, as described under Alternative E.
Puget Sound. Impacts on phytoplankton, algal production,
abundance and distribution of benthic organisms, and fish
from treated wastewater discharge would be as described under
Alternative E.
Combined sewer overflow discharges and impacts would be
as discussed for Alternative B, except for the addition of wet
weather treated wastewater discharge from Interbay to Elliott
339
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
Bay. Biological impacts are uncertain due to limited data,
but fish in the vicinity could be subjected to additional
stress from changes in water quality.
Commercial and sport fisheries. Since secondary efflu-
ent could be discharged to Ship Canal for lockage in summer
from the Interbay plant, the added nutrients and BOD would
probably have major adverse effects on already stressed migra-
tory (and other) fish species. Discharge to Shilshole Bay
would not be a great improvement, as that water is not well
mixed. Effects of combined sewer overflows would be as des-
cribed for Alternative B. The effects of the expansion of the
Renton facility are discussed in a subsequent section on sec-
ondary impacts.
Secondary effluent discharge to Puget Sound, which will
affect nearshore commercial and sport fish at some stage in
their lives, would be beneficial relative to primary treat-
ment in having better disinfection and lower concentrations
of metals, toxicants and pathogens. This effect is judged to
be minor-to-moderate, somewhat limited in extent in the
central Sound, and long-term.
The Duwamish estuary. Since overflows to the Duwamish
would continue at baseline levels, biological impacts would
be as described under Alternative B.
Freshwater environments. The impacts on these waters as
in previous alternatives are primarily a function of overflow
control.
1. Lake Washington. Organisms would continue to be
affected by baseline levels of oil, grease, nutrients, patho-
gens, solids, metals and toxicants along the western lake
shore, as described under Alternative B.
The construction activities of the Kenmore parallel inter-
ceptor could create turbidity, destroy habitat and frighten
away fish, birds, mammals and other vertebrates. Salmon spawn-
ing areas could be silted over. The impact is considered to
be major but temporary and limited in effect, as described
under Alternative B.
2. Lake Union/Ship Canal. CSO's would not be reduced,
and up to 145 mgd of secondary effluent could be discharged to
this water in summer for locakage. The overall effect would
340
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
adverse, major, extensive and long-term, as the effluent would
probably contain toxicants, low levels of DO and substantial
nutrient loads. The existing stress on biota would probably
be significantly aggravated and increased fish mortality could
result.
3. Sammamish River, Cedar River, Green River, Lake
Sammamish, and other waters. No direct impacts are expected
to these waters under Alternative G.
Rare and endangered species. No impacts are expected as
no listed species are recorded from the study area. Sensitive
habitats have been discussed previously.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy. For Alternative G, a net of 85 million equiva-
lent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 by the
Interbay, West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach
plants. Included would be 84 million kwh/year of electri-
cal energy purchased. This is equivalent to the amount of
electrical energy 4200 households would consume per year, and
constitutes approximately 0.42 percent of the projected elec-
trical energy consumption of Seattle in 2005 (Appendix E).
Table 3-33 shows the breakdown of total energy consump-
tion on a plant-by-plant basis. The greatest energy consump-
tion would be in the form of electricity. Chemicals account
for about 5-25 percent of energy consumption, and sludge
trucking for about 5-25 percent. In the anaerobic digestion
of sludge, there is a net production of energy because of
methane formation.
The impact of the energy consumption would be adverse,
moderate-to-high in magnitude, long-term, irreversible, and
definite.
Chemicals. Regional chemical consumption at treatment
plants would include 2210 tons of chlorine, 710 tons of sul-
fur dioxide, 2975 tons of lime (CaO), 560 tons of ferric
chloride (Fed.,) , 35 tons of alum, and 6 tons of polymer per
year. Table 3-33 shows a breakdown by plant of chemical re-
quirements.
The impact of chemical usage would be adverse, minor,
long-term, irreversible and definite. The supplies of
-------
TABLE 3-33
ENERGY AND CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE G
U)
£*•
NJ
Dnsite Energy
Purchased electricity
(kwh x I06/yr)
Produced by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
Consumed by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
pffsite Energy
| Chemicals (kwh x 106/yr)
Sludge Trucking
(kwh x 106/yr)
TOTAL
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION:
Chemicals (tons/yr)
Cl2
SO 2
CaO
FeCl3
Alum
Polymer
Richmond
Beach
2.20
0.42
0.17
0.12
0.10
2.17
35
10
-
:
L _JL_.
P L
Carkeek ;
Park
0.57
—
0.57
-
-
:
—
ANT
West
Point
0.37
0.32
0.13
0.14
0.18
0.50
30
10
-
35
1.0
Alki
6.07
1.28
0.51
0.59
0.03
5.92
145
45
-
-5
Interbay
74.84
20.00
8.00
12.04
1.19
|
76.07
2000
645
'! 2975
| 560
j;
a~-~,.
Total
84.05
22.02
8.81
12.89 j
" 1
85.23 1
j
2210
710 j
2975 |
560
35 !
6 |
rt
(D
H
> 3
H jij
rt rt
(D H-
n <
3 fD
flj cn
rt
H. pj
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
chlorine, sulfur dioxide, alum, and polymer are highly reli-
able. Lime and ferric chloride are in moderate supply.
Human Environment
Several impacts on the human environment would result
from constructing and operating the Interbay plant.
Land use. Major land uses changes would include space
for a new Interbay facility arid rights-of-way for the follow-
ing interceptors: West Point sludge connection, North inter-
ceptor connection, Interbay wet weather outfall, Redmond
connection, Val Vue connection, and Carkeek Park connection.
In addition, land would have to be made available for the
Montlake and Third Avenue West regulator stations, and the
Kenmore pumping station. Carkeek Park connection, the Ken-
more interceptor, the North interceptor connection, and the
Interbay wet weather outfall would require permits from the
Shorelines Management Master Program for Seattle and King
County. Except at the Interbay site, the land uses impacts
would be adverse, major, and short-term because the impact
only occurs during construction. Effects would be reversible
and definite.
Expansion at Alki and Richmond Beach facilities would
also depend on these SMMP permits (at Richmond Beach, the
permit would be obtained from King County). The impact of
these installations on land use would be adverse, major,
long-term, irreversible and would definitely occur if Alterna-
tive G is implemented in its present form.
In the Interbay area, use of the Golf Park site would
eliminate recreational use of this land. (If the optional
Commodore Way site were used, a distinct business district
predominately related to the sea-food industry would be dis-
placed. )
Legal and institutional. Alternative G would fulfill
the requirements of PL 92-500 and Washington NPDES regulations
that secondary treatment be established. Impacts would be
as described under Alternative E. Permits from the Shore-
lines Management Master Program for Seattle would have to be
obtained at any location within the Seattle city limits where
construction occurs within 200 feet of shoreline as explained
under land use considerations.
343
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
Agency goals. Alternative G, which implements secondary
treatment, fulfills the King County comprehensive plans of
"taking all possible steps to abate pollution" and "installing
utility lines in advance of the time of development." Alter-
native G fulfills in part the objectives mentioned in Goals
of Seattle to "undertake all means reasonable and feasible
to ensure water purity to meet health standards and protect
the environment. . . to meet the goals of PL 92-500, . . .
and to ensure clean water to protect wildlife, vegetation,
and recreation areas."
This alternative does not satisfy the goal of PSCOG of
"encouraging conservation efforts and maximizing utilization
of utilities and services before increasing supply," when
the fully built facility at West Point is not used to full
potential. However, this alternative does make efforts to
fulfill the PSCOG goal of "maintaining the natural beauty
and liveability of the region," at West Point and Carkeek
Park at least, by not expanding the facilities at these sites.
However, it does not fulfill the PSCOG goals of making "exist-
ing public utilities, facilties and services be used to their
fullest prior to expansion," since the Interbay plant would
duplicate some of the same functions existing at West Point,
nor does it "consider employment distribution," if the Commo-
dore Way site is chosen (such an action would displace 700 to
800 jobs). Further, if the Commodore Way site is chosen, by
displacing as many as 60 businesses, it would thwart the
following objectives stated in Goals for Seattle: "Encourage
industries that more fully utilize Seattle's resources . . .
Help small local firms expand . . . promote individualism in-
herent in entrepreneurship . . . Ensure adequate considera-
tion of the particular economic interests of Seattle citizens
in relation to their local region." This is considered ad-
verse, major, long-term, reversible and definite.
Employment. It has been estimated that the construction
involved in this alternative would require the employment of
about 650 workers for 5 years. Operation and management would
require 148 employees at the West Point, Carkeek Park, Alki,
Richmond Beach, and Interbay facilities. However, if the
Commodore Way site is used, it would displace 700 to 800 jobs.
Costs. The estimated capital cost for constructing new
treatment facilities, collection systems, effluent disposal
sites, sludge handling and disposal facilities (excluding
Renton) would be $361,800,000 (1976 dollars), as summarized
in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977). This is
0.30 percent of the $95.905 billion estimated by the EPA
for implementation of PL 92-500 throughout the country
(EPA, 1976). The operation and maintenance costs (excluding
344
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
Renton) would be $9,300,000 per year, as shown in Table 3-13
(Metropolitan Engineers, 1977).
The estimated average Metro monthly user charge per
equivalent connection for the next 20 years would be $7.45
as shown in Table 3-14. User charges would be $8.75 per
month if future capacity beyond 1985 is not grant eligible
and would be $15.20 per month if no future facilities are
grant eligible. Since Alternative G complies with the sec-
ondary treatment requirement of PL 92-500, which is a con-
dition for grant funding, it appears that the probable user
charge would be either $7.45 or $8.75 per month, an amount
$0.95 below or $0.35 above the average expected user charge
in Alternative B. Impact of cost would be adverse, moderate,
long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Social, recreational and cultural. As surveyed by HRPI
54 to 64 percent of the people interviewed in districts
adjacent to the wastewater facilities (HRPI, 1976) expressed
a preference for secondary treatment as required by PL 92-500.
Alternative G would fulfill that requirement, which is con-
sidered beneficial, important, long-term, irreversible, and
definite.
With the Golf Park site used for the Interbay plant,
there would be a loss of golf course, which is hard to replace
in a metropolitan area. If the optional Commodore Way site
were chosen it would disrupt the seafood processing community.
This will be discussed in more detail in the West Point docu-
ment.
Further, local residents would consider it a social hard-
ship to have both the West Point and Interbay sewage treat-
ment plants in their neighborhood. These impacts are con-
sidered adverse, major, long-term, irreversible, and definite.
Since only the Montlake and Third Avenue west regulator
stations and Kenmore parallel would be installed for control
of combined sewer overflows, there still may be coliform
levels exceeding health standards at swimming beaches along
Lake Washington. This is considered adverse, major, long-
term, reversible, and possible.
Archeological and historical. It has been determined
that any archeological sites which may have occurred at Alki
and Richmond Beach would have already been destroyed by
former construction, and that, therefore, any more construc-
tion could not destroy archeological sites (Jerrry Jermann,
1976). Archeological sites in the Interbay region have not
345
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
been determined. Of the historical sites listed in Appendix
F_, none are known to be present at proposed construction
sites.
Health and safety. A negative impact would be associ-
ated with fecal coliform violations at Lake Washington public
beaches.
Another highly unlikely safety hazard is accidental
leakage of chemicals when they are in transport, or handled
on site. Although nearly every U.S. water and wastewater
treatment facility uses chemicals, there have been very few
chemical-related accidents.
The health and safety problems related to sludge trans-
port and disposal would be as improbable as for any other
trucks in transit.
Construction risks to safety would be the same as for
other construction of a similar nature; they would be ad-
verse, minor, last only for the duration of construction, may
be reversible, and are unlikely.
Aesthetics and nuisance. Introducing secondary treat-
ment at Alki and Richmond Beach would generate some site-
specific nuisance impacts for local residents, as discussed
in more detail in Volume II for various sites. However,
surveys and public workshops in the locale of the facilities
showed that cleaning up the environment was considered a
higher priority by more people (60 percent) than such aesthe-
tic issues as hiding the facility (6 percent) (HRPI, 1976).
These aesthetic/nuisance impacts are rated as adverse, minor,
long-term, reversible, and definite.
Interceptor construction would be a short-term, revers-
ible, local, and probable nuisance. Blasting often associated
with tunneling could disturb local residents in this highly
populated district. Installation of an Interbay facility
at the Golf Park site would be a nuisance. In excavation of
the garbage which was accumulated for 20 years, it is feared
that odorous sulfur compounds and methane gas would be re-
leased, and that when in operation, the facility would still
release odors. Since the plant would be in a valley which
local residents would look down upon, adverse visual effects
may affect some residents. A facility at Commodore Way would
likewise exert similar nuisances after installation. More de-
tail is presented in the West Point EIS (Volume II).
Tradeoffs in nuisance factors are apparent in Alternative
346
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
G (primary treatment at the West Point plant and a new sec-
ondary plant in Interbay) and Alternative E (secondary treat-
ment upgrading at West Point, but no Interbay plant).
Secondary Impacts
The secondary or indirect impacts of the alternative
would result from expanding the Renton treatment plant, and
population growth. The effects of these changes on water
quality, biology, energy, natural resources and the human
environment are described below.
Water Quality
Duwamish estuary- Impacts on the Duwamish estuary from
expanding the Renton plant and discharging 86 mgd average of
secondary, nitrified and filtered effluent would be as des-
cribed under Alternative C.
Surface and groundwater. Impacts of population growth
would be as described under Alternative B.
Biology
Impacts from the Renton plant discharge on Duwamish
River biology would be as described under Alternative C.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy. For Alternative G, a net of 56 million equiv-
alent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 at Renton.
Included in this would be 49 million kwh/year of electrical
energy purchased, 1 million kwh/year for sludge trucking, and
11 million equivalent kwh/year required to produce the chemi-
cals consumed. A net of 5 equivalent kwh/year would be pro-
duced by the process of anaerobic digestion. The impact of
the energy consumption would be adverse, moderate in magni-
tude, long term, irreversible, and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine, sulfur dioxide, lime, and alum
would be used with annual consumption rates of 1020, 305, 7955,
347
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
and 1145 tons respectively- The impact of chemical usage
would be adverse, moderate, long-term, irreversible, and
definite. The supplies of chlorine, sulfur dioxide and alum
are reliable. Lime is in moderate supply.
Human Environment
Land use, population and employment. Impacts on regional
population would be as described under Alternative E.
Operation and maintenance employment at Renton, a second-
arily impacted facility, would be 70 people, plus other Metro
related staff. Construction would involve approximately 250
employees for 5 years.
Costs. Estimated capital costs for construction at Renton
would be $157,200,000 (1976 dollars), as indicated in Table
3-13. Renton operation and maintenance would cost $5,370,000
per year. The effect of this on user charge is noted in the
primary impact section, since user charges are determined on
a Metro-wide basis. Impact of cost would be adverse, moderate,
long-term, irreversible and definite.
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures are suggested to aid in the
reduction of adverse impacts resulting from the implementa-
tion of this alternative.
Pretreatment of industrial wastes could be provided
before sewage enters the West Point plants. If current
practices continue, influent to these facilities would
occasionally contain slugs of cadmium, mercury and arsenic.
The possible silting over of salmon spawning grounds
during the construction of the Kenmore parallel (Lake Line
option) called for under Alternative C, would cause impacts,
both environmental and economical. Chinook lake spawning
occurs in water depths of one to eight feet where there is
gravel, sand and groundwater seepage. Spawning occurs in
autumn and intragravel development continues until early
March. Timing construction to avoid impacts on salmon nests
would restrict building activities to the six months of March
through August. Therefore it is recommended that an evalua-
tion study be made on the Force Main option to determine its
possible impacts. Not enough information is presently avail-
348
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative G
able to consider this option. If the Lake Line option is
selected, more detailed environmental analyses should be made
of possible impacts of the pipe before construction begins.
Visual nuisance of the wastewater treatment facilities
can be mitigated by (1) designing new facilities and addi-
tions to existing facilities utilizing natural geographical
conditions (e.g., bluffs) and (2) landscaping the facilities.
Odor of the wastewater treatment facilities can be
mitigated, in part, by not allowing the system to become
anaerobic. Under anaerobic conditions, noxious gases such as
methane and sulfur dioxide are emitted. Odor control measures
for Alki are being investigated by Metro.
The energy impact can be in part defrayed by utilizing
more of the methane gas which is produced by anaerobic diges-
tion. Nearly half of this methane gas is flared off under
current practices. Determinations have not been made regard-
ing cost-effectiveness of methane storage and/or transport
facilities.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Under Alternative G, the following adverse impacts would
be unavoidable.
Construction impacts
Sludge trucking
Combined sewer overflows
Land use changes
Aesthetic nuisance of plant location
Operation and maintenance (0 & M) and capital costs
Energy expenditures
For greater detail regarding unavoidable adverse impacts,
the reader is referred to the preceding impact analysis.
349
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
ALTERNATIVE H
DECONSOLIDATION/RECLAMATION
The description of Alternative H and its projected
impacts to the year 2005 are presented in this section.
Description
Alternative H would provide secondary treatment at
existing Puget Sound plants (West Point, Alkir Carkeek Park
and Richmond Beach). Some deconsolidation would be made
possible by providing new inland treatment plants to ser-
vice local sewerage subareas by advanced waste treatment
at North and South Lake Sammamish and secondary treatment
at Kenmore.
Although this alternative is aimed at (1) deconsolid-
ation to allow local rather than regional control of plant
capacity to influence growth and (2) reclamation to
allow sludge and effluent to be re-used, only limited prog-
ress toward these goals would result. Under Alternative H,
local treatment plants at Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park, Alki,
Kenmore, North Lake Sammamish and South Lake Sammamish would
treat only 30 percent of the area's dry weather flow (exclud-
ing Renton service area); West Point, a regional plant,
would treat the remaining 70 percent. If the Renton regional
plant is included in the calculations, the local plant share
in dry weather drops to 20 percent. The low share allocated
to local plants in this alternative aimed at deconsolidation
appears to result from the fact that a substantial commit-
ment has already been made in the Metro area to regional
wastewater facilities. A second comment on this alternative
is that reclamation is an option, not a part of the proposed
alternative.
The major wastewater facilities proposed for Alternative
H are illustrated in Figure 3-19. Major features of the
alternative are summarized in Table 3-34, including treatment
plants, effluent discharges, combined sewer overflows, and
major new transfer facilities. The construction schedule
and costs for proposed facilities are shown in Table 3-35.
The alternative is further described below in terms of
service area, treatment plants (location, treatment process,
effluent disposal site), combined sewer overflow control, and
350
-------
Figure 3-19
F JCilily Plan Alltmititt H
Oeconsolidilion/fli
-------
TABLE 3-34
ALTERNATIVE H - DECONSOLIDATION/RECLAMMATION
TREATMENT PLANTS
WEST POINT
Process Secondary
Improvements 1985
Complete
Flow (mgd) 2005 121/350
(unless chased)
average/peak
Disposal Puget
Sound
RICHMOND NORTH LAKE
ALKI CARKEEK PARK BEACH KENMORE SAMMAMISH**
Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Advanced
Waste
Treatment
1983 1985 1981 1983
10/30 j. 5/12. 5 2.5/8
Puget Puget Puget Puget
Sound Sound Sound Sound
(New
Outfall
at
Richmond
Beach)
1994
21/55
Puget
Sound
(New
Outfall
at
Richmond
Beach)
1988
9/25
Sammamish
River
or
Lake
Sammamish
or
Land
SOUTH LAKE
SAMMAMISH** RENTON*
Advanced Secondary
Waste Plus
Treatment Nitrification
ai
1983
5/13
Lake
Sammamish
or
Land
nd Filtration
1995
72/187
Duwamish
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (2005)
Lake Washington
Lake Sammamish
Portage Bay
Lake Union
Ship canal
Elliott Day
Alki Beach
Duwamish/Green River
FLOW
(Million Gallons/Yr)
19.1
0
210
48. J
217
358
3.46
251
SOLIDS
(Tons/Yr)
17.4
0
205
43.0
197
325
4.95
227
BOD
(Tons/Yr)
4.76
0
50.2
12.0
54. u
89
1. 36
62
TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE
West Point
Alki Beach
Carkeek Park
Richmond Beach
„ (via Richino
North/South Lake Sa
Henton
FLOW
{Million Gallons/Yr)
47,800
3,650
1,530
912
nd Beach 7(668
mmamish i,llo
26,250
SOLIDS
(Tons/Yr)
^,990
228
957
57.1
480
213
553
BOD
(Tons/Yr)
^,990
228
957
57.1
480
213
1,098
MAJOR NEW TRAMS_FER_F AGILITIES
Location
Lake Forest Park - Kenroore Connection
Val Vue Connection to West Point
Year Completed
1983
1980
West South Lake Sammamish to South Lake Sammamish Plant 1983
*Not included in proposed facilities plan for Puget Sound plants
*Enhanced primary (physical/chemical}, secondary, nitrification, denitrification, granular carbon adsorption, filtration, ion
exchange
352
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
Table 3-35
Alternative H — Project Costs
and Construction Staging
Facility Component
Treatment Plants Including Outfalls
Richmond Beach - Add Secondary Treatment
Carkeek Park - Interim Improvements
Carkeelc Park Add Secondary Treatment
West Point - Interim Improvements
West Point - Add Secondary Treatment
Alki - Interim Improvements
Alki - Add Secondary Treatment
•* Renton - Interim Improvements
* Renton - Enlargement II and Upgrading
(Nitrification , Filtration , Sludge )
* Renton - Enlargement III
(South Lake Sammamish AWT Plant)
Kenmore - Secondary Plant Stage 1
Kenmore - Outfall
Kenmore - Plant Stage 2
North Lake Sammamish AWT Plant
Subtotal - Treatment Plants
Collection System
Accommodate Service Area Change
Lake Forest Park-Kenmore Connection
West S.L.S. to S.L.S. Plant
Rehabilitation of Existing Collection
System
Increased Transfer Capacity within
West Point Existing Sewered Areas
Val Vue Connection to West Point
Increased Transfer Capacity and
Rehabilitation within Renton
Existing Sewered Area
Subtotal - Collection System
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Montlake Regulator Station
Third Ave. W. Regulator station
Subtotal - Hold & Transport CSO
Total Capital Cost
Project Cost
$ million
ENR-CCI 2600
6.0
0.1
8.3
4.8
101.2
0.3
26.2
0.4
51.0
31.7
30.0
37.2
6.0
37.0
361.2
1.4
1.5
18.0
5.5
13.4
39.8
0.8
0.5
1.3
402.3
™
Mi
mm
mm
mm
••
•i
S
0)
••
•
•1
mm
mm
mm
mm
m
at
at
0
ot
<«
8
O>
o
o
o
(M
m
§
M
*Renton facilities not part of proposed facilities plan.
353
-------
Alternative and Impacts
Alternative H
sludge management. The indirect impacts of the facilities
proposed under this alternative on the Renton plant are also
described.
Service Area
The service areas of Alternative H would be as shown in
Figure 3-1. Major changes include serving new growth in
northern and eastern sewerage service subareas by three new
treatment plants: (1) the North Lake Washington and part of
the Northwest Lake Washington subarea, (2) the North Lake
Sammamish subarea, and (3) the South Lake Sammamish subarea.
The West Point service area would be reduced correspondingly.
Alki, Richmond Beach and Carkeek Park subareas would not
change. The new transfer interceptors that would be needed
to facilitate the service area modifications would be the
Lake Forest Park connection to Kenmore (1983) , West Lake
Sammamish connection to South Lake Sammamish (1983), and Val
Vue connection to West Point (1980).
Construction schedule for these collection systems modi-
fications would be as shown in Table 3-35.
Treatment Plants
The wastewater treatment facilities under Alternative H
would be as shown in Table 3-34.
The new North and South Lake Sammamish plants would
provide advanced waste treatment according to process steps
that the facilities planning engineers believed were neces-
sary before discharging effluent to inland waters. Advanced
waste treatment processes would include (1) enhanced primary
(physical/chemical) treatment for settling, (2) secondary
treatment for solids and organics removal, (3) nitrification
for converting ammonia-nitrogen to nitrates, (4) denitrifi-
cation for converting nitrate to nitrogen, (5) granular
carbon absorption for organics removal, (6) filtration for
solids removal, (7) ion exchange for reducing salt content,
(8) chlorination for disinfection and (9) dechlorination to
remove chlorine.
The exact location of the Lake Sammamish plants has yet
to be determined. The North Lake Sammamish site would be
approximately as shown in Figure 3-19; the South Lake
Sammamish plant would be located on the south shore of Lake
Sammamish.
354
-------
Alternative and Impacts
Alternative H
The North Lake Sammamish plant, which would be completed
in 1988, would treat 9 mgd average, 25 mgd peak flows. A
sample plant layout for the advanced waste treatment is shown
in Figure 3-20. Treated wastewater would be discharged to
the Sammamish River (flowing out from Lake Sammamish) or to
land for beneficial re-use.
The South Lake Sammamish plant would be completed in
1983 to treat 5 mgd average, 13 mgd peak flows. Effluent
would be discharged to Lake Sammamish or to land for re-use.
Since re-use is an option but not part of the proposal
for the North and South Lake Sammamish plants, reclamation
by advanced waste treatment would not be required for dispo-
sal to land.
The Kenmore plant, to be constructed in two stages (1983
and 1994), would provide an ultimate capacity of 21 mgd
average, 55 mgd peak flow for the growth anticipated in the
North Lake Washington sewerage service subarea. The layout
for the Kenmore plant is shown in Figure 3-21 and the approx-
imate site location is contained in Figure 3-19. Secondary
effluent would be transferred to Richmond Beach, then dis-
charged through a new outfall there to Puget Sound. Thus,
advanced waste treatment would not be necessary at Kenmore.
In 1985, the West Point plant would provide secondary
treatment by air activated sludge for 121 mgd average, 350
mgd peak flow. Discharge to Puget Sound would be through
the existing outfall. For this capacity, 12 acres of shore-
line fill would be required. The layout would be as in
Alternative E (Figure 3-14).
Richmond Beach would provide secondary treatment (air
activated sludge) by 1981 and discharge to Puget Sound
through the present outfall, to be paralleled by the new
Kenmore outfall. The secondary facilities for 2.5 mgd
average, 8 mgd peak flows, would fit on existing property,
as shown in Alternative E.
At Alki, secondary air activated sludge treatment by
1983 for 10 mgd average, 30 mgd peak flows would require
expansion into the adjacent ballfields. The plant layout
would be as shown in Figure 3-14.
At Carkeek Park, the plant would be upgraded to second-
ary, air activated sludge treatment by 1985. Treated 3.5
mgd average, 12.5 mgd peak flows would be discharged through
the existing outfall to Puget Sound. The enlarged plant,
shown in Figure 3-22, would expand into a picnic area in the
park.
355
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
METRO-NORTH LAKE SAMMAMISH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
-FILTER PUMP BLDG ^DEWATERING BLDG.
-GRANULAR FILTER / ^WA-S THICKENER
-ION EXCHANGE UNITS / / ^DENITRIFICATION TANK
^OPERATIONS
"LOG
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT
Figure 3-20
Alternative H
North Lake Sammamish Wastewater Treatment Plant
356
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
METRO- NORTH LAKE WASHINGTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (KENMORE)
SCALE IN FEET
50 0 100 200
SECONDARY--AIR
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
- INFLUENT PUMP BLDG.
— W.A.S
THICKENER
— MAINTENANCE
BLDG.
OPERATIONS BLDG.
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
Figure 3-21
Alternative H
North Lake Washington (Kenmore)
Wastewater Treatment Plant
357
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
METRO -CARKEEK PARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
pTpER C*N_^9_N ROAD - —•
~~—~~~~ '
SECONDARY
Figure 3-22
Alternative H
Carkeek Park Wastewater Treatment Plant
358
-------
Alternative and Impacts
Alternative H
All secondary treatment plants would provide dechlori-
nation before discharge.
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
In Alternative H, combined sewer overflows would be
reduced 6 percent relative to Alternative B. The flows to
more sensitive inland waters (Lake Washington, Portage Bay,
Lake Union, and the Ship Canal) would decrease by 8 to 15
percent, presumably due to transfers of flow in northern and
eastern growth areas from West Point to the new inland plants.
Construction of the Montlake and Third Avenue West regulator
stations is assumed in this alternative.
Sludge Management
The sludge management system for Alternative H would
include anaerobic digestion at all plants, with methane used
to the extent possible. Renton sludge would be removed from
West Point and treated at Renton. Richmond Beach digested
sludge would be trucked to West Point for dewatering. De-
watered sludge from Carkeek Park, West Point, and Alki would
be trucked to Cedar Hills landfill and Park Forest. There
is a possibility for local sludge re-use as a soil amendment
from the three new inland plants in part because metals from
industry would not be tributary to the plants.
Renton
Although the Renton service area and treatment plant
are not included in the proposed facilities for Alternative
H, the alternative would have indirect impacts on the Renton
plant. To handle projected growth in its service area,
although smaller than in all other alternatives, the Renton
plant would be expanded in two stages (1985 and 1995) to 72
mgd average, 187 peak capacity. In addition, the plant would
be upgraded by nitrification and filtration prior to discharge
to the Duwamish. Sludge would be anaerobically digested at
Renton, dewatered, and trucked to Cedar Hills landfill or
Pack Forest.
359
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
Primary Impacts
The direct impacts from this alternative for the West
Point, Alki, Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach, Kenmore, North
and South Lake Sammamish plants are described below in terms
of effects on geology, soils and topography; air quality
and odors; water quality; biology; energy and natural re-
sources; and the human environment. Indirect impacts from
this alternative and the effects of Renton discharge are
summarized under a later section on secondary impacts.
Geology, Soils and Topography
The impacts of plants in the Kenmore area and the
Sammamish River valley cannot be assessed until specific sites
are chosen. However, it is known that the Sammamish River
valley floor is composed of alluvial soils which are not
sufficiently stable to support large structures. The entire
valley floor also lies within the ten-year flood plain as
defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Construction
of a treatment plant in this area would probably require
raised foundations and piling support. Earthquake damage
potential in these areas could also be significant.
The site-specific impacts on slopes and stability and
from erosion and/or deposition would be minor, of limited
extent, and of short duration. Because exact sites have not
been chosen, such impacts are included in this regional ra-
ther than in site-specific documents. Sludge disposal site
impacts would not be expected to change radically from their
existing situation, although the sludge deposition rate would
accelerate with improved solids removal. At Cedar Hills,
the 30 year useful life of the landfill could be reduced by
about one year with disposal of larger sludge volumes there
from secondary and more advanced wastewater treatment.
Impacts would be monitored at Cedar Hills and the Park
Forest site. If sludge from the North and South Lake
Sammamish plants is applied to land for re-use, impacts on
soils should be investigated.
Air Quality and Odors
Trucking sludge from Richmond Beach to West Point and
from West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Renton to the
360
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
Cedar Hills landfill would emit approximately 520 grams of
hydrocarbons, 3230 grams of carbon monoxide, and 2350 grams
of nitrogen oxides per day. Treatment plant personnel traf-
fic would generate approximately 6815 grams of hydrocarbons,
86715 grams of carbon monoxide, and 11235 grams of nitrogen
oxides daily. Combined emissions would amount to less than
0.01 percent of Seattle's total daily emissions of hydro-
carbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Implementa-
tion of Alternative H would have a negligible, long-term,
adverse, reversible impact on air quality in the Seattle
area. Sludge trucking to Park Forest would generate more
air pollutants than traffic to the Cedar Hills site (located
closer to sludge treatment facilities), but the overall
impact on air quality would remain negligible.
With the upgrading of the Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park,
West Point and Alki plants to secondary treatment, the
likelihood of odors escaping in these areas would increase.
Because secondary treatment plants are larger and more com-
plex than primary plants, expose more water surface area to
the air and subject the water to more perturbation, there is
a greater likelihood for odors being released into the sur-
rounding neighborhood from secondary treatment plants. The
potential for odors would also be increased in the neighbor-
hoods adjacent to the new advanced waste treatment plants in
Kenmore and North and South Lake Sammamish. The potential
for odors being released from advanced waste treatment plants
is even greater than that for secondary treatment, because
the advanced plants are more complex, subject the water to
more turbulence, and offer more opportunities for odors to
escape. Various practical measures can be employed, however,
to control treatment plant odors and are discussed in the
section on mitigation measures. Odor control at Alki is
being investigated now by Metro.
Because the volume of CSO's would increase 15 percent
at Lake Washington, Lake Union and the Ship Canal relative
to Alternative B, the odors arising from CSO's will also
increase. The potential odor problems associated with this
alternative would be a minor, long-term, adverse, reversible
impact on the environmental quality of the metropolitan
Seattle area.
Water Quality
The construction of advanced waste treatment plants
at North and South Lake Sammamish, a secondary treatment
plant in Kenmore, and upgrading the West Point, Alki, Carkeek
Park and Richmond Beach plants to secondary treatment would
361
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
have mixed impacts on water quality.
Lake Washington. With new treatment plants constructed
at Kenmore and at North Lake Sammamish the West Point service
area would be reduced so that the yearly volume, solids, and
BOD of sewer overflows to Lake Washington would decrease by
approximately 15% relative to Alternative B. Thus com-
bined sewer overflow's localized impacts on water quality
(nutrients, bacteria, toxicants) would be similar to
Alternative B but to a lesser degree.
Effluent from the North Lake Sammamish plant would
contain some nitrates (less than 0.1 mg/1) even after ad-
vanced treatment. If the plant discharged into the
Sammamish River, the nitrate load downstream in Lake
Washington would be incrementally increased. If the North
Lake Sammamish plant were to discharge to the Sammamish
River, the mean annual effluent flow to Lake Washington would
be about 3,285 million gallons, or more than 170 times as
much as the yearly future volume of CSO's to Lake Washington.
The nutrient addition to Lake Washington via the
Sammamish River could have an enrichment effect of undeter-
mined magnitude. The plant would be discharging flows equal
to 20 percent of river summer low flows, 3 percent of winter
peak flows and 5 percent of average Sammamish River flow.
The nutrient level would be the same as or lower than in
river water, but the total nutrient load would increase.
With the North Lake Sammamish plant discharge and com-
bined sewer overflows to Lake Washington, the nutrients in
the lake could exceed DOE standards for lake class waters of
0.1 mg/1 nitrate-nitrogen and 0.05 mg/1 phosphate. Assuming
the Madison Park overflow sample (Metro 1976) is typical of
CSO quality, CSO's could contain 0.11 to 0.96 mg/1 nitrate
and 0.98 to 5.53 mg/1 total phosphate. Thus, localized areas
could at times exceed state recommended nutrient levels as a
result of combined sewer overflows, and the lake would receive
incremental nutrient loads from CSO's. Nitrates and phos-
phates levels in the tertiary effluent from the Sammamish
Valley STP would probably be less than 1 mg/1 although pred-
ictions of effluent quality are not firm. Assuming a 10:1
to 100:1 dilution in the Sammamish River, Lake Class criteria
would be met. The total nutrient load from the effluent
would be far greater than from combined sewer overflows. The
effect of both together would be moderate due to the load
increase, and extensive because the entire lake would be
affected. Impacts would be irreversible, because the total
nutrient load of the lake would be increased and long-term
because the discharges would continue through the planning
period.
362
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
Lake Sammamish. The adverse impact on Lake Sammamish
water quality of an average of 5 mgd tertiary treated ef-
fluent from a South Lake Sammamish plant would probably be
minor, because the discharge would be small relative to the
size of the lake (855,000 million gallons) and highly treated.
Effects would be extensive (because wide areas of the lake
could be affected), long-term (because the discharge would
continue through the planning period) and reversible. The
effect would probably be due to the increased nutrient load
to the already eutrophic lake. Like Lake Washington, state
nutrients criteria for Lake Sammamish are less than 0.1 mg/1
for nitrate, and less than 0.05 mg/1 for phosphate. While
phosphate standards are apparently not violated at present,
the total phosphorus concentration in the lake during the
winter through early spring months is the nutrient source for
the spring algae bloom. The presence of nutrients is not
believed to be of itself the controlling factor of algae
production in Lake Sammamish, however. Contemporary thought
suggests that the high amounts of iron in the lake scavenge
phosphorus from the water column and recycle only a portion
to the surface waters during overturn. Nitrates concentra-
tions exceed criteria annually in winter and spring. It is
assumed that effluent limitations for the South Lake
Sammamish plant will take the lake's dilution and mixing into
account, such that nutrient concentrations in the lake do not
increase to levels exceeding established criteria. The ef-
fluent would, however, increase the total nitrogen and phos-
phorus load to the lake by a minor amount.
Lake Union/Ship Canal. The volume, solids, and BOD
loadings from CSO's to Lake Union and to the Ship Canal would
be reduced by about 15%, relative to the Alternative B. The
overall adverse effect of continued overflows would be minor,
because the flows are not large, and of limited extent.
Except for the accumulation of pesticides, PCB's and heavy
metals, the impacts are reversible.
Cedar and Green Rivers. No impact on these waters is
expected under Alternative H.
Sammamish River. The North Lake Sammamish plant would
discharge an average of 9 mgd (25 mgd peak flow) to the
Sammamish River, which has about 174 mgd on the average, low
flows of about 46 mgd, and peak flows of about 840 mgd. Thus,
effluent from the proposed plant would represent about 5 per-
cent of the average flow. In summer, when phosphorus
363
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
violations apparently occur, effluent would be 20 percent of
the river flow. Sairanamish Valley effluent would be 3 percent
of flow in winter when nitrates violations occur.
The effluent could have an adverse impact on summer
water quality. The temperature of the effluent may be higher
than that of the receiving water, unless cooling methods are
included in treatment, and could increase the river's tem-
perature by one degree Fahrenheit. Summer water temperature
now approaches and occasionally exceeds 68° F, the maximum
tolerable limit for migrating salmon (Metropolitan Engineers
Task Report D5, 1977), and exceeds the 60° F DOE Class AA
standard for the river. The effect of the warmer effluent
would also be negative, as meeting established standards
would be even more difficult. The overall thermal impact
would be minor, extensive in the river and of short duration.
South Lake Sammamish discharge would have to meet DOE
nutrient standards for less than 0.3 mg/1 nitrates and for
less than 0.1 mg/1 phosphates. The Sammamish River exceeds
0.3 mg/1 nitrate most of the year by a factor of two to
four (STRRIBCO Part III Appendix B, November 1974), and
phosphate criteria are exceeded annually in late summer. The
effluent would add to the nutrient load of the river. The
adverse impact from this would be minor, (because the dis-
charge would continue through the planning period) and
reversible (because the river can flush itself).
Effluent would be lower in Coliform bacteria than the
river.
Duwamish estuary. Under Alternative H, impacts of
combined sewer overflows to the Duwamish would be as de-
scribed previously under Alternative B. Projected CSO annual
flows, solids and BOD loads to the Duwamish would be 1, 41
and 6 percent of the Renton plant discharge. Thus, except
for localized areas and some effects associated with solids,
CSO impacts on the Duwamish would be less than from the
Renton plant.
Puget Sound. Since Alternative H includes secondary
treatment at all Puget Sound plants, a new Alki outfall and
no CSO reduction, impacts on Puget Sound water quality would
be similar to those of Alternative E. Minor reductions in
flow by shifting some wastewater service areas to inland
plants are not expected to measurably change water quality
impacts in Puget Sound. Very minor reductions in nutrients
from secondary treatment would be offset by increased con-
tribution from CSO's for a net minor and long-term impact
364
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
on beach, nearshore and offshore waters. Suspended solids
loads on beaches would be reduced in extent. Remaining
impacts from suspended solids would be minor (because the
.suspended solids content of receiving waters is not greatly
increased), long-term (because the discharges would continue
through the planning period), and reversible. For more
detail, Alternative E impacts should be consulted. Major
changes relative to Alternative E would be Kenmore plant
discharge off Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park secondary efflu-
ent discharge, and reductions in West Point discharge. The
site specific EIS (Volume II) contains more detail on these
impacts.
Groundwater. The proposed North and South Lake
Sammamish treatment plant effluent could be re-used for
groundwater recharge. Such recharge would probably infil-
trate into the Redmond well fields, but this recharge water
quality would be high. Nitrogen levels are expected to be
below the concentrations that can cause health problems.
Viruses would be removed by the treatment plant's disinfec-
tion, and more would be removed by the soil. Organics re-
moval would be promoted by activated carbon before recharge.
Both local and national research is in progress on the
impacts of groundwater recharge and its potential for vari-
ous end uses.
Pack Forest researchers would continue studying the
impacts of groundwater recharge with wastewater. Tentative
conclusions to date are that groundwater recharge with secon-
dary effluent is feasible under certain conditions (Cole and
Scheiss, 1977).
Research problems should be addressed in more detail in
site specific EIS documents prepared later, in the event that
inland treatment plants are recommended.
Flood hazard. The entire Sammamish Valley is within
the ten year flood plain as defined by the U.S. Army Corp
of Engineers. Table 3-36 shows the 100 year flood levels at
the proposed sites for Alternative H.
365
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
Table 3-36
100 Year Flood Water Levels
Site
Kenmore
North Lake Samraamish
South Lake Sammamish
Flood Level
(feet)
16
32.5
32.5
Ground
Surface
(feet)
25
25.5
25.5
Depth to
Water Level
(feet)
9
0
0
Note: Elevations are in feet above mean sea level; since
plant locations have not been selected, elevations
are approximate.
The Kenmore site would have little risk from flood
water. However, at the North Lake Sammamish and South Lake
Sammamish sites, precautions should be taken, possibly in-
cluding raised foundations and structural barriers around
the facility. If floodwaters were to wash away the facil-
ity's untreated sewage, it could degrade surface water qual-
ity. Sludge basins, which are usually below the elevation
of the rest of the facility, should be protected.
Biology
Biological impacts of treatment plant construction,
effluent discharge and CSO's are described below.
Terrestrial habitats. Terrestrial biota would be perm-
anently displaced and probably lost from the two sites of the
advanced waste treatment plants and perhaps the Kenmore
plant. Until sites are chosen, it is difficult to say which
habitat type would be affected. The area is generally rural-
suburban in nature; native plants and trees are the dominant
vegetation. The construction of the facilities would perman-
ently eliminate a small portion of this habitat, and create
noise and dust that would temporarily frighten off birds and
mammals. The impact of construction activities is
considered to be moderate, but highly limited in extent and
of short duration. Impacts of noise and dust are considered
to be reversible; animals would probably return when construc-
tion was completed. Areas with new structures would be
366
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
irreversibly altered. The effect on those sites would be
severe and of long duration but highly limited in extent.
Impacts at the West Point, Richmond Beach and Alki areas
would be as described under Alternative E. Approximately 1.1
acres of grassy habitat would be used for secondary treatment
facilities at Carkeek Park.
Shoreline habitats. Marshes at Lake Washington and the
Ship Canal would receive slightly reduced levels of overflow
loads and flows (15 percent) compared to Alternative B. The
benefit of Alternative H is considered to be probably very
minor, fairly extensive as most marshes are subject to over-
flows, and of long duration as overflows are continuing
phenomena.
The intertidal. Overflows to the intertidal at Alki/
West Seattle and Elliott Bay would be as described under
Alternative B. Assuming treatment plant effluent reaches
beach areas near each of the four outfalls at least occasion-
ally, effluent volume and quality is still a concern. Under
Alternative H, flows would be similar to Alternative B, as
would nutrient levels as these parameters (especially ni-
trates) are not removed in significant amounts by secondary
treatment.
Richmond Beach is an exception in that flows from the
new Kenmore (North Lake Washington) secondary plant would
enter Puget Sound through an outfall at this point. The new
combined flows and loads of BOD and suspended solids would be
approximately nine times the Richmond Beach discharge under
Alternative B. No measurable effects of effluent on the
intertidal have been found at this site; whether or not
increased flows and loads would have an effect cannot be
determined.
At the other outfall sites, loads of solids and BOD
(and associated metals and toxicants), would be significantly
reduced by about 72 and 80 percent respectively. The nutri-
ent impact on the intertidal would be essentially as in base-
line levels except that assumed at Alki. The outfall would
be improved probably reducing effluent impact on the inter-
tidal.
A major reduction in metals in effluent from secondary
treatment could mean that clams and algae at West Point and
other outfall areas could decline to background levels (such
as detected at Point No Point). Since standards for metals
367
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
have not been exceeded anywhere in the study area, the benefit
is minor-to-moderate, but possibly extensive and certainly
of long duration.
As CSO's would continue at baseline flows and loads,
pathogen inputs could be at present levels, wherein bacter-
ial levels in the intertidal waters exceed state fecal coli-
form standards for shellfish waters. Treatment plant dis-
charges of secondary effluent would receive more effective
disinfection than under Alternative B. However, since the
source of bacteria in the intertidal has not been identified,
it cannot be determined whether or not coliform standards for
shellfish waters would be met under Alternative H. Shellfish
consumption could continue to represent a potential public
health risk. The construction of a new outfall at Richmond
Beach to carry flows from the Kenmore plant would affect a
limited portion of the intertidal. These impacts are dis-
cussed in the Richmond Beach site document which is Volume II
of this series.
Puget Sound. Effects of nutrients on phytoplankton pro-
ductivity extremes would increase slightly relative to
Alternative B. Levels of metals in plankton near West Point
would probably decrease, however, representing a minor bene-
fit, limited in extent, but of long duration (since those
metals would no longer enter the Puget Sound food web and be
concentrated.
A major reduction in solids and BOD could reduce the
magnitude of effects on benthic community abundance and di-
versity. Organisms most involved would be clams and worms,
which are deposit and/or suspension feeders.
Commercial and sport fisheries. Overflows to Lake
Washington and the Ship Canal would decrease by 15 percent
relative to Alternative B, but the fish run could be affected
by discharge of effluent from the North Lake Sammamish plant
into the Sammamish River. The effluent from the North Lake
Sammamish plant would be designed to meet discharge standards,
but would probably be of a higher temperature than the river
water in summer. The effect would be to raise the river
temperature by 1 to 2°F, which could be significant as the
river is already at temperatures intolerable to summer fish
migrations. The adverse effect on fish populations could
probably be major and extensive, and cause a long-term de-
crease in fish population. The effect is considered to be
reversible. Furthermore, any malfunction of the plants
discharging to Lake Sammamish or the Sammamish River could
368
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
discharge untreated or incompletely treated effluent, which
could affect juvenile fish and adults migrating in the system.
Since the Elliott Bay - Duwamish - Green River fish
migration route would be subject to sewer overflows at
the same levels as Alternative B, Alternative H would cause
no changes in effects.
Effects from CSO's on eelgrass beds and other nearshore
areas where larval and juvenile fish tend to congregate and
feed would be as in Alternative B, as CSO inputs would con-
tinue unabated. Effects of secondary treatment of effluent
could mean reduced exposure of sensitive larval and juvenile
fishes and invertebrates (such as shrimp and crabs) to metals
and toxicants. These parameters are not known to be a prob-
lem at present, however.
The Duwamish estuary. Sewer overflows loads and flows
would be as in baseline conditions, (Alternative B), so
Alternative H would have no further direct impact.
Freshwater environments. In this alternative Lake
Sammamish and Sammamish River biota would be affected by
effluents from inland treatment facilities. In addition,
CSO reductions to other freshwaters would be abated only
slightly or not at all.
1. Lake Washington. Impacts from combined sewer over-
flows would be essentially the same as Alternative B, as
CSO's are reduced only 15%.
2. Lake Sammamish. Additional nutrient loads from the
wastewater treatment plants (South Lake Sammamish and pos-
sibly North Lake Sammamish) could have an adverse effect on
the lake. Although evidence to date indicates the lake is
becoming less eutrophic (overfertilized) than it was prior
to Metro sewage diversions from the lake in 1965, dense
plankton blooms have continued. The enrichment situation is
also shown by the abundance of certain insect larvae
(Chironomidae), for which development correlates with algae
production and low dissolved oxygen levels.
As a result, any additional nutrient load would be
considered to have an adverse impact. The South Lake Samma-
mish plant and possibly the North Lake Sammamish could add to
the nutrient load of this already eutrophic lake, slightly
but surely degrading the water quality and thus affecting its
biota. The enhancing effect on the algal productivity of the
lake is judged to be a negative and long-term impact as the
369
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
lake is poorly flushed (water residence time is over two
years). The effect would probably be minor, as the nutrient
load would be small from a plant employing advanced waste
treatment, but would be extensive in the lake. For most
parameters, the effluent would dilute the lake water. The
effluent may be of a slightly higher temperature, but this
is not considered to be a problem (Metropolitan Engineers,
1976) .
3. Lake Union/Ship Canal. Overflows to these waters
would decrease about 15% relative to Alternative B. Improve-
ment would be very minor even at overflow points, and the
biota would continue to be those characteristically tolerant
of somewhat degraded water quality. The influence of CSO's
on overall water quality is unknown.
4. Sammamish River. Effluent from the North Lake
Sammamish plant has a higher temperature than the river and
could raise the river's temperature 1° to 2°F, an unaccept-
able increment in summer as salmon temperature requirements
are already exceeded. Cutthroat trout and steelhead migrat-
ing downstream would also be subject to the higher tempera-
tures. The small nutrient load could also affect Lake
Washington downstream. The temperature impact could be
major, and extensive, and cause a long-term decrease in
fish populations. The effect is considered to be reversible.
In the event of any plant malfunction, untreated or incom-
pletely treated effluent discharged from a plant to the
Sammamish River or Lake Sammamish could affect juvenile fish
or adults migrating in the system.
5. Cedar River, Green River and other waters. No
impacts are expected.
Rare and endangered species. No impacts are expected
as no listed species are recorded from the study area. Sen-
sitive habitats have been discussed previously.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy. For Alternative H, a net of 124 million
equivalent kwh/year of energy would be consumed by 2005 by
all plants except Renton. Included would be 88 million kwh/
year of electrical energy purchased. This is equivalent to
the amount of electrical energy 4400 households would consume
370
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
per year, and constitutes approximately 0.44 percent of the
projected electrical energy consumption of Seattle in 2005
(Appendix E).
Table 3-37 shows the breakdown of total energy consump-
tion on a plant-by-plant basis. The greatest energy con-
sumption would be in the form of electricity. Chemicals
account for about 5-15 percent of energy consumption, and
sludge trucking for less than 12 percent. In the anaero-
bic digestion of sludge, there would be a net production of
energy because of methane formation.
The impact of the energy consumption would be adverse,
moderate-to-high in magnitude, long-term, irreversible and
definite.
Chemicals. On a regional basis, plants in 2005 would
consume 2515 tons of chlorine for disinfection; 760 tons of
sulfur dioxide for dechlorination; 4,580 tons of lime, 500
tons of ferric chloride, 655 tons of alum and 44 tons of
polymer for solids removal and handling; 1,155 tons of
methanol for denitrification; 11,490 tons salt for recharg-
ing ion exchange materials; and 190 tons of activated carbon
for organics removal. Details by plant are shown in Table
3-37.
The impact of chemical usage would be adverse, moderate,
long-term, irreversible and definite. The supplies of
chlorine, sulfur dioxide, alum, polymer, methanol, and sodium
chloride are highly reliable. Lime and ferric chloride are
in moderate supply. The closest source of activated carbon
would probably be Marshall, Texas.
Hjman Environment
Alternative H would install advanced wastewater treat-
ment plants at North Lake Sammamish and South Lake Sammamish
and Kenmore, which could influence population growth in these
areas. This alternative meets the requirements of PL 92-500.
Land use. Land would have to be made available for the
new facilities at Kenmore, North Lake Sammamish, and South
Lake Sammamish and for expansion of facilities at Carkeek
Park, West Point, Richmond Beach, and Alki. At West Point,
12 acres of shoreline fill would be required. Rights-of-way
would be required for construction of the Lake Forest Park
371
-------
TABLE 3-37
ENERGY AND CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE H
Onsite Energy
Purchased electricity
(kwh x I06/yr)
Produced by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
Consumed by digestion
(kwh x 106/yr)
Offsite Energy
Chemical (kwh x 106/yr)
Sludge Trucking
(kwh x I06/yr)
TOTAL
CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION:
Chemicals (tons/yr)
C12
S0251
CaO
FeCl3
Alum
Polymer
CH3OH
NaCl
Activated Carbon
PLANT
Richmond
Beach
2.20
0.42
0.17
0.12
0.10
2.17
35
10
-
-
-
-
-
—
—
Carkeek
Park
2.81
0.73
0.29
0.25
0.03
2.65
60
20
-
-
-
3.8
-
—
•~
West
Point
56.13
15.31
6.12
10.73
0.92
58.59
1900
570
2280
425
-
-
-
—
—
Alki
6.07
1.28
0.51
0.59
0.03
5.92
145
45
-
-
-
5
-
—
—
Kenmore
13.72
2.71
1.08
1.39
0.18
13.66
210
65
405
75
-
-
-
-
—
N.L.
Samma-
mish
4.64
1.77
0.71
21.79
0.24
25.61
105
30
1205
-
415
20
735
7300
120
S.L.
Samma-
mish
2.63
1.01
0.40
13.61
0.10
15.73
60
20
690
-
240
15
420
4190
70
Total
88.20
23.23
9.28
48.48
1.60
124.33
2515
760
4580
500
655
43.8
1155
11,490
190
u>
(a) S02 may be used for a mitigation measure if dechlorination is reauired
by EPA standards. ^
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
Kenmore connection, the Kenmore outfall, the Val Vue connec-
tion, and a regulator at Third Avenue West.
Expansion at West Point and Alki would occur within 200
feet of the shoreline and would, therefore, require a permit
from the Shorelines Management Master Program for Seattle.
Richmond Beach expansion would necessitate a similar permit
from King County. The whole Sammamish Valley, in which the
North Lake Sammamish and South Lake Sammamish facilities
would be installed, has been designed as a ten-year-flood
plain zone. Therefore, construction of these facilities
would necessitate a permit from the agency which regulates
the State Flood Zone Act. Further, compliance with the
regulations of the National Flood Control Act of 1968 would
be required if federal grant money is to be obtained (National
Flood Control Act, 1968).
Legal and institutional. Alternative H would fulfill
the requirements of PL 92-500 and Washington NPDES regula-
tions that secondary treatment be established. Other
consequences of complying with PL 92-500, including timing
considerations, would be the same as for Alternative E.
Permits from the Shorelines Management Master Program for
Seattle would have to be obtained at any location within
the Seattle city limits where construction occurs within
200 feet of shoreline as explained under land use considera-
tions.
Since North and South Lake Sammamish facilities would
have advanced wastewater treatment, the effluent from these
facilities would come closer to meeting the goal of PL 92-
500 that by 1985 there be zero pollution discharge to navi-
gable waterways. This water would be of a better quality
than would be necessary for agricultural irrigation, but
still probably would not be clean enough for drinking.
Agency goals. Alternative H fulfills the King County
comprehensive plans of "taking all possible steps to abate
pollution" and "installing utility lines in advance of the
time of development." It also fulfills in part the objec-
tives mentioned in Goals of Seattle to "undertake all means
reasonable and feasible to ensure water purity to meet
health standards and protect the environment, ... to meet
the goals of PL 92-500, . . . and to ensure clean water to
protect wildlife, vegetation, and recreation areas."
It is speculative whether Alternative H fulfills the
goal of PSCOG that, "it is in the public interest to minimize
373
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
the costs of future growth by encouraging new development
within urbanized areas where investments in public services
have already been made."
Employment. It has been estimated that the construc-
tion involved in this alternative would require the employment
of approximately 550 workers for 5 years. Operation and
maintenance would require 188 employees at the West Point,
Alki, Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach, Kenmore, North Lake
Sammamish and South Lake Sammamish plants.
Costs. For Alternative H, the estimated capital cost
for constructing new treatment facilities, collection systems,
effluent disposal sites, sludge handling and disposal facili-
ties (excluding Renton) would be $307,700,000 (1976 dollars),
as summarized in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977).
This is 0.32 percent of the $95.902 billion estimated by
the EPA for implementation of PL 92-500 throughout the
country (EPA, 1976). The estimated operation and maintenance
costs (exluding Renton) would be $12,720,000 per year, as
shown in Table 3-13 (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977).
The estimated average Metro monthly user charge per
equivalent connection for the next 20 years would be $7.85
per month if all future facilities to 2005 are grant elig-
ible, as shown in Table 3-14. User charges would be $9.70
per month if future capacity beyond 1985 is not grant elig-
ible and would be $15.20 per month if no future facilities
are grant eligible. Since Alternative H complies with the
secondary treatment requirement of PL 92-500, which is a
condition for grant funding, it appears that the probable
user charge would be either $7.85 or $9.70 per month, an
amount $0.55 below or $1.30 above the average expected user
charge in Alternative B. Impact of cost would be adverse,
moderate, long-term, irreversible and definite.
Social, recreational and cultural. Alternative H would
meet the goal of 54 to 64 percent of the citizens surveyed
(HRPI, 1976), who expressed a preference for secondary treat-
ment. Impacts would be as described under Alternative E.
This alternative also has potential for reclamation and
re-use of effluent and sludge, as well as potential for more
complete local control of growth, but neither potential is
completely developed in this alternative.
374
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
Opinions of the residents in the areas of the wastewater
facilities are developed in the site specific documents.
Since only the Montlake and Third Avenue West regulator
stations would be installed for control of combined sewer
overflows, there still may be coliform levels occasionally
exceeding health standards at swimming beaches along Lake
Washington. This is considered adverse, major, highly limit-
ed in extent, long-term, reversible, and possible.
Archeological and historical. It has been determined
that any archeological sites which may have occurred at
West Point, Carkeek Park, Richmond Beach and Alki, would
have already been destroyed by former construction; there-
fore, any more construction in these locations could not
destroy archeological sites (Jerry Jermann, 1976) . Data of
archeological sites at North and South Lake Sammamish and
Kenmore have not been determined. For historical sites,
listed in Appendix E, none are known to be present at pro-
posed construction sites.
Health and safety. A continued negative impact as in
Alternative B would be associated with fecal coliform viola-
tions at Lake Washington public beaches.
Another highly unlikely safety hazard is accidental
leakage of spills of chemicals when they are in transport
or handled on site. Although nearly every U.S. water and
wastewater treatment facility uses chemicals, there have
been very few chemical-related accidents.
The health and safety problems related to sludge trans-
port and disposal would be as improbable as for any other
trucks in transit.
Construction risks to safety would be the same as for
other construction of a similar nature; they would be adverse,
minor, last only for the duration of construction, may be
reversible, and are unlikely.
Aesthetics and nuisance. Introducing secondary treat-
ment at West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park, and Richmond Beach
would generate some site-specific nuisance impacts for local
residents, as discussed in more detail in Volume II of the
EIS for various sites. However, surveys and public workshops
have generally indicated that more people (60 percent) in the
vicinity of these facilities thought "cleaning up the
375
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
environment" was more important than such aesthetic issues
as hiding the facility (6 percent) (HRPI, 1976). These
aesthetic and nuisance impacts are rated as adverse, minor,
long-term, reversible, and probable.
Interceptor and regulator construction would be a short-
term, reversible, local, and probable nuisance. Since the
Kenmore tunnel would be about 100 feet underground, blasting
often associated with tunneling would not disturb local res-
idents along most of the tunnel route through this population
district.
The nuisance or aesthetic factors associated with the
installation of North and South Lake Sammamish and Kenmore
treatment facilities have not been determined. Further
environmental analysis will be undertaken for site-specific
impacts if this more conceptual alternative is chosen.
Secondary Impacts
The secondary or indirect impacts of the alternative
would result from expanding the Renton treatment plant and
population growth. The effects of these changes on water
quality, biology, energy, natural resources and the human
environment are described below.
Water Quality
Impacts on the Duwamish estuary and groundwater are
described below.
Duwamish estuary. At an average design capacity of 72
mgd, the Renton discharge would equal about 50 percent of
the Duwamish summer low flows. The resulting flow augmenta-
tion could help alleviate temperature problems which develop
in summer, but probably would not improve oxygen levels.
Nutrient levels could be significantly affected by the in-
creases in Renton effluent. Metals and toxicants input from
Renton is expected to be minor. The overall adverse impact
of expanding Renton is judged to be significant, because of
the size of the discharge relative to the Duwamish flow and
extensive because pollutants from the Duwamish can affect
beaches over a wide area. Effects would be long-term
because the increased discharge would continue through the
planning period. Except for the accumulation of toxicants
376
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
and heavy metals, impacts would be reversible. CSO's would
add 1 percent of Renton's projected flow at 13 points.
Groundwater and other freshwaters. The impacts of
(1) unsewered population growth on groundwater resources and
(2) additional urban development on urban runoff and Lake
Sammamish water quality would approximately be as described
under Alternative B. With Alternative H, the potential
exists for closer control of population distribution within
inland areas served by the Kenmore, North Lake Sammamish and
South Lake Sammamish plants, but the population number and
distribution used in the Facility Plan for this alternative
was the same as for all other alternatives.
Biology
In Alternative H, the Renton facility would be expanded
to 72 mgd average flow, which would be 16 percent less than
in Alternative B. The difference is important as the Renton
flow to the Duwamish is large relative to the river's flow.
Flow would affect the temperature and dissolved oxygen levels
of the Duwamish, since the effluent would comprise almost
half the river's summer low flow.
The increased freshwater flow would change the salinity
distribution, such that summer blooms may consist of fresh-
water rather than marine phytoplankton. The flow could also
provide better flushing of the estuary. The zooplankton would
probably also change, but to a lesser degree. The benthos
would continue to be stressed by CSO's, low DO and nutrient
enriched sediments, although more flow could mean better di-
lution in summer. The net effect on the benthos of the var-
ious minor benefits and major negative impacts is moderate-
to-major, negative and extensive. The effect on migratory
fishes would also be moderate-to-major, adverse, extensive,
and of long duration due to increased levels of nitrates and
low DO, discussed previously. The effect on other fishes
could also be major and adverse. Waterfowl could leave if
their prey species are adversely impacted. The effects are
considered to be reversible.
377
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy. For Alternative H, a net of 46 million
equivalent kwh/year of energy would be consumed in 2005 at
Renton. Included would be 40 million kwh/year of electrical
energy purchased; 1 kwh/year equivalent energy for sludge
trucking and 9 million equivalent kwh/year required to
produce the chemicals consumed. A net of 4 equivalent kwh/
year would be produced by the process of anaerobic digestion,
The impact of the energy consumption would be adverse, mod-
erate in magnitude, long-term, irreversible and definite.
Chemicals. Chlorine, sulfur dioxide, lime, and polymer
would be used with annual consumption rates of 850, 255,
6650, and 935 tons, respectively, at Renton. The impact
of chemical usage would be adverse, moderate, long-term,
irreversible and definite. The supplies of chlorine, sulfur
dioxide, and polymer are reliable. Lime is available in
moderate supply.
Human Environment
Impacts on population, employment, and costs are
described in the following section.
Population and employment. The Deconsolidation/
Reclamation Alternative could result in a slight facilitation
of regional growth over the long term due to the improvement
or preservation of water quality.
Alternative H may also encourage or limit growth in
outlying areas near Lake Sammamish and Northern Lake
Washington, because of the three wastewater treatment facil-
ities which would be constructed in these areas. Impacts
would be dependent upon response of local governmental
officials.
Operation and management employment at Renton would be
58 people, plus other Metro related staff. Construction
would involve approximately 150 employees for 5 years.
378
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
Costs. Capital costs for construction at Renton would
be $94,300,000, as indicated in Table 3-13. Renton operation
and maintenance would cost $4,380,000 per year. The effect
of this on user charge is noted in the primary impact section,
since user charges are determined on a Metro-wide basis.
Impact of cost would be adverse, moderate, long-term, irre-
versible, and definite.
Mitigation Measures
Several mitigation measures are suggested to aid in the
reduction of adverse impacts resulting from the implementa-
tion of this alternative.
An improved chlorine feed system can be designed to
prevent chlorine levels in the Alki, Carkeek Park and
Richmond Beach sewage treatment plant effluent water from
exceeding dangerous levels. This could be achieved by match-
ing chlorine levels to effluent discharge, and/or installing
a chlorine contact tank, which would maximize the effective-
ness of chlorination treatment. Currently chlorine is in-
jected into the effluent flow at a constant rate set daily,
regardless of hourly fluctuations in wastewater flow through
the treatment facility. This causes a fluctuating chlorine
residual. Chlorine feed rate is residual paced at West Point
but peaks in residual chlorine are not uncommon. In addition,
the residual is measured a short distance downstream of the
chlorine feeding point and therefore does not reflect the
actual chlorine residual before discharging to Puget Sound.
Control of chlorine residual would be achieved at West Point
through installation of a chlorine contact tank.
Pretreatment of industrial wastes could be provided
before sewage enters the West Point plant. If current prac-
tices continue, influent to these facilities would occasion-
ally contain slugs of cadmium, mercury and arsenic.
Visual nuisance of the wastewater treatment facilities
can be mitigated by (1) designing new facilities and addi-
tions to existing facilities utilizing natural geographic
features (e.g., bluffs) and (2) landscaping the facilities.
Odor of the wastewater treatment facilities can be
mitigated, in part, by not allowing the system to become
anaerobic. Under anaerobic conditions, noxious gases such
379
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Alternative H
as methane and sulfur dioxide are emitted. Odor control
measures independent of facility planning decisions are cur-
rently being evaluated by Metro.
The energy impact can be in part defrayed by utilizing
more of the methane gas which is produced by anaerobic diges-
tion. Nearly half of this methane gas is flared off under
current practices. However, the cost-effectiveness of meth-
ane storage and transport has not been determined yet.
The high coliform levels at public beaches could pos-
sibly be reduced by using the CATAD computer control system
to plan the discharge of combined sewer overflows at sites
remote from the public beaches as a first preference.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Under Alternative H, the following adverse impacts
would be unavoidable:
• Construction impacts
• Sludge trucking
• Combined sewer overflows
• Land use changes
• Aesthetic nuisance of plant location
• Operation and maintenance (O&M) and
capital costs
• Energy expenditures
For greater detail regarding unavoidable impacts, the reader
is referred to the preceding impact analysis.
380
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
IMPACTS OF GROWTH
The direct and indirect impacts of population increase
and distribution have been considered in the EIS to the
extent feasible. The background on population projections
for future alternatives plus descriptions of agencies that
can influence growth patterns and a summary of primary and
secondary impacts are presented in this section.
Population Projections
Since the EIS analyzes impacts from the Draft Facility
Plan (Metropolitan Engineers, 1977), the population projec-
tions developed in the facilities planning process have been
used in the EIS. The regional population for the Metro
study area (including Renton) in 2005 was based on the Puget
Sound Council of Governments intermediate 201/208 forecasts
as described in Chapter II. The 2005 population was pro-
jected to be 1,502,000 representing a 45 percent increase
over the 1975 population of 1,034,000. For the existing or
designated service areas for the Puget Sound plants (West
Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach), the 1975
population of 699,000 would increase by 34 percent to
943,000.
Under Alternatives A through H, the 2005 population
and its distribution would be the same, regardless of waste-
water facilities, according to the assumptions in the Draft
Facility Plan. The only differences are (1) the number of
sewered and unsewered persons and (2) the number of persons
within the area served by various wastewater treatment plants,
Under Alternative A, the total Metro service area population
would include 900,000 sewered and 602,000 unsewered persons,
for the total regional population of 1,502,000. Under the
remaining alternatives, the sewered population would be
l,478,000f only 24,000 of the 1,502,000 population would not
be sewered. The population distribution, however, would be
identical under all regional alternatives. Variations in
collection systems and major transfer interceptors would
determine the flow to any given wastewater treatment plant,
but the total sewered wastewater flow would be a constant
under Alternatives B through H.
Agency Policies and Growth Patterns
Several governmental units or agencies have some in-
381
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
fluence on population and distribution patterns within the
Metro service area. Among these are local, regional and
state agencies.
Metro constructs and operates regional wastewater
facilities and reviews local plans. The agency is presently
preparing a 208 plan that considers on-site individual
wastewater treatment units and other alternatives to sewers.
Although Metro may have some indirect influence on the loca-
tion of interceptor sewers to serve areas projected for
growth, Metro's official policy on interceptors is that it
will not participate in the planning, design or construction
of any interceptors without formal legislative action in
writing from the municipality or county having jurisdiction
for land use planning in that area. The exception is under
legal, regulatory or public health requirements (R. Page
letter to Metro Council, March 23, 1977). Procedures for
implementing this policy are described in Metro's Draft 208
Plan.
In the Draft Facility Plan, there are no proposed inter-
ceptors that would serve new growth areas. For example,
under Alternative A where no new facilities would be con-
structed, the sewered population in the service areas for
West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach would
increase from 594,000 (in 1975) to 620,000 (in 2005) due to
filling in of undeveloped areas presently served by sewers.
However, the remaining 323,000 persons in the combined ser-
vice area would not be served by the wastewater collection
system. For Alternatives B through H, the proposed inter-
ceptors would be collection system transfer interceptors
needed to accommodate the proposed changes in wastewater
treatment plant service areas (Figure 3-1), rather than to
serve areas of projected population increase. Most inter-
ceptors to serve new growth would be built within the present
Renton service area which is not included as part of the
Draft Facility Plan and the Draft EIS. Individual intercep-
tors for newly developing areas would be governed in the
future by the Metro policy described previously.
The direct or indirect influences of other agencies on
relationships among sewers, land use and population are
summarized below.
Incorporated cities and towns have the authority to
control or regulate local sewer collection systems, septic
tanks and land use patterns, thus influencing growth patterns
as well as some water quality impacts. King County has these
same functions for unincorporated areas, plus the responsi-
bility to review sewerage plans, issue franchises to water
382
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
and sewer districts, and determine property tax assessments.
Sewer districts and some water districts can prepare compre-
hensive sewerage plans, construct and operate local sewer
collection systems. The Seattle/King County Health Depart-
ment regulates septic tanks and can establish a building
moratorium if adverse health effects result. The State
Department of Social and Health Services sets minimum stan-
dards for septic tanks and is also investigating on-site
treatment. The Boundary Review Board reviews and approves
governmental boundary changes. The Puget Sound Council of
Governments (PSCOG) prepares regional population and land
use forecasts, which are used by local agencies for planning,
and reviews interagency proposals that would require federal
funding. The DOE determines wastewater facilities priori-
ties, funds 15 percent of eligible capital costs, sets state
water quality standards and regulates permitted discharge.
The EPA funds up to 75 percent of the capital costs of
eligible wastewater facilities.
Primary Impacts from Growth
The impacts that can be directly attributed to addi-
tional population in the study area have been addressed in
the Draft EIS. The main impacts are related to increasing
wastewater flow and facilities costs.
One direct impact from population growth projected in
the Draft Facility Plan would be production of larger amounts
of wastewater, which could affect combined sewer overflows
or wastewater treatment plant discharges. Impacts of com-
bined sewer overflows on water quality, biology and public
health are described for each alternative in the Draft EIS.
These impacts would occur to some degree under Alternatives
A through H. The locations and volumes of CSO's and treat-
ment plant discharges would depend upon service area selec-
tion, treatment plant discharge site and CSO controls and
would thus differ with Alternatives A through H even though
population distribution would remain the same.
Larger populations and wastewater flows would also
affect costs, since costs for wastewater transport, transfer,
treatment and disposal are related to facilities site. These
costs impacts are described for each alternative under the
human environment section.
383
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Secondary Impacts of Growth
The secondary impacts of growth are described briefly
below because growth has been an important issue in comments
on the EIS received to date and because growth is implicit
in the Facility Plan as regards facilities siting even though
growth interceptors are not explicitly proposed by Metro.
Several points on regional population totals are rele-
vant before discussing secondary impacts.
First, the additional 468,000 total Metro service area
population projected to 2005 is roughly equivalent to the
current population of Seattle (500,000) which illustrates
the overall magnitude of growth.
Second, more undeveloped land is available than needed
for future growth in the Metro service area (PSCOG, 1976).
Third, while interceptors are not the sole causative
factor in population distribution, it was formerly believed
that many areas in the Metro service area could not develop
beyond a low density without interceptors due to soil and
geologic constraints affecting feasibility of individual
treatment/disposal units (Wells, 1976). However, more re-
cent King County and PSCOG comments are that most areas in
the Metro service area can develop beyond a low density
without interceptors. Local agencies and the Metro 208 Plan
will examine alternatives for treating wastes that may allow
higher densities than septic tanks. However, where inter-
ceptors are built to serve less developed areas, they could
continue to affect the location of sewered population.
Fourth, long-range population projections are subject
to revisions and modifications based on future events that
are not entirely within the control of planning agencies or
contained within the original assumptions on population
change.
Fifth, the effect of interceptor service on future
growth would be more pronounced in the northern and eastern
portions of the Metro service area rather than in the other
presently developed areas.
Some of the secondary impacts of projected growth
patterns relative to present population would be:
1. Conversion of more undeveloped land to impervious
surface (assuming the same ground levels) would
result in an increase in runoff and water quality
384
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
problems from urban drainages, particularly for
Lakes Sammamish and Washington.
2. Increase in population and extent of developed area
could generate more air pollutants, depending on
future control technology.
3. Pumping larger quantities of sewage in the expanded
collection system would require more energy-
4. The larger population would place additional demands
on energy and natural resources, unless effective
construction measures were instituted.
5. In areas where development proceeded without sewers,
impacts would depend on treatment technology.
Septic tanks could result in groundwater and surface
water degradation; septic tank failures, likely
because of relatively impervious soils and uncer-
tain maintenance, could have adverse health effects.
Impacts from alternative technologies are being
studied in the 208 Plan.
6. Increases in developed land would interfere with
existing vegetation and wildlife habitat areas.
7. Additional growth, beyond that projected in the
Facility Plan, could be accommodated in some service
areas where combined sewer overflow control is pre-
sently proposed if, in the future, sewer separation
occurred and the dry weather plant capacity more
closely approached its wet weather capacity.
8. Equity among existing and new Metro customers may
be an issue since new facilities will be paid for
by all customers equally, under the current rate
structure. The question of equal distribution of
benefits has also been raised; protecting water
quality in regional resources such as Puget Sound
supports arguments in favor of equal benefits
received.
385
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
SUMMARY
Impacts of the regional alternatives are compared in
terms of geology, soils and topography; air quality and
odors; water quality; biology; natural resources and energy;
and the human environment.
Geology, Soils and Topography
The eight alternatives were evaluated for regional im-
pacts with respect to the following categories: slope and
foundation stability, earthquake hazard risk, erosion and
deposition, topography and soil profiles, shoreline fill
and marine sediments, sludge disposal sites and construct-
ion waste disposal sites.
No alternative would affect topography and soil profile
other than by minor changes at treatment plant sites.
Construction of transfer interceptors, treatment plants
and/or combined sewer overflow control facilities under al-
ternatives other than Alternative A would have temporary ef-
fects on topography, erosion and deposition. In particular,
constructing the various combined sewer overflow control
facilities under Alternatives C and D would be temporarily
disruptive. Impacts would be reversible in many instances
following completion of construction.
Consequently the Kenmore parallel interceptor under
Alternatives B, E, and G could cause some erosion, depo-
sition and siltation along the northwest shore of Lake
Washington. However, most impacts are controllable by
following proper construction priorities or by selecting
an optional inland route for the interceptor.
Shoreline fill required by West Point treatment plant
upgrading to secondary treatment under Alternatives E and
H would cause changes in topography, which are described
in the West Point EIS (Volume II).
Construction activities at new treatment plant sites
would involve site preparation and grading under Alternative
C (Duwamish plant at Diagonal Way), Alternative F (Duwamish
plant at Harbor Avenue, S.W.), Alternative G (in the Inter-
bay area Golf Park site), and Alternative H (Kenmore, North
Lake Sammamish and South Lake Sammamish).
Earthquake risk would be a function of structure and
386
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
site. Fill or soft, loosely consolidated soils would pre-
sent the highest seismic risk, which should be considered
in facility design to minimize risk of earthquake damage.
Construction waste disposal sites would be required for
most alternatives, but since sites have not been selected,
impacts cannot be projected.
Impacts of sludge disposal practices would be monitor-
ed for all alternatives at the Cedar Hills landfill and
Park Forest site. Although alternatives that include sec-
ondary treatment (Alternatives E, F, G and H) would gener-
ate more sludge than other alternatives, the additional
sludge would only reduce the projected 30-year Cedar Hills
landfill life by 1 year, even if all sludge were disposed
of there.
Impacts on geology, soils and topography for regional
alternatives are summarized in Table 3-38. Impacts would
result from all alternatives, including Alternative A (No
Action) which would continue sludge disposal on land and
earthquake risk to existing structures. Alternative B would
produce more impacts than Alternative A due to construction
of transfer interceptors and disposal of construction wastes.
For the remaining Alternatives C through H, there would be
major construction activities that could affect geology,
topography and soils. Although the alternatives contain
different mixtures of projects (treatment plants, transfer
interceptors, combined sewer overflow control structures,
outfalls and others), the overall impacts of Alternatives C
through H would be similar in magnitude. Therefore, it is
concluded that the physical impacts on land resources, al-
though possibly moderate-to-major in magnitude, do not serve
to distinguish among Alternatives C through H in the deci-
sion-making process. Each of these alternatives would pro-
duce impacts, but the decision would be based on which areas
are of greatest importance.
Air Quality and Odors .
Impacts on regional air quality from all alternatives
would be negligible. Some odors would be generated in lo-
calized areas near wastewater treatment plants and combined
sewer overflow points.
Projections of air pollutant emissions in 2005 were
estimated for all Metro wastewater treatment facilities ac-
cording to the procedures described in Appendix C. Esti-
mated daily emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and
387
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
TABLE 3-38
IMPACTS ON GEOLOGY, SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY
IMPACTS FROM PROJECTS REGIONAL ALTERNATIVES
ABCDEFGH
Grading for construction at new X XXX
plant sites
Grading for construction at ex- X X X X
isting plant sites
Foundations for equipment at XXX
existing sites
Earthquake risk to structures XXXXXXXX
Shoreline fill for plant ex- x x
pansion
Excavation or tunneling from X X X X X X X
transfer interceptor construc-
tion
Erosion, deposition, siltation X XX
in freshwater
Disturbance of benthic sediment XXX
in enclosed bay or canal
Benthic disturbance from new XX XXX
outfall construction
Excavation for combined sewer X X
overflow control structures
Disposal of construction wastes X X X X X X X
Disposal of sludge at landfill XXXXXXXX
or forest site
388
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
nitrogen oxides for sludge trucking and treatment plant per-
sonnel traffic are summarized in Table 3-39. For all alter-
natives, emissions from employee traffic greatly exceed
emissions from sludge truck traffic, primarily due to the
differences in vehicle miles traveled. As plant size, num-
ber and treatment process complexity increase, the number
of employees increases; therefore, air pollutant emissions
for secondary treatment alternatives (E, F, G and H) are
higher than for primary or enhanced primary alternatives
(A, B, C and D). The alternatives show little difference
in sludge truck emissions, since alternatives that contain
treatment processes which produce larger sludge volumes also
include more on-site sludge processing facilities. Although
calculations for Table 3-39 assumed all sludge would be
transported to Cedar Hills landfill, the fact that some
sludge (approximately 40 percent) would be transported to
Pack Forest would not significantly affect air pollutants
because sludge truck traffic contributes a small share of
the air pollutants compared to plant personnel traffic.
Since activities under all alternatives would emit less than
1 percent of the total air pollutants produced in the Seattle
area at present, Alternatives A through H would have a negli-
gible impact on air quality of the area in 2005.
Odors are described in detail in site-specific docu-
ments but are summarized here. At Alki, odors would con-
tinue under Alternatives A, B and D and would probably in-
crease under Alternatives E, G and H as secondary treatment
is provided, unless Metro implements separate odor control
measures that are now being considered independent of other
facilities planning decisions. With abandonment in 1995
(Alternative F), plant odors at Alki would be eliminated.
Until the time of abandonment, odors would continue unless
controlled. At Carkeek Park, odor could be detected in the
park near the plant under Alternatives A, B, C and D; it
could increase slightly under Alternative H (secondary treat-
ment) . With conversion to wet weather treatment under Alter-
natives E, F and G, Carkeek Park plant odors would be elim-
inated in dry weather. Odors, which have not been a prob-
lem at Richmond Beach to date, would increase under second-
ary treatment (Alternatives E, F, G and H), but would not be
a concern beyond the plant boundary. At West Point, odors
at the plant site would continue under Alternatives A, B,
C and D; they could increase under secondary treatment (Al-
ternatives E, F and H) and would be eliminated in dry weather
under Alternative G. In any case, odors at West Point would
typically be unnoticeable beyond the plant property. Other
areas would be affected by new wastewater treatment plants
and attendant odors under Alternative C (Duwamish Diagonal
Way site), Alternative F (Duwamish Harbor-Avenue, S.W. site),
Alternative G (Interbay Golf Park site), and Alternative H
389
-------
TABLE 3-39
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS SUMMARY
AIR POLLUTANTS
FROM PROJECT
ACTIVITIES
(grams/day)
REGIONAL ALTERNATIVES
A
B
D
H
oo
vo
o
Hydrocarbons
Sludge Trucking
Personnel
Total
Carbon Monoxide
Sludge Trucking
Personnel
Total
Nitrogen Oxides
Sludge Trucking
Personnel
Total
435
2455
2890
2710
31250
33690
1975
4050
6025
710
3590
4300
4435
45700
50135
3230
5920
9150
440
4790
5230
2755
60935
63690
2010
7895
9905
435
4205
4640
2710
53510
56220
1975
7895
8905
415
5190
5605
2885
66010
68595
1880
8550
10430
425
5340
5765
2645
67965
70610
1930
8805
10735
440
6080
6520
2740
77340
80080
1995
10020
12015
520
6815
7335
3230
86715
89945
2350
11235
13585
rt
CD
rt
H-
<
CD
fu
o
rt
en
NOTE: Calculations assume all sludge would be trucked to Cedar Hills landfill.
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
(Kenmore, North Lake Sammamish and South Lake Sammamish plant
sites). On a regional level, some odors would continue at
combined sewer overflow locations under each alternative.
On a regional level, none of the alternatives would have
major adverse impacts. Site-specific EIS volumes should be
consulted for more detail on localized odors and their im-
pacts.
Water Quality
The impacts of regional alternatives on water quality
represent a key issue in both the facilities planning and
EIS process. Central to the EIS analysis were the types of
wastewater treatment and combined sewer overflow controls
for each alternative. Important elements of consideration
for treatment plant discharges were (1) treatment process,
(2) effluent quality, (3) wastewater flows under average and
peak conditions, (4) effluent discharge location, (5) re-
ceiving water characteristics and (6) dilution or dispersal
conditions. For combined sewer overflows, evaluations in-
cluded (1) overflow location, (2) overflow frequency, (3)
overflow quality (based on the limited data available),
(4) receiving water characteristics, and (5) dilution or dis-
persal conditions.
The projected wastewater flows and pollutant loads to
receiving waters are summarized for regional alternatives
(in 2005) and existing conditions (in 1975) in Table 3-40.
Projections of wastewater volume, solids load and biochemical
oxygen load (BOD) on an annual basis were provided by the
facilities planning engineers and represent updated inform-
ation from the Draft Facility Plan.
The table summarizes combined sewer overflows to Lake
Washington, Lake Sammamish, Portage Bay/Montlake Cut, Lake
Union, Ship Canal/Salmon Bay, Elliott Bay, Alki Beach, and
the Duwamish/Green River from the Metro/Seattle overflow
points for each alternative. CSO volumes were estimated
from a computer model by the facilities planning engineers.
Average pollutant loads in combined sewer overflows, based
on calculations from information in Table 3-40, would be
218 milligrams per liter (mg/1) suspended solids and 60 mgl
BOD. Only limited sampling has been made on other water
quality components in combined sewer overflows.
Discharges from wastewater treatment plants are also
summarized in each alternative in Table 3-40. Depending
upon which alternative is selected, total Metro treatment
plant discharge volumes in 2005 would exceed combined sewer
391
-------
SUMMARY OF
WASTEWATER FLOWS AND POLLUTANT LOADS
TO RECEIVING WATERS IN 2005
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
overflow volumes by 59 to 137 times. Thus, effects of plant
discharge were examined systematically in the EIS. Based on
information in Table 3-40, updated from the Draft Facility
Plan by the facilities planning engineers, the annual average
treated water quality (suspended solids/BOD in mg/1) would
be as follows: primary (60/80), enhanced primary (46/63),
secondary (15/15), secondary plus nitrification and filtra-
tion (5/10), and advanced waste treatment (10/10).
Based on the information in Table 3-40, regional impacts
on water quality were projected. Since the regional alter-
natives essentially contain either treatment plant upgrading
or combined sewer overflow control, the tradeoffs in water
quality impacts are apparent.
For combined sewer overflows, Alternative C (Major CSO
Control) would achieve the largest degree of control rela-
tive to Alternative B of 40 percent overall and over 80 per-
cent to some receiving waters (Lake Washington, Portage Bay/
Montlake Cut, Lake Union, Ship Canal/Salmon Bay, and Alki
Beach). In comparison, Alternative D (Partial CSO Control)
would reduce total CSO's by 16 percent compared to Alter-
native B. Alternative F (Secondary/Southern Strategy), the
only alternative devloped with treatment plant upgrading and
combined sewer overflow control objectives, would reduce
total CSO's by a comparable amount (17 percent decrease re-
lative to Alternative B), but Alternative F
would emphasize CSO control to saltwater (Elliott Bay, Alki
Beach) rather than freshwater (Lake Washington). Alternative
H would achieve a minor (6 percent) CSO reduction due to
transfers in service area. Alternatives E and G would in-
crease total CSO volume by a minor amount (1 percent). Al-
ternative B would result in increased (12 percent) combined
sewer overflows over existing conditions due to larger sew-
ered populations. Alternative A would continue at existing
overflow levels.
In order of increasing combined sewer overflow control,
the regional alternatives would be ordered as follows: E
and G, B, H, A, D, F and C. Since combined sewer overflows
could adversely affect concentrations of nutrients, toxi-
cants and microorganisms in localized portions of receiving
waters near the overflow points, controlling CSO's could
have beneficial impacts on water quality- However, none of
the proposed alternatives would achieve complete CSO control.
The discharge of treated wastewater would also affect
water quality, primarily to a limited degree and localized
near outfalls. With the exception of Alternative H, all
Metro treatment plants included in the Draft Facility Plan
would discharge wastewater to Puget Sound. Therefore,
393
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
impacts on the sound are central in describing water quality
impacts.
The total wastewater discharge to Puget Sound (including
Elliott Bay) in 2005 would be approximately 49 billion
gallons under Alternative A (approximately 1 billion gallons
per year more than existing flow). Annual flows in gallons
for other alternatives would increase due to increases in
sewered population and selection of service area in the
following order: Alternatives C and D (60 billion), Alter-
natives B, E and G (62 billion), Alternative H (69 billion)
and Alternative F (95 billion). The discharge for Alter-
native F is larger than others due to the transfer of flows
from the inland plant at Reaton to the Alki outfall.
In terms of water quality impacts, the alternatives can
be compared in terms of pollutant loads which are more mean-
ingful than total flows. As an indication of possible con-
tamination, the suspended soilds loads to Puget Sound have
been estimated. (Suspended solids were selected since they
can absorb metals, organics of other toxicants that could
affect marine life and they could protect microorganisms from
disinfectant action). For increasing potential impacts on
water quality related to suspended solids, the alternatives
would be ordered as follows: Alternatives E and G (4 tons/
yr); Alternative H (5 tons/yr); Alternative F (6 tons/yr);
Alternatives A, C and D (12 tons/yr); and Alternative B
(16 tons/yr).
The total solids loads indicate the secondary treat-
ment alternatives (E, F, G and H) would be less likely to
affect Puget Sound water quality than primary treatment
(Alternatives A and B) or enhanced primary treatment
(Alternatives C and D). Alternatives A, C and D would
discharge approximately the same solids load to the sound
at existing plants. Therefore, these alternatives would
represent nondegradation (but also no improvement) over
existing conditions which have been shown to produce minor
changes in water quality (higher turbidity, lower dissolved
oxygen) near the outfalls studied. Alternative B, by
serving larger populations and not upgrading treatment, would
increase the potential for water quality changes. The
secondary treatment alternatives (e, F, G and H) would
decrease solids to 4-6 tons/yr and are expected to show some
improvements in water quality.
One water quality parameter that would not be
substantially improved, with upgraded treatment would be
nitrogen. Therefore, all alternatives except A would
result in additional nutrient discharge, which may affect
the intensity of plankton blooms.
394
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
The location of discharge is also an important consid-
eration, since potential impacts could be transferred from
one area to another. Alternatives A, B and D would continue
at West Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach, while
Alternative D would transfer flows from Alki and elsewhere
to the Duwamish Plant for discharge to the Duwamish. Alter-
native E will continue existing discharge points except at
Carkeek Park; Alternative G would be similar except for
some added discharge to Elliott Bay. Alternative F would
add flows from Renton off Alki Point, but eliminate dis-
charges at Carkeek Park. Alternative H would increase dis-
charge off Richmond Beach and produce wastewater inland
for disposal to Lake Sammamish, the Sammamish River and/or
land applications. Thus, the location of potential im-
pacts in Puget Sound would be related to discharge point.
For discharge at new locations or where flow would increase
substantially (Alternative F at Alki, Alternative G at
Elliott Bay, or Alternative H at Richmond Beach), further
environmental analysis of more conceptual alternatives
would be completed if such an alternative were selected.
Because of observed circulation patterns that pro-
duce some eddies at slack tide, it appears that diluted
effluent could reach nearby beaches. Although not all the
existing outfalls and beaches have been sampled for effluent
dilution, it appears from other information on circulation
diluted effluent could reach beaches near the plants. In
terms of water quality, alternatives with upgraded treat-
ment would be less likely to contain microorganisms, sus-
pended solids, or toxicants that could produce minor adverse
effects on nearshore water quality.
In conclusion, it appears that all regional alternatives
could have some impact on water quality in Puget Sound. Up-
graded treatment would reduce the potential for adverse
impacts, but none would completely clean up Puget Sound. In
addition to Metro's wastewater loads, Puget Sound would
still be subject to combined sewer overflows, flows from other
municipal discharges, industries, urban runoff, aerial fall-
out, and transportation.
Many unknowns remain in assessing Puget Sound water
quality today or in the future. Evidence to date suggests
that present Metro discharges have produced only minor
changes (such as decreases in dissolved oxygen or increases
in turbidity and nutrients) which have occurred only near
the outfalls. However, not all sites have been sampled
extensively nor have all water quality parameters of interest
been examined. Therefore, although past studies and future
projections indicate alternatives would produce only small
variations in water quality, the possibility of more subtle,
395
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
long-term effects remains since marine organisms can be
affected by very small water quality changes.
Biology
The eight alternatives are summarized with respect to
their impacts on biologic systems, including terrestrial
habitats, shoreline habitats, the intertidal, Puget Sound,
the Duwamish estuary, commercial and sport fisheries, en-
dangered species, and freshwater environments.
Terrestrial Habitats
In general, impacts on terrestrial habitats were con-
sidered to be site-specific rather than regional. Site-
specific impacts of the inland plants proposed in Alter-
native H were discussed generally herein as no sites have
yet been selected. The impacts are expected to be moderate,
but highly limited in extent.
Shoreline Habitat
Combined sewer overflows could affect freshwater marshes
in Lake Washington and Lake Union/Ship Canal which are
considered to be sensitive habitats as they are highly
productive, have limited dilution and mixing properties
and support a wide variety of birds, mammals, fishes and
other vertebrates. Since combined sewer overflows contain
metals, pesticides, toxicants, BOD, solids and other para-
meters that can stress biota in a variety of ways, marshes
would benefit most by Alternative C, Major CSO Control,
which could reduce loads and flows by 99 percent to Lake
Washington and 93 percent to Lake Union. Relative to
Alternative B second best is D, Partial CSO Control, which
would reduce these overflows by 83 percent and 61 percent
respectively- Alternative F, Southern Strategy, would
mean 31 and 17 percent reductions; Alternative H would reduce
Lake Washington overflows by 15 percent and those to the
Lake Union by 8 percent. Alternatives E and G would con-
tinue overflows to these waters as baseline (Alternative
B) levels, higher than present and Alternative A levels
by 37 and 17 percent for these areas.
396
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
The Intertidal
Impacts to the Puget Sound, intertidal could be due to
sewer overflows (primarily at Elliott Bay and at Alki/West
Seattle) and the possibility of treatment plant effluent
coming ashore at West Point or near other outfalls. An
apparent enrichment of algae at West Point (and perhaps at
Alki) plus fecal coliform bacterial levels exceeding state
shellfish water standards at all sites in the area are
present and future impacts. No effects of effluent have been
suggested for intertidal animals except grazers on algae
which appear to show increased growth rates.
Puget Sound
The biota of nearshore and offshore waters would be
affected more by treatment plant effluent than combined
sewer overflows. The size of algae blooms, for which a
15 to 20 percent increase over background levels has been
attributed to present discharges, could be increased under
all alternatives. Increasing future flows (over the 47
billion gallons per year in present conditions) would be
approximately proportional to additional nutrient loads
and influence on algae bloom size, since this alternative
treatment processes would not remove nitrogen, which apparent-
ly is the limiting nutrient in the Sound. Therefore,
impacts on algae bloom size would increase in approximately
the order of wastewater discharge to the Sound. Alter-
native A (47 billion gallons per year); Alternatives B,
C, D, E, G and H (60 to 66 billion gallons per year), and
Alternative F (95 billion gallons per year). The discharge
of Renton flow off Alki under Alternative F would place a
large nutrient source near one of the two places in the
Central Sound where major algae blooms develop.
Overflow volume to the intertidal at Elliott Bay
would increase in the following order: Alternative F
(304 million gallons per year); Alternatives A, B, E, F,
G and H (358 million gallons per year); Alternative D (443
million gallons per year); and Alternative C (448 million
gallons per year). CSO control under Alternatives C and D
would transfer flows from freshwaters to Elliott Bay;
only Alternative F would provide any improvement relative
to Alternative B. For Alki Beach, overflow volumes would be:
0.15 million gallons per year under Alternatives C and F;
4.47 million gallons per year under Alternative D; and
397
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
5.5 million gallons per year under Alternatives A, B, E,
F, G and H. Therefore, the alternative which would have
the least impact from combined sewer overflows on the inter-
tidal biota would be Alternative F.
For treated wastewaters, the secondary alternatives
(E, F, G and H) would be beneficial to the intertidal, since
suspended soilds and BOD would be reduced in any effluent
that may wash ashore in a diluted state. Although flows
would increase in Alternatives C and D, wastewater solids
and organics loads would remain at existing (1975) or no
action (Alternative A) levels.
Possible changes in the diversity, abundance and com-
position of bottom communities are judged to be possibly
more related to solids and BOD loads than nutrients and so
may be more affected by effluent treatment levels. Thus
secondary treatment Alternatives E, F, G and H could decrease
the magnitude of the effect seen. Alternatives C and D
would maintain it at present (1975) of Alternative A
levels but would be a decrease from Alternative B levels.
Higher metals levels in Puget Sound biota near the outfalls
would be similarly reduced more by E, F, G and H as second-
ary treatment removes substantially more metals than en-
hanced primary treatment.
The cause(s) of the elevated incidence of tumorous flat-
fish at West Point has not been identified. The presence
of the outfall pipe and/or its contents may be involved,
but to an unknown extent. As a result, the effects of the
various alternatives on disease incidence cannot be deter-
mined.
Possible effects of overchlorination (possible chlorine
toxicity) or underchlorination (inadequate disinfection)
could be reduced under certain alternatives, with second-
ary treatment (Alternatives E, F, G and H). The chlorine
contact basins would improve disinfection before discharge,
possibly producing lower bacterial counts along beaches, and
dechlorization by sulfonation would remove the potential for
possible toxic impacts of residual chlorine. Since Alterna-
tives A, B, C and D would not include improved chlorination,
possible residual toxicity and/or inadequate disinfection
could continue.
Commercial and Sport Fisheries
Migratory fish runs up the Ship Canal through Lake
Washington would benefit most by alternatives that control
398
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
combined sewer overflows. Alternative C, which would con-
trol CSO's to Lake Washington by 99 percent and to the Ship
Canal by 89 percent relative to Alternative B, would pro-
duce the most substantial benefits of all alternatives.
Corresponding reductions of 83 and 61 percent for Alternative
D would be beneficial also. The other alternatives would
include CSO discharge to Lake Washington and the Ship Canal
in approximately following increasing order: Alternative F,
A, H, B, E and G.
The migratory fish runs up the Duwamish River would be
influenced mainly by the effluent flow and quality from the
Renton treatment plant. Combined sewer overflows to the
Duwamish and to Elliott Bay, would have adverse impacts,
but to a lesser degree. All alternatives except C would
continue CSO's at existing levels to the Duwamish, a small
benefit would result from CSO reduction in Alternative C.
Alternative F would produce a minor benefit to Elliott Bay
by reducing CSO's to 304 million gallons per year; Alter-
natives A, B, E, G and H would continue at existing levels,
while Alternatives C and D would increase CSO flows and
possible impacts on fish in Elliott Bay.
The Duwamish Estuary
Primary impacts for combined sewer overflow would
continue under all alternatives except C, wherein a 26
percent reduction relative to Alternative B could be bene-
ficial. Alternative F would produce the most substantial
beneficial impact on the estuary, due to transfer of Renton
flows to Puget Sound off Alki Point. Secondary impacts from
the Renton plant would be related to its discharge of
nutrients, toxicants and oxygen demanding materials, as
described for each alternative.
Freshwater Environments
These are affected primarily by overflows, except in
B, E, and G where construction of a Kenmore parallel inter-
ceptor would temporarily disrupt the northwest shore of Lake
Washington, and in H where inland plants could discharge
advanced treated effluents to Lake Sammamish and the
Sammamish River.
CSO's to freshwaters would be reduced most by C and by
D, and thirdly by F to a more moderate extent. Other
399
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
alternatives would continue CSO impacts on biota near
discharge approximately at existing levels.
Discharges to inland waters could have important nega-
tive effects. Nutrient loads could be sensitive at Lake
Sammamish with respect to eutrophication potential. Tem-
perature could be important in the Sammamish River with
respect to limits tolerated by migrating fish.
Rare and Endangered Species and Sensitive Habitats
No listed rare or endangered species are recorded from
the study area. Critical or sensitive habitats, such as
salmon spawning and rearing areas, fish migration routes,
waterfowl areas and lake shallows were discussed in other
sections. CSO control generally benefited these most.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy and chemical requirements are summarized below.
The total energy consumption projected for each alter-
native is shown in Table 3-41. Since energy requirements
include power to operate treatment processes, produce
chemicals, digest sludge, transport sludge and other acti-
vities, the energy requirements increase with the com-
plexity and size of the treatment plant. Thus, energy re-
quirements increase from 24 to 25 million kwh/yr with pri-
mary treatment (Alternatives A and B), 34 to 36 million
kwh/yr with enhanced primary (Alternatives C and D), 81 to
84 million kwh/yr with secondary (Alternatives E, F and G)
and to 124 kwh/yr with secondary plus some advanced waste
treatment. The range from 24 to 124 million kwh/yr would
be approximately equivalent to that required by 1200 to
6200 houses in the northwest area, less than 1 percent of
the total projected energy requirements for the Metropoli-
tan Seattle area for all alternatives. Thus, the impacts
from all alternatives would be minor to moderate, adverse,
irreversible and long-term.
Secondary effects on the entire Metro area would result
from energy consumption at the Renton plant of 28 to 64
million kwh/yr. Thus, the total Metro energy consumption
for treatment plant operation in 2005 would range from 53
to 170 million kwh/yr.
400
-------
Puget Sound
Plants
Renton STP
Total
«
o
•H
-P
0
o
3
i
<
24.3
28.3
52.7
Pursuant
500
C 1
O
U O H
O
tl t, 1 tj
O 0) -P
•n £ d
(d (i) o
S CO CJ
1
CJ
35. 9a
63.6
99.5
ombined
rflow
o o
CM co o
1
P
34.2
63.6
97.6
^i
id
•O
C
O
o
(U
CO
i
H
87.5
55.8
143.3
^i
id M trv
•d d)
-------
Alternatives and IMpacts
Summary
Chemicals
Chemical consumption for each alternative is summa-
rized in Table 3-42 (which includes Renton as a regional
impact). Like energy consumption, total chemical require-
ments increase with treatment process complexity and plant
size. Chlorine consumption for disinfection would vary
from 2940 to 3840 tons per year, tending to increase with
larger wastewater volumes and decrease with degree of
treatment to achieve comparable disinfection. Sulfur
dioxide would be used for dechlorination only when secon-
dary treatment, or more advanced, is provided (Alterna-
tives E, F, G and H). Requirements for lime (CaO), ferric
chloride (Fed.,) , alum and polymer for solids removal
and/or handling would be dependent on treatment process
and wastewater flows. Methanol for denitrification,
sodium chloride (salt) for recharging ion exchange equip-
ment, and activated carbon, for organics removal would be
required only for advanced waste treatment plants.
Although the amount of chemicals required under vari-
ous alternatives would be substantial, most of the chemi-
cal supplies of the inorganic chemicals should continue to
be reliable; some synthetic organic materials (such as
polymer) may be less readily available in the future since
their production is currently linked to oil. Overall, the
effect of chemical consumption could have minor, adverse,
long-term, irreversible impacts for all alternatives.
Human Environment
Alternatives A (NO Action) and B [Metro comprehensive
Plan (No Action pursuant to PL 92-500)], do not fulfill
most agency goals, do not comply with PL 92500, and make
few attempts to alleviate the aesthetic problems currently
existent.
Alternatives C and D address Metro's goal of best
practicable treatment. Combined sewer overflow is a priori-
tized part of that goal to correct water quality problems.
Based on the Draft EIS analysis, these alternatives would
reduce bacterial input to Lake Washington public beaches
and reduce unpleasant aesthetics associated with combined
sewer overflows. However, neither these nor other related
water quality impacts would be eliminated by Alternatives
C and D. Furthermore, these alternatives do not comply
402
-------
TABLE 3-42
Natural Resource Committment — Summary
TOTAL SYSTEM
2
Chemicals (tons/yr)
C12 2
S02
CaO
FeCl3
Alum
Polymer
CH-OH
NaCl
Activated Carbon
ALTERNATIVE
A B
•d
o
k -r
O O 3 i-q id
£5 JZ* fLj fLj S
,940 3,840 3,
- -
- 14,
- -
7,
65 80 1,
: :
"
C
S
O
H
m
k
cu
O H
O
5 £
CU O
en u
405
-
740
575
440
360
_
"
D
•a
0)
fi is
•H O
•Q <-*
C tLi
R *t-i
O M
CJ CU
^
•H O H
id O
•H U H
•P CU -P
k ^ £
id cu o
& en o
3,385
-
14,490
535
7,460
1,365
:
"
E
^"1
k
id
CJ
o
o
cu
en
3,365
1,015
10,930
520
-
1,150
:
"
F
\^
^i
k CH ^1
id k tr>
•a cu
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
with the secondary treatment requirement of PL 92-500.
Alternatives E, F, G and H comply with the secondary
treatment requirements of PL 92-500 and certain public sup-
port for secondary treatment as expressed in surveys and
recent workshops. These alternatives improve the water
quality in Puget Sound, but do not control CSO's into in-
land lakes. Alternatives E, F and G vary in the location
of the wastewater treatment facilities, thus determining
which local group of people will be most affected. Alter-
native H deconsolidates with inland wastewater facilities
in areas which are comparatively less densely populated.
Land Use
In Alternative A, no new land is used. Alternatives
B, C, and D would have minimal expansion at the existing
wastewater treatment facilities, so the land at these sites
would not be affected. Alternative C phases out Alki,
to be replaced by a facility probably at Diagonal Way on
the Duwamish, where land was once used by a wastewater
treatment facility which was subsequently abandoned. A
detailed survey of public sentiment in this area has not
been completed, but Metro staff are conducting a study now.
More would be done if this conceptual alternative were
selected. Placing a facility at Diagonal Way may be com-
patible with the industrial character of that area. Con-
struction on that site would require a Seattle Shorelines
Management permit.
These alternatives also include many combined sewer
overflow tanks to store water when the wastewater treatment
facilities are overloaded in a storm. Many facilities in
Alternatives C and D are along Lake Washington and the Ship
Canal; Alternative C also includes 15 tanks along the
Duwamish. Many facilities would be constructed near prime
shoreline real estate, and/or close to park land and public
beaches. These may require permits from the Seattle Shore-
lines Management plan. The impact of CSO tanks on land use
would be adverse, minor, long-term, reversible, local, and
probable.
Alternatives E, F, G and H, which include expansion
of many of the existing wastewater treatment facilities
to secondary treatment, cause greater effect on local land
use than already exists. Almost all expansion would re-
quire permits from the Shorelines Management Plan (expan-
sion at Richmond Beach would necessitate a similar permit
from King County.) In Alternative E, at the West Point
404
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
site, which is just below Discovery Park, there would be
filling of shoreline areas, generally discouraged by the
Shorelines Management Plan. In Alternative F, the Harbor
Way site on the Duwamish would be incorporated. This site
is currently undeveloped, but in an industrial area where
wastewater treatment facilities may be compatible.
Alternative G includes development in Interbay at the
Golf Park site, which is judged to be difficult to replace
recreational land in an urban area (The optional Inter-
bay site along Commodore Way is currently highly developed
for marine commerce and seafood industries, which are not
necessarily readily transferable).
The Richmond Beach site is in a residential section,
but fairly remote from adjacent houses. The Carkeek Park
site is in a park, secluded by trees from close-by activi-
ty- The West Point site is just below Discovery Park,
dominates the use of a scenic point, but cannot be
easily seen from the bluffs above. Alki is on prime real
estate on a point where its odor is disagreeable to resi-
dents of surrounding houses. Wastewater treatment facili-
ties conflict with land use at all developed and proposed;
but impacts are part of the trade-off on other impacts
such as water quality, biology, and energy use.
Alternative H also uses land for the North and South
Lake Sammamish and Kenmore wastewater facilities. Little
information is available on land use at these sites; more
environmental analysis would be completed if this concep-
tual alternative were selected.
The North and South Lake Sammamish facilities, and pro-
bably the Harbor Avenue and Diagonal Way facilities, would
have to comply with constraints of the State Flood Zone Act,
Land use impacts of wastewater treatment facility
placement are adverse, minor-to-major, long-term, local,
reversible only at large expense, and definite.
Interceptors which would require land accessibility
include the following: all alternatives but A include the
Val Vue connection; all but A and H include the Redmond
connection. Little information is available on the routes
or surrounding land uses. The Kenmore parallel intercep-
tor, included in Alternatives, B, E and G, would be built
along the northwest Lake Washington shoreline, at points
is submerged in the lake. Installation of this facility
would require a Seattle Shorelines Management Plan permit.
Almost none of the shoreline bordered by this interceptor
405
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
is designated public parkland. The major impact on land
use of this interceptor would be during construction, at
which time the impact would be adverse, major, short-term,
reversible, local, and probable. After construction is
completed, the impact on land use would be minimal as for
the existing Kenmore interceptor.
Alternatives C, D and F include the North Creek-Holly-
wood connection. This runs parallel to an already exist-
ing connection; after construction stops little impact on
land use is expected, since this connection is underground.
If the connection runs within 200 feet of the Sammamish
River, a SSMP permit will be required.
Alternatives E, F and G include a connection from Car-
keek Park to West Point (to Interbay in G) which borders the
Puget Sound shoreline. This would pass through the Golden
Gardens Park, residential areas, and near a railroad track.
Data to determine the impact of this line are not available.
Alternatives C, F and H include tunnels: The tunnels
for Alternatives C and F would be built from Alki to Du-
wamish; the tunnel for Alternative H would connect Kenmore
to Richmond Beach. Although these would have minimal long-
germ impact on land use, they could cause disturbance to
residents above certain portions of the tunnels during the
blasting often used in construction.
Alternative G includes both a force main and intercep-
tor connecting West Point and Interbay through Discovery
Park and major downtown industrial districts. Information
is not available to discern the impact of these routes.
More environmental analysis would be conducted if this con-
ceptual alternative is selected.
All alternatives but A include the Montlake and Third
Avenue West regulator stations for CSO control. The Mont-
lake regulator station is being constructed near a major
bridge across the Ship Canal into the University of Wash-
ington Campus. Adequate information on the Third Avenue
West regulator station is not available to assess the
impacts of its installation.
406
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
Population
All the alternatives except B would probably result
in a slight facilitation of regional growth over the long
term due to the improvement or preservation of water qua-
lity by reducing either combined sewer overflows or waste-
water pollutant loads. It is concluded that such protec-
tion of water quality will contribute to the continuation
of the region's current national image as a desirable
place to live due to the generally high quality of the na-
tural environment. While the specific cause-effect rela-
tionships which contribute to such impacts are difficult,
if not impossible, to quantify, it is reasonable to expect
that nationally more economic growth will tend to occur
in the regions of higher environmental quality. If re-
gions, such as Puget Sound, which presently have a rela-
tively high environmental quality, maintain or improve
these conditions, it is logical to expect that the encou-
ragement to economic development will be greater than if
they are allowed to deteriorate. This impact can be either
beneficial or adverse depending on the characteristics
of the development which occurs and the values of the peo-
ple affected.
Legal and Institutional
Alternatives A, B, C and D do not comply with PL 92-
500. This is considered an adverse, major, long-term,
regional in extent, reversible and probable impact. As
indicated in Chapter II, a fine for noncompliance could be
as high as $10,000 a day. Noncompliance with PL 92-500
could result in litigation and could restrict Metro's
ability to receive federal or state funds for wastewater
facility construction.
Alternatives E, F, G and H would fulfill the require-
ments of PL 92-500 and Washington NPDES regulations that
secondary treatment be established. This impact is bene-
ficial, major, long-term, reversible, and definite.
Timing of secondary treatment plant construction has
not been fully resolved. The Washington State NPDES per-
mit, which requires secondary treatment at the four PUget
Sound plants by July 1, 1977 to comply with PL 92-500, re-
cognized the ongoing Facility Plan and Draft EIS by
407
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
June 1978. According to the Draft Facility Plan schedule,
most secondary treatment plant capacity was scheduled to
be completed by 1985, which does not meet the 1983 best
practicable treatment date of PL 92-500. Therefore, the
Facilities Plan construction schedules will be changed
accordingly.
Agency Goals
Alternative A would not improve conditions by 2005
over existing conditions, which are themselves a reflec-
tion of agency steps toward a goal of cleaning the envi-
ronment when compared to former water quality conditions.
Alternative A does not comply with PL 92-500, which is one
of the objectives mentioned in Goals for Seattle, nor does
it improve water quality, a goal of several agencies.
Alternative B is slightly better than Alternative A
in fulfilling the King County Utilities Development policy
of "installing trunk utility lines in advance or at the time
of development:, but may not fulfill its policy that "where
pollution conditions now exist, all possible steps should
be taken to correct such conditions." The potential for
water quality degradation would not meet most agency goals.
Alternatives C and D were originally established to
fulfill Metro's goal of best practicable treatment and cor-
recting local water quality. Some improvements would re-
sult which would be favorable, major, long-term, irrever-
sible, and probable.
However, these alternatives do not fulfill the objec-
tives of Goals for Seattle, which states, "the city should
undertake efforts to meet Federal Water Pollution Control
Act requirements by 1984." This impact is adverse, major,
long-term, can be reversed by implementing secondary treat-
ment and definitely would occur if Alternatives C and D
are implemented.
Alternatives C, F and G on a local basis, do fulfill
the objective of the PSCOG that it is in the public inter-
est to maintain the natural beauty and liveability of the
region, by phasing out facilities at certain locations.
Alternatives C and F phase out Alki, Alternative G has the
option of phasing out West Point, and makes Carkeek Park
service for wet weather flows only. These are favorable
on the local level, especially at Alki, which has an odor
problem; but for each plant that is phased out there must
408
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
be one constructed to replace it.
Of the alternatives which comply with PL 92-500, Alter-
native E - Secondary best fulfills the goal of the PSCOG
that "the pattern of development which produces the least
cost in new public utilities, facilities, and services
shall be encouraged within feasible limits".
Employment
Employment potential for each regional alternative has
been summarized or estimated from information provided in
the Draft Facility Plan. Table 3-42 summarizes the construc-
tion, operation and maintenance employment for the regional
wastewater facilities.
The operation and maintenance jobs for Metro treatment
plant operating staff in 2005 would range from 66 to 188
permanent positions for the Puget Sound plants. (Collec-
tion system maintenance personnel are not included in these
estimates.) The operating staff would increase under alter-
natives that involve more complex processes or treat larger
flows. The operating staff employment opportunities would
represent a minor, beneficial, long-term benefit to the
region for Alternatives C, D, E, F, G and H (since staff
would increase relative to Alternative B).
Construction employment would generally involve more
jobs than operations, but over a shorter term. For compara-
tive purposes, the construction jobs were estimated within
5 years. Estimates in Table 3-42 are for a 5 year dura-
tion. Construction for the Puget Sound plants, combined
sewer overflow controls, outfalls, transfer interceptors
and/or other facilities would range from 150 jobs in Al-
ternative B to 650 jobs in Alternative G (since no capital
funds would be expended under Alternative A, no jobs would
be provided). The relative number of construction jobs
is approximately related to the relative capital costs
for the alternatives. Construction jobs would be a minor
to moderate, short-term, extensive benefit to the region,
but it is not certain whether these jobs would replace
other employment opportunities from government funding or
represent additional employment at the time of construc-
tion.
409
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
Table 3-42
Construction, Operation and Maintenance Employment
Jobs: Operation and Maintenance
Alternative
Puget Sound*
Renton
Total
B
D
E
H
66
21
87
86
41
127
96
76
172
76
76
152
115
70
185
119
72
191
148
70
218
188
58
246
Jobs: Construction
Alternative
B
D
H
Puget Sound*
Renton
Total
0 150 400 200 350 450 650 550
_0_ 200 350 350 250 350 250 150
0 350 750 550 600 800 900 700
*A11 plants or other projects excluding service area
Costs
Capital costs for wastewater facilities construction,
excluding Renton, are shown in Table 3-13 based on 1976 cost
estimates contained in the Draft Facility Plan. Costs vary
from no capital expenditures (Alternative A) to $361,800,000
(Alternative G). The treatment process, plant location,
wastewater flow and discharge point, combined sewer overflow
controls and/or transfer interceptors to achieve certain
service areas are major factors in determining costs.
Alternative G, the most capital intensive alternative
at $361,800,000, would include $250,500,000 for the Inter-
bay secondary treatment plant. Since primary treatment
would be required there (duplicating existing primary
treatment capacity at West Point), the total plant costs
would be two to three times the cost of adding secondary
treatment at West Point ($86,000,000 in Alternative F and
$120,300,000 in Alternative E).
410
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
Alternative H (Deconsolidation/Reclamation) would be the
second most expensive alternative at $307,700,000. Much
of the cost for this alternative would be due to the con-
struction of new advanced waste treatment facilities at Ken-
more and North and South Lake Sammamish, which would account
for a total of $131,200,000.
Alternatives C (Major CSO Reduction) and F (Secondary/
Southern Strategy) are the next most expensive alternatives
at $250,800,000 and $286,500,000, respectively. In Alter-
native C, an expenditure of $112,800,000 would be required
for combined sewer overflow control. Much of the cost of
Alternative F would be due to the cost of building a new
secondary facility at Duwamish, which would cost
$148,800,000.
Alternative E (Secondary) would cost $212,800,000 which
is $73,700,000 less than Alternative F and $149,000,000
less than Alternative G. Although all three would achieve
comparable levels of secondary treatment, the greater costs
required in Alternatives F and G would be primarily due to
constructing the new Duwamish and Interbay facilities,
respectively, rather than upgrading facilities which exist
already. These cost savings are substantial in Alternative
E.
Alternative D (Partial CSO Control) would cost
$106,800,000. Relative to Alternative C, Alternative D
would cost $144,000,000 less, primarily due to more limited
CSO control; Alternative D would result in an additional
287 million gallons per year of combined sewer overflows.
Although an exact benefit/cost ratio of CSO control has
not been calculated, the incremental benefit from Alter-
native C relative to Alternative D appears low compared to
the $500,000 capital cost for each million gallons of CSO
control on an annual basis.
In Alternative B [Metro Comprehensive Plan (No Action
Pursuant to PL 92-500)], wastewater facilities would cost
$81,900,000; of this, $14,200,000 would be due to sludge
facilities enlargement at West Point and $12,700,000 for
Alki plant modifications.
Capital costs at Renton, a secondarily impacted
facility, would be as shown in Table 3-13. They would be
predominantly due to enlargement of the facility and/or
upgrading treatment to include nitrification and filtra-
tion. Alternatives C, D and F, which treat the largest
flows at Renton facility (99 mgd average) would cost the
most at 192 to 195 million dollars. Alternatives E and G,
411
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
with lower 86 mgd average flows, Alternative H, with 72 mgd
flows, would cost $94,300,000. Under Alternative B, average
costs for 86 mgd average flow would be %51,000,000 for se-
condary treatment but no nitrification and filtration.
Alternative A (No Action) would have no capital costs.
Estimated Metro user charges per equivalent connection,
summarized in Table 3-14, would range from $5.25 to $13.70
per month (average for the next 20 years), depending on the
capital and operating cost for each alternative and proba-
bility for federal and state funding. Since Alternatives
A, B, C and D do not comply with the secondary treatment re-
quirements of PL 92-500, they would not be eligible for fed-
eral and state construction grant funds, so Metro users would
be directly responsible for 100 percent of construction costs.
Estimated monthly user charges for Alternatives A, B, C and
D would be $5.25, $8.40, $13.70 and $11.10, respectively,
assuming no grant funding. If all facilities are eligible
for grants until 1995, estimated monthly user charges would
be $6.80, $6.85, $7.45 and $7.85, respectively, for Alterna-
tives E, F, G and H. If future capacity beyond 1985 is not
grant eligible, Alternatives E, F, G and H would result in
average user charges of $8.00, $8.60, $8.75 and $9.70 per
month.
Thus, Alternatives C and D, without federal funding,
would cost Metro citizens more in terms of estimated monthly
user charges than Alternatives E, F, G and H with federal
funding.
Social, Recreational and Cultural
According to public surveys (HRPI, 1976), input from
public meetings, and reports of citizen advisory committees,
it appears that a majority of citizens within the Metro area
would favor upgrading wastewater facilities to secondary
treatment. Alternatives E, F, G and H would meet this
objective, while Alternatives A, B, C and D would not.
Under Alternatives B, E, F, G and H, only the Montlake
and Third Avenue West regulator stations would be constructed
for the control of combined sewer overflows. Only the Ken-
more parallel interceptor would be installed under Alterna-
tives E and G for CSO control.
Substantial combined sewer overflows would continue
near public beaches under Alternatives A, B, E, F, G and H.
Therefore, coliform levels exceeding health standards at
swimming beaches along Lake Washington could continue. This
412
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
is considered adverse, major, long-term, reversible, and
possible impact.
Impacts on the parks or recreational areas near West
Point, Alki and Carkeek Park are discussed in detail in site-
specific documents (Volume II). Since the West Point plant
would continue under all alternatives, it could affect re-
creational use of nearby Discovery Park to a limited degree.
At Alki, the plant site would be expanded to an adjacent
playing field under Alternatives E, G and H; the site could
be abandoned under Alternative C or F. At Carkeek Park,
upgrading to secondary treatment under Alternative H would
require using 1.1 acres now available for picnicking. In
Alternative G, the Golf Park in Interbay would be converted
from its present recreational use to wastewater treatment.
Archaeological and Historical
It has been determined that any archaeological sites
may have occurred at West Point, Carkeek Park, Richmond
Beach and Alki would have already been destroyed by former
construction. Therefore, construction under all alterna-
tives could not destroy archaeological sites (Jerry Jer-
mann, 1976). Across the Duwamish River from the Diagonal
Way site, probably used for Alternative C, is a recently
discovered archaeological site. Therefore, additional inves-
tigations should be conducted at the site if this alternative
is selected. No information is available on archaeological
sites on the proposed sewage treatment facilities at Harbor
Ave., Commodore. Way, the Golf Park, North or South Lake Sam-
mamish, or Kenmore; nor for the interceptor routes or regu-
lator stations. These sites should also be investigated.
For the historical sites described in Appendix E, none are
known to exist at any proposed construction sites.
Health and Safety
For Alternatives A, B, E, F, G and H, a probable nega-
tive impact would be the associated violations of coliform
bacteria standards at Lake Washington public beaches.
For recreational shellfish collectors, risks from con-
suming contaminated shellfish from water that exceed commer-
cial shellfishing standards for coliform bacteria could con-
tinue. Because the present source of bacteria has not been
identified, impacts from control measures are not certain.
413
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
However, it appears that more effective wastewater disin-
fection under Alternatives E, F, G and H would be beneficial
to improving water quality in shellfishing areas. At Alki,
combined sewer overflow control under Alternatives C and
F would benefit the local shellfishing beach.
Another highly unlikely safety hazard for all alterna-
tives is accidental leakage of chemicals when they are in
transport, or handled on site. Although nearly every U. S.
water and wastewater treatment facility uses chemicals, there
have been very few chemical-related accidents.
Construction risks to safety would be the same as for
other construction of a similar nature; they would be adverse,
minor, last only for the duration of construction, may be
reversible, and are unlikely.
Health and safety risks for chemical and sludge trans-
port and construction would be proportional to the transport
and construction involved in each alternative.
Under Alternative F, oxygen activated sludge would be
installed at West Point. With this method of secondary
treatment, if the oxygen mixed into the activated sludge
basin were to contact hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline) in the
presence of a spark, there could be an explosion. However,
this situation should never arise. Oxygen activated sludge
facilities are designed to provide continuous monitoring of
hydrocarbon concentration. An alarm will sound far below
dangerous hydrocarbon levels, and oxygen would automatically
be vented to bypass the activated sludge basin. The impact
of an explosion could be adverse, major, long-term, rever-
sible, but would be highly unlikely. Although oxygen acti-
vated sludge facilities are used around the country, there
has not yet been any incidence of explosion.
Aesthetics and Nuisance
Introducing secondary treatment at West Point, Carkeek
Park, Richmond Beach, Interbay, Duwamish, Alki, or other
sites under various alternatives, would generate some site-
specific nuisance impacts for local residents, as discussed
in more detail in Volume II for various sites. However,
surveys and public workshops have generally indicated that
in the locales of these facilities, "cleaning up the envi-
ronment" was considered a higher priority by more people
(60 percent) than such aesthetic issues as hiding the faci-
lity (6 percent) (HRPI, 1976) . These aesthetic and nui-
sance impacts are rated as adverse, minor, long-term, re-
versible, and definite.
414
-------
Alternatives and Impacts
Summary
Under Alternative G, installation of a facility in
Interbay at the Golf Park site would be a nuisance. In
excavation in Interbay of the garbage which accumulated over
20 years, it is possible that odorous sulfur dioxide and
methane gas would be released; when in operation, the faci-
lity would still release odors. Locating the plant in a
valley would make it visible to residents from adjacent hill-
sides.
A facility at the optional Interbay site, Commodore
Way, would also exert nuisances after installation. Fur-
ther, placement of a facility in the Commodore Way area
would disrupt an entire business community.
Alternatives C and D would decrease the combined sewer
overflows, which are a visual nuisance and potential health
hazard. The impact of this would be favorable, major, long-
term, and probable.
Construction of the interceptors and regulator stations
would cause an adverse, minor, short-term, reversible, and
probable nuisance effect, especially at the Montlake regula-
tor station, where construction would occur along a major
bridge across the Ship Canal.
The Duwamish-Alki tunnel in Alternative F, and the
Kenmore outfall tunnel in the Alternative H, would be a
short-term, reversible, local, and probable nuisance, es-
pecially for the Duwamish-Alki tunnel. Blasting often
associated with tunneling could disturb local residents in
these highly populated districts.
415
-------
416
-------
CHAPTER IV
CITIZEN AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
Citizen and agency involvement has been an integral com-
ponent of the Regional 201 Facility Planning program, the
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and the 208 Areawide
Waste Treatment Management Program. Each of these efforts
for the Metro service area has included citizen and agency
participation as mandated by the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500). More importantly, the roots
of citizen involvement in Metro activities are based on its
original conception: Metro was voted into existence by en-
vironmentally concerned citizens in 1958. Since that time,
efforts by Metro and citizens have continued the public input
into water quality planning and environmental assessment.
The interagency involvement in this water quality plan-
ning process is also unique. In a novel "piggybacking" pro-
cess, Metro, the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), and
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed
a Memorandum of Understanding in 1976 for joint participa-
tion in the environmental assessment process. By this agree-
ment, the three agencies aimed at including local, state
and national concerns and issues in the environmental assess-
ment process. The piggybacking approach of preparing the
201 Facility Plan and the impact statement concurrently was
also envisioned as a method for ensuring feedback between
the assessment and planning efforts as well as a technique
for saving time and money.
One benefit of the piggybacking process has been the en-
hanced communication among the three sponsoring agencies and
other parties (e.g., Seattle). Since October 1976, biweekly
coordination meetings on various issues related to the en-
vironmental assessments have involved personnel from Metro,
DOE, EPA, the 201 Facilities Planning consultant (Metropoli-
tan Engineers), and the EIS consultant (James M. Montgomery,
Consulting Engineers, Inc.). These coordination meetings-
have explored issues such as EIS format and content, com-
munity involvement programs, growth and population distri-
bution effects, wastewater treatment and sludge management
417
-------
Citizen and Agency Involvement
alternatives, and shoreline management. Interest by other
agencies has been expressed by attendance at some coordina-
tion meetings by representatives from the City of Seattle,
the Puget Sound Council of Governments, King County, and
others.
In addition to providing guidance on the environmental
impact process and reviewing its progress, the three agencies
have performed another vital function: funding. As a part
of the Step I facilities planning process, the EIS activities
are funded jointly by Metro (10%), DOE (15%), and EPA (75%).
Similarly, the ongoing community involvement program for
planning and assessment has been developed and funded by the
three participating agencies.
Other agencies will be involved in reviewing the envi-
ronmental documents; their names are listed in the beginning
of this document. Agencies having direct or indirect juris-
diction over Metro facility planning on the state or local
level include the Department of Ecology, Office of the
Governor, Department of Game, Department of Fisheries, De-
partment of Natural Resources (state agencies), Puget Sound
Council of Governments, the City of Seattle and King County.
Agencies with expertise useful to the Metro EIS process in-
clude the Department of Social and Health Services, State
Ecology Commission (state agencies), Seattle City Council
Staff, Seattle Engineering Department, Puget Sound Council
of Governments, and King County Health Department. The
Parks and Recreation Commission, Oceanographic Commission,
Utility and Transportation Commission, Department of Com-
merce and Economic Development (state agencies), City of
Edmonds, City of Lynnwood, City of Black Diamond are also
expected to be interested.
Component agencies served by Metro will also be re-
viewing the EIS. Included are thirteen cities (Algona, Au-
burn, Bellevue, Bothell, Brier, Issaquah, Kent, Kirkland,
Redmond, Lake Forest Park, Renton, Seattle, and Tukwila),
eleven sewer districts (Bryn-Mawr-Lakeridge, Cascade, East
Mercer, Eastgate, Highland, Lake City, Mercer Island, N.E.
Lake Washington, Rainier Vista, Ronald and Val Vue), six
water districts (Alderwood, #35 Skyway, #82 Pine Lake, #104
Woodinville, #107 Newport Hills and #108 Fairwood), two
sewer and drainage districts (King County Districts #3-
Richmond Beach and #4-Skyway Park), and two other members
(Sammamish State Park and Shorewood Apartments).
Federal agencies are also involved in the review pro-
cess, as indicated in the EIS distribution list.
The program for establishing agency and citizen involve-
418
-------
Citizen and Agency Involvement
ment in the 201 facilities planning, environmental assessment
and 208 areawide waste treatment management process has been
coordinated, planned and implemented through the Metro staff
community involvement section.. The program also receives
periodic input from DOE, EPA and Metro's consultants.
In the spring of 1976, Metro prepared a community in-
volvement plan. Strategies were developed to reach a varie-
ty of interested groups including the general public, future
voters, environmental groups, special interest groups, re-
creational groups, technically-oriented individuals, govern-
mental units, and industrial and agricultural interests.
One technique for community involvement was circulation
of "Clear Water Watch", a brochure describing facets of the
water pollution control efforts under Sections 201 and 203.
More than 28,000 brochures were distributed in the June 1976
mailing. Since July 1976, a "Clear Water Watch" newsletter
has been mailed to about the same group, plus any newly
interested citizens who are identified through public meet-
ings or other contacts. In addition to the one-page news-
letter, Metro provides a more detailed technical supplement.
It is mailed automatically to nearly 1,000 persons, and to
anyone who requests it based on a notice of availability
printed in every edition of the newsletter.
Community meetings have been held by Metro, its consul-
tants and other agencies to describe alternatives, assess
public opinion, determine important issues, and receive
public input from citizens. In May and June 1976, com-
munity meetings were held in the vicinity of Metro's four
primary wastewater treatment plants along Puget Sound: West
Point, Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach. More such
meetings were held in September and November 1976. During
these meetings, citizens were informed of three strategies
under consideration by Metro: "no action" strategy (contin-
uation of Metro Comprehensive Plan with continued primary
treatment at the Puget Sound plants), "legal" strategy (secon-
dary treatment at Puget Sound plants) and "goal" or "merit"
strategy (control and treatment of combined sewer overflows
with continued primary treatment at Puget Sound plants).
Discussion of meetings and responses in the West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach communities is included in the
site-specific environmental documents (Volume II of this
series) .. Summaries of the meetings were prepared by Metro
and mailed to persons attending the meetings as part of the
Clear Water Watch community involvement program.
Public workshops were held in conjunction with the pre-
liminary Draft EIS (Regional Analysis and site-specific
documents). These workshops, planned by Metro, DOE and EPA,
419
-------
Citizen and Agency Involvement
informed the public about the updated facilities plan and
environmental documents, which now address eight system-wide
or regional alternatives. Comments from participants on the
revised set of alternatives were solicited at the work-
shops in May and June 1977. One series of citizen workshops
focused on site alternatives and one technical workshop (for
representatives from environmental groups, educational insti-
tutions, staff from other agencies, and other technically
interested citizens) emphasized system-wide or regional
issues. Both types of workshops provided inputs and comments
to Metro prior to preparation of the Draft EIS/EA's.
The technical workshop held May 25, 1977 on the Prelimi-
nary Draft EIS (Regional Analysis) consisted of governmental
staff, community organization representatives, consultants
and citizens; several questions and suggestions were made
concerning the Regional EIS.
1. Citizens questioned whether the 201 plan was pro-
ceeding in a vacuum or whether the 201 and 208
studies were being coordinated. The two processes
are proceeding concurrently, with Metro as the lead
agency in each. The 208 workshop communicated some
of the 208 concerns to the consultants, particu-
larly on-site disposal systems which are discussed
in portions of Chapter III of the Draft EIS.
2. People attending the regional workshop requested
breakdowns of cost and energy be included in the
Draft EIS; this has been done in Chapter III.
3. Questions on growth and decentralization were
raised. Readers are referred to the Impacts of
Growth section in Chapter III of the Draft EIS.
Maps on service areas and land use and details of
plant sizing are included in Chapters II and III.
4. Other comments were that the EIS should be under-
standable by the public. The Draft EIS has been
prepared with this point in mind, including sum-
mary materials.
5. The question was raised as to how the alternatives
encourage or discourage water conservation. De-
tails of methods to conserve water considered in
alternatives development and impact on treatment
plant sizing and cost are presented in Chapter III.
6. Questions were made as to why the agencies are con-
sidering illegal alternatives. The Metro staff
has stated previously that primary discharges do not
420
-------
Citizen and Agency Involvement
adversely affect Puget Sound and that combined
sewer overflows are a more important water qua-
lity problem locally. The EIS has reviewed re-
cently developed information to systematically
evaluate these and other possible impacts in an
independent manner. Consequences of not comply-
ing with secondary treatment PL 92-500 are de-
scribed in Chapters II and III, including cost
and financing impacts.
7. One person noted that the EIS should consider the
impact of point and non-point source discharges on
water quality. The EIS consultants requested in-
formation on loading rates to Puget Sound from
municipalities, industries, runoff, aerial fallout,
and other sources. This mass loading information
was not available. To the extent possible, EIS
compares inputs from various sources.
8. The suggestion was also received that sludge alter-
natives be in the Draft EIS. They are, to the ex-
tent possible, based on proposed sludge management
methods in the Draft Facility Plan, which is an
interim solution.
9. The need for alternatives with both combined sewer
overflow (CSO) control and secondary treatment
was mentioned. Chapter III discusses possibilities
for developing new hybrid alternatives.
Workshop response to various alternatives was summarized as
follows:
Alternative A. (No Action) Not worth much discussion.
Alternative B. (Comprehensive Plan) This is not only
illegal, but allows no flexibility to provide secondary
treatment.
Alternative C. (Major CSO Control) This is illegal, and
fails to deal with the obsolescence of the existing plants.
This incurs a tax burden because it is not grant-fundable,
but it does reduce the CSO problem.
Alternative D. (Partial CSO Control) Similar to Al-
ternative C, but with less CSO control.
Alternative E. (Secondary) Although noted as the least
costly of the legal alternatives, it was criticized for in-
flexibility to meet future water quality needs; insufficient
emphasis on CSO; loss of Carkeek investment; and the greatest
421
-------
Citizen and Agency Involvement
negative impact on Puget Sound shoreline (due to fill at
West Point).
Alternative F. (Secondary Treatment-Southern Strategy)
This alternative was criticized for poor utilization of
valuable industrial land. The adverse effect of fill on the
natural life must also be evaluated. There was concern about
ultimate water quality and future expansion.
The benefits of this plan included: better cost/benefit
ratio than for "E"; and significant Duwamish water quality
benefits. It was suggested that this alternative also
offered a better location and improved combination of treat-
ment and CSO control than for other plans. Further evalua-
tion of cost and flexibility of the plan is needed.
Alternative G. (Secondary Treatment-West Point Phaseout
Option) Participants credited this plan with providing the
possibility of reclamation of land (beach area), improving
water quality, and assuring the most acceptable level of
treatment.
Group concerns regarding this proposal centered on the
Commodore Way site which is a business/residential area.
The impact of the plant on the Commodore Way area was
questioned relative to loss of tax revenue and jobs or re-
creation space. This does not solve the CSO problem, and
presents the highest capital costs and second highest
operation and maintenance costs.
Alternative H. (Deconsolidation/Reclamation) On the
whole, this alternative was viewed more favorably. The de-
centralization and equal distribution of cost were mentioned.
The reclamation of sludge was cited as valuable. The question
of who will pay for the smaller plants was raised.
Prior to the formal public hearings on the Draft EIS,
the three agencies are considering holding a prehearing infor-
mational workshop, the size and structure of which would be
based on the interest level of those receiving the Draft EIS.
Next, four public hearings on the Draft EIS documents are
scheduled for October-November 1977 in the West Point, Alki,
Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach areas; one hearing will be
scheduled for regional impacts. A hearing on the Final EIS,
scheduled for March 1978, will complete the formal community
involvement phase.
Metro has also contacted special interest groups for
input to the water quality planning process. In 1976, Metro
staff and consultants visited about 45 groups including
civic community and school organizations. About 40 conser-
422
-------
Citizen and Agency Involvement
vation and environmental groups were contacted by Metro in
January 1977 to explain the facilities planning and EIS/EA
process and to encourage participation of these groups.
Questionnaires and surveys have also been used to learn
citizen concerns and preferences. Club meetings, community
meetings, a weekend survey of Carkeek Park users and an
areawide survey conducted by the Gilmore Research Group have
been used to obtain information. Results of the surveys
were summarized in June 1976 by Metro in the first quarterly
report of Clear Water Watch.
Another important aspect of the community involvement
program has been the Citizens' Water Quality Advisory Com-
mittee (CWQAC). Formed in the spring of 1976, the CWQAC is
comprised of 27 members who represent, roughly, the nine
county districts and who provide Metro Council and staff with
a regional overview of citizen water quality concerns. The
CWQAC has also formed task forces on treatment plants, sludge
disposal and regional goals and policies.
From the above discussion, it can be seen that there are
many ongoing and planned methods for obtaining citizen and
agency involvement in the 201 facilities planning and EIS/EA
process. For details of site-specific programs at West Point,
Alki, Carkeek Park, and Richmond Beach, the reader is re-
ferred to Volume II of this series.
423
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Algermessen, S.T., and others, The Puget Sound, Washington
Earthquake of April 29, 1965, U.S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey,(n.d.).
Armstrong, J.W., Thorn, R.M., Staude, C.P., and others,
"An Assessment of the Possible Effects of Wastewater
Pollution on the Intertidal Macrofauna of Five Beaches
in the Seattle, Washington Area", University of
Washington, Coll. Fish., Report to Metro, 1977.
Armstrong, J.W.fThorn, Ronald M., "Habitats and Relative
Abundances of the Intertidal Macrofauna at Five
Puget Sound Beaches in the Seattle, Washington, Area-
A Survey of the Attached Marine Flora at Five Beaches
in the Seattle Washington Area, Report to Metro, July,
1976.
Artim, E., Geology in Land Use Planning; Some Guidelines for
the Puget Lowland, Information Circular #47, Division of
Mines and Geology, State of Washington, Department of
Natural Resources, 1973.
Baalsrud, K., "The Case for Treatment", in: Discharge of
Sewage from Sea Outfalls,Pg. 165-172; A.L.H. Gameson
(Ed.), Proc.Intl.Symp., London, 27 August to 2
September 1974, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York, 1975.
Beaulieu, P., (PSCOG) "Task B-7 Metro Waste Treatment
Management Strategy Draft Report", (October 15, 1976)
(Memorandum to Rod Stroope, Metro).
Beaulieu, P., (PSCOG) "Transmittal of Distributed Forecasts
for 208 Planning, Task B-4" (November 9, 1976),
(Memorandum to Rod Stroope, Metro).
Beaulieu, P., Task B-7, Metro Waste Treatment Management
Strategy Draft Report (October 15, 1976),(Memorandum
to Rod Stroope), November 3, 1976.
Bendiner, S.P- , Dilutions of Grandeur; The Final Report on
Dispersion of Effluent from the West Point Outfall,
University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory
for the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, January,
1976.
Brungs, W.A., Effects of Wastewater and Cooling Water
Chlorination on Aquatic Life, EPA-600/3076-098,
August, 1976.
A-l
-------
Buckley, J.A. and R.I. Matsuda, "Toxicity of the Renton
Treatment Plant Effluent to Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus
kisutch," Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle,
Washington, November, 1973.
Buckley, J.A., and Matsuda, R.I., "Toxicity of the West Point
Treatment Plant Effluent to Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus
kisutch,-l Metro Staff Report, December, 1972.
Cannon, E.A., and Laird, N.P., Observations of Currents and
Water Properties in Puget Sound, 1972, NOAA Technical
Department ERL 247-POLB, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, 1972.
Carlisle, J.G., "Results of a Six-Year Trawl Study in an
Area of Heavy Waste Discharge, Santa Monica, California,"
Calif. Fish Game 55^:76-146 (1969) .
Collias, E.E. and C.A. Barnes, Physical and Chemical Data for
Puget Sound and Approaches, Univ. Wash.(Seattle), Dept.
Oceanogr. Tech.Rept.110, September 1956-December 1957,
167 p.
Collwell, R.R., and Sizemore, R.K., Drug-Resistant Bacteria
in the Marine Environment, Pg. 427-430, Proceedings of
Meeting of Marine Technology Society, Washington, D.C.,
1974.
Cornell, Rowland, Hayes & Merryfield, A Reevaluation - Metro
Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, June 8, 1971.
Council on Environmental Quality, The Costs of Sprawl,
April, 1974.
Domenowske, R.S., and Matsuda, R.I., "Sludge Disposal and the
Marine Environment", Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation, 1969.
Dunne, T., Comments on Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Study,
Final Report, University of Washington Department of
Geological Sciences, submitted to R.O. Sylvester as part
of Faculty Review of RIBCO, (n.d.).
Duxbury, A.C., "Orthophosphate and Dissolved Oxygen in Puget
Sound", L&O, 2_0_(2) : 270-274, March, 1975.
Duxbury, A.C., Puget Sound Interim Studies Summary, accompanied
by Memorandum from: Ralph S. Domenowske to Water Quality
Committee, Spring, 1976.
A-2
-------
Duxbury, A.C. , Puget Sound Studies; Interim Reports for the
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Division of Marine
Resources, University of Washington, September 1976.
Ebbesmeyer, C.C., and Helseth, J.M., An Analysis of Primary
Production Observed During 1966-1977 in Central Puget
Sound, Washington, Final Report, for Metro by Evans-
Hamilton, Inc., June, 1976.
Ebbesmeyer, C.C., Helseth, J.M., A Study of Current Properties
and Mixing Using Drogue Movements Observed During Summer
and Winter in Central Puget Sound, Washington, Final
Report, for Metro by Evans-Hamilton, Inc., June, 1975.
Edmondson, W.T., "Nutrients and Phytoplankton in Lake Washing-
ton, Nutrients and Eutrophication", Special Symposia,
L. SO., 1:172-192, 1972.
Edmondson, W.T., "Phosphorus, Nitrogen and Algae in Lake
Washington After Diversion of Sewage", Science, 169:
690-691, 1970.
Edmondson, W.T., "The Present Condition of Lake Washington",
Int. Ver. Theor, Angew. Limnol. Verh., 18:284-291, 1972.
Environmental Protection Agency, "Secondary Impacts of
Transportation and Wastewater Investments: Research
Results, Review, and Bibliography", 600/5-75-013 and
600/5-002, 1975.
Friebertshauser, M.A., and Duxbury, A.C., "A Water Budget
Study of Puget Sound and Its Subregions", L&O, 1972.
Gohen, B., Building Standards and the Earthquake Hazard for
the Puget Sound. Basin, Unpub. MS Thesis, University of
Washington, 1974.
Harmon, R. , J. Serwold, and Marine Technicians, "Baseline
Study of Sediment Provinces and Biotopes of Elliott Bay
and Vicinity, Washington", Shoreline Community College,
Marine Technical Report No. 2, sponsored by Army Corps
of Engineers, Seattle, 1974.
Harmon, R., J. Serwold, and R. Sylvester, "Subtidal Sediments
and Benthic Organisms", Puget Sound Interim Studies, for
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 1976.
Hart, J.L., Pacific Fishes of Canada, Fisheries Research Board
of Canada, Bulletin 180, Ottawa, 1973.
A-3
-------
Hohn, M.H., "The Use of Diatom Populations as a Measure of
Water Quality in Selected Areas of Galveston and
Chocolate Bay, Texas," Inst. Mar. Sci. (Texas),
6_:206-212 (1959) .
Human Resources Planning Institute, Howard Edde, Inc., and
Enplan Corporation, Alki Site Analysis, EIS - Formatted
Report, prepared for The Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, 201 Water Quality Plan, November, 1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, Howard Edde, Inc., and
Enplan Corporation, Carkeek Park Site Analysis, EIS - _
Formatted Report, prepared for The Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle, 201 Water Quality Plan, October,
1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, Howard Edde, Inc., and
Enplan Corporation, Chapter VIII/ Final Regional Analysis
Report, prepared for The Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, 201 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning,
October 30, 1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, Howard Edde, Inc., and
Enplan Corporation, Economic Analysis of Moving the West
Point Treatment Plant, Water Quality Committee Information
Item, 1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, Howard Edde, Inc., and
Enplan Corporation, Regional Analysis, EIS - Formatted
Report, prepared for The Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, 201 Water Quality Plan, December, 1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, Review of the Regional and
Local Goals and Policy Statements,1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, Howard Edde, Inc., and
Enplan Corporation, Richmond Beach Site Analysis, EIS -
Formatted Report, prepared for The Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle, October, 1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, and Howard Edde, Inc.,
Volume IV, Final West Point Site Analysis Report,
prepared for The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
201 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning, October,
1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, and Howard Edde, Inc.,
Volume VI, Final Carkeek Park Site Analysis Report,
prepared for The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
201 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Planning, October,
1976.
A-4
-------
Human Resources Planning Institute, and Howard Edde, Inc.,
Volume VII, Final Alki Site Analysis Report, prepared
for The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 201 Waste-
water Treatment Facilities Planning, October, 1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, Howard Edde, Inc., and
Enplan Corporation, West Point Site Analysis, EIS -
Formatted Report, prepared for The Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle, 201 Water Quality Plan, October,
1976.
Human Resources Planning Institute, and Howard Edde, Inc.,
Working Papers in Support of Metro's 201 Facilities
Plan, Volumes IV-VIII of the Socio-Economic Site and
Regional Analysis Reports, prepared for The Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle, 201 Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Plan, December, 1976.
Jernelov, A., "Heavy Metals in the Marine Environment", in:
Discharge of Sewage from Sea Outfalls, Pp. 115-122,
A.L.H. Gameson (Ed.), Proc. Intl. Symp., London, 27
August to 2 September 1974, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
New York, 1975.
Kawaratani, R.K. (Personal Communication), Biologist, EPRI,
Palo Alto, 1977.
King County Planning Department, The Comprehensive Plan for
King County, Washington, Board of County Commissioners,
King County, Washington, June 23, 1964.
Laird, N.P., and Gait, G.A., Observations of Currents and
Water Properties in Puget Sound, 1973, NOAA Technical
Report ERL 327-PMEL 23, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, 1975.
Mackenthun, K.M., The Practice of Water Pollution Biology,
U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Association, 1969.
Malick, J.G., Benthic Invertebrate Production in the Cedar
River, Washington, PH.D. dissertation, School of
Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle (in pre-
paration) , in Metro Engineers, Task Report D3, 1976.
Marine Research, Inc., Final Report on Possible Alternatives
to Chlorination for Controlling Fouling in Power Station
Cooling Water Systems, Marine Research Inc., Falmouth,
Mass., April 15, 1976.
A-5
-------
Matsuda, R. I., Issac, G. W., and Dalseg, R. D., Fishes
of the Green-Duwamish River, Metro Water Quality
Series, No. 4, December 20, 1968.
Mattice, J. and H. Zittel, "Site Specific Evaluation of
Power Plant Chlorination: A Proposal", Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation 48(10):2284-
2308, October 1976.
Metcalf, T. G., "Evaluation of Shellfish Sanitary Quality
by Indicators of Sewage Pollution", in: Discharge
of Sewage from Sea Outfalls, Pg. 75-82, A.L.H. Game-
son (Ed.)., Proc. Intl. Symp., London, 27 August
to 2 September 1974, Pergamon Press. Oxford, New
York, 1975.
Metropolitan Engineers, Appendices, Task D3 Preliminary
Environmental Evaluation, Municipality of Metro-
politan Seattle, Facility Planning, Metropolitan
Seattle Sewerage System, November, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, Draft Facilities Plan for Up-
grading Metro Puget Sound Plants, Alki Facility
Plan, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Facil-
ity Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage System,
April 1, 1977.
Metropolitan Engineers, Draft Facilities Plan for Up-
grading Metro Puget Sound Plants, Alki Sewer System
Evaluation, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage
System, February 10, 1977.
Metropolitan Engineers, Draft Facilities Plan for Up-
grading Metro Puget Sound Plants, Carkeek Park
Facility Plan, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage
System, April 1, 1977.
Metropolitan Engineers, Draft Facilities Plan for Up-
grading Metro Puget Sound Plants, Carkeek Park
Sewer System Evaluation, Municipality of Metro-
politan Seattle, Facility Planning, Metropolitan
Seattle Sewerage System, April 1, 1977.
Metropolitan Enginers, Draft Facilities Plan for Up-
grading Metro Puget Sound Plants, Richmond Beach
Facility Plan, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage
System, April 1, 1977.
A-6
-------
Metropolitan Engineers, Draft Facilities Plan for Up-
grading Metro Puget Sound Plants/ Richmond Beach
Sewer System Evaluation, Municipality of Metro-
politan Seattle, Facility Planning, Metropolitan
Seattle Sewerage System, February 10, 1977.
Metropolitan Engineers, Draft Facility Plan for Upgrading
Metro Puget Sound Plants, System-Wide Volume, Part 1,
Basis of Planning, Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle
Sewerage System, April 1, 1977.
Metropolitan Engineers, Draft Facilities Plan for Upgrading
Metro Puget Sound Plants, Systemwide Volume, Part 2,
Facility Planning Alternatives, Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle, Facility Planning, Metropolitan
Seattle Sewerage System, April 1, 1977.
Metropolitan Engineers, Draft Facilities Plan for Upgrading
Metro Puget Sound Plants, West Point Facility Plan,
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Facility
Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage System,
April 1, 1977.
Metropolitan Engineers, Draft Facilities Plan for Upgrading
Metro Puget Sound Plants, West Point Sewer System
Evaluation, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage
System, February 10, 1977.
Metropolitan Engineers, 1974 Report-Engineer's Inspection
of Metro Facilities, Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, King County, Washington, September 1975.
Metropolitan Engineers, Soil, Air, Population Growth and
Resource Constraints, Tasks B5A, B5B, BSD, BSE,
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Facility
Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage System,
October 25, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, Tasks A1/A2, Inventory-Service Area
Characteristics/Project Population, Land Use and
Industrial Activity by Service Areas, Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle, Facility Planning, Metro-
politan Seattle Sewerage System, July 26, 1976.
A-7
-------
Metropolitan Engineers, Task A2, Water Supply Character-
istics, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Facility
Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage System,
December 1, 1975.
Metropolitan Engineers, Task A3 Existing Wastewater and
Sludge Characteristics, Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle
Sewerage System, December 23, 1975.
Metropolitan Engineers, Task A4, Existing Wastewater
Facilities and Residual Management Practices, Munici-
pality of Metropolitan Seattle, Facility Planning,
Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage System, October 31, 1975.
Metropolitan Engineers, Task Report A5, Water Quality
Descriptions, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, Tasks A5C/B5C, Existing Sludge
Utilization and Land Application Constraints, Munici-
pality of Metropolitan Seattle, Facility Planning,
Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage System, April 28, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, Task A6, Identify Existing Regulatory
Agency Controls, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage
System, February 6, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, Task A7, Review of Community and
Regional Goals and Policies Regarding 201 Facilities
Planning, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage
System, May 17, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, Task B3, West Point Infiltration/
Inflow Analysis, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage
System, February 10, 1977.
Metropolitan Engineers, Tasks B3C/B4, Industrial Pre-
Treatment and Project Pollutant Loadings and Flows,
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Facility
Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage System,
January 14, 1977.
A-8
-------
Metropolitan Engineers, Tasks B5/A, B5/B, B5/D, B5/E; Soil,
Air, Population Growth and Resource Constraints,
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Facility Planning,
Metropolitan Sewerage System, October 25, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, Task B7, Metro Waste Treatment Manage-
ment Strategy, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage
System, October 15, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, Task C2, Environmental Assessment
Methodology and Scope, Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle
Sewerage System, June 28, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, Task D3, Preliminary Environmental
Evaluation, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Facility Planning, Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage
System, November 15, 1976.
Metropolitan Engineers, West Point Environmental Planning
Study, Interim Report, April, 1973.
Miller, B. S., McCain, B.B., Wingert, R.C., and others,
Ecological and Disease Studies of Demersal Fishes
Near METRO Operated Sewage Treatment Plants on Puget
Sound and the Duwamish River, One-Year Progress
Report for the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
FRI-UW-7608, June 14, 1976.
McCain, B.B., Pierce, K.V., Wellings, S.R., and others.
"Hepatomas in Marine Fish from an Urban Estuary",
Bulletin Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
(in press), 1977.
McGreevy, R., Seattle Shoreline Environment, City of Seattle,
Department of Community Development, Washington Sea
Grant Program, 1973.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Environmental Analysis
of the Metro Strategy for Achievement of the Goals
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, December, 1974.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, "A Baseline Study of
the Water Quality, Sediments and Biota of Lake Union"
(draft), 1976.
A-9
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fin Erosion
Disease and Liver Abnormalities Found in Flatfishes,
Northwest Fisheries Monthly Report, NOAA/NMFS Seattle,
March, 1976.
National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of
the Interior, Water Quality Criteria, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.T1968)
Oceanographic Institute of Washington, 1975 Compendium of
Current Environmental Studies in Puget Sound and
Northwest Estuarine Waters, May, 1976.
Patrick, R. "Proposed Biological Measure of Stream Conditions,
based on a Survey of Conestoga Basin, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, "Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 101:227-
341 (1949).
Portmann, J.E., "Persistent Organic Residues", in: Discharge
of Sewage from Sea Outfalls, Pp. 123-130, A.L.H.
Gameson (Ed), Proc. Intl. Symp., London, 27 August
to 2 September 1974, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York,
1975.
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Air Quality Data
Summary for County of King, 1973.
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Air Quality Data
Summary for County of King, 1975.
Puget Sound Council of Governments, Draft Environmental
Impact Statement of the Goals and Policies for
Regional Development, 1976.
Puget Sound Council of Governments, RDP Policy Development
on the Costs of Growth, Draft, March 18, 1976, (Re-
vised through May 11,1976).
Puget Sound council of Governments. RICBO Facilities Plan
Evaluation Test, October 25, 1976.
Rasmussen, N.H., and others, Earthquake Hazard Evaluation
of the Puget Sound Region, Washington State, University
of Washington, 1974.
Rasmussen, N.H., (Personal Communication), University of
Washington, Department of Geophysics, 1977.
Rasmussen, N.H., Washington State Earthquakes, 1840 through
1965, Seismology Society, American Bulletin, 57
(3) :413-476, 1967.
A-]0
-------
Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl -
Environmental and Economic Costs of Alternative
Residental Development Patterns at the Urban Fringe-
Detailed Cost Analysis, prepared for the Council of
Environmental Quality; the Office of Policy Develop-
ment and Research, Department of Housing and Urban
Development; and the Office of Planning and Management,
Environmental Protection Agency, April 1974.
Salo, L.J., A Baseline Survey of Significant Marine Birds
in Washington State, Report for the Department of
Game and Ecology, September, 1975.
Santos, J.F., and Stoner, J.D., Physical, Chemical and
Biological Aspects of the Duwamish River Estuary,
King County, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Supply Paper 1873-C, 1972.
Schell, W.R., Collias, E.E., Nevissi, A., and others. Trace
Contaminants from Duwamish River Dredge Spoils
Deposited Off Fourmile Rock in Elliott Bay, Trace
Metal Research, University of Washington, Depart-
ment of Oceanography for Metro, December, 1976.
Schell, W.R., A. Nevissi, D. Piper, G. Christian and
others, "Heavy Metals Near the West Point Outfall and
in the Main Basin of Puget Sound," Report for Metro,
Feb. 1977.
Seattle 2000 Commission, Goals for Seattle, prepared by
the Citizens of Seattle and adopted by the Mayor and
the City Council, Seattle, Washington, 1973.
Smith, G.B., "Some Effects of Sewage Discharge to the
Marine Environment", Ph.D. Thesis, University of
California, San Diego, Department of Oceanography, 1976
Staude, C.P., Thorn, R.J., Armstrong, J.W., and others.
"Changes in the Intertidal Macrofauna and Macroflora
Near West Point Sewage Treatment Plant, 1971 to
1975", University of Washington, Coll. Fish., Report
to Metro, 1977.
Stevens, Thompson and Runyan, Inc., Draft Final Report,
Appendix Part 1, Puget Sound Regional Assessment
Study, for the National Commission on Water Quality,
June, 1965.
A-ll
-------
Stevens, Thompson and Runya,n, Inc., Draft Final Report,
Appendix Part 2, Puget Sound Regional Assessment
Study, for the National Commission on Water Quality,
June, 1965.
Stevens, Thompson and Runyan, Inc., Draft Final Report,
Puget Sound Regional Assessment Study, for the
National Commission on Water Quality, Seattle,
Washington, June, 1975.
Stevens, Thompson and Runyan, Inc., Environmental Manage-
ment for the Metropolitan Area, Part III, Water
Quality, (RIBCO), December, 1974.
Stober, Q.J., "Bioassay Experiments", in: Puget Sound
Studies, Duxbury, (ed.), Washington Sea Grant
Report WSG-MR76-3, Pg. 157-158, June, 1976.
Stober, Q.J., and Graybill, J.P., Effects of Discharge
in the Cedar River on Sockeye Salmon Spawning Area,
Appendix D in Environmental Management for the
Metropolitan Area, Part I, Water Resources Appendices,
December, 1974.
Stober, Q. J., (Personal Communication), 1977.
Thomas, R.M., Armstrong, J.W., Chew, K.K., and others, "A
Survey of the Possible Effects of Sewage Pollution
in the Attached Marine Flora at Five Beaches in the
Seattle, Washington Area", University of Washington,
Coll. Fish., Report to Metro, 1977.
Tomlinson, R.D., Bebee, B.N., Schwartz, R.G., Combined
Sewer Overflow Studies, September, 1976.
Turner, C.H., E.E. Ebert and R.R. Given, "The Marine
Environment in the Vicinity of the Orange County
Sanitation District's Ocean Outfall," Calif. Fish
Game 5_2:28-48 (1966) .
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Part II,
Urban Drainage, Appendix A, Regional Sub-basin Plans,
Volume I, Cedar River Basin, Environmental Manage-
ment for the Metropolitan Area, Cedar-Green River
Basins, Washington, December, 1974.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey, King County
Area, Washington, Soil Conservation Service, September,
1952.
A-12
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey, King County
Area, Washington, Soil Conservation Service, November,
1973.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Climatic Guide
for Seattle, Washington and Adjacent Puget Sound Area,
Climatology of the United States, No. 40-45, 1961
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Criteria for
Water, Draft, 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methodology for
Analysis of Secondary Air Quality Impacts of Waste-
water Treatment Projects Located in Air Quality
Maintenance Areas, Environmetal Impact Office, March,
1976.
U.S. Geological Survey, A Study of Earthquake Losses in the
Puget Sound, Washington Area, U.S. Department of
the Interior, 1975.
Washington Dept. of Natural Resources, Washington Marine
Atlas, Vol. II, South Island Waters. Surveys and
Marine Land Management Division, Aquatic Land Management
Section, Olympia, Wash., David Jamieson, Oct. 1972
Welch, E.B., Factors Initiating Phytoplankton Blooms and
Resulting Effects on Dissolved Oxygen in Duwamish
River Estuary, Seattle, Washington, U.S. Geological
Survey Water Supply Paper 1873-A, 1969.
Wellings, S.R., Alpers, C.E., McCain, B.B., and others.
"Fin Erosion Disease of Starry Flounders (Platichthys
stellatus) and English sole (Paraphrys vetulus) in
the Estuary of the Duwamish River, Seattle, Washington",
Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
33:2577-2586, (n.d.).
Wells, E., 201 EIS; Draft of Growth Section, (Memorandum
to Jeff Bauman, etc., Job No. M7D3D), August 16, 1976.
Whitmore, C.M., Swartz, R.G., Brenner, R.N., and others.
Quality of Small Lakes and Streams in the Lake
Washington and Green River Drainage Basins, Interim
Report, Period July 1971 to October 1972, Metro Staff
Report.
A-13
-------
Wingert, R.C., B.B. McCain, B.S. Miller, "Ecological and
Disease Studies of Demersal Fishes Near METRO Operated
Sewage Treatment Plants on Puget Sound and the
Duwamish River," Puget Sound Interim Studies, Draft
Final Report, Feb. 1977.
Winter, D.F., Banse K., and Anderson, G.C., "The Dynamics
of Phytoplankton Blooms in Puget Sound, A Fjord in
the Northwestern United States", Marine Biology,
29:139-176, 1975.
Woolridge, D.D. (Memorandum to Professor Robert Sylvester,
Director, Institute Environmental Studies, Faculty
Review of RIBCO), University of Washington, Associate
Professor, College of Forest Resources, January
10, 1975.
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
WAG 197-10-444 LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
(1) Every EIS shall have appended to it a list of the
elements of the environment in subsection (2), (3)
and (4) of this section. The lead agency shall place
"N/A" ("not applicable") next to an item when the
proposal, including its indirect impacts will not
significantly affect the area (or subarea) of the
environment in question. Items marked "N/A" heed not
be mentioned in the body of the EIS. Subsections
(2) and (3) of this section correspond in subject
matter to the questions contained in the environmental
checklist used for threshold determination, and the
questions in the checklist may be used to interpret
this outline listing.
(2) ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
(a) Earth
(i) Geology -
(ii) Soils.
(iii) Topography.
(iv) Unique physical features.
(v) Erosion.
N/A (vi) Accretion/avulsion.
(b) Air
(i) Air quality.
(ii) Odor.
(iii) Climate.
(c) Water
(i)Surface water movement.
(ii) Runoff/absorption.
(iii) Floods.
(iv) Surface water quantity.
(v) Surface water quality.
N/A (vi) Ground water movement.
(vii) Ground water quantity.
(viii)Ground water quality.
(ix) Public water supplies.
B-l
-------
(d) Flora
(i) Numbers or diversity of species.
(ii) Unique species.
N/A (iii) Barriers and/or corridors.
N/A (iv) Agricultural crops.
(e) Fauna
(i) Numbers or diversity of species
(ii) Unique species.
(iii) Barriers and/or corridors.
(iv) Fish or wildlife habitat.
(f) Noise
N/A (g) Light and glare
(h) Land use
(i) Natural resources
(i) Rate of use.
(ii) Nonrenewable resources
(j) Risk of explosion or hazardous emissions
(3) ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
(a) Population
N/A (b) Housing
(c) Transportation/circulation
(i) Vehicular transportation generated.
N/A (ii) Parking facilities.
N/A (iii) Transportation systems.
N/A (iv) Movement/circulation of people or goods,
N/A (v) Waterborne, rail and air traffic.
(vi) Traffic hazards.
(d) Public services
N/A TH Fire.
N/A (ii) Police.
N/A (iii) Schools.
N/A (iv) Parks or other recreational facilities.
N/A (v) Maintenance.
(vi) Other governmental services.
B-2
-------
(e) Energy
(i) Amount required.
(ii) Source/availability.
(f) Utilities
(i) Energy.
N/A (ii) Communications.
(iii) Water.
(iv) Sewer.
(v) Storm water.
(vi) Solid waste.
(g) Human health (not including mental health)
(h) Aesthetics
(i) Recreation
(j) Archeological/historical
(4) The following additional element shall be covered in
all EISs, either by being discussed or marked "N/A,"
but shall not be considered part of the environment
for other purposes:
N/A (a) Additional population characteristics
(i) Distribution by age, sex, and ethnic
characteristics of the residents in the
geographical area affected by the environ-
mental impacts of the proposal.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION CALCULATIONS
In order to assess the air quality impacts of sludge
trucking and personnel traffic, the following simple proce-
dure was used. Assuming that treatment plant personnel on
the average live within about 5 miles of work, the number of
personnel needed to man a facility was multiplied by 10
miles (to account for the round trip), and that product
multiplied by 1971 EPA emission factors for automobiles.
These emission factors, contained in the EPA report "AP-42",
were the most up-to-date figures obtainable. Because future
emissions will be subject to stricter controls, use of the
1971 factors gives a "worst case" impact. Even so, the
total traffic impact is a very small portion of 1% of
Seattle's total daily emissions. To calculate the sludge
trucking emissions, the number of sludge trips necessary
per treatment plant per day was doubled (to account for
round trips) and multiplied by the number of miles travelled
between the given treatment plant and destination (see
accompanying table). This number was in turn multiplied by
1973 emission factors for heavy duty diesel trucks. These
factors, also contained in EPA's report "AP-42", are in-
cluded in the following table.
C-l
-------
"AP-42" EMISSION FACTORS
HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (1973)
Hydrocarbons (total)
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
1.38 grams/mile
8.61
6.27
AUTOMOBILES
Hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
3.07
39.6
5.06
SLUDGE TRUCK MILEAGE
to Cedar Hills Landfill
ii n ii it
West Point
Alki
Carkeek Park
Renton
Interbay
Duwamish
Richmond Beach to West Point
Carkeek Park to West Point
.5
5
17
14
17
7
16
14
6
3.5
miles
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES AND TABLES
Appendix Figure D-l
Appendix Figure D-2
Figures
Wildlife Distribution
Feedback Cycle of Net Currents in
Puget Sound.
Appendix Figure D-3 Vertical Profiles of Net Currents
Appendix Figure D-4
(2 pages)
Commercial and Sport Fisheries in the
Study Area.
Tables
Appendix Table D-l
Appendix Table D-2
Appendix Table D-3
Appendix Table D-4
Appendix Table D-5
Appendix Table D-6
Appendix Table D-7
Appendix Table D-8
Appendix Table D-9
Appendix Table D-10
Criteria for State of Washington
Water Quality Standards
Terrestrial and Marshland Fauna of
the Sewerage Area.
Addenda to "List of Fauna of the
Sewerage Area"
Summary, Overflow Study, August 1976
Selected Water Quality Criteria Pro-
posted by U.S. EPA 1975
Levels of Metals in Biota at Denny
Street Overflow, August 1976.
Fecal Coliform Effluent Limitations
and Monitoring at Metro's Puget Sound
Treatment Facilities
Total Coliforms Standards Violations
for Puget Sound Shoreline Stations
Chlorine Toxicity to Marine Organisms
Rare, Threatened or Endangered
Animal Whose Range Includes the Green
River Sewerage Area.
D-l
-------
Appendix D
Appendix Table D-ll Recommended Temperatures
Appendix Table D-12 Recommended Dissolved Oxygen Levels
D-2
-------
a
i
100-
w 200 -
Q
300
0)
rH <4-l
.£> U-l
3 3
O r-<
o PQ
I
•H
l-i O
Admiralty Inlet
Tacoma
Narrows
v~..~:.^».^
Figure Feedback cvcle of net currents in Puget Sound neglecting winds.
Notations: A-B, surface water refluxed to depth by tidal action; B-C,
southward flow requiring approximately ten days travel time; C-D, upwelling
induced by tidal mixing in Tacoma Narrows; E-D, deep water refluxed
through Colvos Passage; E-A, northward flow requiring about 5 days travel
time between Alki Point and Double Bluff.
Appendix Figure D-2
Feedback Cycle of Net Currents in Puget Sound.
-------
CURRENT SPEED (cm sec"1)
-20
0 4-
•NORTH
-10
0
SOUTH
10
CHLOROPHYLL a
(mg m~3)
2 4
O
I
in
0)
4J
PL.
W
Q
100 -
200
Depth of
No-Net-Motion
Appendix Figure D-3 Vertical profiles of net currents (left) from Cannon and
Laird (solid;1972) and Laird and Gait (dashed; 1975); and chlorophyll
derived from data reported by Winter, Banse and Anderson (1975) for
1966(solid) and 1967 (dashed). METRO effluent is usually below 10m (1)
The average depth of 1% light level in May is 17 m (2).
-------
o
I
(Ti
COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHING
Gill Net Illll
Purse Seine
-------
COMMERCIAL HERRING
FISHING
BOTTOM FISH
STEELHEAD
SHRIMP
Appendix Figure D-4 (continued)
-------
STATE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
g
CJ
u_
C/}
in
CJ
AA
Extraordinary
A
Excellent
a
Good
C
Fair
Lake Class
Freshwater
1
ra
01
Freshwat
0)
c
«
?shwater
£
=
2
0)
i
•£
u_
c
i
39
ro
11
LL
CRITERIA FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
§
° . E
ai|
2 * z
° o 1 3
<50
(10% > 230)
<70
(10% > 230)
<240
(20% > 1000)
<70
( 10% > 1000)
<1000
110% > 2400)
<1000
(10% > 2400)
(0% > 10001
(0% > 1000)
<240
(20% >1000)
„.
91
>
X
O
1
1 ~
5 f
>9.5
>7.0
>8.0
>6.0
>6.5
(h)
> 5.0
(h)
>5.0
(e)
>4.0
(e)
(g)
S
W
T3
1 I
"* 5
< 1 10
<72
t=64/(T-29l
(hi
IS
6.5-8.5
(0.1)
7.0-8.5
(0.1)
6.5-8.5
(0.25)
7.0-8.5
(0.25)
6.5-8.5
(0.5)
7.0-8.5
(0.5)
6.5-9.0
(0.5)
7.0-9.0
(0.51
(h)
13
1-
-i
a
IB
<5
<5
<5
<5
<10
<10
<10
<5
a>"
2
~ n c.
I o %
"3 £ 2
x Q 5 £
H 0 2 (3
Shall be le'ss than those which
may affect public health, the
natural aquatic environment, or
the desirability of the water for
any usage.
Shall be below those of public
health significance, or which may
cause acute or chronic toxic
conditions to the aquatic biota, or
which may adversely affect any
water.
Shall be below those which adversely
affect public health during the
exercise of characteristic usages, or
which may cause acute or chronic
toxic conditions to the aquatic biota,
or which may adversely affect
characteristic water uses.
Shall he less than those which
may affect public health, the
natural aquatic environment, or
the desirability of the water for
any usage.
Shall be less than those which
may affect public health, the
natural aquatic environment, or
the desirability of the water for
any usage.
0>
.2
CD
tj
"s
OJ
Aesthetic values shall not be impaired
by the presence of materials or their
effects, excluding those of natural
origin, which offend the senses of
sight, smell, touch or taste.
Aesthetic values shall not be impaired
by the presence of materials or their
effects, excluding those of natural
origin, which offend the senses of
sight, smell, touch or taste,
Shall not be reduced by dissolved,
suspended, floating or submerged
matter not attributable to natural
causes, so as to affect water usage o<
taint the flesh of edible species.
Aesthetic values shall not be impair' :
by the presence of materials or the-
effects, excluding those of natural
origin, which offend the senses of
sight, smell, touch or taste.
Aesthetic values shall not be impaired
by the presence of materials or their
effects, excluding those of natural
origin, which offend the senses of
sight, smell, touch or taste.
(a) Shown in parenthesis are the (c) Shall not be within the range (g) No measurable change from
maximum percentages of samples shown, with an induced natural conditions.
allowed to exceed values vanation of less than units
indicated, when associated with shown in parenthesis.
any fecal source. (h) Dissolved oxygen shall not
(d) The natural turbidity conditions exceed values shown, or 70%
(b) Water temperature shall not shall not be exceeded by more saturation, whichever is greater.
exceed values shown, due in than the value shown.
part to measurable (0.5° F)
increases resulting from human (e) Dissolved oxygen shall not
activit es, nor shall such exceed values shown, or 50%
time, exceed the (t) va ue of
the formula shown' (f) No measurable decrease from
natural conditions
t permissive increase
T water temperature due
to all causes combined
Appendix Table D-l
D-8
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-2
TERRESTRIAL AND MARSHLAND
FAUNA OF THE SEWERAGE AREA
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
*Northwestern Salamander
*Long-toed Salamander
*Pacific Giant Salamander
*Rough-skinned Newt
*Western Red-backed
Salamander
*0regon Salamander
*Tailed Frog
*Western Toad
*Pacific Treefrog
*Red-legged Frog
*Spotted Frog
*Bullfrog
*Western Pond Turtle
Western Fence Lizard
Northern Alligator Lizard
Rubber Boa
*Common Garter Snake
*Western Terrestrial
Garter Snake
Northwestern Garter Snake
BIRDS
Common Loon
Horned Grebe
/Western Grebe
*Pied-billed Grebe
/Double-crested Cormorant
*Great Blue Heron
*Green Heron
/*American Bittern
*Whistling Swan
*Canada Goose
Brant
White-fronted Goose
Snow Goose
*Mallard
*Gadwall
*Pintail
*Green-winged Teal
*Blue-winged Teal
*Cinnamon Teal
*European Widgeon
*American Widgeon or
Baldpate
Ambystoma gracile
Ambystoma macrodactylum
Dicamptodon ensatus
Taricha granulosa
Plethodon vehiculum
Ensatina eschscholtzi oregonesis
Ascaphus truei
Bufo boreas
Hyla regilla
Rana aurora
Rana pretiosa
Rana catesbiana
Clemmys marmorata
Sceloporus occidentalis
Gerrhonotus coeruleus
Charina bottae
Thamnophis siFtalis
Thamnophis elegans
Thamnophis ordiniodes
Gavia immer
Podiceps auritus
Aechmophorus occidentalis
Podilymbus podiceps
Phalacrocorax auritus
Ardea herodias
Butorides virescens
Botaurus lentiginosus
Olor columbianus
Branta canadensis
Branta nigricans
Anser albifrons
Chen hyperborea
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas strepera
Anas acuta
Anas carolinensis
Anas discors
Anas cyanoptera
Mareca penelope
Mareca americana
*These species utilize wetlands /Species on the 1977 Audubon "Blue List"
D-9
-------
Appendix Table D-2 (cont'd)
BIRDS, continued...
*Shoveler
*Wood Duck
*Redhead
*Ring-necked Duck
/*Canvasback
*Greater Scaup
*Lesser Scaup
*Common Goldeneye
*Bufflehead
*Harlequin Duck
White-winged Scoter
Surf Scoter
Common Scoter
Ruddy Duck
*Hooded Merganser
*Common Merganser
*Red-breasted Merganser
Goshawk
/Sharp-shinned Hawk
/Cooper's Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
*Bald Eagle
/*Marsh Hawk
/Osprey
Gyrfalcon
Peregrine Falcon
Pigeon Hawk
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
/Barn Owl
*Snowy Owl
Spotted Owl
*Short-eared Owl
/Common Nighthawk
Black Swift
Vaux's Swift
Anna's Hummingbird
Rufous Hummingbird
*Belted Kingfisher
Red-shafted Flicker
Hairy Woodpecker
*Downy Woodpecker
*Traill's Flycatcher
Western Flycatcher
Western Wood Pee Wee
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Horned Lark
Violet-green Swallow
*Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
*Rough-winged Swallow
Spatula clypeata
Aix sponsa
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Aythya valisineria
Aythya marila
Aythya affinis
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala albeola
Histrionicus histrionicus
Melanitta deglandi
Melanitta perspicillata
Oidemia nigra
Oxyura jamaicensis
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus merganser
Mergus serrator
Accipiter gentilis
Accipiter striatus
Accipiter coopern
Buteo jamaicensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Circus cyaneus
Pandion haliaetus
Falco rusticolus
Falco peregrinus
Falco columbarius
Columba livia
Zenaidura macroura
Tyto alba
Nyctea scandiaca
Strix occidentalis
Asio flammeus
Chordeiles minor
Cypseloides niger
Chaetura vauxi
Calypte anna
Selasphorus rufus
Megaceryle alcyon
Colaptes cafer
Dendrocopos villosus
Dendrocopos pubescens
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax difficilis
Contopus sordidulus
Nuttallornis borealis
Eremophila alpestris
Tachycineta thalassina
Iridoprocne bicolor
Riparia riparia
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis
D-10
-------
Appendix Table D-2 (cont'd)
BIRDS, continued...
Sparrow Hawk
Ruffled Grouse
California Quail
Ring-necked Pheasant
Virginia Rail
*American Coot
*Killdeer
*Common Snipe
*Spotted Sandpiper
*Greater Yellowlegs
*Lesser Yellowlegs
*Pectoral Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Dunlin
Long-billed Dowitcher
*Western Sandpiper
*Wilson's Phalarope
*Glaucous-winged Gull
*Western Gull
*California Gull
*Ring-billed Gull
*Mew Gull
Bonaparte's Gull
Band-tailed Pigeon
Orange-crowned Warbler
Hermit Warbler
/Yellow Warbler
Townsend's Warbler
Black-throated Gray Warbler
Yellowthroat
Wilson's Warbler
House Sparrow
Western Meadowlark
*Red-winged Blackbird
*Bullock's Oriole
Brewer's Blackbird
*Brown-headed Cowbird
Western Tanager
Black-headed Grosbeak
*Evening Grosbeak
Pine Grosbeak
Purple Finch
*House Finch
Pine Siskin
American Goldfinch
White-winged Crossbill
Rufous-sided Towhee
Slate-colored Junco
*Savannah Sparrow
*Barn Swallow
*Cliff Swallow
Purple Martin
Falco sparverius
Bpnasa umbellus
Lophortyx californicus
Phasianus colchicus
Rallus limicola
Fulica americana
Charadrius vociferus
Capella gallinago
Actitis macularia
Totanus melanoleucus
Totanus flavipes
Erolia melanotos
Erolia minutilla
Erolia alpina
Limnodromus scolopaceus
Ereunetes mauri
Steganopus tricolor
Larus glaucescens
Larus occidentalis
Larus californicus
Larus delawarensis
Larus canus
Larus Philadelphia
Columba fasciata
Vermivora celata
Dendroica occidentalis
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica townsendi
Dendroica nigrescens
Geothlypis trichas
Wilsonia pusxlla
Passer domesticus
Sturnella neglecta
Agelaius phoeniceu's
Icterus bullockn
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Molothrus ater
Piranga ludovTciana
Pheucticus melanocephalus
Hesperiphona vespertina
Pinicola enucleator
Carpodacus purpureus
Carpodacus mexicanus
Spinus pinus
Spinus tristis
Loxia leucoptera
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Junco hyemalis
Passerculus sandwichensis
Hirundo rustica
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Progne subis
D-ll
-------
Appendix Table D-2 (cont'd)
BIRDS, continued...
Steller's Jay
*Coininon Crow
*Black-capped Chickadee
Chestnut-backed Chickadee
*Common Bushtit
Winter Wren
*Bewick's Wren
*Long-billed Marsh Wren
*Robin
Varied Thrush
*Swainson's Thrush
Mountain Bluebird
Western Bluebird
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
*Water Pipit
Cedar Waxwing
Northern Shrike
Starling
Solitary Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Chipping Sparrow
*White-crowned Sparrow
Golden-crowned Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
*Fox Sparrow
*Lincoln's Sparrow
*Song Sparrow
MAMMALS
Cyanocitta stelleri
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Parus atricapillus
Parus rufescens
Psaltriparus minimus
Troglodytes troglodytes
Thryomanes bewickn
Telmatodytes palustris
Turdus migratorius
Ixoreus naevius
Hylocichla ustulata
Sialia currucoides~~
Sialia mexicana
Regulus satrapa
Regulus calendula
Anthus spinoletta
Bombycilla cedrorum
Lanius excubitor
Sturnus vulgaris
Vireo solitarius
Vireo olivaceus
Vireo gilvus
Spizella passerina
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Zonotrichia artricapilla
Zonotrichia albicollis
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza lincolnii
Melospiza melodia
*American Opossum
Cinereous Shrew
*Vagrant Shrew
*Dusky Shrew
Water Shrew
*Marsh Shrew
Trowbridge's Shrew
*Shrew-mole
*Townsend's Mole
Coast Mole
Various Bats
*Eastern Cottontail
Snowshoe Hare
*Mountain Beaver
Townsend's Chipmunk
*Eastern Gray Squirrel
Fox Squirrel
Douglas's Squirrel
Northern Flying Squirrel
*Beaver
Didelphis marsupialis
Sorex cinereus
Sorex vagrans
Sorex obscurus
Sorex palustris
Sorex bendirei
Sorex trowbridgei
Neurotrichus gibbsi
Scapanus townsendi
Scapanus orarius
Chiroptera
Sylvilagus floridanus
Lepus americanus
Aplodontia rufa
Eutamias townsendi
Sciurus carolinensis
Sciurus niger
Tamiasciurus douglasi
Claucomys sabrinus
Castor fiber
D-12
-------
Appendix Table D-2 tcont'd)
MAMMALS, continued...
Common Deer Mouse
*Mountain Deer Mouse
Bushy-tailed Wood Rat
Capper's Red-backed Mouse
*Townsend's Meadow Mouse
*Long-tailed Meadow Mouse
Oregon Meadow Mouse
*Muskrat
*Norway Rat
*Black Rat
House Mouse
*Pacific Jumping Mouse
Porcupine
*Nutria
Coyote
*Red Fox
Black Bear
*Raccoon
*Short-tailed Weasel
Long-tailed Weasel
*Mink
Spotted Skunk
*Striped Skunk
*River Otter
Bobcat
Black-tailed Deer
Peromyscus maniculatus
Peromyscus oreas
Neotoma cinerea
Clethrionomy's gapperi
Microtus townsendi
Microtus longicaudus
Microtus oregoni
Ondatra zibethicus
Rattus norvegicus
Rattus rattus
Mus musculus"
Zapus trinotatus
Erethizon dorsatum
Myocastor coypus
Canis latrani"
Vulpes vulpes fulva
Ursus americanus
Procyon lotor
Mustela erminea
Mustela frenata
Lutreola lutreola
Spilogale putorius
Mephitis mephitis
Lutra canadensis
Lynx rufus
Odocoileus hemionus
D-13
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-3
ADDENDA TO "LIST OF FAUNA OF THE SEWERAGE AREA"
(in Metro Engineers Tasks A5, AIG, B5F-Appendix A)
* Arctic Loon
*Red-throated Loon
i/Red-necked Grebe
*Eared Grebe
Brandt's Cormorant
Pelagic Cormorant
*Barrow's Goldeneye
*0ldsquaw
*Black Turnstone
*Sanderling
Parasitic Jaeger
*Herring Gull
Thayer Gull
Common Tern
Common Murre
Pigeon Guillemot
Cassin's Auklet
Marbled Murrelet
*Rhinoceros Auklet
Gavia arctica
Gavia stellata
Podiceps grisegena
Podiceps nigricollis
Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Phalacrocorax pelagicus
Bucephala islandica
Clangula hyemalis
Arenaria melanocephala
Calidris alba
Stercorarius parasiticus
Larus argentatus
Larus thayeri
Sterna hirundo
Uria aalge
Cepphus c olumba
Ptychoramphus aleuticus
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Cerorhinca monocerata
*These species utilize wetlands
/On the 1977 Audubon "Blue List"
Source: Salo, Leo J. "A Baseline Study of Significant Marine
Birds in Washington State." for the Washington
State Departments of Game and Ecology.
September 1. 1975.
D-14
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-4
SUMMARY
OVERFLOW STUDY, August 1976
Denny (W027)
Madison (023)
Roanoke (132)
Hanford (W032)
Average Overflow Volume
(approx mil gal/yr)
40-100
10-40
40-100
40-100
Receiving Waters
Minimum Dilution
(general vicinity)
Elliott Bay/Puget Sound
(EBB)
0.1-1.8 hrs
2.9-3.7 hrs
(FLOOD)
0-1.7 hrs
3.1-3.6 hrs
1:1
1:32
1:1
1:15
Lake Washington Lake Union Duwamish-East Waterway/
Puget Sound
(EBB)
0.1-1.6 hrs 1:1 0.1-1.6 hrs 1:1 0.1-0.4 hrs 1:1
3.3-4.8 hrs 1:27 2.8-3.7 hrs l:-2 1.4-2.3 hrs 1:117
/
Macroscopic Biota
Sediment characteristics
Metals levels
PCB's levels
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
levels, pesticides
Present - see Table 2-
for list. Areas to north
and south different
Typical appearance for
the area; a minimum of
blackened sediments
Copper, nickel, zinc
as high or higher in
biota than sediments
North side: quite low;
south side: substantial
(in sediments)
Quite low in biota
and sediments
None found
Black, oily
Not measured for biota
Quite low (sediments)
No data on biota; ex-
tremely high in
sediments (DDT,ODD)
None found
Black, oily
Not measured for biota;
Highest levels of four
sites in sediments;
associated with oily
sediments
Quite low (sediments)
No data on biota; high
in sediments, 200 yds
south of outfall (ODD)
high undane in water,
not in sediments
None in plume area;
myraids of spionid
worms outside plume
Black, oily
Not measured for biota;
second highest of four
sites for sediments;
associated with oily
sediments
"Substantial" (sediments)
No data on biota; high
dieldrin, aldrin in
sediments
Coliforms
High through 96 hrs,
resuspended by tides,
eddies; south side
higher counts
High through >48 hrs; Persist > 96 hrs; could
south side higher counts be affected by other
outfalls nearby
High through >48 hrs;
north side higher than
south side
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-5
SELECTED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
PROPOSED BY U. S. EPA 1975
Parameter
Freshwater Life
Marine Life
Other
Ammonia
Arsenic
Cadmium Salmonids
Other Aquatic
Chlorine Salmonids
Other Freshwater
and Marine
Chromium
Coliforms (Fecal)Shellfish
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phenol
PCBs
Selenium
Zinc
Pesticides
Aldrin-dieldrin
DDT
Heptachlor
Lindane
Malathion
Methoxychlor
0.02 mg/1
0.0004 (soft water)
0.005 (hard water)
0.004 (soft water)
0.012 (hard water)
0.003 mg/1
0.010 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.005 mg/1
0.005 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
14 MPN/100 ml
10% < 43/100 ml
0.1 x 96LC50 nonaerated
bioassay with resident species
0.005 mg/1 0.005 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.01 x 9GLC50
0.00005 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0. 001 mg/1
~6 mg/1 dppt)
10
insufficient data
for criterion
0.1 mg/1 for
marine mollusc consumers
0.0001 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
10 6 mg/1 (Ippt)
0.01 x 96 LC50 bioassay
0.01 x 96 LC50 bioassay
0.003
0.
0.01^g/l
O.Ol^vg/1
0.1
O.OOl^g/1
0.01^g/l
0.05^g/I
O.l^g/1
0.05 mg/1 drinking water
0.01 mg/1 drinking water
0.05 drinking water
1.0 mg/1 drinking water
0.2 mg/1 drinking water
0.3 mg/1 drinking water
0.05 mg/1 drinking water
0.002 drinking water
0.01 irrigation
Ippt in food
lOxg/1 drinking water
5 mg/1 drinking water
100
drinking water
drinking water
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-6
METALS LEVELS IN BIOTA
at Denny Street Overflow, August 1976
(mg/kg dry weight)
D
I
"Worms" at outfall
Clams; 100 yds south,
30 yds offshore
Composite-worms,clams,
crabs; 105 yds north
of outfall, 30 yds
offshore
admium
0.65
1.49
Chromium
5.6
11.4
Copper
22
213
Nickel
9.4
17
Lead
24
155*
Zinc
223
314
115
12
52
203
*Dry weight lead values for intertidal clams (1974) were two orders of
magnitude lower (Schell et al,) at beach south of West Point: about 5 ^g/g dry
weight.
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-7
FECAL COLIFORM EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING
AT METRO'S PUGET SOUND TREATMENT FACILITIES
Richmond Beach
Carkeek Park
West Point
Alki
Monthly Avg*
700/100 ml
700/100 ml
700/100 ml
700/100 ml
Weekly Avg*
1500/100 ml
1500/100 ml
1500/100 ml
1500/100 ml
*Average based on geometric mean of samples
Source: NPDES permits
Monitoring
2/week
2 /week
daily
5/week
APPENDIX TABLE D-8
TOTAL COLIFORM STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
FOR PUGET SOUND SHORELINE STATIONS
Year
Percent of Stations
(at which 70 MPN/100 ml exceeded)
(April-September)
1972
1973
1974
1975
10
3
31
25
Source: Metro Engineers Tasks A5,A1G,B5F
D-18
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-9
Chlorine Toxicity to Marine Organisms
ORGANISM
EFFECT
EXPOSURE
PLANTS
San Francisco Bay aufwuchs
Chlorophyll a.
Phytoplankton
INVERTEBRATES
Strongylocentrotus
purpuratus(sea urchin)
Urechis caupo (worm)
Phragmatopoma californica
(tube worm)
Clam (Mercenaria
mercenaria)
Oyster (Crassostrea
virginica)
Shrimp (Pandalus
danae)
Hydroids
Barnacle lavae
Copepods
Grass shrimp
Amphipods
Lobster (48 hrs old)
FISHES
Ichthyoplankton-
yellowtailed flounder
Plaice eggs
Dove-r sole and
plaice larvae
Metamorphosed fish
biomass reduced to
less than 30% of
controls
reduced to 50% of
control
decreased photo-
synthesis
inhibition of
fertilization
inhibitation of
fertilization
inhibition of
fertilization
acute toxicity-
LC50
acute toxicity-
LC50
acute toxicity-
LC50
growth slightly
retarded
80% mortality
90% mortality
low mortality
25% mortality
97.2% mortality
low mortality
25% mortality
100% mortality
50% mortality
decreased
respiration rate
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
0.06 mg/1
0.06 mg/1
• 01 mg/1 intermittent
0.05 mg/1 5 min
0.20 mg/1 5 min
0.20 mg/1 5 min
^-005 mg/1 48 hrs
<.005 mg/1 48 hrs
0.15-0.21
mg/1
2.5-3.5
mg/1
2.5 mg/1
2.5 mg/1
96 hrs
2.5
2-5
mg/1
mg/1
2.5 mg/1
2.5 mg/1
2.5 mg/1
2.5 mg/1
1 hr
5^ min
5 min
5 min
3 hrs
96 hrs
5 min
3 hrs
96 hrs
16.3 mg/1 free Cl
2.02 mg/1 chloramine
0.05 mg/1 chloramine
0.10 mg/1 free Cl
0.1,0.2 mg/1 24 hrs
0.64 mg/1 72 hrs
0.105-.12 192 hrs
.025-.071 48-96 hrs
.07 .095"
96 hrs
Source: Brungs, 1976,
D-19
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-10
RARE, THREATENED OR ENDANGERED ANIMALS
WHOSE RANGE INCLUDES THE GREEN RIVER SEWERAGE AREA
REPTILES
Northwest Pond Turtle
Clemmys marmorata marmorata
BIRDS
Western Grebe
Double-crested Cormorant
Great Blue Heron
*Green Heron
Whistling Swan
*Aleutian Canada Goose
Sharp-Shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Bald Eagle
Marsh Hawk
*0sprey
Gyrfalcon
*Peregrine Falcon
*Pigeon Hawk
Sparrow Hawk
Barn Owl
*Spotted Owl
*Black Swift
*Anna's Hummingbird
*Bank Swallow
Purple Martin
*Winter Wren
Bewick's Wren
*Western Bluebird
*Hermit Warbler
Western Meadowlark
*Purple Finch
*Pine Grosbeak
*White-winged Crossbill
*Golden-crowned Sparrow
Aechmophorus occidentalis
Phalacrocorax auritus
Ardea herodias'
Butorides virescens
Olor columbianus
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Accipiter striatus
Accipiter coopern
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Circus cyaneus
Pandion haliaetus
Falco rusticolus
Falco peregrinus
Falco columbarius
Falco sparverius
Tyto alba
Strix occidentalis
Cypseloides niger "
Calypte anna
Riparia riparia
Progne subis
Troglodytes troglodytes
Thryomanes bewickii
Sialia mexicana
Dendroica occidentalis
Sturnella neglecta
Carpodacus purpureus
Pinicola enucleator
Loxia leucoptera
Zonotrichia atricapilla
MAMMALS
*Keen's Brown Bat
*Red Bat
*Townsend's Meadow Mouse
*Red Fox
Myotis keeni keeni
Lasiurus borealis teliotis
Microtus townsendi
Vulpes vulpes fulva
*Species on preliminary list of rare and endangered animals in
Washington State, prepared by the U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife (Olympia).
SOURCE: Metro Engineers 1976 Task A5,A1G,B5F Appendix
D-20
-------
Appendix D
APPENDIX TABLE D-ll
RECOMMENDED TEMPERATURES
Provisional Maximum Temperatures Recommended
as Compatible with the Weil-Being of
Various Species of Fish and their Associated Biota
93°F Growth of catfish and gar
90°F Growth of largemouth bass, bluegill and crappie
84°F Growth of perch and smallmouth bass
80°F Spawning and egg development of catfish
75°F Spawning and egg development of largemouth bass
68°F Growth or migration routes of salmonids and for
egg development of perch and smallmouth bass
55°F Spawning and egg development of salmon and trout
(other than lake trout)
48°F Spawning and egg development of lake trout
(Water Quality Criteria..., April 1, 1968)
APPENDIX TABLE D-12
RECOMMENDED DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
WARM WATER BIOTA
> 5 mg/1, assuming that there are normal seasonal and
daily variations above this concentration
4-5 mg/1, assuming that there are normal seasonal and
daily variations above this concentration and water
quality is favorable in all other respects
COLD WATER BIOTA
> 1 mg/1 in spawning areas at all times
> 6 mg/1 for good growth and general well-being
5-6 mg/1 for short periods provided that the water quality
is favorable and normal daily and seasonal fluctuations
occur
(Water Quality Criteria..., April 1, 1968)
D-21
-------
APPENDIX E
Energy Calculation
The energy sale projected to 1990 by the Seattle Light-
ing Company is 11,647 million kwh (Seattle Lighting, 1976).
Assuming the same annual growth rate of 3.7%, the projected
annual electricity sale in 2005 would be 20,086 x 106 kwh.
The percent of this total electrical energy that the
wastewater facilities consume is as shown in the following
sample calucation for Alternative A.
purchased electricity
by wastewater facilities = 25.26 x 10" kwh/year x 100% =0.13%
total electricity to be 20,086 x 106 kwh/year
sold in Seattle
The equivalent household consumption is calculated as
indicated below for sample calculation with Alternative A
purchased electric-
ity by wastewater
facilities = 25.26 x 106 kwh/year = 1260 house_
electricity con- 0.02 x 10° kwh/year/house- hoid equiv-
sumption per house- hold alents
hold
The electricity serviced by Seattle City Lighting Company
will constitute approximately half the energy consumed by
the entire Metro area.
E-l
-------
APPENDIX F
REGISTERED HISTORIAL PLACES IN THE METRO AREA
King County
1. Auburn vicinity. Neely, Aaron Sr., Mansion, E of
Auburn off WA 18.
2. Kirkland. Kirk, Peter, Building, 620 Market St.
3. Kirkland. Relief (lightship), Central Waterfront
at Moss Bay.
4. Redmond. Clise, James W., House, 6046 Lake
Sammamish Pkwy. N.E.
5. Redmond. Yellowstone Road, The, 196th St. between
the Fall City Highway and 80th N.E.
6. Redmond vicinity. Marymoor Prehistoric Indian Site,
6046 Lake Sammamish Pkwy., N.E.
7- Seattle, Alaska Trade Building (Union Record Build-
ing, 1915-1919), First Avenue.
8. Seattle. Assay Office (German Club), 613-9th Ave.
9. Seattle. Barnes Building, 2320-2322 First Avenue.
10. Seattle. Bell Apartments, 2326 First Avenue.
11. Seattle. Broadway High School, Broadway Avenue and
East Pine St.
12. Seattle. Building No. 105, Boeing Airplane Company
(E.W. Heath Shipyard), 200 S.W. Michigan St.
13. Seattle. Butterworth Building, 1921 First Avenue.
14. Seattle. Coliseum Theater, 5th Avenue and Pike St.
15. Seattle. Colman Building, 811 First Avenue.
16. Seattle. Fire Station No. 18 (Ballard Fire Station),
5427 Russell Ave. N.W.
17. Seattle. Fire Station No. 23, 18th Ave. and
Columbia St.
F-l
-------
18. Seattle. Fire Station No. 25, 1400 Harvard Ave.
19- Seattle. Iron Pergola, 1st Ave. and Yesler Way.
20. Seattle. King Street Station, Third St. South and
South King St.
21. Seattle. Leary, Eliza Ferry, House, 1551-lOth
Ave. East.
22. Seattle. Moore Theatre and Hotel, 1932 Second Ave.
23. Seattle. Naval Military Hangar-University Shell
House, University of Washington campus.
24. Seattle. Northern Life Tower (Seattle Tower), 1212
Third Ave.
25. Seattle. Old Public Safety Building, 4th Ave. and
Terrace St. and 5th Ave. and Yesler Way.
26. Seattle. Paramount Theatre, 901 Pine Street.
27. Seattle. Park Department, Division of Playgrounds,
301 Terry Avenue.
28. Seattle. Pike Place Public Market Historic District,
roughly bounded by 1st and Western Aves. and Virginia
and Pike Sts.
29. Seattle. Pioneer Hall, 1642-43rd Ave. East.
30. Seattle. Pioneer Square-Skid Road District.
31. Seattle. Queen Anne Public School, 515 West Galer St.
32. Seattle. Ronald, Judge James T., House, 421-30th
South.
33. Seattle. Storey, Ellsworth, Residences, 260, 270 E.
Dorffel Dr.
34. Seattle. Virginia, V. 4250-21st Ave. W.
35. Seattle. W. T. Preston, Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Hiran Chittenden Locks.
36. Seattle. Wawona, Seattle Police Harbor Patrol Dock,
foot Densmore St.
F-2
-------
37. Seattle. Union Station, 4th South and South Jackson
Sts.
38. Seattle. Ward House, 4127 Boren Ave.
39. Seattle. Washington Street Public Boat Landing
Facility, S. Washington St. west of Alaskan Way.
40. Seattle. Wilke Farmhouse, 1920 Second North.
Also listed in the National Register of Historic Places
are three nearby locations which are eligible to be declared
Historic Places. In King County, three light stations are
eligible: #49, Point Robinson Light Station at Burton; #50,
Alki Point Light Station in Seattle; and #51, the West Point
Light Station, also in Seattle (See Federal Register,
February 10, 1976).
In addition to the officially recognized places of his-
toric interest noted above, Earl D. Laymen, the Historic
Preservation Officer for the City of Seattle, has indicated
that on the Commodore Way site a farmhouse, circa 1900,
located at 4420 25th Avenue West, is worthy of consideration
for historic or landmark designation.
The King County Shoreline Management Program (Development
of Budget and Program Planning, 1975), and the City of Seattle
Shoreline Master Program (Department of Community Development,
1976) add to this list as cultural resources to be protected
Fort Lawton, Alki Beach Park, Harbor Patrol Shelter (foot of
Washington Street), University of Washington Arboretum and
the old University of Washington Shellhouse.
F-3
-------
APPENDIX G
DETERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT
The number of construction jobs for the various alter-
natives is determined by the following 3-step procedure:
(1) Project cost-cost for foundation excavation = construction
1.4 cost
(2) 40% x construction cost f 33,000 dollars = construction
jobs man years
(3) construction - 5 years to = number of construc-
man years complete construction tion jobs
A foundation must be excavated at the Golf Park, Duwamish
(Diagonal Way) sites.
Duwamish excavation cost = $17.4 million
Golf Park excavation cost = $20 million
Sample calculation for employment provided by construc-
tion under Alternative B:
81.9 x 106 (Project cost) x .40 x 1 x .1 = 142 Construction
174J3,UUU 5 jobs
Rounded Off to 150 Jobs
G-l
------- |