910/9-80-077	United States	Region 10
Environmental Protection	1200 Sixth Avenue
Agency	Seattle WA 98101
Water	December 1980	EPA-10-WA-KING-Metro-WWTW-80
oEFA Environmental	Draft
Impact Statement
Wastewater Management Plan
For the
Lake Washington/Green River Basins


-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
^ PRO^°
REPLY TO
ATTN Of:
, M/S 443
DEC 1 1980
To: All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens
I am forwarding for your review and comment this draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) on the Wastewater Management Plan for the
Lake Washington/Green River Basins. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA} has given the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
(Metro) a grant for planning needed facilities for treating
wastewater from the Renton treatment plant study area. Metro is
expected to apply to EPA for a grant for construction of approved
facilities, under Section 201 of the Federal Clean Water Act. EPA
is preparing this draft EIS on its proposed approval of Metro's
facilities plan, pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and implementing Federal
regulations.
EPA will announce the availability of this document in the Federal
Register on Friday, December 19, 1980, beginning a 45-day review
period. If you have any comments on this draft EIS or wish to
provide additional information for inclusion in the final EIS, we
would appreciate hearing from you before the close of the comment
period on February 2, 1981. All comments will be used by EPA in
evaluating the effects of approving the proposed plan. Please send
your comments, or requests for additional copies of the draft EIS to
Roger K. Mochnick M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Additional copies of this document and supporting appendices are
available for review at the EPA Region 10 Library at the above
address; at the Metro Library at 821 Second Avenue, Seattle; and at
public libraries at Bellevue, Redmond, and Renton.

-------
2
EPA and Metro will hold public meetings to discuss the draft plan
and draft EIS at the following times and locations:
January 6 Alki-Congregational Community Church, 7:00 p.m.
January 7 Bellevue-Puget Sound Power and Light Auditorium,
7:30 p.m.
January 14 Seattle-Exchange Building 4th floor conference room
12:00 p.m.
January 15 Kent-City Council Chambers, 7:30 p.m.
In addition, EPA and Metro will hold public hearings to receive
public comments on the plan and EIS at the following times and
1ocati ons:
January 21 Seattle-Exchange Building 4th floor conference room,
12:00 p.m.
January 21 Bellevue-Puget Sound Power and Light Auditorium,
7:00 p.m.
I hope you will take the time to comment in writing or attend one of
these public meetings or hearings.
ncereJy
Regional Administrator
Attachment

-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
LAKE WASHINGTON/GREEN RIVER BASINS
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance from
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, California 95816
Responsible Official
Qferrald P. flat)
Regional Admi
Administrator
L'-.v 1 1380
Date
iiHiHilii
RXOOOQOB172


-------
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
Pa9e
SUMMARY	xv
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION	1
CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND
EXISTING RENTON SEWERAGE SYSTEM	13
CHAPTER 3 - DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES	4 9
CHAPTER 4 - CONSTRUCTION AND SITE-RELATED IMPACTS
OF ALTERNATIVES	91
CHAPTER 5 - OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF LONG-TERM
ALTERNATIVES	117
CHAPTER 6 - SECONDARY IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL
ALTERNATIVES	15 9
CHAPTER 7 - ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA	221
CHAPTER 8 - COORDINATION	22 9
CHAPTER 9 - LIST OF EIS PREPARERS	24 3
CHAPTER 10 - BIBLIOGRAPHY	249
i

-------
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
SUMMARY	xv
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION	1
Organization	1
Metro's Wastewater Management Plan	3
Purpose and Need	3
Development of the Wastewater Management Plan 3
EIS Context	4
Major Issues Addressed by EIS	4
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) Requirements	5
EIS Chronology	5
Subsequent EIS Activities	6
Public Participation	6
Institutional Considerations	6
Laws, Policies, and Agencies Affecting the EIS 7
Clean Water Act	7
Clean Air Act	7
Endangered Species Act	7
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act	7
National Historic Preservation Act	8
Archeological and Historic Preservation
Act	8
Coastal Zone Management Act	8
EPA Policy on Agricultural Lands
Protection	8
EPA Policy on Floodplain and Wetlands
Protection	8
Affected Agencies and Their Jurisdictions	8
Environmental Protection Agency	8
Corps of Engineers	11
Department of Ecology	11
Departments of Fisheries and Game	11
Department of Natural Resources	11
Puget Sound Council of Governments	11
Metro
Counties and Cities	12
Special Districts	12
CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND
EXISTING RENTON SEWERAGE SYSTEM	13
Climate and Air Quality	13
Climate	13
Air Quality	14
Soils, Geology, and Groundwater	14
Soils	I4
Geology and Groundwater	IS
ii

-------
pa?e
Water Resources and Water Quality	21
Inland Surface Water	21
Puget Sound	21
Biology	25
Terrestrial Biology	25
Aquatic and Marine Biology	2 5
Fisheries	25
Species and Habitats of Special Interest	27
Land Use and Socio-Econamics	27
Land Use	2 7
Population and Housing	2 9
Regional Economy and Employment	29
Public Services Provision	31
Existing Sewerage Facilities	31
The Study Area	31
Study Area Wastewater Collection Systems	31
The Renton Treatment Plant	35
Wastewater and Sludge Characteristics	3 9
Wastewater	39
Sludge	4 3
Existing Chemical Consumption	4 3
Existing Energy Use	45
Existing Costs of Wastewater Treatment	4 5
The Nonsewer Area	4 5
CHAPTER 3 - DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES	4 9
Long-Term Alternatives for Sewer Service Area	4 9
Flow Projections and Service Area	4 9
Description of 15 Initial Alternatives	51
Comparative Costs of 15 Initial Alternatives 51
User Costs of Long-Term Alternatives	51
Other Long-Term Alternatives for the Sewer
Service Area	5 7
Alternatives Considered and Rejected by Metro 5 7
Large-Scale Decentralized Facilities	5 9
Large-Scale Land Application	5 9
Wasteload and Flow Reductions	59
Satellite Pretreatment	61
In-River Actions	61
Alternative Treatment Plant Layouts	61
Wastewater Reuse Alternatives	61
The No-Project Alternative	61
Description of Screening/Selection Process
and Final Alternatives	62
The Selection Process	62
Expanded Description of Final Alternatives	6 3
Alternative A-l	6 3
Alternative A-3	67
Alternative A-5	6 9
Alternative B-l	6 9
iii

-------
Page
The Preferred Long-Term Wastewater Management
Program	71
Detailed Description of the Preferred Program 7 2
Collection System Changes	72
Wastewater Treatment	7 3
Solids Handling	73
Effluent Disposal	7 3
Near-Term Action	7 8
Projects in the Phase 1 Capital Program	81
Future Planning Projects	81
Projects in Progress	81
Solids Disposal Alternatives and Costs	82
Current Sludge Disposal Methods	82
Identification of Options	8 3
Ocean Disposal	8 3
Conventional Incineration	8 3
Coincineration	84
Sanitary Landfill	84
Silvicultural	84
Soil Improvement	84
Composting	85
Agricultural Use	85
Selection of a Recommended Program	85
Alternatives for the Nonsewer Area	87
Triggering Mechanism	89
Approach to EIS Evaluation of Alternatives	90
CHAPTER 4 - CONSTRUCTION AND SITE-RELATED IMPACTS
OF ALTERNATIVES	91
Overview	91
Impacts of Preferred Program	91
Collection System Changes	91
Redmond Connection	91
North Creek/Hollywood Connection	95
Kenmore Pump Station	95
Renton Treatment Plant Expansion	96
Description of Existing Environment	96
Assessment of Impacts	98
Solids Handling Facilities	100
Tunnel/Outfall	100
Description of Existing Environment	101
Assessment of Construction Impacts	101
Impacts of Alternative A-l	108
Differences from Preferred Program	108
Nitrification Facilities	108
Additional Land Required for Solids
Handling Facilities	108
Impacts of Alternative B-l	110
Difference from Preferred Program	110
Changes at the Renton Treatment Plant Site	110
Kenmore Treatment Plant	111
Kenmore Treatment Plant Outfall	111
iv

-------
Page
Construction Employment Impacts	113
CHAPTER 5 - OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF LONG-TERM
ALTERNATIVES	117
Introduction	117
Water Quality, Aquatic Biology, and Fisheries	117
Introduction	117
Surface and Marine Water Quality	118
Background	118
Impacts of Preferred Program	122
Impacts of Alternative A-l	12 9
Impacts of Alternative B-l	136
Impacts of No Project	136
Aquatic Biology and Fisheries	136
Background	136
Impacts of Preferred Program	138
Impacts of Alternative A-l	139
Impacts of Alternative B-l	141
Impacts of No Project	141
Mitigation Measures	141
Short-Term Water Quality and Aquatic
Biology Impacts During Project Design
and Construction	14 2
Resource Use	14 5
Energy Use	145
Chemical Use	14 5
Mitigation Measures	147
Growth-Related Impacts Resulting from Staging
of Alternatives	147
Background	14 7
Impacts of Preferred Program	14 9
Overall Flexibility	14 9
Potential Impacts of the Renton Outfall
Tunnel and Redmond Connection	14 9
Impacts of Alternative A-l	150
Impacts of Alternative B-l	150
Impacts of No Project	152
Mitigation Measures	152
Reduce Staging Period	152
Base 50-Year Flow Projections on
Land Use Plans or PSCOG Forecasts	152
Recreation Opportunities	153
Impacts of Decentralized Facilities Under
Alternatives C-l through C-5	153
Impact on Soils, Crops and Groundwater	155
Impact on Soils	155
Impact on Crops	155
Impact on Groundwater Resources	155
Impact on Surface Water Quality	156
Growth-Related Impacts	156
Open Space Benefits	156
Interceptor Corridor Land Use Benefits 156
Summary	158
v

-------
Page
CHAPTER 6 - SECONDARY IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL
ALTERNATIVES	15 9
Introduction	159
Relation of Wastewater Alternatives to
Growth and Secondary Impacts	159
Local Recognition of Relationship
Between Sewerage Availability and
Growth	159
Growth and Secondary Impacts of a
No-Project Alternative	160
Assumptions for Secondary Impact Assessment 161
Contents of Chapter	162
Description and Assessment of PSCOG's
Population Projections	162
Method	162
Projected Population	163
Critique	163
Comparison of PSCOG Forecast to Other
Forecasts	165
EPA Grant Regulations Relating to
Population Forecasts	165
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Projections	165
Status of BEA Projections in the
State of Washington	166
Multiplicity of County and Regional
Forecasts	166
Secondary Air Quality Impacts	168
Background	16 8
Assessment of Impacts	168
Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Impacts 170
Secondary Surface Water and Biological Impacts	170
Secondary Surface Water Quality Impacts	170
Background	17 0
Water Quality Impacts of Urban Runoff	17 2
Secondary Impacts on Aquatic Biology and
Fisheries	174
Background	174
Streams	176
Mitigation Measures for Water Quality and
Fisheries Impacts	181
RIBCO Studies	181
Metro 208 Plan	182
Local Plans and Policies	182
Shoreline Management Act	18 3
Summary	183
Secondary Impacts on Terrestrial Ecosystem	18 3
Secondary Groundwater Impacts	18 3
Background	183
Treatment Capability of Local Soils	184
Major Contaminants of Concern	184
vi

-------
Page
Assessment of Impacts	184
Analysis of Septic Tank Failure Data	184
Risks to Groundwater	185
Mitigation Measures for On-Site Systems	186
Metro-Proposed Measures	186
Determine Groundwater Carrying Capacity 187
EPA Role	188
Secondary Land Use Impacts	18 8
Consistency of the Metro Service Area with
Local Land Use Policies	188
Prime Farmland Conversion	18 9
Background	189
Assessment of Impacts	193
Mitigation Measures for Prime
Farmland Conversion	196
Impacts on Sensitive Areas	199
Background	19 9
Assessment of Impacts	199
Public Service Systems	206
Wastewater Management	206
Existing Management System	206
Existing Capacity Problems	207
Impacts of Growth	207
Water Supply	207
Existing Management System	207
Existing Capacity Problems	209
Impacts of Growth	20 9
Drainage and Flood Control	210
Existing Management System	210
Existing Capacity Problems	210
Impacts of Growth	210
Solid Waste Management	211
Existing Management System	211
Existing Capacity Problems	211
Impacts of Growth	211
Recreation	211
Existing Management System	211
Existing Capacity Problems	211
Impacts of Growth	212
Social Services	212
Existing Management System	212
Existing Capacity Problems	212
Impacts of Growth	212
Transportation	213
Existing Management System	213
Existing Capacity Problems	213
Impacts of Growth	213
Electricity and Gas	213
Existing Management System	213
Existing Capacity Problems	215
Impacts of Growth	215
Mitigation Measures for Public Services
Impacts	215
vii

-------
Page
Comprehensive Plans	215
Wastewater Management Plans	215
Water Supply	215
Drainage and Flood Control	215
Solid Waste Management	215
Transportation	215
Secondary Impacts on Public Finance	216
Background	216
Responsibility for Provision of Services	216
Fiscal Outlook of the Study Area	217
Mitigation Measures for Fiscal Impacts	219
CHAPTER 7 - ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA	221
Overview	221
Structural Alternatives	221
Administrative Alternatives: Funding	222
Fund or Not Fund Project	222
Funding of Project Phases	224
Funding Beyond 20-Year Capacity	224
Administrative Alternatives: Grant Conditions	224
Construction and Site-Related Impacts	225
Operational Impacts	225
Secondary Impacts	226
CHAPTER 8 - COORDINATION	22 9
Introduction	229
Public Participation	229
Information Brochure	229
Scoping Meeting	229
Notice of Intent	230
Presentation to Wastewater Plan Citizens
Advisory Committee	230
Public Meeting on Alternatives	230
Public Meeting on Preliminary Plan	230
Comments and Suggestions Received During
Preparation of the Draft EIS	231
Upcoming Coordination Efforts	232
CHAPTER 9 - LIST OF EIS PREPARERS	24 3
CHAPTER 10 - BIBLIOGRAPHY	249
viii

-------
Table
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Institutional Overview: Lake Washington/
Green River Basins
Use and Limitations of Some Dominant Soils
in the Renton Study Area	17
Lake Use Ratings	2 3
River and Small Stream Use Ratings	2 4
Historic Population Trends, Counties and
Major Cities, 1930-1979	30
Renton Study Area Component Agencies	32
Existing and Proposed Discharge Limitations
for the Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant	36
Influent and Effluent BOD and SS Quantities	41
Renton Treatment Plant Effluent Characteristics 4 2
Costs of Wastewater Treatment at the Renton
Plant	47
Description of 15 Initial Long-Term
Alternatives	52
Comparative Costs of Renton Wastewater
Treatment Alternatives	56
Total Project Costs and Projected Monthly
Sewer Rate Increases for New Facilities	58
Potential Treatment Plant Flow Reduction
Measures	6 0
Metro Rating of Initial Alternatives Against
the ALCA to Identify Potential Overriding
Benefits	64
Costs for Redmond Connection and North Creek/
Hollywood Connection	74
Costs for Renton Treatment Plant Improvements 76
Cost Comparison of Alternative Effluent
Discharge Routes	77
Near-Term Actions	7 9
Costs of Candidate Sludge Disposal Systems	86
On-Site and Community Wastewater Treatment
and Disposal Technologies	8 8
ix

-------
Table
Page
4-1	Overview of Construction and Site-Related
Impacts of Project Components	92
4-2	Existing Land Uses for Tunnel and Open-
Cut Alignments	103
4-3	Features of Tunnel Construction	105
4-4	Total Employment Impacts of Project
Alternative	114
4-5	Employment Impacts of Project Alternatives,
by Phase	115
5-1	Effect of Renton Effluent on Heavy Metals
Concentrations in ug/1, in Puget Sound	126
5-2	Estimate of Yearly Copper. Lead, and Zinc
Input to Puget Sound for a Renton Plant
Discharging at 100 MGD, Compared to Other
Sources at Present Levels	128
5-3	Effluent Limits Estimated by DOE to be
Necessary to Protect Water Quality and
Average Existing Effluent .Concentrations
for the Renton Discharge	133
5-4	Interim Measures to Reduce Ammonia Loading
to the Duwamish River	144
5-5	Estimated Energy Requirements for
Proposed Alternatives	146
5-6	Estimated Chemical Requirements	148
5-7	Long-Term Peak Flow Projections Used to
Size Renton Outfall Tunnel and Redmond
Connection	151
5-8	Potential Recreation Opportunities Provided
by Long-Term Alternatives	154
6-1	Projected Population Increase by Drainage
Basin, Renton Study Area, 1980-2000	164
6-2	Washington State Population Forecasts and
Projections	167
6-3	Comparison of Regional and King County
Population Forecasts	16 9
6-4	Comparison of September 1978 and May 1979
PSCOG Population Forecasts for the Three-
County Puget Sound Air Quality Planning
Region	171
6-5	Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading Estimates
for Land Use Types in Locations near Kent,
Washington
x

-------
Table
Page
6-6	Increase in Urban Acres by Subdrainage
Basin, 1980-2000	180
6-7	Forecast of Prime Farmland Conversion	19 5
6-8	Prime Agricultural Land Mitigation Index	197
6-9	PSCOG Projections of Sewered Urban Acres
by Subdrainage Basin, 1980-2000	208
6-10	Projected Home-Work/College Trips by
Place of Residence and Place of Work	214
8-1	Distribution List for Draft EIS	233
xi

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure	Page
1-1	Study Area Boundaries	2
2-1	Relative Contribution of Emissions Sources
1977 Inventory	15
2-2	General Soil Associations	16
2-3	Schematic Hydrogeologic Sections of the Lake
Washington/Green River Basins	19
2-4	Major Surface Water Bodies in the Study Area
Showing Salmon Use	22
2-5	Terrestrial Habitat Map of Lake Washington/
Green River Basins	26
2-6	Urban Land Uses in the Lake Washington/
Green River Basins, 1975	28
2-7	Component Agencies in the Renton Study Area	33
2-8	Local Service Areas, Existing Sewer Service
Areas and Metro Collection System	34
2-9	Process Schematic of Renton Treatment Plant	37
2-10	Historical Wastewater Flows to the Renton
Treatment Plant	40
2-11 Pounds of Sludge Pumped to West Point	44
2-12	Renton Treatment Plant Electric Power Cost
vs. Time	46
3-1	Service Areas	50
3-2 Alternative A-l 65
3-3 Alternatives A-3 and A-5 (Preferred Program) 68
3-4	Alternative B-l	70
4-1	Alignment of Redmond Connection and North
Creek/Hollywood Connection	93
4-2	Renton Treatment Plant Layout: Preferred
Long-Term Program	97
4-3	Location of Subsurface Corings at Renton
Treatment Plant Site	99
4-4	Alternative Effluent Discharge Routes for
the Preferred Program	102
4-5	Renton Treatment Plant Layout: Alternative
A-l	109
xii

-------
Figure	Page
4-6	Kenmore Treatment Plant Schematic:
Alternative B-l (Conceptual 40-Acre Site)	112
5-1	Subdivisions of Puget Sound	119
5-2	Lower Green-Duwamish River with River Mile
Index	121
5-3	Field Data and Mathematical Modeling Results
for Dissolved Oxygen in Green-Duwamish River 131
6-1	Historical, Current and Projected Phosphorus
Loading to Lake Washington	175
6-2	Relationship Between Urbanization and
Clean Water Stream Insects In Renton
Study Area	177
6-3	Urbanization Impacts on Salmonid Fishery
Resources	178
6-4	Map of SCS Important Farmlands and of
King County Agricultural Districts	191
6-5	Location of High Growth Subdrainage Basins	200
6-6	Composite Map of Sensitive Areas Within
Study Area	201
xiii

-------
SUMMARY
(X) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
( ) Final Environmental Impact Statement
Type of Action: Administrative
Purpose and Need for Action
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) is
expected to apply to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for grant funds to design and construct improvements
to the Metro Renton treatment plant sewerage system. Metro
has prepared a Draft Wastewater Management Plan for the 620-
square-mile Lake Washington/Green River Basins study area for
three major reasons: (1) the Renton treatment plant and
other facilities have reached their operating capacity and
need expansion to accommodate future growth; (2) increasing
quantities of secondary effluent from the Renton plant are
being discharged to the Green/Duwamish River, and near-term
ammonia, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and chlorine problems
can be forecast during low flow periods; and (3) much new
development within the study area will be using on-site
technologies, and these systems have the potential to adversely
affect water quality.
This EIS focuses on three major issues associated with
the Metro plan:
Costs: What are the comparative costs and financial effects
on users of the various near-term and long-term
alternatives considered by Metro?
Water What are the water quality and biological trade-
Quality: offs of continued discharge of Renton treatment
plant effluent to the Green/Duwamish River compared
to discharge to Puget Sound? What are the water
quality impacts, if any, of on-site systems in
the less developed portions of the study area?
Land	What are the land use impacts of wastewater
Use:	management alternatives for the study area, and
what impacts will growth accommodated by facilities
expansion have on water quality, agricultural lands,
sensitive areas, air quality, and public services
and finance?
xv

-------
Description of Alternatives
Background
The Renton treatment plant has the capacity to treat
an average of 36 million gallons per day (MGD). The treat-
ment plant has been operating in a stressed mode for the past
2 years as wastewater flows have approached and exceeded the
36 MGD capacity; flows during the first quarter of 1980 were
above 40 MGD. The plant is generally meeting its discharge
limitations, however, because it was designed with several
back-up measures which provide reliability during higher
flows.
Flow projections for wastewater management planning
were based on the "policy" population projection prepared
by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). PSCOG
projects that the study area population will increase from
537,087 in 1980 to 805,000 in the year 2000, of which 681,000
will be sewered. Allowing for domestic flow, industrial
flow, and infiltration and inflow, Metro projects a year
2000 average wet weather flow of 101 MGD. This projection
includes flows from the north part of the study area, which
is currently served by Metro's West Point plant.
The proposed sewer service area for Metro's plan consists
of those lands which are presently authorized to receive
sewer service by local land use plans or policies. The
remainder of the study area (the nonsewer area) consists of
lands for which long-term land use is certain (where local
policies indicate sewer service should not be provided),
and lands for which long-term land use is uncertain (lands
where there is no clear local policy guidance, treated as
nonsewered for purposes of wastewater management planning).
The proposed service area map is consistent with local land
use plans and policies, according to an analysis done as
part of this EIS.
Long-Term Wastewater Management Alternatives
Metro initially developed 15 long-term alternatives,
which are variations on three basic concepts: expansion
of the Renton treatment plant to process all wastewater
generated in the sewer service area (example Program A),
expansion of the Renton plant and construction of a new plant
in the Kenmore area (example Program B), and construction
of six satellite plants in addition to the Renton expansion
and Kenmore plant (example Program C). Variations on these
concepts relate to level of treatment at the Renton plant
(secondary vs. nitrification vs. advanced waste treatment)
and to receiving water for Renton effluent (Green/Duwamish
River vs. Puget Sound).
xvi

-------
Four final alternatives were selected by Metro for further
consideration following a screening process. These alternatives
are Alternative A-l (centralized processing at Renton plant
with nitrification and continued discharge to the Green/Duwamish
River), Alternative A-3 (centralized processing at the Renton
plant with discharge of secondary effluent to Puget Sound off
the Point Pulley area), Alternative A-5 (same as A-3, but dis-
charge off Alki Point), and Alternative B-l (similar to A-l,
but with construction of a new secondary treatment plant in the
Kenmore area to treat sewage from the north part of the study
area).
Following further evaluation, Metro staff selected Alterna-
tive A-3 or A-5 as the preferred long-term wastewater management
program (these alternatives differ only in the Puget Sound out-
fall location). Components of the preferred program include:
collection system changes (construction of the Redmond con-
nection and North Creek/Hollywood connection to convey waste-
water from the north part of the study area to the Renton
plant); expansion of the Renton treatment plant to 99 MGD;
construction of a tunnel and outfall to convey effluent to
Puget Sound; and installation of solids processing facilities
at the Renton plant (Renton sludge is currently discharged
via a force main to Metro's West Point plant). Construction
of the preferred program projects would be phased; Phase 1
construction would occur between 1981 and 1985, and Phase 2
construction would occur between 1986 and 1993.
This EIS focuses on the impacts of the preferred program,
Alternative A-l, Alternative B-l, and the no-project alternative;
EPA regulations require the no-project alternative to be
examined in EPA EISs.
Other Aspects of the Draft Wastewater Management Plan
Near-Term Actions. Three groups of near-term actions
are identified in the Metro plan: actions proposed for
Phase 1 of the preferred long-term program, projects for which
further planning is needed, and projects in progress. The
first group of near-term projects is analyzed in this EIS
as part of the preferred long-term program assessment; the
latter two groups of projects are not assessed here since
they are not related to decisions which currently must be
made by EPA.
Nonsewer Area. The Draft Wastewater Management Plan
recommends management options for on-site systems in the
nonsewer area (the area for which sewers are not being planned
over the next 20 years). These recommendations include:
establishing a comprehensive program for design, construction,
and maintenance of on-site and community systems; providing
adequate staffing, funding, and enforcement of on-site waste-
water management programs? encouraging experimentation with
xvii

-------
alternative technologies; and establishing a public education
program. These recommendations are incorporated within the
mitigation measures identified in this EIS for reducing adverse
secondary groundwater and surface water impacts caused by
continued growth in the nonsewer area.
Triggering Mechanism. The Draft Wastewater Management
Plan proposes a monitoring program, termed the triggering
mechanism, to provide advance notice for expansion or additions
to the Metro sewerage system, and to monitor performance
of on-site systems in nonsewer areas. This mechanism is
not separately analyzed in the EIS because it is itself a
mitigation measure, and its impacts will be beneficial.
Sludge Disposal. The Metro plan assumes that long-
term disposal for Renton sludge will be accomplished by
application to forestlands, reclamation of marginal soils,
and composting. This proposal and other long-term sludge
disposal alternatives are currently being examined by Metro
in a separate planning effort, which will be accompanied
by a separate environmental review process.
Alternatives Available to EPA
EPA may develop other structural (facilities) alternatives
or administrative alternatives as part of its EISs on waste-
water facilities plans. In the case of the Draft Wastewater
Management Plan, EPA has determined that Metro has examined
a full range of structural alternatives, and that new structural
alternatives are not warranted as part of this EIS. EPA
administrative alternatives are of two types: funding and
grant conditions. EPA may decide to fund or not fund the
selected program, to fund one or both of the project phases,
and to fund or not fund capacity of facilities beyond the
20-year capacity. EPA may also place conditions on subsequent
design and construction grants to mitigate adverse construction,
operational, or secondary impacts.
Assessment of Impacts
Comparison of Alternatives
Table S-l compares the costs, construction and site-
related impacts, operational impacts, and secondary (growth-
related) impacts of the preferred program, Alternative A-l,
Alternative B-l, and the no-project alternative. Key trade-
offs among the alternatives are described below.
Preferred Program. This alternative has higher present
worth costs than Alternative A-l, but could result in smaller
user charges if discharge off Point Pulley were selected.
xviii

-------
Table S-l. Sumary Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Wastewater Itenagement Alternatives for the Lake Washingtcri/Greeri River Basins
Type of Impact
Impact of Preferred
	Program	
Impact of Alternative
A-l
Impact of Alternative
B-l
Impacts of No Project
Available Mitigation
Measures
Oasts
Present worth costs
5279,000,000 (A-3)
$357,000,000 (A-5)
$267,000,000
$329,000,000
None required
Increase in ffetro
Monthly charge assuming
various percentages of
grant funding (1980
charge = $3.90/month)
$2.10/mcmth
$2.60/month
$3.20/month
$4.00/month
$5.50/month
$7.00/month
(A—3)—75%
(A-5)-75%
(A-3)-50%
(A-5)-50%
(A—3)- 0%
(A-5)- 0%
$2.50/mnnth-75t
$3.50/month-50%
$5.40/month- 0%
$2.60/month-75%
$3.70/month-50%
$6.10/month- 0%
Slight increase due to
operation and maintenance
cost increases
None required
Construction and Site-
Related Impacts
Construction and site-
related impacts
Construction
employment
Operational iirpacts
Water quality (also
see aquatic biology
impacts buluw)
-Green/Djwamish River
Mostly minor, except
for Rentcn tunnel/
outfall alternatives,
which could disrupt
recreational uses,
cause traffic dis-
ruption, and result
in spoils disposal
raroblsnts
6,290 job-years (A-3)
8,770 job-years (A-5)
Short-term: Tenperature,
dissolved cotygen, and
airmonia water quality
standards would continue
to be violated. DOE
effluent dilution guide-
lines (20:1) would
continue to be exceeded.
Mostly minor
4,050 job-years
Short-term: Same as
preferred program
Mostly minor, except
for Kermore tunnel/out-
fall, which could dis-
rupt recreational uses
and result in spoils
disposal problems
5,450 job-years
Short-term: Same as
preferred program
Short-term: Same as
preferred program
Recreational use
impacts: Schedule con-
struction during off-
peak recreational
periods
Traffic impacts: Re-
route traffic around
construction sites and
provide flacpnen
Spoils disposal
impacts: Use spoils
for fill or dispose of
in acceptable location
Cultural resources:
Conduct detailed
archeological survey
prior to construction
None required (local
construction labor
force appears suffi-
cient to meet project
requirements)
lb be implemented: 1)
fast-track implemen-
tation of plant
expansion; 2) diver-
sion of flow via
sludge force mains;
and 3) reduction of
summer flushing

-------
Inpact of Preferred	Inpact of Alternative	Impact of Alternative
Type of Imaact	 	Program		 A-l			B^l	Inpact of No Project
-Green/Duwamish River
(ccnt'd.>
x
X
long-term: Future water
quality problems in
river avoided through
removal of effluent.
Salt wedge of estuary
could move further
upstream if DC® miniraan
flows not met.
Long-term: Armenia and
dissolved oxygen problems
mitigated through nitri-
fication. Tenperature
standards, DOE effluent
dilution guidelines, and
DOE estimated limitations
for copper, mercury, and
zinc would continue to
be exceeded.
Long-term: Same as A-l,
except that lower flows
would cause problems
to be less severe
long-term: Major
adverse ammonia and
dissolved oxygen
problems. Otherwise,
same as A-l.
-Puget Sound
West Point discharge:
imprcwed effluent
quality due to sludge
removal and flow
diversion
Ranton discharge: No
najor impacts. Localized
increases in turbidity,
anmonia, and heavy
metals near outfall.
Alki Point (A-5) dis-
charge preferable to
Point rullcy (A-3)
discharge due to
shorter effluent
residence time in
Pugct Sound.
West Point discharge:
Sane as preferred
program
Ronton discharge: Renton
discharge to Green/
Duwamish River enters
Puget Sound. No
major impacts
expectud-
Wast Point discharge:
Same as preferred
program
Renton discharge:
Same as A-l
Kenmore discharge:
No major impacts.
Localized increases in
turbidity, ammonia, and
heavy metals near outfall,
West Point discharge:
No change — continued
violation of NPDES
permit suspended solids
limit due to Reriton
sludge
Ronton discharge:
Same as A-l, except
impacts not known
Available Mitigation
Measures
Additional measures
available: 1) interim
nitrification with
existing facilities;
2) construct special
nitrification facili-
ties; 3) use of Kent/
Auburn lagoons; 4)
diversion of flow via
Riverton/Renton purp
station; 5) diversion
of effluent for land
disposal; 6) local
agency infiltration
control; 7) water
conservation; 8) in-
terim river flow
augmentation; 9)
fisheries resource
protection; and
10) sewer moratorium
Flor Alternatives A-l,
B-l, and no project,
divert effluent to
Puget Sound
For heavy metals, ccm-
plete Metro toxicant
study and inplenent
reccrrmendations
For all alternatives,
improve chlorinatioo
system at Renton plant
(inprovements cur-
rently underway)
For no project, remove-
sludge and divert
effluent frcm West
Point to Fenton
For heavy metals, ccw-
plete Metro toxicant
study and inplemcnt
reccxmendations
For preferred program,
ccnplete detailed
occajiographic and
bioloqical studjut oi
outfall.
For all alternatives,
irrprovt: chlorjnation
system at Renton plant
(inprovements cur-
reutiy uixJemjy)

-------
Type of Impact
Impact of Preferred
	Program	
Inpact of Alternative
		A—1	
Aquatic biology
-Green/Diwamish River
Short-term: Increased
risk of impaired sal-
monid migration or fish
kills due to water
quality degradation
Long-term: Future risks
to aquatic life avoided
through removal of
effluent
Short-term: Same as
preferred program
Long-term: Increased
temperatures could
adversely affect
salmonid migration
-Puget Sound
West Point discharge:
Less risk to aquatic
life due to improved
effluent quality
Rental discharge; No
significant impacts
likely. Possible heavy
metal accunulaticn in
nussels and clams
near outfall.
West Point discharge:
Sane as preferred
program
Renton discharge: No
major impacts expected
Resource use
-Qiergy use
-Chemical use
Grcwth-related
impacts of project
staging
87,000,000 Kwh/yr (A-3)
89,000,000 Kwh/yr (A-5)
760 tons/yr chlorine
3.9 tons/yr ferric
chloride
Requires several non-
nodular facilities
(which cannot easily
be expanded in nodules):
North Creek/Hollywood
connection, Redmond
connection, Renten
tunnel/outfall. Latter
two sized for 50-year
projections not based
on PS00G projections or
local land use policies.
98,000,000 Kwh/yr
760 tons/yr chlorine
240 tons/yr sulfur
dioocide
4.3 tons/yr ferric
chloride
Same as preferred pro-
gram, except tenton
tunnel/outfall not
required
Inpact of Alternative
	B-l	
Short-term: Same as
preferred program
Long-term: Same as A-l,
except that lower flews
would cause less risk to
salmonid migration
West Point discharge:
Same as preferred
program
Rental discharge: No
major iropacts expected
Kenmore discharge: No
significant impacts
likely. Possible heavy
metal accumulation in
mussels and clams
near outfall.
75,000,000 Kwh/yr
550 tons/yr chlorine
170 tons/yr sulfur
dioxide
3.8 tons/yr ferric
chloride
More flexible than
preferred program or
Alternative A-l.
Only nonmodular
facility is Kermore
plant tunnel/outfall.
Impact of Mo Project
Short-term: Same as
preferred program
West Point discharge:
No change.
Benton discharge:
Impacts unknown
Minor increases over
present energy use
Minor increases over
present chemical use
Not responsive to future
study area growth
Available Mitigation
Measures
See water quality
inpacts
See water quality
iirpacts
See water quality
inpacts
Reduce staging period
Base 50-year flow pro-
jections on larxl utx;
plans or P9C0G popula-
tion projections
Long-term: Armenia and See water quality
dissolved oxygen problems impacts
viould cause severe risks
of impaired salmonid
migration or fish kills.
Continued existence of
fishery would be
threatened.

-------
Typo of Inpact
Recreation
Secondary Impacts
of Growth Projected
for Study Area
Air quality
Surface water and
biology
Groundwater
x
x
Inpact of Preferred
	Program	
Potential for additional
recreation opportunities
Impact of Alternative
	A-l	
Potential for additional
recreation opportunities
Izrpoct of Alternative
	B-L	
Potential for additional
recreation opportunities
Impact of No Project
No effect
Available Mitigation
	Measures	
None required
Population projections used for wastewater management planning consistent with
tliose used for Puget Sound Air &*»lity Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore,
increased emissions from study area growth have been accounted for in AQMP.
lack of wastewater
treatment capacity could
encourage more growth out-
side study area arid encour-
age lower density develop-
ment within study area.
Otherwise, secondary
impacts similar to those
described for other
alternatives.
AQMP air quality
control measures
Water quality deterioration and anadrcmous fish losses are occurring new
because of urbanization, and could continue in the future, lligh-growth
subdrainage basins will be particularly affected.
Risks to groundwater (and surface water) from inadequately sited, operated,
or maintained on-site systems in nonsewer area
Metro 208 areawide
water quality planning
Local nonpoint source
control programs
Establish comprehen-
sive on-site system
management program
Provide adequate
staffing, funding,
and enforcement
Ehcourage experimen-
tation with alterna-
tive technologies
Establish public-
education program
Determine groundwater
carrying capacity
Establish institu-
tional agreements
for on-site systtjn
iranayenunt
-Consistency with	Proposed service area is consistent with local land use policies	"	None required
local land usu
policies

-------
Inpact of Preferred Impact of Alternative Impact of Alternative Available Mitigation
Type of Impact		Program			A-l		B-l	Inpact of No Project		Measures	
-Prime farmland
conversion
Between 3,950 and 5,213 acres of prime farmland could be converted to urban
uses over the next 20 years in the Sammamish Valley, Lcwer Green River Valley,
and Upper Green River Valley agricultural districts. This represents
21%-27% of the remaining prime farmland in these three districts.
King County Purchase
of Development Rights
(PDR) program
King Cbunty Sewerage
General Plan (SGP)
policies
Metro Resolution 3380
policies
King County modifica-
tion of SGP and Metro
modification of
Resolution 3380 to
include additional
King County prime
farmlands
City development of
prime farmland pro-
tection policies for
incorporated areas
x
X
-Sensitive areas
Public service
systems
Public finance
Study area growth could occur on soil-related sensitive areas, wetlands, and
floodplains. High-growth subdrainage basins which contain relatively large
acreages of these sensitive areas would be particularly affected.
Study area growth will increase demands on public services such as waste-
water management, water supply, drainage, solid waste nanagement, recrea-
tion, social services, transportation, and electricity and gas
Study area growth will increase both public costs and revenues, and could
create fiscal problems for sane local governments
Conduct detailed
prime farmland
assessments in
future state-required
EISs for Metro inter-
ceptor sewers.
King County ordinance
and General Develop-
ment Guide policies
Local floodplain
management programs
arid federal Flood
Insurance Program
Conduct detailed sen-
sitive area assess-
ments in future
state-required EISs
for Metro interceptor
sewers
Implementation of
existing ccrprehensive
and special purpose
plans and policies of
local agencies
Implementation of
existing local mea-
sures for financing
the costs of growth

-------
Construction of the Renton tunnel/outfall could have adverse
short-term impacts on traffic, recreation, and spoils disposal,
depending on the route selected. Future water quality problems
and risks to salmonid migration in the Green/Duwamish River
would be avoided. Discharge of Renton effluent to Puget
Sound is not expected to create major water quality impacts;
choice of the Alki Point discharge would result in shorter
effluent residence time in Puget Sound, reducing water quality
risks. The preferred program would require construction of
several nonmodular facilities, which cannot easily be expanded
in modules and are thus relatively inflexible; these are
the North Creek/Hollywood connection, the Redmond connection,
and the Renton tunnel/outfall. The latter two are sized based
on 50-year flow projections.
Alternative A-l. This alternative has lower present
worth costs than any of the alternatives (except no project)
but could have higher user charges than the preferred program
if discharge off Point Pulley were selected. Construction
impacts of the Renton tunnel/outfall would be avoided. Current
ammonia and dissolved oxygen problems in the Green/Duwamish
River would be mitigated by nitrification, but temperature
standards, Department of Ecology (DOE) effluent dilution
guidelines, and DOE estimated limitations for certain heavy
metals would all be exceeded. Salmonid migration could be
affected, particularly by increased temperatures in the river.
This alternative would require more energy and chemicals than
either the preferred program or Alternative B-l. It would
require construction of only two nommodular facilities: the
Redmond connection and the North Creek/Hollywood connection.
Alternative B-l. This alternative has higher present
worth and user costs than either the preferred program (if
Point Pulley discharge were selected) or Alternative A-l.
Construction of the Redmond connection, North Creek/Hollywood
connection, and Renton tunnel/outfall would not be necessary;
construction of the Kenmore treatment plant tunnel/outfall
could have moderately adverse short-term construction impacts.
Water quality and fisheries impacts in the Green/Duwamish
River from discharge of nitrified effluent would be similar,
but less severe, than those of Alternative A-l, because 20-
year flows would be 72 MGD vs. 99 MGD for the preferred program.
No major water quality impacts are expected from discharge
of secondary effluent from the Kenmore plant to Puget Sound.
This alternative is more flexible than either the preferred
program or Alternative A-l because it requires construction
of only one nonmodular facility, the Kenmore tunnel/outfall.
No-Project Alternative. Under the no-project alternative,
no capital improvements would be made to the Renton sewerage
system, and the costs of the other long-term alternatives
would be avoided. Major ammonia and dissolved oxygen problems
would occur in the Green/Duwamish River with continued long-
term discharge of secondary effluent; also, the additional water
quality problems mentioned under Alternative A-l would be
xxiv

-------
intensified. The ammonia and dissolved oxygen problems would
cause severe risks of impaired salmonid migration and fish
kills; the continued existence of the Green/Duwamish River fishe
which has a conservatively estimated value of about $5 million
in 1976-77 dollars, would be threatened. The no-project
alternative would not be responsive to study area growth; lack
of sewerage capacity could encourage more growth outside the
study area and more low density development using on-site
systems within the area.
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Any of the alternatives (except the no-project alternative)
would take about 5 years to design and build. During this
time, short-term deterioration in Green/Duwamish River water
quality can be expected as sewage flows continue to increase
beyond the Renton treatment plant's treatment capacity. Tempera
ture, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia water quality standards
would be violated, and DOE effluent dilution guidelines (20:1)
would continue to be exceeded. Deteriorating water quality
would increase the risks of impaired salmonid migration or
fish kills. Mitigation measures to reduce these short-term
impacts are listed in Table S-l.
The secondary impacts of growth projected for the study
area are also common to all alternatives (except the no-
project alternative). Neither EPA nor Metro is institutionally
"responsible" for growth and secondary impacts. Because
the planned wastewater facilities will assist in accommodating
projected growth, the philosophy that EISs are full disclosure
documents dictates that secondary impacts be examined in
this EIS and mitigated where possible. As shown in Table S-l,
projected growth in the study area will have a number of
impacts on air and water quality, land use, and public services
and finance; mitigation measures for these impacts are also
shown in Table S-l.
Of particular concern to EPA are; (1) water quality
deterioration and anadromous fish losses caused by urbanization-
induced nonpoint source pollution; (2) risks to groundwater
from inadequately sized, operated or maintained on-site systems;
(3) conversion of prime farmlands (between 3,950 and 5,213 acres
of prime farmland could be converted over the next 20 years in
the Santmamish Valley, Lower Green River Valley, and Upper Green
River Valley); and (4) development on wetlands and floodplains.
EPA programs and policies require that these impacts be miti-
gated where possible. Mitigation measures listed in Table S-l
are not necessarily the responsibility of EPA or Metro, but are
nevertheless presented for public review.
XXV

-------
Public Involvement
Public participation for this EIS has been coordinated
and, where possible, integrated with the full-scale public
participation program undertaken by Metro in preparing its
Draft Wastewater Management Plan. Key EIS public participation
activities have included publication and distribution of
an EIS information brochure, conducting scoping meetings,
an EIS presentation to the Renton 201 Citizens Advisory Committee,
and attendance and participation in Metro public meetings
on wastewater management alternatives and the preliminary
wastewater management plan.
This Draft EIS has been forwarded to numerous federal,
state and local agencies, special interest groups, private
citizens, and public libraries to act as both an informational
document and as an avenue to comment on the proposed wastewater
project. (The Draft EIS mailing list is presented in Chapter 8.)
Also, a separate public summary of the EIS has been mailed to
over 1,200 individuals.
Individuals or groups that wish to comment on the EIS
may forward written comments to:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Roger Mochnick M/S 443
Comments should be sent by February 2, 1981.
Joint public workshops have been scheduled on the Draft
Wastewater Management Plan and Draft EIS by Metro and EPA
during January 19 81. Citizens and agency representatives
will have a chance to learn about the plan and EIS, and dis-
cuss their questions and concerns in an informal workshop
atmosphere. Formal public hearings on the Draft Wastewater
Management Plan and Draft EIS have been scheduled for late
January 1981. During these public hearings, formal oral
and written testimony will be received.
xxvi

-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) has
prepared a draft Wastewater Management Plan for the Lake
Washington/Green River Basins. The boundaries of the study
area for this plan are shown in Figure 1-1.
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has
been prepared by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The applicable EPA decisions are to approve the Waste-
water Management Plan and to partially fund projects called for
in the plan.
Organization of EIS
The Draft EIS consists of this report and a series of
liiaited-distribution technical appendices which are separately
bound. This chapter, Chapter 1, discusses the purpose and
noed for Metro's Wastewater Management Plan; describes the
context of the EIS and Wastewater Management Plan; lists
majcr issues addressed by the EIS; summarizes EIS public
participation activities; and lastly, reviews institutional
considerations (laws and affected agencies) related to the
EIS .
Chapter 2 of the EIS briefly summarizes the environment
of the Lake Washington/Green River Basins and the existing
Renton sewerage system. Chapter 3 describes Metro's waste-
water management alternatives. The construction and site-
related impacts of these alternatives are assessed in
Chapter 4, and the operational impacts are assessed in
Chapter 5. In Chapter 6, growth-related secondary impacts
common to all alternatives are reviewed. Chapter 7 discusses
administrative alternatives available to the EPA. Chapter 8
documents EIS coordination activities. In Chapter 9 the names
and qualifications of persons who prepared the EIS are listed.
Lastly, Chapter 10 lists references used in preparing the EIS.
Four technical appendices have been prepared which describe
selected aspects of the study area and document selected
impact analyses in greater detail. These appendices, which
are available as a separately bound report, are: land use
and socio-economics (Appendix A), air quality (Appendix B),
water quality and biology (Appendix C), and groundwater and
soils (Appendix D). The appendices are available at the EPA
Region X library and the Metro library in Seattle, and at
depository public libraries in Bellevue, Renton and Redmond.
1

-------
¦mi
K>
FIGURE

STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES

-------
Metro's Wastewater Management Plan
Purpose and Need
Metro has prepared the Wastewater Management Plan for
the Lake Washington/Green Fiver Basins for three major reasons
(Metro, 1980c):
1.	The Renton treatment plant and several other sewerage
facilities have reached their operating capacity and need
expansion to accommodate future growth. Metro has selected
a 20-year planning horizon to examine future treatment capa-
city needs, consistent with federal funding requirements.
2.	Increasing quantities of secondary effluent from the
Renton plant are being discharged to the Duwamish
River, and near-term water quality problems can be
forecast during low flow periods; constituents of
concern include ammonia, chlorine, dissolved oxygen,
and temperature.
3.	Much new development within the study area will be using
on-site or community wastewater management technologies,
and these systems have the potential to adversely affect
water quality.
Development of the Wastewater Management Plan
Wastewater management planning for the study area has
been influenced by several previous wastewater planning efforts.
The most important of these are Metro's Comprehensive Plan
(Metro, 1959); the RIBCO water quality management study (STR
Inc., 1974b); Metro's Areawide Water Quality Plan (208 Plan)
(Metro, 1978b); and Metro's wastewater facilities planning
for its Puget Sound plants. The latter planning effort has
influenced current planning for the Lake Washington/Green
River Basins through recommending de-emphasis of the West
Point treatment plant, thereby increasing the Renton treatment
plant service area, and installing sludge handling facilities
at the Renton plant.
The detailed process for preparing the current draft
Wastewater Management Plan for the Lake Washington/Green
River Basins is described in Metro's draft plan, and will
only be summarized here. Between August 197 9 and April 1980,
Metro issued six technical memoranda serving as background
data for the draft plan. These technical memoranda and their
associated appendices are often used as sources of information
for this EIS. The memoranda cover the following topics:
3

-------
Memo #1: A description of existing wastewater facilities
in the study area (Metro, 1979d)
Memo #2: A description of the environmental characteristics
of the study area (Metro, 1979e).
Memo #3: An analysis of agency plans and policies affecting
the wastewater plan (Metro, 1980a).
Memo #4: A description of alternative wastewater techniques
(Metro, 1980b).
Memo #5: A discussion of facilities planning issues, objectives
and screening criteria (Metro, 1980c).
Memo #6: An analysis of future wastewater flows and loadings
(Metro, 1980d).
In early April, Metro issued its preliminary plan, which
identified near-term and long-term wastewater management
alternatives for the study area. Public meetings were held
on the preliminary plan in May 1980. Metro's draft Wastewater
Management Plan, which presents recommended near-term and
long-term projects, was released in December 1980.
EIS Context
Major Issues Addressed by EIS
Preparation of a comprehensive wastewater management-
plan for the 620-square-mile study area raises a number of
important and interesting issues. Based on public input
and consultation with affected agenci»?.s, the following three
issue groups have been determined to be of greatest importance
to this EIS, and consequently are emphasized.
Costs:	What are the comparative costs and financial
effects on users of the various near-term
and long-term alternatives considered by
Metro?
Water Quality: What are the water quality and biological
trade-offs of continued discharge of
Renton treatment plant effluent to the
Green-Duwamish River compared to discharge
to Puget Sound? What are the water quality
impacts, if any, of on-site systems in
the less developed portions of the study
area?
Land Use:	What are the land use impacts of wastewater
management alternatives for the study area,
and what impacts will growth accommodated
by facilities expansion have on water quality,
agricultural lands, sensitive areas, air
quality, and public services and finance?
4

-------
These three general issue groups have been recognized
in Metro's preliminary plan by Metro as central to facilities
planning decisions. The EIS, while emphasizing the above
three issue groups, also covers the entire range of biophysical
and socio-economic impacts related to Metro's near-term and
long-term alternatives.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Requirements
Under NEPA, all federal agencies must build into their
decision-making processes mechanisms for consideration of
the environmental effects of proposed actions and mechanisms
for minimizing adverse effects of these actions. The EIS
required by Section 102(c) is the action-forcing mechanism
of NEPA. EISs must include a detailed statement on the following:
1.	The environmental impact of the proposed action.
2.	Any adverse impacts which cannot be avoided should
the project be implemented.
3.	Alternatives to the proposed action.
4.	The relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity.
5.	Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.
In 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
issued regulations implementing NEPA. Significant require-
ments of these regulations include maximum opportunities
for public participation (including EIS scoping meetings);
page limitations for EISs; and an easy to understand writing
style. Each federal agency is responsible for preparing
its own procedures for implementing NEPA, which are to be
consistent with the CEQ requirements. EPA issued its final
regulations on November 6, 1979 (Federal Register, Vol. 44,
No. 216, pg. 64174).
EIS Chronology
The EIS for Metro's Wastewater Management Plan was ini-
tiated in August 1979. On September 26, 1979 and October 17,
1979, EIS "scoping" meetings were held in conjunction with
Metro public information meetings, to obtain public input
on important issues for the EIS. On October 2, 1979, EPA
published in the Federal Register its Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS on Metro's Wastewater Management Plan.
5

-------
In January 1980, the EIS consultant prepared a dis-
cussion paper on environmental screening criteria for use
by Metro in screening preliminary wastewater management
alternatives. Based on Metro's preliminary planning, a
preliminary Draft EIS was prepared and the findings reviewed
with key agencies prior to publication of the Draft EIS.
Subsequent EIS Activities
Public workshops and hearings on the Draft EIS and Draft
Wastewater Management Plan are currently scheduled for January
1981. Based on public input, agency policies, and legal
requirements, the Draft EIS and draft plan will be revised and
final versions of the documents will be released in the spring
of 1981. A Metro decision on the final plan will then be made.
Jubsequently, EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology will
take final action to approve or partially/conditionally approve
the final plan. A Step 2 design grant would be made according
to state funding priorities.
Public Participation
The public participation program for this EIS has been
coordinated and, where possible, integrated with Metro's
extensive public participation program for its Wastewater
Management Plan.
An initial informational brochure describing the EIS
process and key issues was prepared by EPA in September 1979
and widely distributed. EIS scoping meetings held in September
and October 1979 were a major opportunity for public input in
determining issues to be emphasized in the EIS. Periodic
presentations were subsequently made to the Citizens Advisory
Committee for Metro's Wastewater Management Plan to advise the
committee of EIS status and receive comments. Lastly, a public
summary of this Draft EIS was prepared and distributed to an
extensive mailing list.
The Draft EIS comment period, the public workshops and
hearings to be held on the Draft EIS, and the response to
comments to be included in the Final EIS will fulfill EPA's
remaining formal public participation responsibilities under
the National Environmental Policy Act.
Institutional Considerations
This section summarizes laws, policies, and regulations
affecting the EIS and identifies the roles of key agencies
affected by the Wastewater Management Plan and EIS. A more
detailed institutional overview of the study area is presented
in Appendix A to the EIS.
6

-------
Laws, Policies, and Agencies Affecting the EIS
Clean Water Act. The U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is charged with administering the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean
Water Act. Section 201 of the Clean Water Act establishes
a construction grants program for municipal wastewater faci-
lities, wherein federal grants are offered for the planning
(Step 1), design (Step 2), and construction (Step 3) of publicly-
owned treatment works. Section 208 of the act establishes
an areawide waste treatment management planning process.
Section 208 plans must develop controls for both point and
nonpoint sources of water pollution. Under Section 303 of
the act, states are required to prepare and enforce ambient
water quality standards and to prepare basin plans showing
how these standards will be met. Lastly, under Sections 401
and 402 of the act, EPA or the states are required to issue
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
for all point sources of pollution .
Within the Lake Washington/Green River Basins, the State
Department of Ecology (DOE) administers the construction grants
program and the NPDES program, and sets water quality standards.
In 1975, DOE prepared the 303(e) basin plan for the Cedar and
Green River basins. Metro's water quality planning responsi-
bilities in the study area include both areawide (208) und
wastewater facilities (201) planning.
Clean Air Act. Under the Clean Air Act, states are
required to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
demonstrating means for achieving and maintaining national
ambient air quality standards. The EPA procedures for
implementing NEPA require formal consultation with state
and regional air quality planning agencies to determine con-
formity of a proposed action with the SIP. The Draft EIS
must include a statement indicating whether the project con-
forms with the SIP. If the project does not conform to the
SIP, EPA will not give the project final approval.
Endangered Species Act. Under this act, federal agencies
are prohibited from jeopardizing threatened or endangered
species or modifying habitats essential to their survival.
EPA procedures for implementing NEPA require formal con-
sultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service or National
Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and subsequent
development of mitigation measures if endangered species
may be affected by a project.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Under this act,
federal agencies involved in projects resulting in modi-
fications of streams or other water bodies are required to
protect fish and wildlife resources which may be affected
by the project. EPA procedures for implementing NEPA require
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and appropriate
state wildlife agencies to develop mitigation measures for
adverse impacts.
7

-------
National Historic Preservation Act. Under this law,
if federal agencies undertake activities affecting sites
of historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural value
that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
then the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must be
consulted and mitigation measures must be developed.
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act. This law
requires federal agencies to undertake data recovery and
preservation activities if federal activities may cause
irreparable destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric,
historic, or archeological data.
Coastal Zone Management Act. This act establishes funding
and requirements for state coastal zone management programs;
in Washington, shoreline management programs have been prepared
to meet requirements of both the state Shoreline Management
Act and the federal act. Under the EPA procedures for imple-
menting NEPA, if EPA activities have significant coastal
zone impacts, then a determiniation of consistency with the
applicable coastal zone management program is required.
EPA Policy on Agricultural Lands Protection. In September
1978, EPA issued its policy, pursuant to Executive Order 11988,
to protect environmentally significant agricultural lands.
Under this policy, EPA is required to identify the direct
and indirect impacts of its actions on environmentally signi-
ficant agricultural lands, and to avoid or mitigate, to the
extent possible, identified adverse impacts.
EPA Policy on Floodplain and Wetlands Protection. In
January 197 9, EPA issued its statement of procedures on
floodplain management and wetlands protection, pursuant to
Executive Order 119 90. Under these procedures, EPA is
required to assess floodplains and wetlands impacts of its
actions, and to either avoid adverse impacts or minimize
them if no practicable alternative to the action exists.
Affected Agencies and Their Jurisdictions
Environmental management within the study area is carried
out by a large number of federal, state and local agencies,
many of which will be affected by Metro's Wastewater Management
Plan. Table 1-1 is a matrix of agency responsibilities in
the Lake Washington/Green River Basins. For each agency,
responsibilities in each functional area are classified as
either advisory, planning, regulatory, implementing (con-
struction and operation), or funding. Not shown in this
table are the numerous agencies engaged in research and
monitoring activities. The responsibilities of key affected
agencies are summarized below.
Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has regulatory
authority in the fields of water quality, wastewater manage-
ment, water supply, solid waste management, and air quality.
8

-------
Table 1-1. Institutional Overview:
Lake Washington/Green River Basins
	Public Service Systems		Environmental Managenrent	
Wastewater Water	Drainage/	Solid Waste	Water Fish and Air
Agency	Management Supply Flood Control Management Recreation Transportation CMality Wildlife CXiality Land Use
Federal
EPA
Army Corps of
Engineers
Depart, of Housing
& Urban Develop-
ment
USDA, Forest
Service
Heritage Con-
servation &
recreation
Service
Depart, of
Transportation
Fish & Wildlife
Service
RS
R
PI$
§
PRI$
R$
R$
R
RS
PRI$
A$
PI$
State
Dept. of Ecology
Dept. of Fisheries
Dept. of C^ne
Dept. of Natural
Resources
Parks & Recreation
Ccranission
Dept. of Social &
Health Services
Dept. of Trans-
portation
Regional/Local
RS
PRS
R
R
R
R
R
PR
RI$
PRIS
PIS
RS
R
R
RS
RSI
RSI
R$P
PIS
R$
PR
PSOOG
Seattle-King Cornty
Deut. of Public
Health
HJtro
Counties
R
PIS
p
P
PRI$
R
PI$
PIS
PIS
PIS
R
PIS
PRIS
PRIS

-------
Table 1-1 (cop.t.)
	Public Service Systems	 	Environmental tfonagement	
Wastewater Water	Drainage/	Solid Waste	Water	Fish and Air
Agency	Management Supply Flood Control Management Recreation Transportation Quality Wildlife Quality land Use
King County
Soil Con-
servation District
Cities
Water and Sewer
Districts
Sno-net
Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control
Ajency
PIS
PI$
PIS
PIS
Pi$
A
PRIS
PI$
PIS
PIS
PIS
A
PRIS
PIS
PIS
A
PRIS
PR
CODE
A = Advisory
P = Planning
R = Regulatory
I = Implenvaiting
$ = Funding

-------
EPA water quality responsibilities are established in the
Clean Water Act, the provisions of which have been previously
reviewed. EPA responsibilities in water supply, solid waste,
and air quality are established in the Safe Drinking Water
Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Clean Air
Act, respectively.
Corps of Engineers. Under the federal Flood Control
Act, the Corps of Engineers is responsible for flood control
planning and implementation on major rivers and streams.
Under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, the Corps administers the national permit
program for dredge and fill activities.
Department of Ecology. The DOE is the equivalent of
EPA at the state level, having regulatory responsibility
in the fields of water quality, wastewater management, solid
waste management, air quality, and flood control. In addition,
DOE administers the state Shoreline Management Act.
Departments of Fisheries and Game. The Department of
Fisheries is responsible for managing food fish and shell-
fish, whereas the Department of Game is responsible for
managing various game species, including game fish. These
agencies advise DOE on water rights and allocation, and must
jointly issue a hydraulics permit for alteration of natural
streams and their uses.
Department of Natural Resources. This department is
a natural resource agency within the state, with res-
ponsibility for state lands management, forest practices,
geological services, and limited drainage and flood control
activities.
Puget Sound Council of Governments. PSCOG is a voluntary
association of local governments within King, Kitsap, Pierce
and Snohomish Counties. PSCOG is responsible for developing
advisory regional plans and policies, and is also responsible
for conducting reviews of projects using federal assistance
under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95.
Metro. Metro is a regional service agency with planning,
implementation, and funding responsibilities in the fields
of water quality and transit. Metro's past water quality
planning activities have included management of the River
Basin Coordinating Committee (RIBCO) studies, preparation
of the 208 areawide water quality management plan, and
preparation of a facilities plan for its four Puget Sound
plants. Metro acts as a "wholesaler" for wastewater services.
11

-------
Counties and Cities. The Lake Washington/Green River
Basins contain portions of three counties (King, Snohomish,
and Pierce) and 18 cities. As general purpose governments,
these counties and cities undertake a spectrum of public
services and environmental management activities.
Special Districts. Numerous special purpose districts
exist within the study area, providing key services such
as water, sewers, and schools.
12

-------
Chapter 2
DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND
EXISTING RENTON SEWERAGE SYSTEM
The first few sections of this chapter present an over-
view of the Lake Washington/Green River Basins study area.
The following topics are covered: climate and air quality;
soils, geology and groundwater; water resources and water
quality; biology and fisheries; and land use and socio-
economics. The intent of these sections is to acquaint
readers unfamilar with the study area with its key biophysical
and socio-economic features. Existing environmental conditions
are further described in the appendices to the EIS and in
Metro's Technical Memo #2. In addition, site-specific environ-
mental features (e.g., the Green/Duwamish River) are described
in the background sections of the impact assessments appearing
in Chapters 4 and 5.
¦ ¦ The last section of this chapter describes the existing
Ronton sewerage system. It describes the study area waste-
water collection system, the Renton treatment plant, Renton
wastewater and sludge characteristics, energy and chemical
use, and costs of wastewater treatment.
Climate and Air Quality
Climate
The climate of the Lake Washington/Green River Basins
study area is characterized by relatively cool, wet winters
and warm, dry summers. The study area's close proximity
to the Pacific Ocean, Puget Sound, and the Olympic and Cascade
Mountains are major factors influencing the climate of the
area.
Annual precipitation within the study area ranges from
35 inches in the lowlands to 100 inches or more in the sur-
rounding mountains. Seventy-five percent of the annual pre-
cipitation occurs during the 6-month period from October
through March. Only 5 percent of annual precipitation falls
during July and August.
Local temperature conditions vary considerably in the
study area according to elevation, solar radiation, and dis-
tance from Puget Sound. Temperatures during the summer months
are generally in the 70s, with occasional temperatures in
the 80s. Winter temperatures are typically in the 40s in
the lowlands and decrease with increasing altitude — approxi-
mately 3°F for every 1,000 feet of elevation.
13

-------
Temperature inversions (an increase of temperature with
height) have been recorded every month of the year in Seattle,
but they are most common in October.
Air Quality
The concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide, and total suspended particulates (TSP) exceed National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) within the central
Puget Sound region. Because of these violations, portions
of the region have been designated nonattainment areas with
respect to these pollutants. In response to the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977, an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
was prepared by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
(PSAPCA) and the PSCOG (Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency and PSCOG, 1978). The purpose of the AQMP is to present
a coordinated, regional strategy for the attainment of NAAQS.
Vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved roads accounts
for the majority of TSP emissions in both Renton and Kent
(Figure 2-1). Other important sources include mobile emissions
(tailpipe emissions) and fuel combustion.
CO emissions in Bellevue are almost exclusively from
motor vehicles (Figure 2-1). No other sources contribute
significant quantities of CO emissions.
Hydrocarbon emissions contribute to the formation of
ozone. Emissions from motor vehicles are the major source
of hydrocarbons (55 percent) in the Puget Sound region. Other
important sources include solvents, surface coating, petroleum
marketing, and mobile sources other than motor vehicles
(Figure 2-1).
Soils, Geology, and Groundwater
Soils
A map of regional soil associations in the study area
is presented in Figure 2-2. Data on generalized capability
class and typical land use of each major soil series and
slope class are presented in Table 2-1. The degree of soil
limitation for wastewater management is also indicated for
on-site septic tank drain fields, sewage lagoons, and for
effluent irrigation systems.
Most of the soils occurring in the study area have severe
limitations for use as septic tank leach fields arising from
their shallow depth, slow permeability or excessive slope.
Moderate to severe soil limitations also exist for irrigation
reuse of treated effluent.
14

-------
PAVED ROADS 53%
Ftfft
C6«fiU5TJO»
m
UNPAVED
ROADS J
9% A
MOBILE
SOURCES
14%
WIND EROSION 3%
z
PAVEO ROADS 46%
UNPAVED
ROADS
8.5%
mt
m
MOBILE
SOURCES
16%
WOOD PRODUCTS
PROCESSING 6.5%
MISC. 2%
WIND EROSION 3%
TSP"RENTON
TSP~KENT
MOTOR VEHICLES
99.6%
MISC.
0.4%
MOTOR VEHICLES
3S%
*w„
MISC. 5%
OTHER
MOBILE
SOURCES
OTHER \lh9%
PttCE Sf SOLVENTS
mtwj 13%
8%
PETROLEUM
MARKETING
10%

CARBON MONOXIDE -
BELLEVUC
HYDROOARBONS
SOURCE' PSAPCA C. PSCOG, 1978
FIGURE 2-1. RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF EMISSION
SOURCES-1977 INVENTORY
15

-------
HJpU
¦ tin
LEGEND-
a
n Mi»n - «i4r rut -
I »»«*».»* - IU1M1M
o IVIMTT
| llaUUf¦ ¦ UWKMM
Q *1 MtVON • «i r(*» - MlUMi t
A •«!« vqi wMt mi
iOUHC* tfCTKO,l*T»«
FfOURe SE-2. GENERAL. SOIL. ASSOCIATIONS

-------
Table 2-1. Use and Limitations of Some Dominant Soils in the Renton Study Area
Limitations for Waste Disposal





Septic Tank
Leach Fields
Sewage
Lagoons Irrigation
Reuse



Agricultural







Hap a
Slope
Capability
Typical
Degree of
Type of
Degree of
Type of Degree of
Type
Series
Symbol
(%)
Class
Usaqeb
hazard
hazardc
hazard
hazard0 hazard
haza
Alderwood
AgB
0-06
IVe
TPRU
severe
d,p-
moderate
s moderate
d

AgC
6-15
XVe
TPRCJ
severe
d,p-
severe
s moderate
s ,d

AgD
15-30
Vie
TP
severe
d,p-
severe
s severe
s ,d

AkF
25-70
Vile
T
severe
s,p-
severe
s severe
s ,d
Beausite
BeC
6-15
IVe
TPtJ
severe
d,p-
severe
s moderate
s ,d

BeD
15-30
Vie
TP
severe
d, p-
severe
s severe
s ,d

BeF
40-75
Vile
T
severe
s,p-
severe
s severe
s ,d
Buckley
Bu
< 3
IIIw
P,H
severe
w
severe
o moderate
p-,w
EarImont
Ea
< 1
IIw
PR
severe
f, w
severe
f,o moderate
f ,W
Everett
EvB
0-C5
IVs
TPU
moderate
P+
severe
p+ moderate
p+

EvC
5-15
Vis
TPU
moderate
P+
severe
p+ severe
P+

EvD
15-30
Vis
T
severe
s,p+
severe
s,p+ severe
s ,p+
Indianola
InA
0-04
IVs
TU
moderate
P+
severe
p+ severe
P+

InC
4-15
IVs
T
moderate
P+
severe
p+ severe
p+,s

InD
15-30
Vie
T
severe
s,p+
severe
s,p+ severe
s ,p+
Kitsap
KpB
2-08
Ille
TP
severe
P-
moderate
s moderate
p-,d

KpC
8-15
IVe
TP
severe
P-
severe
s moderate
P-'S

KpD
15-30
Vie
TP
severe
s.p-
severe
s severe
s ,P"
Oridia
Os
< 2
IIw
RPU
severe
f ,w
severe
f moderate
w, f
Puget
Pu
< 1
IIIw
RP
severe
p- , f , w
severe
f modera te
w, f
Seattle
Sk
< 1
IIw
PHR
severe
w ,o
severe
o severe
o, w
Snohomish
So
< 2
IIw
RPH
severe
f .w,o
severe
f,p+,o moderate
w, f
Woodinville
Wo
< 2
IIw
RPU
severe
w,f
severe
f,o moderate
W,f
refers to detailed soil survey map sheets
""t = timber
R = row crops
U = urban development
P = pasture
H = hay crops
"d =	shallow depth
f =	flooding
o =	organic soil layers
p-=	slow permeability
p+=excessive permeability
s = excessive slope
w -	high seasonal water table

-------
Geology and Groundwater
The stratigraphy and occurrence of groundwater in surficial
deposits and water-bearing units is described in this section.
The principal water-bearing units in the project area include
sand and gravel of the Salmon Springs drift, advance outwash
(including the Esperance sand) and recessional outwash of
Vashon drift, alluvial floodplain deposits and alluvial fan
deposits. Figure 2-3 depicts a schematic hydrogeologic cross
section of the Lake Washington/Green River Basins.
Salmon Springs drift deposits consist of up to 200 feet
of sand and gravel with lesser amounts of silt and clay.
These deposits generally form confined aquifers at varying
depths below the ground surface and in many places are the
principal source of groundwater for municipal wells. Vashon
recessional and advance outwash glacial deposits consist
dominantly of sand and gravel. Vashon recessional outwash
deposits occur at the ground surface, are saturated locally,
and are penetrated by many small domestic wells. Advance
outwash deposits occur at or near the ground surface, are
saturated throughout except at the edge of drift plains
where they are typically well drained, and yield small to
moderate amounts of water to wells. These deposits are highly
developed for both domestic and municipal water supplies.
Alluvial floodplain and alluvial fan deposits of sand
and gravel occur along the rivers draining the Cascade Mountains.
These deposits form shallow aquifers which are in hydrologic
continuity with surface water bodies, and yield moderate
amounts of water to numerous small, shallow wells.
Vashon till is very widespread in the project area.
These glacial deposits, with a thickness of about 50 feet,
do not constitute major water-bearing aquifers because, they
are dominantly composed of clay and silt and are fairly compact
throughout their thickness. The top portion, however, on
which the Alderwood soil series is developed, is tapped by
many small domestic wells, and is generally loosely compacted
and susceptible to contamination.
Available data indicate that the quality of groundwater
in the study area is good to excellent, although some wells yield
water with objectionable concentrations of iron and/or chloride
and dissolved solids that exceed the national drinking water
standards. The concentration of orthophosphate is high through-
out the study area and typically highest in the deep aquifers.
This is generally attributed to inherent aquifer characteristics
and not to human activities.
Groundwater with objectionable levels of iron is very
common in the study area; however, no areal or stratigraphic
pattern has been found in the occurrence of high iron con-
centrations. The solubility of iron in water increases with
18

-------
ua 600
ui
u.
I O 100-
! I—
i2
i Ui
i u
 1>- -
JuPPLr
BULLETIN
-LEOEND-
[] Sol	RECENT ALLUVIUM
P^l 0>r	RECESSIONAL OUTWASM
JH3 0>l	VtSHBH TILL
»«	ADVANCE OUTWASN
[3 0'	OLVNPIA WTER6LACIAL DEPOSITS
[~1 Qn	SALMON 5PK1H6S DRIFT
Sold	OLDER QUATERNARY DEPOSITS
O T»	TERTIARY SEDIMENTARY BEDROCK
i n
1 ^' '-/i:'
MILES
FIGURE 2-3. SCHEMATIC HYDROGEOLOGIC SECTIONS 0.~ THE LAKE WASHINGTON / GREEN RIVER BASINS

-------
increased levels of acidity. Widespread occurrence of acidic
peat layers in the study area is usually cited as playing
an important role in the occurrence of groundwater rich in
iron.
Groundwater with chloride and dissolved solids concentra-
tions exceeding the standards for drinking water occurs in
two known wells in the study area. Both of these wells are
deep (600 and 1,461 feet), but the specific aquifer tapped
by the wells is not definitely known. Saltwater intrusion
does not appear to be the cause for the poor water quality
in these wells. Rather, the quality characteristics are more
probably caused by connate waters trapped within the water-
bearing strata.
Nitrate in groundwater is of particular interest as
it can be considered as an indicator of contamination caused
by excessive use of fertilizers, heavy concentration of septic
tanks, or failing sewerage systems. The maximum allowable
nitrate level (45 mg/1, NO3) in drinking water is not exceeded
in groundwater from wells in the study area. The nitrate
level typically is less than 1 mg/1 as NOf. Nitrate (NO|)
level, however, is highest in the shallow unconfined aquifers
and decreases progressively in the deeper, generally confined
aquifers. This trend suggests that perhaps land use activities
may be responsible for the higher nitrate levels in the shallow
aquifers.
The contamination potential of the aquifers in the project
area varies significantly and is summarized below:
1.	There is little or no contamination potential, from
normal land use practices, for aquifers that occur below
the Vashon till. Shallow wells that tap perched water
bodies in the upper, loosely compacted, portion of the
till as well as wells that tap recessional outwash sand
and gravel deposited on top of the till, however, must
be viewed as susceptible to contamination.
2.	Almost all municipal groundwater supplies are obtained
from the deeper aquifers of deltas and alluvial fans.
Contamination of these aquifers by normal land use
practices is unlikely.
3.	There are virtually thousands of small, shallow wells
in the project area that are used for domestic purposes.
Most of these domestic wells occur in nonsewered areas,
and are subject to a high risk for contamination.
20

-------
Water Resources and Water Quality
Inland Surface Water
The major surface water bodies in the study area are
shown in Figure 2-4. The largest lakes are Lake Washington
and Lake Sammamish. Lake Washington has a surface area of
32,000 acres and a watershed of 476 square miles, with the
majority of inflow provided by the Cedar River and the Sammamish
River. Lake Sammamish has a surface area of 4,900 acres
and drains a watershed of about 98 square miles, with the
majority of inflow provided by Tibbetts Creek and Issaquah
Creek. Over 80 small lakes are dispersed throughout the
study area, ranging in size from less than 5 to 150 acres.
The major rivers within the study area are the Green-
Duwamish River, the Cedar River, and the Sammamish River.
The Green-Duwamish River, which is about 91 miles long and
drains 48 3 square miles, is regulated by the Howard Hanson
Dam and Reservoir, with an active storage of 106,000 acre-
feet; the Green-Duwamish River is primarily used for water
supply, fisheries, recreation, and irrigation. The Cedar
River, which is about 50 miles long and drains an area o:!
188 square miles, is regulated by Chester Morse Lake, with
an active storage of 40,000 acre-feet; the Cedar River is
primarily used for water supply, recreation and fisheries,
and to prevent saltwater intrusion into Lake Washington at
the Chittendon Locks. The Sammamish River is about 14 miles
long and drains about 196 square miles; it is primarily used
for fisheries and recreation. Numerous smaller streams within
the study area provide inflow to the larger lakes and rivers,
and serve as important fishery and recreational resources.
The quality of study area surface waters is generally
good. Metro has rated lakes, rivers, and streams for beneficial
uses based on its ongoing water quality monitoring programs.
Table 2-2 presents a summary of Metro's lake use ratings,
and Table 2-3 presents a summary of Metro's river and small
streams use ratings.
Water quality of the Green-Duwamish River is of special
importance for this EIS because it is the present discharge
location for Renton treatment plant effluent, and because
some long-term alternatives for the Renton plant involve
continued river discharge. Details regarding water quality
within the Green-Duwamish River are presented in Chapter 5
of the EIS.
Puget Sound
Puget Sound is a semienclosed water body where sea water
from the open ocean mixes with fresh waters from rivers and
lakes draining the sound. The sound consists of a series
of interconnecting deep basins separated by relatively shallow
sills.	oi

-------
WV^BAMJ
FIGURE 2-4. MAJOR SURFACE WATER BODIES IN THE
STUDY AREA SHOWINO SALMON USE

-------
Table 2-2. Lake Use Ratings
Fishability
Lake
Aesthetics
Trout
Habitat
Spiny Ray
Habitat
Swimmabi.
Larqe Lakes




Sammamish
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Washington
Good
Good
Good
Good
Small Lakes




Bass
Fair
Insufficient Data
Fair
Beaver
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Cottage
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Deep
Good
Good
Good
Good
Desire
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Dolloff
Poor
Insufficient Data
Poor
Kathleen
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Lucerne
Good
Insufficient Data
Good
Meridian
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Moneysmith
Poor
Insufficient Data
Poor
Morton
Fair
—
Fair
Fair
Number Twelve
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Panther
Poor
Insufficient Data
Poor
Phantom
Fair
Insufficient Data
Insuf f ic:




Data
Pine
Fair
Good
Good
Poor
Pipe
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Retreat
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Sawyer
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Shadow
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Shady
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Spring/Otter
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Wilderness
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
SOURCE: Metro, 1979e.
23

-------
Table 2-3.
Riv.?r ar.j Snail Streair. Use Ratifies
?.lver/S:reaTi Station

Fi^habiLity ¦' i t > :' i
Sw l-nn.io i 1 i *: y 1
Sivers



I'pper Green
B 3 19
Good
Fxc-llent

A3 I 9
Good
Geo J
Lower Green.
315
ExcelIon t
Poor

311
Fair
Pcor

3106
Fair
Pour
Duwamish
309
Fair
Fair

307
Fair
Poor

305
Good
Poor
Cedar
H4 38
Good
Excellent

A43S
Good
Good

0438
Good
Fair
Sammamish
0486
Excellent
Good

04 8 0
Excellent
Fair

0450
Excellent
Poor
Small Streams



Mill Creek
A315
Poor
Poor

E315
Poor
Poor
Spring Brook
0317
Poor
Poor

E317
Poor
Poor

H317
Poor
Poor
McAleer Creek
A432
Poor
Poor

E432
Fair
Good
Fairweather Creek
A4 99
Fair
Excellent
Tibbetts Creek
A6 30
Fair
Fair

B630
Poor
Poor

U630
Fair
Excellent
Issaquah Creek
0631
Excellent
Fair

A631
Good
Fair
North Fork
A632
Fair
Good
East Fork
06 33
Fair
Good
Mason Creek
0634
Good
Poor
Holder Creek
A64 0
Excellent
Good
Carey Creek
A650
Good
Excellent
15-Mile Creek
A6 6 0
Fair
Excellent
Soos Creek
032 0
Fair
Good

F320
Fair
Good
Covington Creek
C320
Fair
Excellent
Jenkins Creek
D370
Good
Exce Llent
Little Soos Creek
G320
Fair
Poor
West Branch
B320
Fair
Fair
Swamp Creek
04 70
Fair
Fair

B470
Good
Fair
North Creek
047 4
Good
Poor

D474
Good
Fair
Little Bear Creek
0478
Fair
Fair

B478
Fair
Poor
Bear-Evans Creek
0484
Fair
Poor

B4 84
Good
Fail

C484
Fair
Poor

G484
Good
Poor

J484
Fair
Fair

N484
Fair
Fair
Coal Creek (Green F.iver)
C325
Good
Excellent
Longfellow Creek
C370
Fair
Fair
Coal Creek (Lake Washington)
0442
Fair
Good
C442
Fair
Excellent

LT442
Poor
Excellent
Juanita Creek
0446
Fair
Poor

C446
Good
Poor

D446
Excellent
Good
Thornton Creek
0434
Poor
Poor

K434
Fair
Poor

T434
Fair
Excellent
Forbes Creek
0456
Poor
Poor

C456
Fair
Poor
Yarrow Bay
0498
Fair
Poor
Lyon Creek
0430
Poor
Fair
G430
Fair
Poor
Newaukum Creek
0322
Good
Poor

F322
Excellent
Poor

T322
Good
Excellent
Deep Craek
F723
Fair
Excellent
May Creek
0440
Fair
Good

K440
Fair
Fair

X440
Fair
Fair
Kelsey Creek
0444
Fair
Poor

D444
Poor
Fair
Crisp Creek
0321
Good
Excellent
SOURCE: Summarized from Metro (1980f).
24

-------
Four outfall locations are being considered in Metro's
Wastewater Management Planning for the study area: Richmond
Beach, Elliott Bay, Alki Point, and Point Pulley. All four
potential discharge locations are located in Puget Sound's
central basin, which averages about 660 feet in depth. Details
regarding water circulation at the four potential discharge
locations are presented in Chapter 5 of the EIS.
Biology
Terrestrial Biology
Figure 2-5 illustrates the main wildlife habitat types
of the study area. The great majority of nonurban and nonagri-
cultural lands, located in the eastern part of the study
area, are in evergreen, deciduous, or mixed forest. Wetland
habitats are widely dispersed throughout the study area.
Aquatic and Marine Biology
The study area is rich in freshwater aquatic habitats.
The numerous lakes and streams host a wide variety of fresh-
water and anadromous fishes, many of which are of commercial
or recreational importance. Salmon use of study area lakes
and streams is shown in Figure 2-4.
Within Puget Souri, three main habitat types can be
differentiated: intercidal (between the higher high and
the lower low tide lines), subtidal (bottom habitat below
the low tide lines), and pelagic (open water regions above
the sound's bottom). Each of these habitat types supports
representative biota.
Fisheries
The fishery resources of Puget Sound and the Lake Washington/
Green River Basins are important economically, recreationally,
culturally, and scientifically. The anadromous salmonids
occurring in the study area include all five species of Pacific
salmon (chinook, coho, red, chum, pink), searun rainbow (steel-
head) trout, cutthroat trout, and Dolly Varden char. These
species are found in Puget Sound, and, with the exception
of pink salmon, spawn in study area streams. Pacific salmon
are fished for both commercial and sport purposes, whereas
the main use of anadromous trout and char is sportfishing
only.
The fish resources of the Green/Duwamish Eiver system are
of particular importance for this EIS. Chinook, coho and
steelhead runs of the Green River system are among the largest
in the Puget Sound region. Most of the steelhead and coho are
of hatchery origin, whereas the chinook run is the second
25

-------

unit
i
3
LEGEND-
n
n

-------
largest native run in Puget Sound, even though significant
numbers of chinook are also of hatchery origin. Other less
prevalent anadromous fish found in the Green River system
include cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden char, chum salmon and
pink salmon. The Muckleshoot Indian tribe propagates a
relatively small hatchery run of chum salmon (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1980).
A conservative estimate of the value of the approxi-
mately 2 20,000 salmon provided by the Green River system to
sport and commercial fisheries is $2.6 million, in 1977
dollars. The net economic value of the Green River steel-
head fishery was estimated to be $2-$3 million in 1976.
(See Appendix C.)
Within Puget Sound, marine species as well as anadromous
species, are important for commercial and sportfishing. English
sole and hake are the main commercial species, and Pacific cod
and copper rockfish are the main recreational species.
Species and Habitats of Special Interest
Preservation of wetland habitats is of special concern
due to the wide diversity of fauna supported by wetlands,
and because they serve as sediment and nutrient traps. Wet-
land habitats within the study area are shown in Figure 2-5.
No plant or animal species that are permanent or regular
inhabitants of the study area have been listed by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as "threatened"'' or endangered.
Listed species that are occasional visitors to the study
area include .the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) , the pere-
grine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus). Species and habitats of special concern
within the study area, as identified by the Washington
Department of Game, are listed in Appendix C of the EIS.
Land Use and Socio-Economics
Land Use
The Lake Washington/Green River Basins study area covers
approximately 620 square miles of plateaus, river valleys,
and foothills of the Puget Lowlands. Existing urban land
uses are concentrated in the western part of the study area,
with major urban concentrations along the eastern shore of
Lake Washington and in the Lower Green River Valley. Urban
land uses as of 197 5 are shown in Figure 2-6.
Land use planning is the responsibility of the counties
and the cities within the study area, with planning coordina-
tion provided by PSCOG. Of particular importance in deter-
mining future land use policy within the study area are King
27

-------
•Ml. MktM
FIGURE 2-6. URBAN LAND USES IN THE LAKE
WASHINGTON / GREEN RIVER BASINS. tS7S

-------
County's draft General Development Guide and the communities
plans prepared by both King and Snohomish Counties for sub-
county planning areas.
Population and Housing
Historic population trends from 1930 to 1970 in King
and Snohomish Counties, and in major cities within the study
area, are shown in Table 2-4. Economic activity during World
War II provided the impetus for initial rapid population
growth in the Seattle region which, with periodic fluctuations,
has continued until today.
An estimated 202,680 households are located within the
study area, assuming an average household size of 2.65 persons.
Most multifamily dwelling units in the study area are located
within the incorporated cities. The vacancy rate in the
study area region in 1976 was 5.0 percent, according to census
bureau data; the 5 percent figure is considered to characterize
a tight housing market.
Regional Economy and Employment
The Seattle region as a whole found its early economic
strengths in processing and shipping of lumber, fishing,
mining and agricultural products. By the early 20th century
the manufacturing and trade base of the economy was well-
established .
The region enjoyed substantial growth with the coming
of the aerospace industry in the 1940s when nonresource-
based manufacturing outpaced the traditional regional
industries. In the 1970s the region has further developed
into a service-based economy with major growth in finance,
insurance, real estate, trade, tourism, and other service
industries.
The City of Seattle still contains the major concen-
trations of manufacturing jobs in the region, although cer-
tain of the outlying communities (particularly Renton, Belle-
vue, Kirkland and Redmond) have attracted production units
and corporate offices of major manufacturers over the years.
Manufacturing employment is fairly highly concentrated:
three firms (Boeing, Weyerhaeuser and PACCAR) employ half
of the county's manufacturing labor force. This concentra-
tion has contributed to the pattern of boom and bust in the
regional economy over time. The diversification of the regional
economy - a trend of the 1960s that has continued through
the 1970s - has strengthened the region's ability to withstand
downturns in any one of its major industries.
29

-------

Table
2-4. Historic
Population
Trends, Counties
and Major
Cities, 1930-1970


Year
1930

1940
1950

1960

1970
Place
Population
Population
Percent
Change
Population
Percent
Chanqe
Population
Percent
Chanqe
Population
Percent
Chanqe
King County
463,517
504,980
9
732,992
45
935,014
28
1,156,633
24
Snohomish County
78,861
88,754
13
11,580
26
172,199
54
265,236
54
Seattle
365,583
368,302
1
467,591
27
557,087
19
530,831
- 5
Bellevue





12 ,809
—
61,102
377
Mercer Island







19,047
—
Renton
4,062
4,488
10
16,039
257
18,453
15
25,258
37
Auburn
3,906
4,211
8
6,497
54
11,933
84
21,817
83
Kent
2,320
2,586
11
3,278
27
9,017
175
21,510
139
Kirkland
1,714
2,084
22
4,713
126
6 ,025
28
15 , 249
153
Redmond
4 60
530
15
57 3
8
1,426
149
11,031
674
Edmonds
1,165
1,288
11
2,057
60
8,016
2 90
23,998
19 9
Everett
30,567
30,224
-1
33,849
12
40,304
19
53,622
33
Tacoma
106,817
109,408
2
143,673
31
147,979
3
154 ,581
4
DATA FROM: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
SOURCE: Metro, 197 9e.

-------
Public Services Provision
Public services within the study area are provided by
the counties, cities, and numerous special districts. The
counties are generally responsible for county roads, criminal
justice, health services, and county parks. Cities are gen-
erally responsible for providing general government, water
and sewer service, police and fire protection, parks, and
libraries within their corporate limits; in unincorporated
areas these services are the responsibility of either special
districts (for fire protection, water and sewer) or the county.
Educational services are provided by special districts in
both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
Existing Sewerage Facilities
The Study Area
The study area encompasses 620 square miles north, east
and south of Lake Washington (see Figure 1-1). About 25
percent of this land presently has access to sanitary sewer
service; the balance of the area is rural and relies on septic
tanks for sewage disposal. The study area includes 40 local
sewering agencies (listed in Table 2-5 and mapped in Figure
2-7), 32 of which are sewered. The Renton division of Metro
operates the wastewater collection and treatment system which
collects wastewater from most of the study area and transports
it to the Renton sewage treatment plant for treatment and
disposal; the West Point division of Metro currently operates
the collection system in the north part of the study area,
where the wastewater is transported to the West Point treat-
ment plant for treatment and disposal.
Study Area Wastewater Collection Systems
The Metro collection system in the study area consists
of approximately 116 miles of interceptors, trunks, force
mains, inverted siphons, and tunnels as well as 20 pumping
stations. Figure 2-8 shows the location of the Metro collec-
tion system, the existing service areas, and local service
areas designated by King County's Sewerage General Plan as
eligible for sewer service.
Where sewer lines cross waterways, flows typically are
carried underneath the water channel in an inverted siphon,
i.e., a pipe which is essentially always full of water and
is capable of sustaining some internal pressure without leaking.
Similar pressure pipes are called force mains when the pressure
is produced by a pumping facility. The Renton division system
currently incorporates approximately 5 miles of siphons,
ranging from 8-54 inches in diameter, and a total of 10.1
miles of force mains, with diameters ranging from 12-20 inches.
31

-------
Table 2-5. Renton Study Area Component Agencies
No. Agency
1	City of Everett
2	Fircrest Sewer District
3	Snohomish County
4	Silver Lake Water District
5	Alderwood Water District
6	City of Edmonds
7	City of Mountlake Terrace
8	City of Brier
9	City of Lynnwood.
10	Northeast Lake Washington
Sewer District
11	City of Bothell
12	King County Water
District No. 104
13	King County
14	Holiday Lake Sewer District
15	City of Kirkland
16	City of Redmond
17	City of Bellevue
18	Sahallee Sewer District
19	King County Water
District No. 82
20	King County Water
District No. 121
21	Shorewood Apartments
22	East Mercer Island
Sewer District
23	Mercer Island Sewer District
24	King County Water
District No. 107
25	Eastgate Sewer District
26	Lake Sarmamish State Park
27	City of Issaquah
28	Bryn Mawr Sewer District
29	City of Renton
30	King County Water
District No. 90
31	Val-Vue Sewer District
32	City of Tukwila
33	Cascade Sewer District
34	King County Water
District No. 108
35	City of Kent
36	City of Auburn
37	King County Water
District No. 86
38	City of Black Diamond
39	City of Algona
40	City of Pacific
Sewered
Currently (1979) served by:
Yes
Everett
Yes
Everett
No


No


Yes
Metro (West Point)/Lynnwood
Yes
Edmonds
Yes
Lynnwood
Yes
Metro
(West Point)
Yes
Lynnwood
Yes
Metro
(West Point)
Yes
Metro
(West Point)
Yes
Metro
(West Point)
No


No


Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro (Renton and West Point
Yes
Metro (Renton and West Point
Yes
Metro
(West Point)
Yes
Metro
(West Point)
No


Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
No


Yes
Metro (Renton and West Point!
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
No


No


Yes
Metro
(Renton)
Yes
Metro
(Renton)
SOURCE: Metro, 1979d.
32

-------
¦ nil
ui

-r
;*r
FIGURE 2-7. COMPONENT AGENCIES IN THE RENTON STUDY AREA

-------

{

•	WtUM^W N«CI
»***i
P IKIIIH HIU IUV«f ¦*»
**m CUMNTT LOtai MNVCS
FIGURE 2-6. LOCAL SERVICE AREAS, EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREAS
€W METRO COLLECTION SYSTEM

-------
Almost all of the gravity lines are constructed of re-
inforced concrete pipe. The force mains and siphons are
usually steel, cast iron, or reinforced concrete pipe.
Most of the Renton area sewerage facilities were con-
structed in the past 20 years; however, some were obtained
by Metro from local agencies. With the exception of isolated
problems, the sewer system, which is under continued surveil-
lance, is basically in good repair and has rehabilitation
plans underway for all known areas of leakage or deterioration.
Capacity problems are more critical. Seven pumping stations
are presently operating at or greater than 95 percent of
firm capacity (pumping capacity with the largest pump out
of operation). Three stations (Sunset, Heathfield, and Ken-
more) have measured flows above their capacities, which is
possible because peak flows are partially stored in the in-
fluent sewer.
The Renton Treatment Plant
The Renton treatment plant is situated on the Green/
Duwamish River about 13 miles from the location where the
river enters Elliot Bay. A detailed description of the Renton
plant may be found in Metro's Technical Memo No. 1, from
which the following discussion has been summarized.
The plant is designed to treat an average of 36 million
gallons per day (MGD) average dry weather flow (ADWF) and
an average of 96 MGD peak wet weather flow (PWWF). The waste-
water entering the plant is expected to bring about 75,000
pounds per day of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 93,000
pounds per day of suspended solids (SS). This is equivalent
to about 250 milligrams per liter (mg/1) of BOD and 310 mg/1
SS. The treated wastewater entering the river is currently
required to have no more than 15 mg/1 of BOD and 15 mg/1
SS.
To reduce pollutant loads to meet the discharge limita-
tions (see Table 2-6), the Renton plant has several treatment
steps as shown in Figure 2-9. Pollutant removal includes
pretreatment, primary treatment (sedimentation), secondary
treatment (activated sludge), and chlorination/dechlorination,
The pretreatment process settles coarse grit and uses
bar screens to remove the materials larger than 0.75 inch.
The objects captured by the screens are transferred hydrauli-
cally to a grinder which shreds and pulverizes the screenings
so that they may be returned to the influent flow ahead of
the bar screens. Raw sewage pumps lift the wastewater to
two aerated grit removal channels where the water is aerated
and fine grit is removed. The grit is dewatered and moved
by a mechanical screw conveyor to storage hoppers. The coarse
grit is periodically collected manually and placed in the
hoppers. Grit is hauled to a sanitary landfill for disposal.
35

-------
Table 2-6. Existing and Proposed Discharge Limitations for
the Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant
Parameter
Units
Existing
Limit
Proposed
Limit^
Typical
Amount^
Flow
mgd
38
48
39
bod5
mg/1
15
10
9

lb/day
4,755
2,900
4,990
Suspended Solids
mg/1
15
15
11

lb/day
4,755
4,300
3,730
Fecal Coliform
organisms per
100 ml
200
200
57
pH
units
6.5-8.5
6.5-8.5
6.5-7.1
Chlorine Residual
mg/1
0.5
0.008
0.26
Ammonia
lb/day
—
2,700
—
Ammonia (unionized)
mg/1
—
0.08
16. 6

lb/day
—
24.02
—
Nitrite
mg/1
—
0,24
—
Oil and Grease
mg/1
—
15
2.4-20
Cadmium
mg/1
0.004
0.0016
<0.004
Chromium (Total)
mg/1
0.02
0.10
0.015
Copper
mg/i
0.04
0.008
0.03
Lead
mg/1
0.05
0.021
0.009
Mercury
mg/1
0.0015
0.0002
0.0013
Nickel
mg/1
0.03
0.10
0.019
Zinc
mg/1
0.09
0.004
0.05
Silver
ing/1
—
0.00068
—
Source: 1 DRAFT NPDES Waste Discharge Permit for the Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle, Renton Sewage Treatment Plant (March 1980)
2 NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for the Renton Treatment Plant
(January 1979-March 1980) . See Table 3-4 for changes in effluent
quality.
36

-------
DECHLORINATION
CHEMICALS
CHLORINE
AIR
ALUM
CHLORINE
AIR
EFFLUENT
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
AERATION
y, PRIMARY^
, SEDIMENTATION'
^/SECONDARY /y
SEDIMENTATION'
CHLORINE
CONTACT
~GREEN/
DUWAMISH
RIVER
SEPTIC TANK
PUMPINGS
u
COARSE
FINE
6RIT
GRIT
- SLUDGE 6 SCUM TO
WEST POINT
TREATMENT PLANT
TO
LANDFILL
FIGURE 2-9. PROCESS SCHEMATIC OF RENTON TREATMENT PLANT

-------
Water that has been screened and degritted flows by
gravity through two aerated channels to the eight primary
sedimentation basins (clarifiers). In primary treatment,
the water velocity is slowed so that all of the heavy material
(sludge) can settle and the light floatable material (scum)
can rise to the surface. The primary sludge is collected
by scrapers on the bottom of the sedimentation basins. Sludge
is currently pumped and metered continuously into a force
main for transmission to the West Point treatment plant.
The scum is collected by skimmers and delivered to scum pumps
where it is discharged to the sludge force main.
Primary effluent from the sedimentation basins flows
into collection channels that direct the water to either
the activated sludge process or, in emergencies, directly
to chlorination and discharge. In the activated sludge pro-
cess, the wastewater is distributed into two horizontally
baffled aeration tanks and mixed with the activated sludge.
Six air blowers supply air to the aeration tanks, and the
concentration of air is controlled by a system of dissolved
oxygen probes, which measure the amount of oxygen in the
aeration tanks. Dissolved oxygen allows the organisms present
in the activated sludge to convert about 50 percent of the
oxygen-demanding materials in the settled sewage to water
and carbon dioxide, and to convert almost 50 percent more
to more activated sludge organisms.
The mixture of sludge organisms and treated wastewater
(mixed liquor) overflows from the aeration tanks into an
aerated channel. The channel directs the mixed liquor into
eight circular secondary sedimentation basins. During high
wet weather flows, alum is added to the stream to enhance
sludge removal. Sludge is collected at the bottom of the
basin and scum is skimmed at the surface. Some of the sludge,
return activated sludge (RAS), is returned to the aeration
tank to maintain the activated sludge process. The remainder
of the sludge, waste activated sludge (WAS), is mixed with
the primary sludge and pumped to the West Point treatment
plant. The scum collected from the secondary clarifiers
is piped to the influent sewer.
Chlorine injectors and diffusers are located at the
secondary effluent collection chambers. Following chlorination,
the effluent flows along a chlorine contact channel; the
long length of this channel provides sufficient time for
the chlorine to disinfect the effluent. Some of the chlori-
nated effluent is used for in-plant process needs and land-
scape irrigation. Any floating material present in the chlorine
contact channel is skimmed and returned to the plant influent.
Sulfur dioxide is injected into the effluent to chemi-
cally neutralize any toxic chlorine before disposal. From
the chlorine contact channel, the effluent passes over a
weir, where the rate of flow is measured; the effluent is
then discharged to the Green/Duwamish River via an outfall
diffuser located on the river bed.
38

-------
Wastewater and Sludge Characteristics
Wastewater. The Renton treatment plant was originally
conceived to treat an ultimate flow of 144 MGD. Currently,
the Renton treatment plant units are all conservatively sized
to treat an average 36 MGD with the exception of the head-
works, influent sewer, and influent pumping and screening
structures, which can accommodate the ultimate ADWF of 144
MGD, and the primary units, which are designed to treat an
average of 72 MGD. Hydraulically, the other processes in the
plant may treat an ADWF of 4 8 MGD; however, BOD and solids
concentrations limit the activated sludge processes to a
capacity of 36 MGD.
Figure 2-10 and Table 2-7, which present historic flow
and wasteload data, indicate that the monthly average flow
was below the 36 MGD design flow in 1977. But, the flow
increased to an average 39.4 MGD in 1978, to 38.4 MGD in
197 9, and to 42.5 MGD during the first quarter of 1980. The
BOD and SS loadings have also increased. The average BOD
entering the plant increased from 84,900 pounds per day in
1979 to 141,800 pounds per day during the first quarter of
1980, significantly greater than the design BOD loading of
75,000 pounds per day. Similarly, the SS entering the plant
increased from 103, 900 pounds per day in 1979 t.o 117,100
pounds per day during the first quarter of 1980, significantly
greater than the design SS loading of 93,000 pounds per day.
The Renton treatment plant has been operating in a stressed
mode for nearly 2 years. However, the effluent BOD and
SS leaving the plant and entering the river have generally
been within the existing state discharge limitations (see
Table 2-7). T.he requirements are 4,755 pounds per day of
BOD and 6,338 pounds per day of SS. During 1979 the average
effluent BOD loading was 5,200 pounds per day and the average
effluent SS loading was 3,800 pounds per day. For the first
quarter of 1980, the BOD loading was 3,700 pounds per day,
and the SS loading was 3,200 pounds per day. The plant is
meeting its discharge limits because it was designed with
several back-up measures to provide reliability during higher
flows. Among the back-up features are flow storage in the
influent sewer, inherent resiliency of the activated sludge
process, use of chemicals to improve sludge settling, pro-
viding secondary treatment to only part of the flow, and
the capability of diverting 2-4 MGD to the West Point plant
via the pressurized sludge line.
Besides BOD and SS, other characteristics of the waste-
water have an influence on the quality of the discharge from
the plant. Among those characteristics are nitrogen, phos-
phorus, pH, temperature, grease and metals. Typical concen-
trations of these other constituents during 1979-1980 are
tabulated in Table 2-8.
39

-------
a
o
o
<
__i
Q.
PLANT 0ESI3N FLOW
3SM80
J I FImI 4 Im I J I 0 I A I SI 0UI 0
978
YEAR
SOURCE: RENTON TREATMENT PLANT MONTHLY REPORTS.
REPRESENTS MONTHLY AVERAGES OF DAILY
FLOW DATA.
FIGURE 2-10. HISTORICAL WASTEWATER FLOWS TO THE
RENTON TREATMENT PLANT
40

-------
Table 2-7. influent and Effluent BOD* and SS* Quantities
Month
Flow
BOD, 1000
lb/day
SS, 1000 lb/day
1979
mgd*
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
January
39.33
105.4
5.4
142.7
5.1
Feoruary
48.51
123.4
13.0
204.3
13.9
March
41.90
141.5
6.9
208.6
4.2
April
38.12
137.6
4.2
169.7
2.5
May
36.86
105.1
5.5
130.0
2.3
June
35.50
86.1
4.4
103.6
1.6
July
33.55
81.1
3.6
99.1
1.6
August
33.22
73.4
3.3
83.4
2.4
September
34.08
79.6
3.5
96.6
2.0
October
34.61
73.6
3.7
97.9
2.7
November
39.55
87.9
3.7
108.1
2.9
December
50.84
95.8
5.4
127.2
4.8
AVERAGE
38.4
84.9
5.2
130.9
3.8
1980





January
44.48
99.6
3.8
134.8
4.6
February
42.10
247.5
3.7
112.3
2.3
March
40.85
78.4
3.6
104.3
2.6
AVERAGE
42.50
141.8
3.7
117.1
3.2
*NOTE
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
SS - Suspended Solids
mgd - million gallons per day
Source: Metro internal memos: Renton Treatment Plant Monthly Process
Analysis (for the alcove months).
41

-------
Table 2-8. Renton Treatment Plant Effluent Characteristics
January 1979 - March 1980-'-
Parameter
Units
Range
Average
Flow
mgd
33-51
39
BOD5
mg/1
5-17
9

lb/day
1,360-35,000
4,990
SS
mg/1
5-26
11

lb/day
1,580-10,000
3,730
NH3-N
mg/1
11.3-13.9
13.7
Phosphorus2
rag/1
3.2-7.1
4.3
Temperature2
op
56-73
—
pH
units
6.1-8.5
6.5-7.1
Dissolved Oxygen^
mg/1
4.5-8.9
7.0
Grease^
mg/1
2.4-20
—
Chlorine Residual
mg/1
0.20-0.29
0.26
Fecal Coliform
Organisms per 100 ml
14-116
57
Mercury
mg/1
0.0003-0.0034
0.0013
Cadmium
mg/1
0-<0.004
<0.004
Copper
mg/1
0.02-0.05
0.03
Lead
mg/1
0.001-C0.02
0.009
Zinc
mg/1
0.03-0.10
0.05
Nickel
mg/1
0.008-0.03
0.019
Chromium (Total)
mg/1
0.005-0.03
0.015
Source: 1 NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for the Renton Treatment Plant
2 Metro, 1979d.

-------
Sludge. The raw primary sludge and WAS collected during
treatment at the Renton plant are pumped in a force main
to the West Point plant for treatment. No sludge is currently
treated at the Ronton plant. Figure 2-11 shows the amounts
of sludge that have been sent to the West Point plant for
the period January 1978 through March 1980. Metro does not
compile separate data on the quality of Renton plant sludge.
Renton treatment plant sludge makes up approximately
40 percent of the influent SS to the West Point plant, and
is creating severe operational problems for the West Point
plant. The sludge is pumped from the Renton plant as dilute
as possible in order to keep the sludge force main detention
times short, thus minimizing sulfide corrosion and odor problems
at the force main discharge points and maintaining the flow
in the gravity collection sewer as high as possible.
Existing Chemical Consumption
Four chemicals are used in the Renton system: chlorine,
sulfur dioxide, alum and hydrogen peroxide. Chlorine is
used as a disinfectant to reduce the bacteria population
in the effluent to a safe level. Sulfur dioxide is used
to neutralize any of the residual chlorine not used up in
the disinfection process, since residual chlorine discharged
to the receiving water can be toxic to fish. Alum is used
as a coagulant to enhance solids removal in the secondary
sedimentation step; alum is used only when the flow in the
plant is greater than the design capacity. Finally, hydrogen
peroxide is introduced to the sludge force main to control
the effects of corrosion of the sewer pipe by hydrogen sulfide.
Chlorine and sulfur dioxide are used in the greatest
quantities because they are added continuously; alum and
hydrogen peroxide are used in smaller amounts because they
are used on an intermittent basis. During January 197 9 through
March 1980, chlorine was used at a rate of 27 pounds per
million gallons (190 tons per year) and sulfur dioxide was
used at a rate of 9 pounds per million gallons (67.5 tons
per year). Alum is used intermittently during high flow periods,
and during 1979 was used at an average rate of 9 pounds per
million gallons (78 tons per year). Because flows are con-
tinually increasing, even greater quantities of alum will
be required in the future; the estimated alum use in 1981
is about 28 pounds per million gallons (243 tons per year).
About 9,000 gallons of hydrogen peroxide was required in
197 9 and about the same amount should be required in 1980.
43

-------

>-
«t
Q
CO
a
z
r>
o
Q.
O
O
O
o
UJ
a.
ID
Q
CO
RAW SLUDGE
WAS
1978
1979
1980
SOURCE-- Metro, 1979d.
FIGURE 2-11. POUNDS OF SLUDGE PUMPED TO WEST POINT

-------
Existing Energy Use
In many wastewater treatment plants, energy needs are
partially met by gas produced on-site by the digestion of
sludge. Since the Renton treatment plant sludge is pumped
to the West Point plant, the Renton plant's energy needs
are met exclusively by purchased electricity. Figure 2-12
graphically depicts the energy use and costs at the Renton
plant from 1971 to present. As shown in this figure, the
electrical energy used has remained fairly constant through
the years, due mainly to energy conservation efforts. In
spite of these conservation efforts, rapid escalation in
the unit power rate has resulted in a very significant in-
crease in the total power bill. Figure 2-12 also illustrates
that the power bill increased at a rate significantly greater
than the plant flow. In the future, the plant power bill
can be expected to generally increase in proportion to the
power rate, because conservation efforts are reaching the
maximum obtainable limits at the existing plant. Therefore,
future increases in the plant power bill will be even more
dramatic than in the past.
Existing Costs of Wastewater Treatment
The cost of treating wastewater is generally proportional
to the amount of wastewater treated: when more wastewater
is treated, more chemicals are required, more labor and
materials are needed to maintain the equipment, and more energy
is needed to add air to the water. Table 2-9 displays the
historic costs of wastewater treatment at the Renton plant.
The Nonsewer Area
About 7 5 percent of the study area is not sewered. The
residents of this area rely primarily on conventional septic
tanks and drainfields for wastewater treatment and disposal.
Authorities having the main responsibility for regulating
on-site wastewater disposal are the health departments in
King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. King County health
officials have estimated that from 50,000-100,000 such systems
may be in use, with 80,000 a realistic number (Metro, 1979d).
However, most of the soil types in the nonsewer area have
severe wastewater disposal limitations due to insufficient
depth, slow permeability, flood hazards, or high groundwater.
Septic tanks, as part of their regular maintenance,
need to be pumped to remove the solids accumulation. If
all on-site systems were being pumped on a once-in-three
45

-------
60
•t*
CPi
50
o
CD
2 40
cc
Ul
T.
t—
- 30
tn
Q
20
«i
_i
Q.
10
6.0
5.0
cc
Ui
a.
to
UJ
cc
o
DC
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
600,000 -i
500,000
cc
>-
UJ
a.
g 400,000
<
o
Q
CO
o
o
cc
UJ
o
Q_
U
CC
f—
o
300,000-
200,000
100,000-
6000
* = ESTIMATE
POWER BILL
4000
DRY WEATHER
PLANT FLOWS
EL EC. ENERGY
USED
POWER RATE
80 81
77 78 79
YEAR
FIGURE 2)2. RENTON TREATMENT PLANT ELECTRIC POWER COST VS. TIME
Source: Metro, pors. comm., 1980.		
r->
—t
TO
O
m
TO
o
-<
CO
m
n:
-c
TO
o
¦a

-------
Table 2-9. Costs of Wastewater Treatment
at the Renton Plant
Average
Daily Flow
Year mqd
1974
1975
1976
1977
1973
1979
28.42
31.74
30.34
32.90
39.45
40.27
Operation &
Maintenance
76.70
29.95
90.99
106.99
112.62
129.75
Depreciation
$/mg
29.14
47.34
47.50
49.43
49.43
49.43
Estimated
Transmission
5/n-q
27.80
10.85
32.97
38.77
40.81
47.02
Tbtal
Cost
?/mg
133.64
148.14
171.46
195.19
202.86
226.20
SOURCE: Metro, 1980, pers. comm.
47

-------
year basis, approximately 27 million gallons of septage per
year would be generated (Metro, 1980d), The Renton treat-
ment plant receives most of the septage from the study area.
Recent billing records at the Renton plant show that about
11 million gallons of septage are being treated on an annual
basis. A full-scale septic tank maintenance program would
therefore increase considerably the septage quantities re-
ceived at the Renton plant.
Some "alternative" systems (other than septic tanks)
have been installed in the study area. Those systems in-
clude composting toilet and mound systems. However, the
alternatives are relatively new and their performance has
not been fully evaluated.
48

-------
Chapter 3
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Long-Term Alternatives for Sewer Service Area
Flow Projections and Service Area
The quantity of wastewater that will need to be treated
during the 2 0-year planning period is directly related to
the number of people in the sewer service area. Population
forecasts for the study area project that 805,000 people
will live in the study area by the year 2000 (see Chapter 6).
However, only 681,000 are projected for the sewered area.
The wastewater flow from these 681,000 people was estimated
by Metro using an average contribution of 80 gallons per
capita per day.
Also, inflow and infiltration will increase the quantity
of wastewater in the system. An extensive study of the inflow
and infiltration problem has been prepared as part of Metro's
wastewater planning (Metro, 1980d), indicating that about
1,200 gallons per acre per day would inflow into existing
sewers and that approximately 500 gallons per acre per day
would enter from new sewers.
Allowing for the domestic flow, industrial flow, and
inflow and infiltration, Metro projects that an average wet
weather flow (AWWF) of 101 MGD will occur in the year 2000.
This projection has been prepared using the forecasts based
on PSCOG's "policy" population projection (see Chapter 6),
and the flow may be greater or less depending on actual
growth rates.
The proposed sewer service area identified by Metro,
based on local land use plans and policies, is shown in
Figure 3-1. This figure identifies three types of land
within the study area: the sewer service area (lands pre-
sently authorized for sewer service by local agencies), the
nonsewer area/long-term land use certain (lands which local
policies indicate should not be provided with sewer service),
and the nonsewer area/long-term land use uncertain (lands
where there is no clear local policy guidance, treated as
nonsewer lands for purposes of wastewater management planning).
The consistency of the proposed service area with local land
use plans and policies is analyzed in Chapter 6 of this EIS.
49

-------
figure:

-------
Description of 15 Initial Alternatives
In its preliminary plan, Metro (1980e) presented 15
long-term alternatives for study area wastewater management.
The 15 alternatives were variations of three basic concepts:
(a) expansion of the Renton treatment plant to process all
wastewater generated in the sewer service area (example program
A), (b) expansion of the Renton plant and construction of
a plant in the Kenmore area {example program B), and (c) con-
struction of six satellite plants in addition to Renton plant
expansion and new Kenmore plant construction (example pro-
gram C). The 15 initial alternatives are summarized in
Table 3-1.
Comparative Costs of 15 Initial Alternatives
Table 3-2 compares the capital, annual operation and
maintenance, and present worth costs of the 15 initial long-
term alternatives. From the table it can be seen that the
least cost (present worth) alternative is Alternative A-l,
with a present worth cost of $267 million. The most expen-
sive of the alternatives is C-2, with a present worth cost
of $499 million.
The apparent least cost alternative (Al) provides minimum
treatment to meet the requirements of the proposed NPDES
permit for discharge to the Green/Duwamish River? operation
and maintenance costs are moderately high compared to some
other alternatives. The highest cost alternative (C-2) calls
for construction and operation of eight treatment plants,
one of which is a high-cost AWT plant, and also calls for
construction pf an outfall tunnel; operation and maintenance
costs for Alternative C-2 are the second highest of all the
alternatives because of the high chemical and energy costs
of AWT and pumping to a Puget Sound outfall.
User Costs of Long-Term Alternatives
A homeowner connected to a sewerage system within the
Metro service area pays two separate charges for service.
The first is for the local collection system to which his
home is connected, and the second is for the Metro regional
facilities. The local charge is paid to the local sewering
agency. Local charges cover financing and maintaining local
sewer lines and local pumping facilities, and hook-up charges
for new connections.
Metro owns and operates major interceptor sewers, major
pumping stations, and wastewater treatment plants. In essence,
local collection systems discharge to the Metro system. Metro's
present monthly charge is $3.90 per household per month,
and this charge is additional to charges which the homeowner
pays for the local collection system. (This charge will
increase to $4.50 per month on January 1, 1981.)
51

-------
Table 3-1. Description of 15 Initial Long-Term Alternatives
A1ternative
A-1
A-2
A-3
A- 4
A-5
Configuration
of Treatment
Plants
>. 3
a a
JC
D
S> H
> O S 13
u z o a
CI CO
in a) Ł
•C Tl
Q> 4J O ®
xi ho;

0S<1>
.

U JZ
U
3 +1
o
O
G
-p
*
01 -r4 flj
a

5 M -H
a
<0
O id >
u
QJ i Ł2

v* u, c
a
<0
x: o +j

L0 4J
c
W
. 'i-l c
¦H
o
c E 
e
O
u
CEO
0
0)
ai fd -u

VlKtA
>1

•a
1—1
U
a a h
ai

0
J
¦d u
JE
Q»
-M |J 03
x
U>
c > a:

AS -C r4
tu
ai
1-i 13


a ^

¦rA
O 0)
U

+•> S*

c
c
.G
0)

a>
fr<
qj aj s
c
2
x
c
ui
C *J 0
0
u
rO +J
o
Receiving Water
All treated effluent would con-
tinue to be discharged to the
Green/Duwamish River.
All treated effluent would con-
tinue to be discharged to the
Green/Duwamish River.
All treated effluent would be
diverted via force mains and a
tunnel to the Point Pulley
vicinity for discharge to
Puget Sound.
All treated effluent would be
diverted via a gravity sewer to
Elliott Bay for discharge to
Puget Sound.
All treated effluent would be
diverted via a gravity sewer and
tunnel to Alki Point for dis-
charge to Puget Sound.
Level of Treatment
The level of treatment would
be increased to "advanced
secondary" with nitrification.
The level of treatment would
be increased to "advanced
wastewater treatment" with
nutrient removal.
The level of treatment would
be relaxed to "conventional
secondary" (to a 30/30 level,
i.e., 30 mg/1 BOD and 30 tng/1
SS) .
The level of treatment would
be relaxed to "conventional
secondary" (to a 30/30 level}.
The level of treatment would be
relaxed to "conventional
secondary" (to a 30/30 level].
Total Cost
(present worth,
millions)
$267
$42S
$279
S3J 9
$357

-------
Table 3-1 (cont.)
Alternative
Configuration
of Treatment
Plants
Receiving Water
B-l
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
¦O
<0 +J
> W
U T3 Q)
C 0) S
Q ID ?
O 0
>iQ) J
jQ J3
4-* (Q
¦CO c ^
d)H dj o
>	a w .h
^ o q. J
>	m a>
N C fl
 c
A
T3
H
3
O
i

0 a> to
u
U 14

O
3
E 0
0>
- G
to
CDC

o xs o
a>
+J r4
x:
c a> -p
+j
Q> U

DC ** O
•4-i
a
o c

r« -H +j
-M
<«
C
¦p x:
*>
C G 4->
u
to to
U -H ^-1 Ł

a a o
a
u

-M m
m
c c
r-»
G) 01 u

EEC

•P +» -U

«a «j «a
CO
4) a 3
OS
u u a
W
4J 4J 4i

10
«5
•a j  03 5
o
'O C

C 4J -P
i-5
«0 *0 <0 c
<
a, a> *h
3
X >1 ^ o
Q
a ja jj
Renton effluent would con-
tinue to be discharged to
the Green/Duwamish River.
Kenmore effluent would be
diverted via a tunnel to
Richmond Beach for discharge
to Puget Sound.
Renton effluent would continue
to be discharged to the Green/
Duwaisish River.
Kenmore effluent would be
diverted via a tunnel to Richmond
Beach for discharge to Puget
Sound.
Renton effluent would be diverted
via force mains and a tunnel to
the Point Pulley vicinity for dis-
charge to Puget Sound.
Kenmore effluent would be diverted
via a tunnel to Richmond Beach
for discharge to Puget Sound.
Renton effluent would be diverted
via a gravity sewer to Elliott Bay
for dipcharrr^ to Puget Sound.
Kenmore effluent would be diverted
via a tunnel to Richmond Beach for
discharge to Puget Sound.
Renton effluent would be diverted
via a gravity sewer and tunnel to
Alki Point for discharge to Puget
Sound.
Kenmore effluent would be diverted
via a tunnel to Richmond Beach for
discharge to Puget Sound.
Level of Treatment
Total Cost
(present worth,
millions)	
At Renton the level of treat-	$329
ment would be increased to
"advanced secondary" with
nitrification.
At Kenmore the level of treat-
ment would be "conventional
secondary" (to a 30/30 level).
At Renton the level of treatment	$469
would be increased to "advanced
wastewater treatment" with
nutrient removal.
At Kenmore the level of treatment
would be "conventional secondary"
(to a 30/30 level).
At both Renton and Kenmore the	$35 7
level of treatment would be
"conventional secondary"
(to a 30/30 level).
At ooth Renton and Kenmore the	$3 97
level of treatment would be
"conventional secondary"
(to a 30/30 level).
At both Renton and Kenmore the	$4 35
level of treatment would be
"conventional secondary"
(to a 30/30 level).

-------
Table 3-1 (cont.)
Alternative
Conf iguration
of Treatment
Plant
Receiving Water
Level of Treatment
Total Cost
(present worth,
ir.illionsl
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
c
<2i
e
w til
3 C
O ®
3J3H
CP H
R1 X H'D <1>
CJ 4J ^
^ W c 3 E
¦M o 0 -H
Ł o Jh
^ -+J
0 H u w *o •
¦n J O 4J C iXJ
nj q c A3 H
E —	ra	n
a	tn	a» i M N © p>
.0 3 TJ -H p4 M
CT> ^ «-4 -rt 0)
*0 -rC U flj a Ifl
t» V-f Qj ^
>	s	i	-	>H
M	O	V	C	<2i	G?
ai	u	w	Q)	m	?
U3	o	•-*	O
: 13	(D	(fl If!
GJ W ij)	t	It
A V4 U	Q Ok
oj rc	r-i x
-VJ »-i 0)
H c O 15
3 Q> U) g  w a> c
313^01X01
U O QJ JC flj L>
ITS t C/) Ł- J !m
 a> o q> a.
o © +J • c
w in «j -r< 	~ w <\> a
u w u >,
 © U
0) u: ca
«d
Q»	Ql
0)  -C	-H
. ^ IS	X
«n so*	o
H3 ID	in
a; c *o -	a*
^ m m ^ id	a
E-f fsj- Q> W	/0
C -H S ~h
i 
i: m	"	3	m
HI xl	to	o
a: c	o	o
a>	n c
+J u	10	-H	U
IB B	G	•-»
•O	TJ	3
to	ai	®	o
¦u •"-!	a	*j	s
C H	4J	fl
*0 flj	U	T3
.-< g	o	o	e
a. u>	+j	>-h	rs
Senton effluent would continue
to be discharged to the Green/
Duwamish River. Kenmote effluent
would be diverted via a tunnel to
Richmond Beach for discharge to
Puget Sound. Effluent from the
six decentralized plants would be
stored during the wet season and
used for "nonfood" crop irrigation
during summer months on lands
owned (or controlled) by Metro,
Renton effluent would continue
to be discharged to the Green/
Duwamish River. Kenmore effluent
would be diverted via a tunnel to
Richmond Beach for discharge to
Puget Sound. Effluent from the
six decentralized plants would be
stored during the wet season and
used for "nonfood" crop irrigation
during summer months on lands
owned (or controlled) by Metro.
Renton effluent would be diverted
via force mains and a tunnel to the
Point Pulley vicinity for discharge
to Puget Sound. Kenmore effluent
would be diverted via a tunnel to
Richmond. Beach for discharge to
Puget Sound. Effluent from the
six decentralized plants would be
stored during the wet season and
used for "nonfood" crop irrigation
during summer months on lands owned
(or controlled) by Metro.
Renton effluent would be diverted
via a gravity sewer to Elliott Bay
for discharge to Puget Sound.
Kenmore effluent would be diverted
via a tunnel to Richmond Beach for
discharge to Puget Sound. Effluent
from the six decentralized plants
would be stored during the wet season
and used for "nonfood" crop irrigation
during summer months on land owned
(ui: control led! by Metto,
At Renton the level of treatment
would be increased to "advanced
secondary" with nitrification.
At Kenmore the level of treatment
would be "conventional secondary"
[to a 30/30 level). At the six
decentralized plants the level
of treatment would be "conventional
secondary".
At Renton the level of treatment
would be increased to "advanced
wastewater treatment" with nutrient
removal. At Kenmore the level of
treatment would be "conventional
secondary" (to a 30/30 level). at
the six decentralized plants the
level of treatment would be "con-
ventional secondary".
At Renton, Kenmore and the six
decentralized plants the level of
treatment would be "conventional
secondary" (to a 30/30 level).
5359
At Renton, Kenmore and the six
decentralized plants the level of
treatment would be "conventional
secondary" (to a 30/30 level).
$499
$386
$426

-------
Table 3-1 (cont.)
Configuration
of Treatment
Alternative	Plants	
C-5
Receiving Water
Renton effluent would be diverted
via a gravity sewer and tunnel to
Alki Point for discharge to Puget
Sound. Kenmore effluent would be
diverted via a tunnel to Richmond
Beach for discharge to Puget Sound.
Effluent¦from the six decentralized
plants would be stored during the
wet season and used for "nonfood"
crop irrigation during summer months
on lands owned 
-------
Table 3-2. Comparative Costs of Renton Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Alternative A -
Centralized
Project
Costs
om
per year
Present
Worth
Alternative B -
Dual Centers
Project
Costs
O&M
per year
Present
Worth
Project
Costs
Alternative C -
Ifecen t ra1i zed	
Present
OiJ-l
per year
Worth
Duwamisb River Discharge
1- Nitrification
2. AWT
262*
317
12.6
32.0
267
428
323
355
11.4
28.9
329
468
329
391
11.9
29.4
359
499
Puyet Sound Discharge
3.	Point Pulley
4.	Klliot Bay
5.	Alki Point
310
362
410
8.9
9.0
9.3
279
319
357
392
444
492
8.5
8.6
8.9
357
398
435
428
481
432
9.0
9.1
9.4
386
426
465
* All costs are in millions of dollars.
Source; Metrn, 198 Oh.
3IR-CCI 3500, mid-1980 costs
U.S. WRC, 7-1/8 percent, 20 years

-------
New regional facilities proposed by this project will
be constructed using federal and state grant funds, with
local funds being required for remaining costs not covered
by grant funds. For most of the capital facilities, federal
grants can pay 75 percent of the eligible cost, state grants
15 percent, and local funds 10 percent. If the project is
classified as innovative and alternative by the EPA, the
federal grant can increase to 85 percent, the state grant
becomes 9 percent, and the local share decreases to 6 percent.
In the past, Metro has sold revenue bonds to finance the local
share of the capital costs, and then repaid these bonds using
a portion of the Metro monthly charge.
Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are paid
for by Metro, and no grant funds are involved. O&M costs
are paid for by a portion of the $3.90 monthly charge col-
lected by Metro.
Projected monthly user costs to construct and operate
the initial long-term alternatives are compared in Table 3-3,
assuming 0, 50, and 75 percent grant funding of capital faci-
lities. These various levels of grant funding were used
because of uncertainties regarding grant eligibility of certain
facilities and future availability of grant funds. Although
some minor variations in estimated user costs occur due to
levels of grant funding and staging of construction, the
lowest user costs are for example program A and the highest
user costs are for example program C. Overall, the lowest
monthly cost would be $2.10 for Alternative A-3 with 75 per-
cent funding, and the highest monthly cost would be $9.90
for Alternative C-2 with nutrient removal at the Renton plant
and 0 percent grant funding. It should be emphasized that
the costs shown in Table 3-3 do not include the present charge
of $3.90 per month, and that actual future charges would
be the costs shown in Table 3-3 plus the present $3.90 monthly
charge.
Other Long-Term Alternatives for the
Sewer Service Area
Alternatives Considered and Rejected by Metro
Other alternatives for meeting the long-term needs of
wastewater management were considered and rejected by Metro
early in the planning process. These include large-scale
decentralized facilities, land application of Renton and
Kenmore effluent, wasteload reductions, in-river actions,
and alternative treatment plant layouts. These alternatives
were considered by Metro to be incapable of meeting all the
needs of a long-term project. The following discussion pre-
sents a summary of each of those alternatives.
57

-------
Table 3-3. Total Project Costs and Projected
Monthly Sewer Rate Increases for New Facilities
Alternative
Basic Program
A-l
B-l
C-l
Total Project Cost*
{million dollars)
267
329
359
Percentage of Grant Funding
for Capital Facilities
0%	50%	75%
$5.40
6.10
6.70
3.50
3.70
4.10
2.50
2.60
2.80
Basic Program and Nutrient
Removal at Renton
A-2
B-2
C-2
428
469
499
9.20
9.30
9.90
6.90
6.70
7.00
5.70
5.40
5.60
Basic Program-Renton
discharge at Point Pulley
A-3
B-3
C-3
279
357
386
5.50
6.70
7.30
3.20
3.80
4.10
2.10
2.40
2.60
Basic Program-Renton
discharge in Elliott Bay
A-4
B-4
C-4
319
397
426
6.30
7.40
8.00
3.60
4.20
4.50
2.30
2.60
2.80
Basic Program-Renton
discharge at Alki Point
A-5
B-5
C-5
357
435
465
7.00
8.20
8.80
4.00
4.60
4.90
2.60
2.80
3.00
NOTE: Costs do not include the present charge of $3.90/month.
A charge of $3.90/month must be added to the costs shown in the
table to determine the total monthly charge after the construction
of new facilities.
* Present worth of construction and O&M following EPA cost effectiveness
guidelines (7-1/8 percent, 20 years).
SOURCE: Metro, 1980h.
58

-------
Larqe-Scale Decentralized Facilities. Other possible
sites for large plants considered in addition to Renton and
Kenmore could be North Lake Sammamish or the Soos Creek Plateau.
Additional plants could treat wastewater generated in those
areas and discharge either to nearby bodies of water or to
land.
These plants were not pursued because of high costs.
Advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) would be required for
a discharge to water, and land acquisition would be required
for land application; both of these requirements are costly.
Also, Metro determined that the risk of pollution of Lake
Sammamish was too great from a nutrient contamination stand-
point. Overall, it was determined that the transportation
of those wastes to other areas is more cost-effective than
local treatment and disposal.
Larqe-Scale Land Application. Land application of
effluent from the study area could be considered as an
alternative to disposal in either Puget Sound or the Green/
Duwamish River. Metro (1980h) estimates that, to accommodate
projected 20-year flows from the entire study area, 56,000
acres of land would be required for spray irrigation and
5,000 acres would be required for storage lagoons, based
on a typical effluent application rate in the Seattle area
of 5,000 gallons per acre per day, with a typical storage
lagoon depth of 15 feet. Metro considers the purchase of
such large amounts of land within a growing metropolitan
area to be infeasible.
Wasteload and Flow Reductions. Wasteloads and flows
to the Renton plant could be reduced by controlling infil-
tration/inflow (I/I) or reducing domestic or commercial/
industrial flows. I/I offers the greatest potential for
reduction of total flow in the Renton tributary system.
For both the Renton and West Point systems, as much as 36
percent of the annual flow is due to I/I (Metro, 1980d).
Although a potential of 29.5 MGD could be eliminated through
correction of I/I problems, analysis by Metro showed that
the cost of treating this flow is less than the cost of cor-
recting I/I problems.
Potential treatment plant flow reduction measures identified
by Metro are shown in Table 3-4. Reduction of other flows
by retrofitting homes with watersaving features and appliances,
and requiring them in all new construction, could achieve
a 12 percent reduction in flow by the year 2000. Also,
industrial wasteloads to the plant could be reduced; control
of BOD, solids and heavy metals from industrial sources is
being studied by Metro in its toxicant pretreatment planning
study.
59

-------
Table 3-4. Potential Treatment Plant
Flow Reduction Measures



Wastewater reduction,
percent
Flo* reduction
measures
Action
required
Responsible
agency®
Within
category
Tota 1
flow
X. Domestic
water-saving
devices




a. Existing homes
Public education,
increase water
costs
Water
purveyor
16
6b
b. New homes
Change building
codes
City,
counties
39
«b
JUte structure
Increase water
use costs over
base rate
Water
purveyor
mi nima1
minir.a 1
Public education
program
Purveyor action
Water
purveyor
minimal
minima 1
2. Industrial
pretreatiaent
Implement
pretreatment
program
Metro
Reduction will be in
pollutant load, not
flow
*List of water purveyors follows in Table D2-3.
^Percentage of total flow reduction, year 2000
Vear 1980s •xisting--8 percent, new homes--0 percent
Year 1990: existing—S percent, hew hones — 4 percent
year 2000: existing--6 percent, new homes — 6 percent
\ssumes approximately 40 percent of existing nan-«ewer hones will
be sewered by 2000 .
SOURCE: Metro, 1980h.
60

-------
Satellite Pretreatment. This is similar to Alternative C
except that the effluent would be discharged to the Metro
system. Metro analysis of this alternative indicates that
the benefits do not appear to justify the cost.
In-River Actions. In-river actions were considered
to reduce impacts of the Renton plant effluent. The alter-
natives considered were: (1) wet season retention at Howard
Hansom Dam and dry season release, (2) in-river aeration,
(3) chemical treatment, and (4) bank shading. These alterna-
tives are considered by Metro to either be unrealistic (in
the case of wet season retention) or ineffective as a long-
term solution.
Alternative Treatment Plant Layouts. Several other
possible layouts were considered by Metro but were not
accepted for unspecified engineering and operational reasons.
Wastewater Reuse Alternatives. A portion of the Renton
plant effluent could be reused for a variety of purposes,
such as crop irrigation, landscape or golf course irrigation,
industrial process water, industrial cooling water, or ground-
water recharge. Wastewater reuse can reduce effluent waste-
loads to receiving waters, at the same time augmenting existing
freshwater supplies. In other more water-short parts of
the country, wastewater reuse projects are being successfully
implemented, and are encouraged by the higher level of EPA
funding for innovative/alternative projects.
It has been pointed out by Metro (1980h) that demand
for alternative sources of water in the Seattle area appears
to be low. As growth in population and water demand continue,
however, the market for reclaimed wastewater could improve.
In fact, as discussed in Chapter 6, an additional source
of water supply will be needed for the Seattle region in
the not too distant future (Seattle Water Department, 1980).
Development of this source will increase the future costs
of freshwater supplies, making reclaimed wastewater more
economically viable than at present. Within the next few
years, detailed planning and marketing studies for the reuse
of Renton plant effluent would appear to be appropriate.
The No-Project Alternative
EPA procedures for implementing NEPA require that the
impacts of a no-project alternative be examined in EISs.
Under a rvo-project alternative, no new facilities would be
constructed. Treatment capacity at the Renton plant would
not be expanded. Discharge of the Renton plant effluent
would continue to the Duwamish River. Solids would continue
to be pumped to the West Point plant.
Under the no-project alternative, population growth
within the study area would still be likely to continue,
creating problems for Metro's wastewater facilities. The
61

-------
pump stations that are not already overloaded would be eventually
inundated by excess flow, with resultant overflow of the
pump stations or backup in the interceptors until they over-
flow. The flow that did reach the plant would increasingly
exceed the plant's capacity to completely treat it. Use
of chemicals would increase in an effort to compensate for
the high flows. But, over the long term, flow would increase
until any "nonstructural" method of increasing the plant's
treatment capability would be exceeded. Consequently, partially
treated effluent would be discharged to the river, and Metro
would be in violation of its discharge permit. Continued
permit violations could result in daily fines or a sewer
moratorium within the Renton plant service area.
If none of the facilities discussed in the facilities
plan is constructed, current users would continue to pay
the monthly charge of $3.90; this cost would be likely to
escalate over time as Metro's O&M costs escalate. The biggest
"cost" of a no-project alternative is the unquantifiable
environmental cost which would result from decreased water
quality in the Green/Duwamish River.
Description of Screening/Selection Process
and Final Alternatives
The Selection Process
Metro's selection of alternatives for final consideration
was accomplished by a three-stage screening procedure. The
first stage in the selection process compared the attributes
of each alternative to baseline criteria. The baseline
criteria were water quality, cost and land use. The water
quality standards consisted of Department of Ecology (DOE)
receiving water standards (the Duwamish River is a Class A
stream at the point of discharge); the DOE "nondegradation
policy"; and the DOE "Lake Washington policy" (no discharge
to Lake Washington). Other water quality criteria used as a
baseline were the NPDES permits in effect and the EPA
secondary treatment effluent limitations for surface water
(30 mg/1 BOD, 30 mg/1 suspended solids). The baseline cost
criterion was an EPA threshold for "high cost projects";
for King and Snohomish Counties the threshold is a monthly
cost of $40. The baseline land use criterion was compati-
bility and consistency with applicable municipal and county
land use plans and policies.
62

-------
All 15 alternatives were acceptable when compared to
the baseline criteria. The alternative which survived the
first stage screening and which had the lowest project pre-
sent worth cost is Alternative A-l J it is termed the accept-
able least cost alternative (ALCA).
The second stage screening was used to determine how
well the ALCA and the other alternatives met a more detailed
set of benchmark criteria. The ALCA became a benchmark
for comparison to the other alternatives. Table 3-5 displays
Metro's rating of the 15 initial alternatives against 25
detailed water quality, cost, land use, and other benchmark
criteria; these ratings are explained in the Draft Wastewater
Management Plan.
The third and final stage of the screening/selection
process evaluated alternatives which survived the second
screening process; these "final" alternatives had possible
overriding benefits justifying further detailed analysis
in wastewater management planning. Three alternatives were
considered to have possible overriding benefits. These
alternatives, plus the ALCA, consist of: Alternative A-l
(the ALCA), Alternative A-3 (centralized treatment, dis-
charge at Point Pulley), Alternative A-5 (centralized treat-
ment, discharge at Alki Point), and Alternative B-l (dual
treatment centers/ Renton discharge to the Green/Duwamish
River) .
Expanded Description of Final Alternatives
Alternative A-l. With Alternative A-l, the Renton treat-
ment plant would treat the combined flows of the entire service
area, except the Swamp Creek drainage, which would continue
to be served by the West Point treatment plant. Discharge
of Renton plant effluent would continue to the Green/Duwamish
River. Alternative A-l is illustrated in Figure 3-2.
Under this alternative, the Renton plant would be expanded
to 99 mgd capacity to treat projected 20-year flows. This
requires expansion of the existing 72 MGD primary treatment
facilities by 27 MGD using the existing treatment scheme
and expansion of the activated sludge secondary system by
63 MGD. Expansion of the activated sludge process would
include additional equipment and process modifications to
provide nitrification. The current design of the Renton
treatment plant lends itself to increases in capacity by
increments of 18 mgd to keep the plant in hydraulic balance.
Nine mgd increments may be used, but operationally the balance
is considered by Metro to be more difficult.
All solids captured at the Renton plant would be treated
at the Renton treatment plant site, and solids would no longer
be pumped to the West Point plant. Proposed solids handling
63

-------
Table 3-5. Metro Rating of Initial Alternatives Against
the ALCA to Identify Potential Overriding Benefits
Alternative
Evaluation criteria
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
CI
C2
C3
C4
C -
Water Quality Criteria














DOE water quality














standards
»
4
4
4
X
*
4
4
4
»
*
4
4
4
NPDES permit require-














ments
'
4
4
4
-
*
+
4
4
**
*

4
4
EPA effluent limita-














tions
m
s
*
s
at
m
B
B

*
s
e
=
=
EPA/DSHS drinking














water standards
s
s
s
s
b
=
¦
*
c
-
-
•

~
n sher ies/shellfi sh














protection
=
4
4
4
s
s
4
*
4
B
Jt
4
4

Reliability

4
4
4
4
-
4
4
4

—

*"
—
Receiving water














sensitivity
s
4
4
4
¦
b
4
4
4
C
B
~
4
4
Consistency with 208
-
9
*
*
*
"
*
"
*
m
*


~
Cost Criteria














Monetary costs:














Preser.t worth
-
-
"
"
-
"
"

-

"
"

"
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

~

*"
~
"
OSM
-
4
*
4
4
-
4
4
4
4
"
*
+

Energy/cheir.ical costs:














Electrical energy
-
4
4
4
4
-
4
4
4
4

4
4
4
Chemical
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

*
Labor staff costs
-
M
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
**
~
~
-
Reuse potential
a.
m
m
s
B
B
*
B
B
*

B


EPA/DOE financing
-
«
*
-
»

*
B
=
«
"
*
S
=
Impact of inflation
-
4
4
4
~
-
4
4
4
4
*
4
+
-
User rates
-
4
-
-
"
-
-

~



""

Cost-sharing potential

«
+
4
*

*
4
4
*
"
=
4

Discount rate


s
M
B
"
B
X
s
B
B
B

B
Planning period

*










B

Land Use Criteria














Compatibility

9
b
8
S
-
B
m
-
B
S
a
-
=
Flexibility and staged














construction
*
-
«
<*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
Site impacts
-
S

-
-
"
-
-
-

-
-
-
"
Site acquisition
-

~
W

"
*

—
"

"


Other Criteria














Public input
s
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
~
Environmental
¦
m
¦

"
B
B
B
B
¦
*
"
"

Compatibility with














Puget Sound plans

m
~
4
m
K

4
4
B
m

4

KEY:	+ Advantage compared with ALCA
Disadvantage compared with ALCA
« No net advantage/disadvantage
SOURCE: Metro, 1980g.
64

-------
¦ Itll



- LEGEND
FIOURC 3- 2. ALTERNATIVE A-l

-------
facilities include gravity thickening for primary sludge,
air flotation thickening for waste-activated sludge, and
anaerobic digestion stabilization, followed by belt or
filter press dewatering. The dewatered solids would be
transported to final land disposal/reuse sites; the status
of Metro's long-term solids management planning is discussed
later in this chapter. Methane gas produced during anaerobic
digestion would be utilized at the plant by gas engines,
either directly driving process units or electrical generators.
Collection system modifications would be required for
Alternative A-l. Construction of the Redmond connection
and the North Creek/Hollywood connection would be required
to route North Lake Sammamish and North Lake Washington flows
to the Renton plant; these areas are currently served by
Metro's West Point plant. The Redmond connection includes
two pumping stations and force mains capable of transporting
an ultimate capacity of 75 MGD. The North Creek/Hollywood
connection consists of one pumping station and about 24,000
feet of interceptor piping.
The construction is proposed to take place in two
phases. The first phase would bring the Renton treatment
plant capacity up to 72 MGD, including solids handling, by
19B5. The second phase would increase the plant capacity
to 99 MGD by 1990. The Redmond connection would be com-
pleted by 1984, and the North Creek/Hollywood connection
would be constructed concurrently with the second expansion
of the plant. Those facilities that cannot easily be staged
(e.g., tunnels and gravity sewers) would be sized for an
ultimate planning period of 50 years.
The Phase 1 capital program is estimated to cost $164,1
million, of which $145.3 million is for plant expansion and
$18.8 million for implementing service area changes. The
Phase 2 capital program is estimated to cost $98.1 million,
of which $77.9 million is for plant expansion and $20.2 million
is for service area modification. The annual O&M cost, averaged
over the planning period, is $12.6 million. The project's
present worth is $267 million.
The impact on user rates is a function of the project
costs, the level of grant support, and annua.l costs of O&M.
If no grant funds were available the rate increase due to
Alternative A-l would be $5.40 per month} with 50 percent
grant funding it would be $3.50 per month; and with 7 5 percent
grant funding it would be $2.50 per month.
It is expected that about 98,000,000 Kwh per year will
be required to treat the 99 MGD under Alternative A-l; this
translates to about 2,710 Kwh per million gallons. Annual
tons of chemicals used for Alternative A-l can be anticipated
to be 760 tons per year of chlorine, 240 tons per year of
sulfur dioxide and 4.3 tons per year of ferric chloride.
66

-------
Alternative A-3. Alternative A-3, like Alternative A-l,
is a centralized treatment scheme. However, Alternative A-3
calls for discharge of treated effluent to Puget Sound in the
Point Pulley area. The marine discharge allows a reduced
level of treatment. The advanced secondary treatment of
Alternative A-l may be reduced to a basic secondary treatment
scheme, as defined by EPA requirements (i.e., 30 mg/1 BOD
and 30 mg/1 SS). Alternative A-3 is illustrated in Figure 3-3.
This alternative calls for treating an incoming liquid
stream of 99 MGD to meet the 30/30 effluent requirements.
Because the degree of treatment is less, the capacity rating
on the existing secondary treatment elements may be uprated,
thus reducing the size of additional needed facilities.
All solids collected at the Renton plant would be treated
on the Renton treatment plant site, using the same sludge
handling facilities as Alternative A-l. Since the amount
of solids will be less than with Alternative A-l, the sludge
treatment units may be downsized accordingly.
Effluent from the Renton plant would be discharged through
a tunnel into the marine waters of Puget Sound in the vicinity
of Point Pulley. Precise routing of the tunnel has not been
determined, and would be based on further engineering and
environmental investigations.
The collection system modifications proposed for Alter-
native A-3 are the same as those for Alternative A-l, the
Redmond connection and the North Creek/Hollywood connection.
Project staging for Alternative A-3 is in two phases.
Phase 1 calls for expansion of the treatment plant capacity
to 7 2 MGD, with construction completed by 19 85. Phase 2
would add 27 MGD capacity, with construction completed by
1990. Collection system modifications would be staged and
sized as in Alternative A-l.
The Phase 1 capital program is estimated to cost $233.8
million, of which $74.8 million is for plant expansion, $140.2
million for the effluent outfall, and $18.8 million for service
area changes. The Phase 2 capital program is estimated to
cost $76.0 million, of which $55.8 million is for the plant
expansion, and $20.2 million is for additional service area
changes. The annual O&M cost, averaged over the planning
period, is $8.9 million. The projects's present worth is
$279 million.
The impact on user rates is a function of the project
costs, the level of grant support, and annual O&M cost.
If no grant funds are available the rate increase due to
Alternative A-3 would be $5.50 per month; with 50 percent
grant funding the rate increase would be $3.20 per month;
and with 75 percent grant funding it would be $2.10 per month.
67

-------
¦ Ill
LEGEND-
I* J)
IA»I
FIGURE 3-3. ALTERNATIVES A-3 R A-O (PREFERRED PROORAM)

-------
It is expected that about 87,000 Kwh per year will be
needed to treat the 99 MGD using Alternative A-3; this trans-
lates to about 2,410 Kwh per million gallons. Annual tons
of chemicals used for Alternative A-3 can be anticipated
to be 760 tons per year of chlorine and 3.9 tons per year
of ferric chloride.
Alternative A-5. Alternative A-5 is identical in all
respects to Alternative A-3, with the exception that plant
effluent is transmitted to Alki Point for discharge to Puget
Sound (see Figure 3-3). Effluent from the Renton plant would
be discharged via conventional conduit and tunnel to marine
water off Alki-Point. Precise routing of the tunnel and
pipe have not been determined, and would be based on further
engineering and environmental investigations. The Phase 1
capital program is estimated to cost $333.9 million, of which
$74.8 million is for plant expansion, $240.3 million is for
the effluent outfall, and $18.8 million is for service area
changes. The Phase 2 capital program is estimated to cost
$76.0 million, of which $55.8 is for further plant expansion,
and $20.2 million is for additional service area changes.
The annual O&M cost, averaged over the planning period, is
$9.3 million. The project's present worth is $357.0 million.
The impact on user rates is a function of the project
costs, the level of grant support, and annual O&M cost. If
no grant funds are available the rate increase due to
Alternative A-5 would be $7.00 per month; with 50 percent
grant funding, the rate would $4.00 per month; and with 7 5
percent grant funding, it would be $2.50 per month.
It is expected that about 89,000,000 Kwh per year will
be needed to treat the 99 MGD using Alternative A-5; this
translates to about 2,460 Kwh per million gallons. Annual
tons of chemicals used in Alternative A-5 can be antici-
pated to be 76 0 tons per year of chlorine and 3.9 tons per
year of ferric chloride.
Alternative B-l. Alternative B-l is a dual treatment
center alternative whereby the Renton plant would continue
to serve the existing Renton service area and a new Kenmore
treatment plant would serve the north part of the study area
currently tributary to West Point. Under Alternative B-l,
Renton treatment plant would be expanded to 72 MGD. The level
of treatment would also be upgraded to an advanced secondary
system with nitrification. Alternative B-l is illustrated in
Figure 3-4.
Under Alternative B-l a new 27 MGD treatment plant would
be constructed in the Kenmore vicinity. The plant's treatment
processes would be similar to those of the existing Renton
plant. It would utilize conventional primary sedimentation
followed by an activated sludge secondary system, clarification
chlorination and dechlorination. The Kenmore plant would
be designed and operated to produce a 30/30 effluent (30
mg/1 each of BOD and SS).
69

-------
FlOUftC 3-*. ALTERNATIVE B-1

-------
Solids handling processes for the 72 MGD Renton facility
would be identical to Alternatives A-l, A-3, and A-5. The
Renton plant, with its upgraded treatment, would discharge
directly to the Green/Duwamish River. The Kenmore plant
would require construction of a tunnel and outfall to Richmond
Beach for discharge to Puget Sound.
Alternative B-l does not require the construction of
either the Redmond connection or the North Creek/Hollywood
interceptor. No major collection system modifications are
required for this option.
The staging for Alternative B-l is also in two phases.
Phase 1 calls for expansion of the Renton plant, construction
of Renton plant solids handling facilities, and construction
of 18 MGD capacity at the Kenmore plant, together with the
tunnel and outfall for effluent disposal. All of the Phase 1
construction would be completed by 1985. Phase 2 construction,
to be completed by 1990, calls for expansion of the Kenmore
plant to 27 MGD.
The Phase 1 capital program is estimated to cost $294.8
million, of which $145.3 million is for the Renton plant,
$51.3 million is for the Kenmore plant, and $98.2 million
is for the Kenmore plant outfall to Richmond Beach. The
Phase 2 capital program is estimated to cost $27.8 million
for expansion of the Kenmore plant. The annual O&M cost,
averaged over the planning period, is $11.4 million. The
project's present worth is $329.0 million.
The impact on user rates is a function of the project
costs, the level of grant support, and annual O&M cost. If
no grant funds are available the rate increase due to
Alternative B-l would be $6.10 per month; with 50 percent
funding, the rate increase would be $3.70 per month; and
with 75 percent grant funds, it would be $2.60 per month.
It is expected that about 75,000,000 Kwh per year will
be needed to treat the 99 MGD using Alternative B-l; this
translates to about 2,080 Kwh per million gallons. Annual
tons of chemicals used for Alternative B-l can be anticipated
to be 550 tons per year of chlorine, 170 tons per year of
sulfur dioxide, and 3.8 tons per year of ferric chloride.
The Preferred Long-Term Wastewater Management Program
Selection of the Preferred Program
The final stage of the Metro selection process required
description and comparison of the overriding benefits of
the final alternatives to determine which one would be the
preferred program. The areas deemed to have potential over-
riding benefit were water quality and O&M costs.
71

-------
The water quality considerations addressed were the
potential for deterioration of dissolved oxygen levels and
elevated temperatures in the Green/Duwamish River during
low-flow periods, which usually occur during the early fall
salmon runs. Although Alternatives A-l and B-l involve dis-
charge of an upgraded (nitrified) effluent, they do not solve
the temperature problem. Metro determined that only
Alternatives A-3 and A-5 could fully eliminate water quality
concerns in the Green/Duwamish River.
In reviewing O&M costs Metro evaluated the effect of
inflation on the present worth of each final alternative,
and found that those alternatives with lower O&M costs were
less susceptible to inflation. Metro found that if the infla-
tion rate exceeded 3 percent, Alternatives A-3 and A-5 had
a lower present worth (as much as 30 percent) than
Alternative A-l. Metro also found that the extra cost in
Alternative B-l for the Kenmore treatment plant site and
effluent tunnel did not compensate for the savings of eli-
minating the Redmond connection, eliminating the North Creek/
Hollywood connection, and reducing Renton plant O&M costs.
Alternatives A-3 and A-5 were both selected by Metro staff
as having sufficient overriding benefits to justify selection
as the preferred program. Since Alternative A-3 has the
lower cost, Metro determined that justification of Alterna-
tive A-5 would require evaluation of other "overriding factors"
such as superiority of Alki Point as a discharge location,
cost sharing potential, and easier implementation, which
would justify the $78 million extra cost. No decision is
made in the Draft Wastewater Management Plan regarding the
location of the outfall (i.e., whether Alternative A-3 or
A-5 is preferable). Before this decision is made, Metro
proposes to: conduct additional studies to determine cost
sharing potential, await results of its pretreatment and
toxicant study, and obtain public and agency input on alter-
native outfall locations.
Detailed Description of the Preferred Program
Collection System Changes. The Redmond connection and
the North Creek/Hollywood connection are the primary changes
in the collection system. Both include gravity sewers, pump
stations, and force mains. Metro selected a 50-year staging
period as most cost-effective for sizing gravity sewers,
pump station structures, and purchase of land and rights-
of-way. All other parts of the collection system are sized
for 20 years.
72

-------
The Redmond connection includes two pumping stations,
the York station, with an ultimate capacity of 7 5 MGD and
three force mains, and the Totem Lake station, with an ultimate
capacity of 75 MGD with twin force mains. Costs and phasing
of the Redmond connection are shown in Table 3-6. Previous
Metro studies (Metro, 1978g) have identified the preferred
route alignment, and Metro is currently securing needed rights-
of-way. Metro projects that the Redmond connection should
be ready for detailed design in 1981.
The North Creek/Hollywood connection would not be on-
line until 1993. The North Creek/Hollywood connection would
have an ultimate capacity of 37 MGD, and would include con-
struction of one new pump station, the Woodinville station.
Costs and phasing for this project are shown in Table 3-6.
Metro has deferred detailed staging and alignment decisions
for the North Creek/Hollywood connection until planning for
Phase 2 is initiated.
Wastewater Treatment. The Renton plant would be expanded
to treat a total capacity of 99 MGD and to produce an effluent
that contains not more than 31 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 SS. First
phase expansion would increase the capacity of the secondary
activated sludge units from 36 to 7 2 MGD. Second phase
construction would increase the capacity of the entire plant
from 72 to 99 MGD. Costs for Renton treatment plant liquid
stream improvements with the preferred program are shown in
Table 3-7.
Solids Handling. The proposed solids handling processes
are based on Metro's assumption that the preferred solids
disposal method will be land application. The proposed pro-
cessing will utilize gravity thickening of waste activated
sludge, anaerobic digestion and dewatering. Methane gas
is proposed to be recovered from the anaerobic digestion
process and used as a fuel for engine-driven pumps and blowers.
Other waste heat recovery schemes are also proposed. Blend
tanks are proposed as a method of controlling odors (if raw
sludge bypasses the digesters) and equalizing the flow to
the dewatering facilities. Belt filters are proposed for
dewatering with the liquid filtrate recycled to the plant.
The dry solids would be trucked or railed to a disposal site.
Costs for solids handling facilities under the preferred
program are shown in Table 3-7.
Effluent Disposal. Five alternative pipeline alignments
are proposed to transport the effluent to either Point Pulley
or Alki Point. Cost estimates and design parameters for
the alternative alignments are shown in Table 3-8.
73

-------
Table 3-6. Costs for Redmond Connection and
North Creek/Hollywood Connection



Estinvated cost,
million dollars3
Facility
Item
Quantity
Phase 1
Phase 2
^ Q
Redmond Connection, 75 mga




North Lake Sammamish
108-in. RCP
2,600 ft
2. 34

interceptor




York pump station




Phase 1, 30 mgd
Station
3 pumps at
15 mgd
3.40


30-in. force
2 at 1,400 ft
0.26


main



Phase 2, 7 5 mgc
Pumps
3 at 15 mgd

0. 30

30-in. force
1 at 1,400 ft

0.10

main



Totem Lake interceptor
84-in. RCP
4,100 ft
2.26

Totem Lake pump station




Phase 1, 30 mgd
Station
3 pumps at
15 mgd
3.40


36-in. force
1 at 3,100 ft
0.4 4


main



Phase 2, 7 5 mgd
Pump
3 at 15 mgd

0.30

36-in. force
1 at 3,100 ft

0. 37

main



Redmond interceptor
extension
54-in. RCP
1,300 ft
0. 39

Other costs'5


0.63

Subtotal


13.43
1.07
Engineering, taxes,
contingencies at
4 0 percent


5.37
0.43
Redmond Connection, total
project cost


18.80
1. 50
74

-------
Table 3-6. Cont'd.



Estimated cost,
million dollars"
Facility
Item
Quantity
Phase 1
Phase 2
North Creek/Hollywood Connection,
37 mgd
North Creek/Woodinville
60-in. RCP
3,700 ft

1.44

54-in. RCP
1,700 ft

0. 51
Woodinville pump station
New 37-mgd
station
1

3.60
Woodinvilie/Hoilywood
60-in. RCP
18,500 ft

7.22
Otherb



0.60
Subtotal



13.37
Engineering, taxes,
contingency at 40 percent
North Creek/Hollywo&d connection,
total project cost



5.35
18. 72
Annual 0&MC


0. 53
0.13
Present worth


19.10
6. 30
aENR-CCI 3500.
^Includes special construction requirements such as utility interference, railroad,
highway, or river crossings, and land or easement purchases.
Based on raid-point of planning period.
Listed in this figure are the "firm capacities" for each of the
pump stations. Firm capacity means the capacity of the pump
station with one pump not operating and used as a reserve pump.
SOURCE: Metro, 1980g.
75

-------
Table 3-7. Costs for Renton Treatment
Plant Improvements

Pro]ect
cost, million $
Item
Phase 1
72 mgd
Phase 2
99 mgd
Tota 1
Liquid Stream



Primary
Aeration
Clar iflers
Chlorination and
dechlor ir.ation
0
14.6
11.2
0.4
19.6
11.2
8.7
0. 3
19.6
25.8
19.9
0 . 7
Subtotal
26.2
39.8
66 . 0
Solids Stream



Gravity thickening
DAF
Anaerobic digestion
Dewatering
Gas recovery
Mechanical solids
handling
3.1
6.7
22. 7
3.4
5. 7
2.0
0.9
2.4
7.4
2.8
1.9
0.6
4 . 0
9.1
30. 1
11.2
7.6
2 . 6
Subtotal
48.6
16.0
64.6
Total
74. 3
55.8
1 30 . 6
b
Annual 04M


6. 8
Present worth


135.8
aBased on ENR-CCI = 3500, mid-1980 USWRC discount rate
7-1/8 percent.
Avera«e over the planning period.
SOURCE: Metro, 1980g.
76

-------
Table 3-8. Cost Comparison of Alternative Effluent Discharge Routes



Approxi-
mate
length,
ft
Cost, million dollars
Route
Item
Est imated
size or
number
Estimated cost
by item
Total
project
cost3
Annual
OiM
Pre sen^
wor th



Phase 1
Phase 2
Route A:
Seahur st
Park.
Outfall
Tunnel
Force main
Pump stations
Land and
easements
96 in.
120 in.
Two at
72 in.
Two
3,000
27,000
4,000
9.2
102.2
7.6
19.6
0.2
1.4
140.2
0.6
110.2
Route B:
Lake
Barien
Outfall
Tunnel
Force main
Pump stations
Land and
easements
96 in.
120 in.
Two at
72 in.
Two
3,000
29,000
4,000
9.2
109.6
7.6
19.6
0.5
1.4
147.9
0.6
115.0
Route C:
Poin;
Pulley
Out fall
Tunnel
Force main
Pump stations
Land and
easements
96 in.
120 in.
Two at
72 in.
Two
3,000
33,000
4,000
9.2
124.7
7.6
19.6
0.9
1.4
163.4
0.6
128.0
Route D
V."e st
Duwanish
Outfall
Tunnel
Gravity sewer
Force main
Pump stations
Land and
easements
96 in.
144 in.
14 4 in.
Two at
72 in.
Three
2,200
9,200
51,000
4,800
6.3
50.2
139.a
9.0
32.0
0.3
2.2
240. 3
1.0
183. 2
Route E
East
Duwamish
Outfall
Tunnel
Gravity sewer
Force main
Pump stations
Land and
easements
96 in.
144 in.
144 in.
Two at
72 in.
Three
2,200
9,200
55,000
8, 000
6.B
50.2
148. 7
13.1
32.0
0. 3
2.2
253.3
1. 0
198.0
aBased on ENR-CCI 3500, mid-1980 costs.
^U.S. Water Resources Council discount rate: 7—1/8 percent.
Present worth assumes single phase construction.
SOURCE: Metro, 1980g.
77

-------
Point Pulley. Heading west from the Renton plant toward
the Point Pulley-Seahurst area, three potential effluent
disposal routes were selected. Route A follows South 146th
Street, Route B follows South 152nd Street, and Route C heads
directly to Point Pulley following no street alignment. Because
right-of-way acquisition was an important consideration,
attempts were made by Metro to follow existing public easements
(i.e., roadways, utilities, etc.). Neither of the roadways
mentioned is continuous and so each route would require addi-
tional purchase of right-of-way. Route C, however, would
require right-of-way purchase along nearly its entire length.
All routes would cross the Green/Duwamish River and
the City of Tukwila, and would require tunnels to carry effluent
under the higher elevation areas of Riverton Heights and
Burien. Route A would have a tunnel portal in Seahurst County
Park and an outfall located off the beach there. Route B
would require purchase of land in the residential area to
the west of Lake Burien for a tunnel portal and construction
of an outfall. Route C would cross under Sea-Tac Airport
and continue to Point Pulley, with a tunnel portal and an
outfall located near the point.
Alki Point. The routes to Alki Point would follow the
Green/Duwamish River downstream to the vicinity of Spokane
Street, and then cross under a narrower width of West Seattle
through a tunnel. Two potential routes were selected. Route D
would follow the west side of the Green/Duwamish River, traverse
West Seattle under S. W. Hanford Street, and have an outfall
jutting northwest from Alki Point. Route E would follow
the existing sludge force mains (which transfer sludge from
Renton to West Point) on the east side of the Green/Duwamish
River, then follow East Marginal Way to South Idaho Street,
and cross the river with the existing West Duwamish Siphon.
Route E would then follow the same tunnel alignment as
Route D, under S. W. Hanford Street, terminating with an
outfall due west off Alki Point.
Near-Term Actions
Metro has included in its Wastewater Management Plan
a section titled Near-Term Actions (Chapter 4). The purpose
of that section is to list and describe those projects that
Metro deems should be undertaken as soon as possible. The
section roughly categorizes 17 projects into three groups:
(1) projects in the Renton Phase 1 capital program, (2) future
planning projects, and (3) projects in progress. The 17
projects are listed in Table 3-9.
78

-------
Table 3-9. Near-Term Actions
Phase 1 Capital Program
Facility
Renton Treatment Plant
Solids Handling Facilities
Renton Tunnel/Outfall
Kerurore Pump Station
Upgrade
Redmond Connection
Future Planning Projects
Facility
West Valley Interceptor
Eastgate Trunk
Mill Creek Relief Sewer
Medina System Upgrade
Riverton Pump Station
Action
Expansion to 72 mgd
Develop solids handling
facilities at Renton
Construct facilities to
divert Renton effluent to
Puget Sound
Construct interim facilities
to alleviate capacity/
reliability problems
Construct facilities to
alleviate capacity/
reliability problems
Action
Contractual obligation to
construct new interceptor
Construct facilities to
alleviate capacity problems
Contractual obligation to
construct facilities
relieving capacity problem
Construct facilities to
alleviate capacity/
reliability problems
Construct facilities to
alleviate capacity/
reliability problems
79

-------
Table 3-9 (cont'd.)
Projects in Progress
Facility
Enatai Interceptor
Issaquah Creek Interceptor
Juanita System Upgrade
May Creek Interceptor
Mercer Island Realignment/
Pump Station #6
Sunset/Heathfield System
Upgrade
Sweyoloken Pimp Station
Wilburton Purrpi Station/Siphon
Action
Emergency repairs
Design/construct new facility
to fulfill contractual
obligation
Construct facilities to
alleviate capacity/
reliability problems
Construct new interceptor
Design/construct new
facilities necessitated by
1-90 construction
Construct facilities to
alleviate capacity/
reliability problems
Construct facility to
alleviate capacity/
reliability problems
Construct facilities to
alleviate capacity/
reliability problems
SOURCE: Metro, 1980g.
80

-------
Projects in the Phase 1 Capital Program
The following previously described projects are included
within the Renton Phase 1 capital program: Renton treatment
plant expansion to 72 MGD, Phase 1 solids handling facilities,
the Renton plant tunnel/outfall to Puget Sound, and the Redmond
connection.
An additional Phase 1 project not previously described
is upgrade of the Kenraore pump station. The Kenmore pump
station, which serves the northern portion of the study area,
has several operational, reliability and safety problems.
Peak flows currently exceed the available capacity, pumps are
frequently clogged, there is no back-up power, and no washroom
facilities are available.
The purpose of the Kenmore pump station is to transfer
sewage to the Kenmore interceptor from south Snohomish County,
North Lake Washington and North Lake Sammamish. The flow
to the pump station would be reduced by the construction
of the Redmond connection and the North Creek/Hollywood inter-
ceptor. Swamp Creek flows would continue to be pumped by
the station.
Phase 1 construction is intended to rehabilitate the
structure and increase the capacity from 11 MGD to 16.5 MGD.
The Phase 1 project costs are estimated to be $399,000. The
changes are expected to be completed by mid 1982. Expansion
for Phase 2 would be coordinated with the design of the North
Creek/Hollywood interceptor.
Future Planning Projects
Five near-term projects have been identified for future
planning and implementation (see Table 3-9). These projects
require additional planning prior to detailed design and
construction.
Projects in Progress
Metro has identified eight near-term projects as currently
in progress. For each of those projects, planning has been
completed and work is proceeding on design and construction.
Because of the advanced status of those projects, they are
proceeding independently of the Draft Wastewater Management
Plan.
81

-------
Solids Disposal Alternatives and Costs
The purpose of this section is to describe the alterna-
tives that Metro is currently considering for disposal of
solids generated at its various wastewater treatment plants.
Although, certain solids handling methods are being proposed
for each of the long-term Renton wastewater management alter-
natives, ultimate solids disposal is not a part of any of
the alternatives.
Metro is currently undertaking a planning study of long-
term solids disposal options. As part of this study, a pre-
liminary cost-effectiveness analysis of solids disposal options
was conducted (Metro, 1980i); the cost estimates in this
preliminary study may be modified as a result of further work.
The goal of the cost-effectiveness study was to determine the
sludge management program which would, for a 20-year planning
period, accomplish specific objectives.
The results of the cost-effectiveness study are reviewed
here to establish the relationship between the Renton treat-
ment plant solids handling facilities described earlier and
long-term solids disposal alternatives. Environmental assessment
of the long-term solids disposal alternatives will, however,
occur under separate NEPA and SEPA processes.
Current Sludge Disposal Methods
Metro's sludge treatment and handling is centralized
at the West Point treatment plant. Sludge treatment pre-
sently consists of conventional anaerobic digestion to
stabilize the sludge and reduce the quantity of volatile
solids. The digested sludge is dewatered to achieve a sludge
cake that contains about 18 percent solids. The dewatered
sludge is then transported to a disposal or reuse site.
Sludge disposal and reuse during the past 15 years have
been oriented toward examining the advantages and disadvantages
of alternative methods for disposal. The methods examined
include deepwater disposal, soil rehabilitation, crop fertili-
zation, energy recovery, and sanitary landfill disposal.
The quantity of sludge during the past 15 years has
increased. During the period 1974 through 1979 the average
dry tons produced per day ranged from 23 in 1974, to 28 in
1979, approximately a 4 percent increase per year. The recent
use of alum to improve treatment process performance has
82

-------
substantially increased the volume of sludge to be treated
and continued use of alum will increase the volume of sludge
above historic rates of increase. Sludge production for
the Metro system is projected to increase from 28 dry tons
per day in 197 9 to 63 dry tons per day in 1985, to 83 dry
tons per day in 2000.
Identification of Options
Eleven options were considered by Metro for sludge
utilization or disposal. The options were selected on the
basis of: (1) previous operational experience in the Puget
Sound area, or wide-scale implementation nationwide;
(2)	research on utilization options conducted by Metro; and
(3)	potential for energy recovery. Systemwide treatment
of sludge at the West Point and Renton facilities was assumed
for all disposal options.
Sludge treatment processes for all use or disposal options
were the same, and were identical to the treatment processes
proposed for the Renton plant as part of the Draft Wastewater
Management Plan. It was assumed that anaerobic digestion
would be the principal stabilization process. This process
was selected because it is self-sustaining and produces methane
gas for energy recovery. It was also assumed that the stabilized
sludge could be dewatered by a method that would achieve
18 percent solids before disposal, if needed.
Ocean Disposal. Under this option, digested, liquid
sludge would be barged to ocean waters off the Olympic Peninsula
which have previously beem permitted as dump sites for munitions
and ocean dredge spoils. A force main would be constructed
from the Renton plant to a new barging site located either
on the Green/Duwamish Waterway or Elliott Bay. This option
would be inconsistent with federal policies which discourage
ocean disposal of sewage sludge.
Conventional Incineration. Under this option, multiple-
hearth incinerators would be installed at both the West Point
and Renton treatment plants. Dewatered, undigested sludge
would be incinerated on site, and the ash residue would be
hauled by truck for final disposal to the King County landfill.
Primary sludge at West Point would be put through clarifiers
and then dewatered; at the Renton plant, waste-activated
sludge would be thickened and then dewatered. Both would
then be fed into incinerators. Emission control equipment
would be installed to comply with air pollution requirements.
83

-------
Co incineration. An alternative to conventional incineration
would be codisposal of sludge with municipal solid waste.
Although there is little operational experience in the U. S.
with this technology, coincineration has the potential for
significant energy recovery through the generation of steam.
For this option, liquid sludge from both treatment plants
would be transported by force main to a centralized handling
facility in an industrial area for dewatering and combustion,
and ash residue would be hauled by truck to the county landfill.
The low-grade steam generated by the facility would be sold
to local industrial users. Emission controls would be similar
to conventional incineration.
Sanitary Landfill. Sanitary landfilling has occasionally
been used by Metro in recent years. Under this option, digested
and dewatered sludge would be truck-hauled to the county
landfill. Landfilling could be implemented at any time;
however, the long-term lor 20-year) availability and cost
of sanitary landfilling in King County are considered highly
uncertain.
Silviculture. Metro has undertaken extensive research
on sludge application to forestlands as a soil and plant
amendment to provide additional nutrients. The tree growth
response to sludge application demonstrated by this research
indicates its potential. Two approaches are considered as
long-term options by Metro. The first involves hauling digested,
dewatered sludge from both treatment plants to a small number
of privately owned sites and application to second-growth
timber stands. Sludge would be truck-hauled from the treat-
ment plants to these sites and temporarily stored for final
application. Spray pumpers would be used for actual application.
Under the second approach, liquid sludge (4 percent solids)
would be barged to sites on the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsula
for spray application to second-growth sites in the same
manner as dewatered sludge.
Soil Improvement. Metro has conducted a variety of
soil improvement projects. Sludge has been applied to areas
with poor soils to amend these soils to produce improved
vegetation growth. The soil improvement option involves
transporting the digested, dewatered sludge from the treatment
plants to the site by truck, and either allowing it to dry
on-site, or immediately spreading and tilling it into the
soil by plowing, and then seeding. The sludge can be mixed
with sand or sawdust at the point of application to improve
the mixing process, depending on the condition of existing
site soils. The application sites would include a portion
of land to be purchased and maintained by Metro. The sites could
be used for a variety of purposes following sludge application.
84

-------
Composting. Composting digested, dewatered sludge could
provide a nonagricultural fertilizer for use in parks, road-
sides, recreation areas, and other publicly-controlled lands.
This option consists of a central facility for sludge storage,
composting, and stockpiling of the final product. Digested,
dewatered sludge would be hauled by truck to this facility,
and the composted product would be delivered by truck to
the consumers. The composting method used would consist
of large, static windrows similar to those being examined
in an ongoing University of Washington demonstration project.
Application of the compost product would be subject to regula-
tion under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Of 1976 (RCRA).
Agricultural Use. Two options were considered by Metro
for agricultural use of digested, liquid sludge. In the
first, the land required would be purchased, with possible
leasing arrangement for tenant farmers; in the second, land
use agreements would be developed with private farmers and
Metro would assume application costs. The land considered
appropriate for the agricultural application, based on agricultural
use and proximity to the treatment plants, would be located
in the Green River Valley and the Enumclaw Plateau. Sludge
would be transported by force main to storage lagoons and
then applied to the agricultural sites by tank trucks equipped
with pumps. Application would be subject to regulation under
RCRA.
Selection of A Recommended Program
The advantages, disadvantages, and costs of each
candidate program have been discussed in detail in Metro's
sludge disposal cost-effective analysis. The costs of the
options are tabulated in Table 3-10. Based on a comparison
of each option's reliability, flexibility, environmental
impact, reuse potential, public acceptance, and cost, Metro
has developed a preliminary program design with the following
elements:
o From 25-50 percent of Metro's sludge will be used as
a forest and plant amendment for the 20-year planning
period. The use of trucks versus barges has not been
determined.
o About 45-75 percent of the sludge will be used for
reclaiming marginal and poor soils. Between 2,800 and
5,250 acres of land will be purchased and leased for
this purpose.
o Up to 10 percent of Metro's sludge will be composted
sludge. The product will be made available for dis-
tribution to public agencies and commercial bulk users
for public landscaping projects.
85

-------
Table 3-10. Costs of Candidate
Sludge Disposal Systems
Candidate	Annual Cost: Present 'Worth Unit Ccst
System	($1,000)	($1,000) ($/dry ton)
Puget Sound Outfall	6,154	69,167	280
Ocean Dispersal	8,021	90,151	365
Conventional Incineration	12,205	137,177	554
Co-incineration	15,159	170,378	689
Sanitary Landfill	9,996	112,349	454
Silviculture (18%)	9,966	112,349	453
Silviculture (4%)	8,040	90,364	366
Coirposting	9,790	110,034	^.45
Soil Improvement	11 '«88	129,-118	524
Agriculture w/land	18,722	2"'n,424	851
Agriculture w/o land	13,552	15/', "16	616
SOURCE: Metro, 1980i.
86

-------
It is estimated that the proposed program will require
from $392-$505 per dry ton of sludge depending on the final
program mix selected.
Alternatives for the Nonsewer Area
Most residents in the nonsewer portion of the study
area will continue to use on-site individual or small community
wastewater treatment and disposal methods over the next 20
years. Although many of the soils in King County have been
found to have severe limitations, on-site methods have been
successfully used. The traditional septic tank/leach field
system can be used, but diligence must be used in the design,
construction, inspection, and maintenance of the systems.
Capital costs for a septic tank and absorption field
in the study area typically range from $900-$2,100, depending
on the size of the absorption field. If an initial $1,500
cost for a septic tank and drain field is capitalized over
a 20-year period at an 8 percent interest rate, this is equi-
valent to an annual cost of $150, or about $12.70 per month.
Adding a $15 per year ($1.25 per month) cost for septic tank
pumping to the capitalized cost results in an estimated monthly
cost of $13.95.
Other systems are available for on-site wastewater treat-
ment and disposal as an alternative to septic tanks for use
in the nonsewer area. Some of the methods identified by
Metro, their approval status, potential impact on residential
density, and costs, are listed in Table 3-11.
In the past, on-site systems have been viewed as a short-
term solution for wastewater treatment. In 1977 the King
County council called for the strengthening of regulations
to improve performance of on-site systems, thus, moving in
the direction of long-term use of on-site systems. The Seattle-
King County Health Department in 1980 adopted revised regula-
tions governing on-site systems which recognize these systems
as long-term waste management options.
Metro's Draft Wastewater Management Plan sets forth a
series of recommendations, to be implemented by local health
and land use agencies, designed to protect water quality
and public health in nonsewer areas. These recommendations,
which assume that on-site methods will continue to be the
preferred method of wastewater management in the nonsewer
areas, may be summarized as follows:
o Establish a comprehensive program for design, con-
struction, and maintenance of on-site and community
systems.
87

-------
Table 3-11 • Qn-Site and Ccranunity Wastewater Treatment
and Disposal Technologies
00
oo
Treatment Technologies
(nust be coupled with* disposal
technology)
Septic Tank
Aerobic Treatment
Complete Recycling
Composting Toilets*1"
Granular Filtration
Creywater Recycling
Incinerating Toilets Ml
Oil Recirculating ToiletsMl
Disposal Technologies
(nust be coupled with a
treatment technology)
Absorption Fields
Leaching Chambers
Sheldon Network
electro-Osmosis
Evapotranspira tion
Hounds/Fills
Seepage Pits
Holding Tanks
Approved for
Use by*'*
DSHS, SKCHD, SHO
DSNS, SKCHD
DSHS, SKCHD
DSHS, SKCHD, SHO
DSHS
DSHS, SKCHD
SKCHD
Potential Impact on
Residential Densities M
sane
significant increase
marginal increase
sane
marginal increase
Marginal increase
marginal increase
marginal decrease
narginal decrease
marginal increase
significant increase
Installation
Costs'0'
$ 400-600
$1,000-1,000
$8,000-10,000
$ 700-3,200
$1,500-3000
$ 600-2,100
$ 600-1,200
$4,500-6,000
$ 500-1, 500 The use of dosing equipment would result in operation and maintenance costs of $20-50 annuElly.
(f) Installation costs may be significantly higher if the absorption field requires an alternating or dosing design.
90URCE: 142 tro, 1980g.

-------
o Identify an areawide management agency and implement e.
program demonstrating long-term commitment to
management of nonsewer areas.
o Establish on-site management zones in nonsewer
areas where system performance or soil condition
is poor.
o Establish a routine performance monitoring system.
o Further strengthen existing rules and regulations
to emphasize proper design and construction.
o Provide adequate staffing and funding for on-site
wastewater management programs, and provide adequate
enforcement of rules and regulations.
o Encourage experimentation with alternative technologies.
o Establish public education program emphasizing the long-
term nature of on-site systems and proper design,
construction, and maintenance.
Triggering Mechanism
The triggering mechanism is a monitoring program pro-
posed by Metro's facilities plan to accomplish two purposes:
(1) to provide advance notice for needed expansions or
additions to the Metro sewerage system, and (2) to monitor
the performance of on-site systems in nonsewer areas.
To accomplish the first purpose, monitoring of popula-
tion, wastewater flow, and sewer service area changes is
proposed. The triggering mechanism will act as a timing
device to indicate when a decision must be made to construct
an expanded or new treatment plant, pump station, or inter-
ceptor sewer. Possible courses of action include taking
some nonstructural action (e.g., flow reduction, modifying
facility operation), as well as structural alternatives.
Monitoring the performance of on-site systems is proposed
to be the joint responsibility of local land use and health
agencies, and Metro. It is assumed that local land use and
health agencies will provide the necessary assessment of
on-site system performance. Metro would identify existing
or potential water quality problems through its lake and
stream monitoring program. When a problem area is identified,
appropriate local land use and health agencies would be asked
to chair a meeting to verify the ppoblem and choose an appro-
priate course of action. Alternative courses of action include
establishing an on-site wastewater management district, develop
ing a community wastewater system, installing a new on-site
technology, connecting to the centralized sewerage system,
or taking no-action other than further study or evaluation.
89

-------
Metro proposes the preparation of an Annual Wastewater
Management Plan update. This update would include a status
report on the Renton sewerage system and nonsewer area moni-
toring .
Approach to EIS Evaluation of Alternatives
Comprehensively evaluating the direct and secondary environ-
mental impacts of long-term wastewater management alternatives
for the 6 20-square-mile study area is a complex undertaking.
The general approach taken here is to separately consider
the construction and site-related impacts of components included
in the four final long-term alternatives (Chapter 4); the
operational impacts of these long-term alternatives (Chapter 5);
and the secondary growth-related impacts common to all alterna-
tives (Chapter 6). The assessments in Chapters 4 and 5 do
not comprehensively consider all 15 initial alternatives,
in order to simplify the analysis. The assessments do, however,
shed light on the major facility-related issues of treatment
plant configuration (centralized vs. dual treatment centers
vs. decentralized plants) and level of treatment/receiving
water (continued Duwamish discharge with upgraded treatment
vs. Puget Sound discharge with secondary treatment).
The triggering mechanism, the near-term actions, and
the nonsewer area alternatives proposed as parts of the
Metro Draft Wastewater Management Plan are not separately
assessed for impacts in the EIS. The triggering mechanism
is essentially a mitigation measure for assisting in the
implementation of the long-term program, and for monitoring
the performance of on-site systems in nonsewer areas; thus,
there are beneficial impacts, but no adverse impacts, attri-
butable to the triggering mechanism. Near-term actions proposed
for Phase 1 of the preferred program are not separately assessed
here because they are assessed together with the entire pre-
ferred program. Other near-term actions (projects for which
further planning is needed, projects in progress) are not
part of the current decisions which are to be made a part
of the Renton facilities plan; environmental review of these
projects has or will be accomplished separately from this
EIS process. Lastly, alternatives for the nonsewer area
are not separately assessed here because they are not presented
as grant-fundable projects by Metro at this time; however,
environmental impacts of and mitigation measures for on-
site systems in the nonsewer area are assessed in the
secondary groundwater impacts section of Chapter 6 of the EIS.
90

-------
Chapter 4
CONSTRUCTION AND SITE-RELATED IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Overview
Each of the long-term wastewater management alternatives
for the Lake Washington-Green River Basins has different
components. Each of these project components will have dif-
ferent construction or site-related impacts on the environment.
Table 4-1 is a summary rating of the construction and
site-related impacts of the components making up each alter-
native; the table also lists mitigation measures for each
adverse impact. For the preferred program, all the project
components are shown. For alternatives, only components
in addition to those required for the preferred program are
listed; it should be noted that implementation of these alter-
natives would also eliminate the need for construction of
one or more preferred program components.
Table 4-1 indicates that, in general, construction and
site-related impacts associated with project components are
minor, except for certain impacts of constructing the effluent
tunnel and outfall under the preferred program or Alternative B-l.
None of the impacts shown in Table 4-1 would occur if the
no-project alternative were implemented.
The remainder of the chapter expands upon construction
and site-related impacts of each alternative. The last section
is a comparative analysis of the construction employment
impacts of the long-term alternatives.
Impacts of Preferred Program
The preferred program includes construction of the following
components: collection system changes (Redmond connection,
North Creek/Hollywood connection, Kenmore pump station),
Renton treatment plant expansion, solids handling facilities,
and a tunnel and outfall to Puget Sound,
Collection System Changes
Redmond Connection.
Description of Existing Environment. The proposed Redmond
connection would be located in the vicinity of N.E. 124th
Street and a branch of the Burlington Northern Railroad system
just east of Totem Lake, King County (Figure 4-1). Northeast
91

-------
Table 4-1. Overview of Construction and Site-Related Impacts of Project Components
Preferred Program
Impacts
Potential incanpatibility
with adjacent land uses
Disruption of recreational
uses
Cultural resources
Traffic disruption
Visual aesthetics
Safety hazards
Noise arid dust
Spoils disposal
Construction equipment
exhaust missions
Soils erosion
loss of vegetation;
wildlife disturbance
Surface water quality
and aquatic biology
impacts
Disruption of benthic
habitat
Construction employment
5
3
•H
«-* a
as,
0 X X
XXX
O	X X
o o o
+ +¦ +
s
3
4J 4J
ID Cj
SB
38
3s*
ill §
Bl
p
•Qi-H
*a«
§ C'^
c F3 4->
»a!5
Mitigation Measures
Establish adequate buffer zones
Design treatment plant to blend with
neighborhood
Adequate odor controls
Minimize night operations
Schedule construction during off-peak
recreation periods
Conduct detailed archeological survey
prior to construction
If resources found during construction,
halt work and call in qualified
archeologist
Reroute traffic around construction
sites and provide flagcen
Pence or otherwise screen construction
maintenance areas
Revegetate denuded areas
Store equipment in areas that are not
highly visible
Keep curious bystanders away frati
construction sites
Minimize length of time trenches are
left open
Xeep soil watered down
Require vehicle noise cavtrols
Minimize night operations
Use spoils for fill or dispose in a
an acceptable location
Keep engines in tune
Confine soil and vegetation renoval
to smallest possible iraa
Reseed or replant disturbs! areas is
soon as possible
Minimize removal of native vegetation
Reseed or replant disturbed areas as
socn as possible
Construction should occur during low
flow periods and when anadrcmous fish
would be least affected
Limit areas of disturbance to inrned-
iate outfall location
Bone required
Explanation of Impact Ratings:
0	- no impact
x - minor adverse impact
X - moderate adverse impact
1	- uncertain intpact
+ - beneficial utpact
aOnly project carponents in addition to those required for the preferred program are listed; these alternatives would also
eliminate the need for construction of one or more preferred program carponents - see text. Alternatives A-l and a-t also
require purchase of an additional 19 acres at the Renton treatment plant site; this is an adverse inpact not shared by the
preferred program.
92

-------
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
KING COUNTY
Y
80THEU WAY NE
BOTHELL
INTERSTATE
405
TOTEM LAKE P. S.'
• NE 124 th ST.
KIRKIAND
WASHINGTON
NE 116 th ST :
132 nd
AVE NE
REDMOND
CONNECTION i
YORK P.S.
i
SCALE IN MILES
WOODINVILLE P.S.
NORTH CREEK/HOLLYWOOD
CONNECTION
-NE 145 th ST
-NE 124 tti ST
NOTE: REDMOND CONNECTION ROUTE BASED
ON PREVIOUS METRO STUDIES
NORTH CREEK /HOLLYWOOD ALIGNMENT
TO BE FINALIZED IN FUTURE STUDIES
Q PUMP STATION
¦¦pipe
III EXISTING NORTH
CREEK TRUNK
WOOD INVILLE -
REDMOND ROAD
REDMOND
Figure 4-1. Alignment of Redmond Connection and
North Creek/Hollywood Connection
SOURCE: Metro, 1980g.
93

-------
124th Street provides access from Interstate 405 to State
Route 202 and Avondale west of the Sammamish River. Land
use along the 12,500-foot-long alignment is a mixture of
industrial, commercial, transportation, agriculture (turf
and pasture), and recreation (Sammamish River). Both the
Totem Lake and York pumping stations would be located adjacent
to the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks.
Topography along a major portion of the alignment is
gently sloping, with a steep gradient between the western
branch of the Burlington Northern Railroad and 142nd Avenue
N.E. The steep portion (approximately 500 feet) is considered
an erosion hazard area by King County (Department of Planning
and Community Development (1980a).
Vegetation, for the most part, consists of herbaceous
growth (grasses, forbs) scattered patches of second-growth
(big leaf maple), and introduced species (in urban areas).
Approximately 2,300 feet of the alignment is within the 100-
year floodplain of the Sammamish River (Department of Planning
and Community Development, 1980a).
Approximately 2,600 feet of the Redmond connection (the
North Lake Sammamish interceptor and York pumping station
portion) paralleling N.E. 124th Street will be constructed
within the Sammamish Valley/Bear Creek Agricultural District
(Class II soils).
Assessment of Impaats. Table 4-1 presents an overview
of construction and site-related impacts of the Redmond con-
nection and lists mitigation measures for adverse impacts.
Virtually all features of the Redmond connection (pump stations,
gravity pipes and force mains) will lie adjacent to existing
transportation corridors (N.E. 116th Street, N.E. 124th Street
and the Burlington Northern Railroad), and will be compatible
with existing land uses and zoning. Easements will be required
through or adjacent to 31 parcels. Some fill will be required
in the vicinity of the York pumping station, near Slater
Avenue N.E. (N.E. 12 4th Street) and at the Totem Lake pumping
station.
The impact on cultural resources is uncertain at this
time. Portions of the alignment (specifically the North
Lake Sammamish Interceptor) will lie within an area of "high
potential" for archeological resources (see Appendix A,
Chapter 4). However, much of the alignment has been greatly
disturbed by previous construction activities. Once the
precise alignment is known an archeological survey will be
conducted.
According to the King County sensitive areas map folio
(1980), portions of the alignment will be within seismic
and erosion hazard areas and within the 100-year floodplain
of the Sammamish River. Furthermore, construction will be
94

-------
necessary within the riverbed of the Sammamish River at one
point. Special construction techniques would be necessary
to prevent erosion problems on the steep slopes and major
impacts on water quality and streambed conditions within
the Sammamish River.
Construction of a portion of the York force mains may
require removal of several big-leaf maple trees at the corner
of N.E. 124th Street and Burlington Northern Railroad, and
of an unoccupied structure on the northwest corner of the
intersection.
North Creek/Hollywood Connection.
Desarivtion of Existing Environment. Much of the pro-
posed North Creek/Hollywood connection will traverse agricul-
tural land from Woodinville south to the existing Hollywood
pumping station at N.E.- 124th Street (see Figure 4-1). Scat-
tered areas of transportation and commercial land uses occur
in Hollywood and Woodinville near State Route 522.
Topography along the route is relatively flat, parti-
cularly from Woodinville south to the Hollywood pumping station.
Some scattered wetlands occur along the east side of the
Sammamish River, south of Woodinville (King County, 1980).
Assessment of Impacts. Table 4-1 presents an overview
of construction and site-related impacts of the North Creek/
Hollywood connection, and lists mitigation measures for adverse
impacts. The North Creek/Hollywood connection is projected
to be a Phase 2 project, and for that reason the exact align-
ment is not known at this time.
The alignment would pass through areas considered sensi-
tive by King County. Most of the alignment from Bothell
south to N.E. 124th Street would be within a Class III seismic
hazard area and the 100-year floodplain of the Sammamish
River and Bear Creek. The alignment would require one stream
crossing (Bear Creek) and construction through several wetlands
just sound of Woodinville (King County, 1980).
The proposed pipeline would also traverse land within
the Sammamish Valley/Bear Creek Agricultural District and
would parallel the Sammamish River Parkway.
Special construction methods will be necessary to handle
potential seismic risks and to ensure the continued viability
of the wetland areas.
Kenmore Pump Station.
Description of Existing Environment. The Kenmore pump
station is an existing feature of Metro's sewerage system.
The pump station is located at the north end of Lake Washington
95

-------
near N.E. 175th Street and 68th Avenue N.E., and encompasses
an area of approximately 2,000 square feet.
Existing land use in the area is commercial and services,
bordered by industry. The pump station is fenced from N.E.
175th Street. The fenced area contains the existing pump
station facilities and a large grassed area which could sup-
port future expansion.
Assessment of Impacts. Because the proposed action
is to upgrade an existing facility, construction impacts
would be minimal. Phase 1 (1981 construction) improvements
would include the installation of new pumps, and safety and
sanitation equipment for maintenance crews. All improvements
would be at the existing station.
Phase 2 (1990 construction) would include construction
of a new underground pump station and force main adjacent
to the existing structure. Table 4-1 presents an overview
of construction and site-related impacts of the Kenmore pump
station improvements, and lists mitigation measures for
adverse impacts. No cultural survey has been conducted at
the pump station, but one may be required prior to the
Phase 2.
The proposed near-term and future improvements to the
pump station would be compatible with existing land uses.
Sufficient land is available at the site to construct the
proposed features.
Renton Treatment Plant Expansion
Description of Existing Environment. The Renton treatment
plant is located next to the Green/Duwamish River in a pre-
dominantly industrial area at the western edge of the City
of Renton. The site is surrounded by industrial and rail-
road uses. A hill is located on the western edge of the
property, and the right-of-way for a drainage channel to
be constructed by the Soil Conservation Service borders the
site on the north and east. The hill and drainage channel
right-of-way constitute significant constraints on the loca-
tion of planned improvements to the plant.
Figure 4-2 illustrates the Renton treatment plant layout
and the proposed location of components of the preferred
long-term wastewater management program. Construction of
the proposed facilities will require fill to raise elevations
on the undeveloped part of the site from 16 feet to between
26 and 34 feet. A flood hazard analysis presented in Metro's
comparison document indicates that the treatment plant site will
receive adequate protection from floods.
96

-------

*C,.
f
( SECONDARY CLARtfltfl
a
Ł3^3
, PRIMARY |
TRCATMEMt
..Jid
* | Amim
f
PL-HP
tDICŁSTIDN \
WKKMRS
w>«i«
»u>-
K tmkTlQS
rwitiwr
T*»r*Es
iTRucn-sr
^ CAS fcfeCOVŁf?Y
00 |
#SllfOGŁ
	j
^:>0CWATŁ*W
CMC*
fc?ry ft
^ ^r. °^0a
¦*>©0
&1	^
?'STl«c
1, *-)
"' *«*
lit;
\ 1

-------
Much of the currently undeveloped area upon which new
facilities are proposed for construction has been extensively
modified due to fill activity undertaken at the time the
treatment plant was initially constructed. Soil corings
conducted as part of a cultural resources survey undertaken
for this EIS (see below) indicate that surface soils in the
undeveloped part of the site are primarily brown to grayish-
brown clayey silt. Most of the undeveloped part of the site
is vegetated with native grasses and weeds and occasional
stands of trees.
Subsurface coring at the treatment plant site was under-
taken by the University of Washington Office of Public Archeo-
logy as part of this EIS because a major archeological find
had been discovered at the immediately adjacent Earlington
golf course. {At the Earlington site, University of Washington
archeologists discovered a prehistoric Duwamish Indian village
thought to be between 400 and 1,000 years old.) A total
of 59 core samples was taken at the treatment plant site
to a depth of 1.8 meters; sample locations are shown in
Figure 4-3. None of the 59 cores indicated the presence
of subsurface cultural resources. In two of the cores,
occasional flecks of charcoal were noted, but these were
not considered significant. No stratigraphic bands were
observed in any of the samples, and no artifacts were
recovered.
Assessment of Impacts. Phase 1 of the preferred long-
term program calls for expansion of the Renton treatment
plant to 72 MGD by 1985; this requires construction of two
additional aeration tanks, four secondary clarifiers, and
additional disinfection facilities. Phase 2 calls for
expansion of the plant to 99 MGD to serve 20-year flows;
this requires the additional construction of four primary
sedimentation tanks, two aeration tanks, four secondary
clarifiers, and disinfection facilities. The proposed
locations of these facilities are shown in Figure 4-2.
Construction and site-related impacts of treatment plant
expansion are listed and rated in Table 4-1, which also lists
mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Land use
incompatibility and cultural resource impacts, although poten-
tially the most important of the site-related impacts listed
in Table 4-1, do not appear to be major concerns. Land use
incompatibility is not a major concern because industrial
or railroad uses surround the site. To the east, beyond
the drainage channel which borders the site, First City
Equities has purchased the Earlington golf course and is
planning to construct a manufacturing park containing ware-
houses, businesses, and offices. These uses should also
be compatible with the proposed treatment plant improvements,
provided that sufficient buffering is maintained between
the two properties.
98

-------
50m	
75m	
100m	
^ -s
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF WASHIN8TON OFriCE OF
PUBLIC ARCHEOLOGY.
FIGURE 4-3. LOCATION OF SUBSURFACE CORINGS AT
RENTON TREATMENT PLANT SITE
99

-------
Because no cultural resources were found in the site
investigation, it appears that the proposed expansion of
the plant will not adversely affect cultural resources. However,
it is possible that cultural resources may be present in
areas not sampled or below 1.8 meters. If the ground is
to be substantially disturbed below 1.8 meters, and if cul-
tural resources are noted, then excavation work should be
halted, and a qualified archeologist should be allowed to
assess the significance of the resource.
Solids Handling Facilities
The preferred program requires facilities for anaerobic
digestion, gravity thickening, dissolved air flotation, and
dewatering. Phase 1 calls for the solids handling facilities
to be designed for 72 MGD, and Phase 2 calls for expansion
to 9 9 MGD.
Construction and site-related impacts of the solids
handling facilities are listed and rated in Table 4-1, which
also lists mitigation measures for adverse impacts. Land
use incompatibility and cultural resource impacts are poten-
tially the most important of the impacts listed in Table 4-1.
Odors from the solids handling facilities could create conflicts
with adjacent land uses (particularly the proposed Earlington
manufacturing park), and are identified as a minor adverse
impact in Table 4-1; however, the mitigation measures of
adequate buffering and odor control technology are capable
of mitigating this impact. Cultural resources precautions
at the site have been previously reviewed.
This EIS does not consider the site-related impacts
of ultimate disposal of sludge from the Renton treatment
plant or other Metro treatment plants. These impacts, which
are likely to be significant, will be assessed under sep-
arate NEPA and SEPA processes.
Tunnel/Outfall
The Metro Draft Wastewater Management Plan defines five
alternative tunnel and outfall alignments for the disposal
of secondary effluent from the Renton treatment plant. Three
of the alternative alignments are in the vicinity of Point
Pulley (Three Tree Point), and two are at Alki Point, approxi-
mately 9.5 miles north of Point Pulley. The following dis-
cussion analyzes the construction impacts of these alterna-
tives; water quality impacts of alternative outfall sites
are assessed in Chapter 5 of the EIS.
100

-------
Description of Existing Environment.
Point Pulley Alternatives. Figure 4-4 depicts the three
proposed tunnel/outfall routes in the Point Pulley area.
Two of the alignments, Routes A (Seahurst Park) and B (Lake
Burien), would be beneath existing roadways, whereas Route C
(at Point Pulley) would be aligned "cross-country", primarily
beneath residential land uses.
Table 4-2 shows the land uses along each alignment.
The entire area from the Renton treatment plant to Point
Pulley can be broadly classified as residential, with some
commercial and transportation (Sea-Tac Airport) uses. Sea-
hurst County Park (Ed Munro Park) is a major recreational
area located 2.5 miles north of Point Pulley (USGS, 1979b).
Preliminary geologic information indicates that the
soil materials underlying the Point Pulley alignments can
be classified as a mixture of gravels, soft sandstone, shale
and conglomerate; more detailed geological field work would
be conducted once the final tunnel route is selected. • Topo-
graphy along the alignments varies from less than 10 feet
near the treatment plant to over 400 feet near the Seattle/
Tacoma Airport and Point Pulley.
The cultural resources along the alignments are unknown,
at this time; however, a survey would be conducted once the
tunnel route is defined.
Alki Point Alternatives. Figure 4-4 shows the two open
cut/tunnel alternative routes to Alki Point. Routes D (West
Duwamish) and E (East Duwamish) would follow the Duwamish
River toward Elliott Bay before turning westward to Alki
Point. The alignments would follow existing transportation
corridors along much of their lengths. Table 4-2 depicts
the land uses along each of the alignments.
Most of the existing land use is industrial on both
sides of the Duwamish River from the Renton treatment plant
north to Spokane Street. Some mixed urban and residential
uses occur in the South Park area. Transportation corridors
parallel the river on the east (East Marginal Way) and west
(West Marginal Way) sides of the Duwamish River. Most of
West Seattle is residential, with some scattered areas of
commercial and recreational land uses.
The topography and geologic conditions in the West Seattle
area are similar to those described for Point Pulley. Cultural
resource studies have not been conducted along the alignments,
but would be prior to construction.
Assessment of Construction Impacts. Table 4-1 presents
an overview of construction and site-related impacts of tunnel/
outfall construction, and lists mitigation measures for adverse
impacts. Different impacts will be associated with the
101

-------
EUIOTT BAY
DUWAMISH HEAD
D ALKI POINT^
E IT, im
PUGET SOUND
\_
V

\
\\ V
°X'
x?v


¦H
\
K*U i> " Ji
LAKE WASHINGTQN
V
Li _V\
RENTON STP
POINT PULLEY
C"
LEGEND
TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION
OPEN CUT CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT REQUIRED
PUMP STATION


-------
Table 4-2. Existing Land Uses for Tunnel and Open-Cut Alignments
Route Alternative
Point Pulley			Alki Point
Land Use
A

B
C

D

E

Residential/Mixed Urban
6,100
ft
5,500 ft
25,000
ft
700
ft
700
ft
Roadway
16,000
ft
19,500 ft
1,200
ft
7,000
ft
7,000
ft
Sea Tac Airport
3,200
ft
4,000 ft
5,500
ft
-

-

Parkland
1,700
ft
-
-

1,500
ft
1,500
ft
Ccnmercial
-

-
1,300
ft
-

-

TOTAL TUNNEL LENGTH
27,000
ft
29,000 ft
33,000
ft
9,200
ft
9,200
ft
Parkland (Fort Dent Park)
2,500
ft
Sane as
Route A

2,500
ft


Industrial/Transportation
1,500
ft
Same ad
Route A

51,400
fta
61,100
ftb
Residential
-

-
-

1,900
ft
1,900
ft
TOTAL (PEN-CUT LENGTH
4,000
ft
4,000 ft
4,000
ft
55,800
ft
63,000
ft
TOTAL UNGTH OF ALIGNMENT
31,000
ft
33,000 ft
37,000
ft
65,000
ft
72,200
ft
aRoute parallels the West Valley Highway (SR 181), West Marginal Way (Rt. 99) and the Burlington
Northern Railroad.
bRoute parallels the Burlington Northern Railroad, East Marginal Way, and Spokane Street.

-------
construction of these components of the tunnel/outfall project:
force mains or gravity lines, tunnels and pump stations.
The construction of force mains or gravity lines involves
a linear open-cut trench and generates impacts typical of
surface excavation (e.g., traffic disruption, noise, localized
effects on air quality, loss of vegetation). On the other
hand, tunneling would result in more localized construction
impacts at the tunnel entrances (portals), staging areas,
and truck routes; for this assessment, it is assumed that
a tunnel boring machine will be used for construction.
Point Pulley Alternatives. The three alternative alignments
(Routes A, B, and C) would require approximately 4,000 feet
of open-cut construction for force mains, via a common route
through Fort Dent Park, across the Duwamish River and the
West Valley Highway (State Route 181) to 65th Avenue South.
Each of the alternatives would require a new effluent pump
station at the Renton treatment plant and a second pump
station near each outfall location.
The key adverse impacts associated with construction
of the force main will be: (1) disturbance of the Duwamish
River bed and temporary degradation of surface water,
(2) disruption of automobile traffic on Interurban Avenue
South, (3) noise and dust from excavation and trucking,
(4)	disruption of recreational use of Fort Dent Park, and
(5)	potential for encountering archeological resources along
the alignment (particularly in Fort Dent). The construction
impacts specific to each of three tunnel routes are analyzed
below.
Route A (Seahurst Park). The 27,000-foot-long Route A
tunnel would be constructed immediately west of Interurban
Avenue South, under South 146th Street to Seahurst Park.
Major construction impacts would be at the tunnel entrance
and exit points, and to a limited extent along the alignment.
Two construction staging areas, one at Interurban Avenue
and the other at Seahurst Park, would be used for stockpiling
equipment, operating compressors and loading trucks with
excavated material (spoil material). Each staging area would
be approximately 3 acres. The staging area in Seahurst Park
would probably be used as the location for the outfall pump
station.
Table 4-3 shows the size of the tunnel, the projected
quantity of spoil material and other features of construction.
The major impacts associated with tunneling include: effects
on traffic circulation; localized impacts on air quality,
surface water, and groundwater; noise; and ground stability.
These impacts would occur primarily at the tunnel portals
on Interurban Avenue and at Seahurst Park. Traffic circulation
and noise impacts would be associated with trucking construction
materials to the staging sites and removing spoil material;
104

-------
Table 4-3. Features of Tunnel Construction*
Route Alternative


Point Pulley

Alki
Point
Feature
A
B
C
D
E
Tunnel Diameter, feet
10
10
10
12
12
Tunnel Length, feet
27,000
29,000
33,000
9,200
9,200
Spoil Material, cubic yards
190,000
200,000
230,000
85,000
85,000
Truck Trips3
16,000
17,000
20,000
7,000
7,000
Barge Trips
75
85
100
35
35
c
Working Days
338
36 3
413
115
115
Calendar Days
450
495
565
160
160
* Note: Other impacts of construction of the tunnel/outfall, such as open-cut construction
aassumes 12 cubic yards capacity truck	are discussed in text
^assumes 2,500 cubic yards capacity barge
cassumes two 8-hour work shifts per day, 5 days per week and tunneling at a rate of 5 feet
per hour.

-------
approximately 47 trucks per day {94 one-way trips) would
be needed to remove spoils material from the staging areas
to the disposal site, assuming three trucks per hour. The
impact of transporting spoil material would be significantly
less if barges were used at the west end of the tunnel align-
ment. The staging area and tunnel portals would also support
the ventilation and dewatering system for the tunneling activities;
the water removed while tunneling would be discharged into
sediment basins (if necessary) prior to discharge into the
Green/Duwamish River.
The cultural resources along the Route A alignment are
unknown at this time. The most sensitive locations will
be at the east portal (Interurban Avenue) and at Seahurst
Park. More detailed cultural surveys will be scheduled once
the alignment is chosen.
Stability of the ground during tunnel construction should
not be a factor because of the deep alignment (maximum depth
450 feet).
Route B (Lake Burien). Route B would include a tunnel
portal west of Interurban Avenue, a tunnel alignment beneath
S.W. 152nd Street, and a second portal near the Puget Sound
shore at the western end of S.W. 152nd Street. Table 4-2
shows the existing land uses for the Route B alignment, and
Table 4-3 summarizes several of the alignment's construction
features.
The impacts of Route B tunneling would be similar to
those mentioned for Route A. The most sensitive construction
areas would be the tunnel portals and staging areas, parti-
cularly at the western end of the alignment which will be
located in a residential area.
Route C (Point Pulley). Route C would include a 33,000-
foot tunnel "cross-country" from Interurban Avenue to Point
Pulley (Three Tree Point) and tunnel portals at each end
of the alignment. Tunneling would be conducted at varying
depths under residential areas. Table 4-2 shows the existing
land uses for the Route C alignment, and Table 4-3 summarizes
some of the features of construction.
The other impacts of constructing Route C would be similar
to those previously mentioned for Route A. The most sensitive
locations along this route will be Point Pulley and Interurban
Avenue. Some vibration may be felt by residents located
above the alignment, particularly where the depth to the
tunnel is shallowest.
Alki Point Alternatives. The two alternate Alki Point
routes (Routes D and E) would require 56,000-63,000 feet
of open-cut construction for force mains and gravity sewer
along the Duwamish River from the Renton treatment plant
106

-------
to S.W. Admiral Way. Each of the alternatives would require
three pump stations; one at the Renton plant, a second near
Harbor Avenue, and a third at Alki Point. The two alignments
would have different routes for open-cut construction (east
or west side of the Duwamish River) and a common tunnel portion
from S.W. Admiral Way to Alki Point. Construction impacts
specific to each of the alignments are analyzed below.
Route D (West Duwamish). Route D would require open-
cut construction along Interurban Avenue, West Marginal Way
S.W., Iowa Avenue S.W., and a short segment of the Burlington
Northern Railroad tracks north of Spokane Street. The align-
ment would parallel existing rights-of-way. Table 4-2 shows
the existing land uses for the Route D alignment, and Table 4-3
summarizes several of the alignment's construction features.
Because of the large size of the gravity sewer and force
main, a wide construction trench would be excavated (15 feet
or greater). Construction of such a large trench will have
significant localized impact wherever the right-of-way is
confined by existing structures or utilities.
It is anticipated that there would be a major impact
on traffic circulation and use along portions of the heavily
travelled alignment.
A preliminary evaluation of cultural resources (see
Chapter 4 of Appendix A) indicates that there are numerous
known archeological sites along the entire length of the
Duwamish River, with one particularly large site located
on both sides of West Marginal Way, in the vicinity of the
proposed pipeline route. A more detailed cultural analysis
would be conducted if this alternative is selected.
The tunnel alignment for Route D (and Route E as well)
would begin near S.W. Admiral Way, following beneath S.W.
Hanford Street, and terminate at a pump station on Alki Point.
The portal and staging areas would be the most affected by
construction activities. Since the existing land use of
the staging and portal areas is primarily residential, con-
struction activities would be particularly intrusive; these
impacts would be intensified if trucking of spoil material
occurs at Alki Point.
Route E (East Duwamish). The alignment for Route E
would follow the Burlington Northern Railroad and East Marginal
Way, S.W. to S. Idaho Street, where it would cross the Duwamish
River to follow the same alignment as Route D for the remainder
of the distance to Alki Point. Much of the open-cut align-
ment would be constructed through an industrial area and
adjacent to Boeing Field. Table 4-2 shows the existing land
uses for the Route E alignment, and Table 4-3 summarizes
several of the alignment's construction features. Essentially
107

-------
the same construction impacts may be expected as identified
for Route D, except that the river crossing would occur near
Kellogg Island instead of at Fort Dent Park.
Impacts of Alternative A-I
Differences from Preferred Program
Alternative A-l includes construction of the following
components, which are also required for the preferred program:
Redmond connection, North Creek/Hollywood connection, Kenmore
pump station, Renton treatment plant expansion and solids
handling facilities. Impacts of constructing these components
have been previously reviewed.
Alternative A-l differs from the preferred program in
the following respects:
o Nitrification facilities would be constructed at the
Renton treatment plant site.
o Solids handling facilities could not be accommodated
on site, and an additional 19 acres would be purchased.
o A tunnel and outfall would not be required.
Thus, compared to the preferred program, construction
impacts at the Renton treatment plant site would be intensified,
but impacts associated with tunnel and outfall construction
would be avoided. Impacts of the nitrification facilities
and of the additional land required for solids handling are
reviewed below.
Nitrification Facilities
Nitrification facilities would be constructed at the
Renton treatment plant site (see Figure 4-5), whose existing
environment has been previously reviewed. Construction impacts
of the nitrification and mitigation measures are listed in
Table 4-1; these are similar to the impacts of treatment
plant expansion under the preferred program previously described.
Additional Land Required for Solids Handling Facilities
The preferred site for the additional 19 acres required
for solids handling under Alternative A-l is shown in
Figure 4-5. The need for purchase of an additional 19 acres
is an adverse impact of Alternative A-l not shared by the
preferred program.
108

-------
SECONDARY CIARIFIER
PRIMARY TREATMENT
j AERATION
PUMP
BLDG
GRIT
WERATION
STRUCTURE
pkij- «y
7RŁ>
MCNT
STRt JTiJRE
KAIST
|DŁ WATER INC
mt
DIGCSTION
RtCOVW
# SLUDGE
BUNDING

J! j
°U^ARy
f*'sr*«c
**sct
**J*t

-------
Impacts of constructing the sludge handling facilities on
the site shown in Figure 4-5 would be similar to impacts on
construction at the existing treatment plant site. Most of the
19-acre site, zoned for light industrial use, is vacant/ with
the exception of a small warehouse; part of the site is used as
a parking lot. Because the proposed site was r.ct included in
the cultural resources investigation conducted for this EIS, it
is not known whether cultural resources are located there.
Impacts of Alternative B-I
Difference from Preferred Program
Alternative B-l differs from the preferred program in
the following respects:
o The Redmond connection and North Creek/Hollywood
connection would not be required.
o The Renton treatment plant treatment and sludge
handling facilities would be sized to only 7 2 MGD,
as compared to 99 MGD., but an additional IS asres
of land would be purchased to maintain flexibility
for future expansion.
o Nitrification facilities would be constructed at the
Renton treatment plant site.
o A tunnel and outfall from the Renton treatment plant
would not be required.
o A Kenmore treatment plant would be constructed.
o A tunnel and outfall from the Kenmore treatment plant
to Puget Sound would be required.
Thus, compared to the preferred program, the construction
impacts of the Redmond connection and North Creek/Hollywood
connection would be avoided, impacts at the Renton treatment
plant site would be intensified (based on the requirement
for purchase of an additional 19 acres), the construction
impacts of the Renton plant tunnel and outfall would be avoided,
and additional impacts would result from construction of
the Kenmore treatment plant and outfall. Construction impacts
of changes at the Renton treatment plant site and of the
Kenmore plant and outfall are reviewed below.
Changes at the Renton Treatment Plant Site
Under Alternative B-l, the Renton treatment plant would
be sized to 72 MGD, and nitrification facilities would be
constructed. Impacts of constructing the facilities at the
Renton plant site required for Alternative B-l are similar
110

-------
to those previously described for the preferred program and
Alternative A-l. The need for purchase of an additional
19 acres is an adverse impact of Alternative B-l not shared
by the preferred program.
Kenmore Treatment Plant
No site has been selected for the Kenmore treatment
plant. Additional site-specific environmental impact analysis
would therefore be required if Alternative B-l is selected.
A Kenmore treatment plant would require about 19 acres for
the 27 MGD capacity planned for Phase 2. Purchase of a 4 0-
acre site has been proposed. The proposed layout for a Kenmore
treatment plant is illustrated in Figure 4-6.
Construction and site-related impacts of a Kenmore treat-
ment plant are listed and rated in Table 4-1, which also
lists mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Land
use incompatibility and cultural resource impacts are poten-
tially the most important of the impacts listed in Table 4-1.
Neither can be fully assessed until specific sites for the
Kenmore treatment plant are identified. Land use incompatibility
may be a major factor because suitable industrial sites within
the Kenmore area are limited.
Kenmore Treatment Plant Outfall
Alternative B-l would include as a project feature
an outfall tunnel from the Kenmore treatment plant to a point
of discharge south of Richmond Beach County Park (see
Figure 3-7). Two alternative alignments have been proposed:
Route A, beneath N.E. 185th Street, and Route B, beneath
N.E. 175th Street. Both alignments would originate near
Bothell Way. (State Route 522).
The alignments would be located beneath existing road-
ways for much of their lengths. Existing land use on both
sides of the roadways is primarily residential, with some
commercial and service-related uses. Land use along Bothell
Way is also a mix of residential and commercial. Richmond
Beach County Park is a popular recreation area, as is Log
Boom Park on Lake Washington (proposed site of a pump station).
Impacts of constructing force mains and tunnels to the
outfall site near Richmond Beach would be similar to those
defined for the tunnel alternatives to Point Pulley and Alki
Point; see Table 4-1 for a summary of impacts and mitigation
measures. Since neither of the tunnel alignments for this
alternative has been clearly defined, a detailed analysis
of construction impacts is not possible at this time. The
most significant construction impacts would include noise
111

-------
| PHASE 1
I PHASE 2
k i FUTURE
	PROPERTY LINE
SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200
400
SECONDARY
ClARIFI CATION
EFFLUENT
PUMPING
c
CHLOR1 NAT! ON /
DECHLORINATION
ee
Ml N 100'
BUFFER
/SLUDGE
Ulendjng

DIGESTERS
AIR FLOTATION
T
GRAVITY THICK
OO .
I
I	j
L
INFLUENT
PUMPING
OPERATION
BUILDING
Figure 4-6. Kenmore Treatment Plant Schematic:
Alternative B1 (Conceptual 40-Acre Site)
SOURCE: Metro, 1980g.
112

-------
(from tunneling and staging activities), spoil disposal of
materials excavated from the tunnel, and disruption of recrea-
tion uses at Richmond Beach.
Construction Employment Impacts
Each of the final alternatives would be a major capital
project, and consequently would employ a significant number
of construction workers. The total construction costs of
the alternatives range from $262,200,000 (Alternative A-l) to
$409,900,000 (Alternative A-5). Of the total construction
costs, between $112,200,000 and $243,400,000 would be spent
on labor.
The number of jobs created by this labor expenditure
may be estimated by considering the average hourly wage and
the average number of hours worked in a year by a fully-
employed construction worker. As shown in Table 4-4, the
expenditure on labor may thus be expected to create between
4,050 and 8,770 total person-years of employment. The number
of jobs actually created depends on the duration of con-
struction; for example, if construction lasts 1 year, then
4,050-8,770 workers would be needed at one time, but if it
lasts 2 years, then only half that number, 2,025-4,385, would
be needed.
Because each alternative would be constructed in two
phases, however, these jobs will not be created at the same
time. Table 4-5 summarizes the employment effects of each
alternative by phase. It shows, for example, that Alternative A-5
would create 7,480 job-years of employment in Phase 1 but
only 1,2 90 in Phase 2. The number of people actually employed
would, again, vary with the duration of the construction
project as discussed above and shown in the table.
This analysis indicates that Metro's plan will create
a large demand for construction workers. Because of the
relatively large size of the construction labor force in
the Seattle area, however, there will probably be little
need for construction workers to temporarily move to the
Seattle area to build the projects called for in the plan.
113

-------
Table 4-4. Total Employment Impacts of Project Alternatives
Alternative
A1	A3	A5	B1
Total construction cost	$262,200,000	$309,800,000a $409,900,000a	$322,600,000a
Labor costb	112,200,000	174,400,000	243,400,000	151,400,000
Hours of work°	7,460,000	11,626,667	16,226,667	10,093,333
Job years^	4,050	6,290	8,770	5,450
Number of jobs if construction lasts:
1	year	4,050	6,290	8,770	5,450
2	years	2,025	3,145	4,385	2,725
3	years	1,350	2,100	2,920	1,820
5 years 810 1,260 1,750 1,090
Note: Figures may be slightly inconsistent because of rounding.
at4ore than one outfall/tunnel alignment is under consideration, and no preferred alternative has been
^identified. Therefore, this estimate includes the least cost alternative.
Based on U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Construction Cost Indexes for Urban Sewers, Seattle,
Washington, third quarter, 1979.
cAverage hourly compensation {wage plus fringe) of $15.00.
Average work year of 1,850 hours (37 hours per week, 52 weeks per year).
Source: David L. Clark, Associate Engineer, Brown and Caldwell, letter to Gruen Gruen + Associates,
June 26, 1980; Washington, State of, Department of Labor and Industries, pers. comm. to Gruen
Gruen + Associates, June 1980; u. Ł. Department of Labor, Monthly Labor Review, March 1980
(Table 14); Gruen Gruen + Associates.

-------
Table 4-5. Employment Impacts of Project Alternatives, by Phase
Alternative Al
Alternative A3
Alternative AS
Alternative Dl
Total construction cost
Labor cost*3
Hours of workc
d
Job years
Phase 1
$164,100,000
67,900,000
4.526,666
2,4SO
Phase 2
$9B,100,000
44,300,000
2,953,333
1,600
Phase 1
5213,850,000a
138,800,000
9,253,333
5,000
Phase 2
$76,000,000
35,700,000
2|300,000
1,290
Phase 1
$333,900,000*
207,700,000
13,846,667
7,480
Phase 2
$76,000,000
35,700,000
2,360,000
1,290
Phase 1
$ 294,900,000a
140,500,000
9,366,667
5,060
Phase 2
$27,800,000
10,000,000
720,000
390
tn
Number of jobs if
construction duration ist
1	year	2,450
2	years	1,225
3	years	B20
S years	490
1,600
BOO
530
320
5,000
2,500
1,670
1,000
1,290
645
430
260
7,460
3,740
2,490
1,500
1,290
645
430
260
5,060
2,530
1,690
1,010
390
195
130
BO
More than one outfall tunnel alignment is under consideration) cost estimate included here is for the lowest cost alternative.
Based on U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Construction Co9t Indexes for Urban Sewer9, Seattle, Washington, third quarter, 1979.
C/Kveta
-------
Chapter 5
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF LONG-TERM ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
This chapter describes the operational impacts of the
long-term wastewater management alternatives for the Lake
Washington/Green River Basins. The alternatives considered
are the preferred program, Alternative A-l, Alternative B-l,
and the no project. Separate sections cover impacts and
mitigation measures for water quality, aquatic biology, and
fisheries; resource use; growth-related impacts related to
project staging; and recreation. A last section discusses poten-
tial impacts of the decentralized treatment plants under
Alternatives C-l through C-5; although these alternatives
were not selected as one of the final alternatives, they
are assessed here because one or more of the decentralized
plants could be included within the long-term program even-
tually selected.
Most of the growth-related impacts associated with the
long-term alternatives are common to all the alternatives.
These growth-related impacts are covered in Chapter 6 of
the EIS.
Water Quality, Aquatic Biology, and Fisheries
Introduction
This section describes the projected direct impacts
of project alternatives on the Green/Duwamish River and Puget
Sound. Surface and marine water quality impacts are discussed
first, followed by biological and fisheries impacts. For
detailed background information on the existing water quality
and biological conditions of the Green/Duwamish River and
Puget Sound, the reader is referred to Appendix C of this EIS.
The basis for predicting impacts on the Green/Duwamish
River is existing knowledge of the effects of the Renton
discharge on the river, extrapolated to future conditions
of effluent flow and quality. The "extrapolation" process
ranges in complexity from simple desk-top calculations to
computer modeling performed by the Washington Department
of Ecology (DOE).
117

-------
The basis for predicting impacts on Puget Sound is the
knowledge of the effects of Metro's West Point discharge
on the sound. Much of this knowledge was derived from a
series of Metro-sponsored studies conducted from about 1973-
1977, the Puget Sound Interim Studies (summarized in Duxbury,
1976) .
The effects of the West Point discharge can reasonably
be used to predict the effects of Renton discharge locations
on Puget Sound if the proper qualifications are made to account
for differences in effluent flow and quality, and differences
in current and circulation patterns at the different discharge
locations. Effluent flow at West Point was about 120 MGD
when the Puget Sound Interim Studies were performed, and
treatment consisted (as it does presently) of only primary
treatment. Effluent flow from a Renton discharge to Puget
Sound would be about 100 MGD in the year 2000, and treatment
would consist of both primary and secondary processes. Thus,
other things being equal, the flow and quality aspects of
the year 2000 Renton discharge can be expected to produce
lesser effects than the present West Point discharge. Dif-
ferences in currents and circulation patterns between West
Point and the alternative Renton discharge locations are
obviously important in using the West Point discharge as
a model for a Renton-Puget Sound discharge; these differences
will be further studied by Metro in detailed oceanographic
studies prior to outfall construction.
Surface and Marine Water Quality
Background. The following discussion summarizes the
water quality conditions of Puget Sound and the lower Green/
Duwamish River, and the effects of present treated sewage
discharges.
Although this section focuses on potential adverse impacts
of the alternatives on either Puget Sound or the Green/Duwamish
River, it should be noted that all the alternatives, except
the no-project alternative, will result in improved effluent
quality at the West Point treatment plant. All project alter-
natives include construction of solids handling facilities
at the Renton plant, eliminating the current practices of
transporting solids to the West Point plant, where the
solids cause dry season violations of the plant's NPDES permit
limitations for suspended solids. Additionally, all the
project alternatives would divert current and projected
flows from the north part of the study area from the West
Point plant to either the Renton plant or the Kenmore plant,
where the effluent will receive secondary (or higher) levels
of treatment prior to discharge.
Puget Sound. Puget Sound is a large inland sea con-
sisting of a series of deep (about 600 ft) basins separated
by relatively shallow (about 150 ft) sills (Figure 5-1).
118

-------
Strait of Juan 
-------
Point Pulley has net circulation in a southerly direction,
whereas Richmond Beach has net circulation in a northerly
direction (Metro, 1979e). Alki Point is near the divergence
of northerly and southerly net flows.
Puget Sound has generally good water quality. Relatively
small drops in dissolved oxygen concentration (differences
of about 0.5 mg/1) have been detected in the immediate vicinity
of the West Point outfall (EPA, 1977a). Local increases
in nitrate, ammonia, and phosphate, and local changes in
temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and density, have
been observed directly over the West Point effluent plume
(Duxbury, 1976). None of these changes is detectable along
the central axis of Puget Sound. No changes in heavy metals
concentrations are detectable in waters near the West Point
outfall (Schell, et al., 1977).
Concentrations of heavy metals in Puget Sound bottom
sediments have been increasing for about the last 50 years
(Schell, et al., 1977). Urban runoff and rivers are probably
the major sources of heavy metals. However, a relatively
high increase in lead was found near the Alki Point outfall,
and relatively high increases in mercury and zinc were found
near the West Point outfall. High fecal coliform levels in
waters of east Puget Sound beaches prohibit commercial shell-
fishing there, but recreational shellfishing is popular, and
there have been no reported adverse public health effects. The
relative contributions of Metro outfalls and other sources
(urban runoff, combined sewer overflows) to coliform violations
have not been identified.
Green/Duwamish Rivev. The Duwamish River is the reach
of the Green/Duwamish River between Tukwila (confluence of
the Black River) and Elliott Bay. The portion upstream of
the confluence is called the Green River (Figure 5-2). The
Renton sewage treatment plant discharges into the Green River
at River Mile 12, about 1 mile upstream of the confluence.
The river water is fresh year-round at the discharge location,
but current reversals due to tidal influence occur during
low flow periods. Salinity from Puget Sound becomes an impor-
tant water quality parameter at about River Mile 6 during
summer low flows (Figure 5-2). The lower 5 miles of the river
are dredged for ship navigation.
The Duwamish River is located in a heavily industrialized
area, and has several water quality problems. Un-ionized
ammonia, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and residual chlorine
in the river have exceeded water quality criteria or standards.
Ammonia from the Renton plant is a major cause of low dissolved
oxygen concentrations, according to modeling studies (Yake,
1980). The temperature of the Renton effluent increases
the frequency of violations of temperature standards in the
river. Although coliform bacteria standards are violated
120

-------
REN TON
TREATMENT
PLANT
Outfotl
hi
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0 9.0 10.0
11.0
12.0 13.0
DUWAMISH WATERWAY/ESTUARY
LOWER GREEN/DUWAMISH RIVER
(dredged waterway|
SOURCE YAKE,1980
FIGURE 5-2. LOWER GREEN-DUWAMISH RIVER WITH RIVER MILE INDEX

-------
frequently, Renton effluent does not appear to be implicated
(Bernhardt, 1980). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are
present in high concentrations in Duwamish River sediments,
particularly near the mouth of the west waterway (Metro,
1979e). The Renton plant is not a major contributor of
PCBs.
The DOE has recently adopted administrative rules setting
minimum instream flow standards in the Green/Duwamish River
(DOE, 1980). Minimum flows near Auburn (River Mile 32) are pro-
posed to be 650 cfs for most of the year, and 300 cfs in summer.
Impacts of Preferred Program. The following discussion
evaluates the water quality impacts of the preferred wastewater
management program. Impacts on effluent dispersion, turbidity,
un-ionized ammonia, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, chlorine
toxicity, bacteria, and toxic substances in Puget Sound are
considered. Also, briefly considered are the potential impacts
of the Redmond connection emergency bypass sewer on Sammamish
River water quality.
Effluent Dispersion. Two main phases of effluent dispersion
should be considered. The first phase is initial dilution
of the effluent in the immediate vicinity (about 1 mile)
of the diffuser. Initial dilution is controlled by the velocity
of daily tidal currents in the discharge area and also by
design details of diffusers depth, length, and number of
ports,. The second phase is transport of the diluted effluent
to the open ocean, which is a function of net (long-term)
circulatory patterns at the discharge location and in Puget
Sound as a whole.
Preliminary designs specify discharge depths of 200 feet
at Alki Point (A-5) and Point Pulley (A-3). Metro's West Point
outfall (about 120 MGD) discharges at a depth of 230 feet and
achieves an initial dilution of about 100:1, as cited by
Schell, et al. (1977). The West Point effluent plume is
virtually untraceable at distances more than about 1 mile
from the diffuser.
Of the two alternative Puget Sound discharge locations,
Alki Point would probably give the best dispersion performance
because it is the northernmost location (closest to the mouth
of Puget Sound), so effluent residence time in the sound
would be shortest. An adequate diffuser design should give
initial dilution comparable to the West Point outfall. The
performance of the present small (7.5 MGD) Alki outfall is
poor, due to poor initial dilution (10:1) and shallow discharge
depth (80 ft) (EPA, 1977b).
Tidal eddies exist on both sides of Alki Point. These
eddies have currents which may draw diluted effluent toward
shore. Information to date indicates that the diffuser must
be located at least 1,500 feet offshore to be beyond the
influence of these tidal onshore currents (Metro, pers. comm.).
current plans are for the diffuser to be located 2,200 feet
offshore.	122

-------
At Alki Point, some effluent may be drawn south by net
southerly water circulation patterns due to tidal "pumping"
action. Alki Point is near the zone where northerly and
southerly net flows diverge. Precise placement of the diffuser
in an area where net flows are predominately in a northerly
direction (possibly in Route D northwest of Alki Point) may
maximize northerly transport of the effluent and minimize
residence time in the sound.
Information to date indicates that a Point Pulley outfall
would probably also give satisfactory initial dilution per-
formance. Tidal eddies form on both sides of the point during
higher tidal ranges. The diffuser would have to be placed
far enough offshore to escape the influence of onshore tidal
currents. Current plans are to locate the diffuser 3,000 feet
offshore.
Point Pulley is an inferior discharge location to Alki
Point with respect to effluent residence time in the sound.
Net circulation patterns would draw the diluted effluent
south and around Vashon Island in a clockwise direction.
The diluted effluent would then be drawn up Colvos Passage,
back into the central basin. Most of the diluted effluent
would then be carried toward the open ocean. Perhaps 20-
25 percent of the diluted effluent would be recycled again
around Vashon Island (Metro, pers. comm.). Again, net circula-
tion considerations may not be of great importance because
the effluent will probably be virtually untraceable more
than about 1 mile from the diffuser. This is due to the
great volume of diluting water in the sound.
At present there is no basis for preferring any one
of the three Point Pulley discharge locations with respect
to effluent dispersion and transport out of Puget Sound.
Additional studies are needed to determine local tidal current
patterns and risks of shoreward transport of diluted effluent.
With respect to net circulation patterns, effluent residence
time in Puget Sound may not vary significantly among the
three locations; they are all well south of Alki Point, which
is near the divergence of northerly and southerly net flows.
Turbidity. Suspended organic solids are the main com-
ponent of turbidity in treated sewage effluent. Turbidity
can potentially affect light penetration, algal production,
and aesthetic values in receiving waters.
Discharge to Puget Sound may cause measurable local
turbidity changes. Turbidity is the most detectable water
quality parameter of the West Point discharge (Environmental
Quality Analysts, 1974). The wastewater field and its asso-
ciated turbidity are present at subsurface depths ranging
from 20-50 meters. The turbidity is not associated with
any known adverse impacts.
123

-------
Because of a higher level of treatment, the turbidity
effects of a Renton plant discharge to Puget Sound would
probably be considerably less than at West Point. The West
Point plant discharges primary effluent with a suspended
solids concentration of about 75 mg/1. A Renton outfall
would discharge secondary effluent with a suspended solids
concentration of about 30 mg/1. There are no apparent
advantages or disadvantages associated with any of the alterna-
tive Puget Sound discharge locations with respect to turbidity.
Un-ionized Ammonia. Ammonia is a characteristic product
of treated sewage formed by the decomposition of nitrogenous
organic compounds. The un-ionized form of ammonia, NH3,
is of concern for its potential toxicity to aquatic life.
Un-ionized ammonia is toxic (LC50) to salmonid fishes at
concentrations of about 0.2-0.7 mg/1 (Willingham, et al.,
1979). The 96-hour LC50 for coho salmon in Renton effluent
is 0.45 mg/1 NH3-N (Buckley, 1978).
The State of Washington has not set numerical receiving
water standards for ammonia. The EPA (1976) criterion for
un-ionized ammonia is 0.02 mg/1 for fresh water. Little
information exists on ammonia toxicity under marine and
estuarine conditions, and EPA has not established a criterion
for these conditions.
The preferred program discharge to Puget Sound would
not have denitrification in the process train, and effluent
concentrations of ammonia nitrogen would be about 15 mg/1.
Because no ammonia toxicity problems have been found with
the West Point discharge, no problems are expected to develop
for the Renton plant; rapid initial dilution would probably
prevent ammonia toxicity.
Dissolved Oxygen. Based on data from the West Point
plant, dissolved oxygen (DO) problems are not foreseen with
the preferred program. A local DO sag of about 0.5 mg/1
has been found in the West Point plume (EPA, 1977a). The
West Point discharge is primary effluent, with a biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) of about 100 mg/1, and flows were about
120 MGD when the DO sag was observed. In contrast, the Renton
discharge would be secondary effluent, with a BOD of about
30 mg/1 and flows would be about 100 MGD in the year 2000.
Thus, very little, if any, DO sag should be noticeable with
a Puget Sound discharge of Renton effluent.
Nutrients. Nutrients in sewage effluent are of concern
because they can stimulate algal growth to levels that are
visually offensive, or that cause DO sags through algal respi-
ration or death. Nutrients typically of concern in sewage
effluent are phosphorus (as orthophosphate) and nitrogen
(as ammonia, NH3; nitrite, NO2; or nitrate NO3). There are
no numerical state or federal standards for phosphorus or
nitrogen with regard to algal growth stimulation because
levels which would cause adverse effects vary greatly among
water bodies.
124

-------
Discharge of effluent to Puget Sound would result in
local increases in ammonia, nitrate, and phosphate. Increases
in ammonia are detectable within a radius of about 1 mile
of the West Point outfall (Collias and Lincoln, 1977). Nutrient
concentrations discharged from a Renton plant with secondary
treatment discharging to Puget Sound would be somewhat less
than those from West Point due to the higher degree of treat-
ment involved.
Chlorine Toxicity. Chlorine could be one of the greater
toxicity components of a future Renton discharge into Puget
Sound, as indicated by bioassay tests of the West Point effluent
(Stober, et al., 1977) and of the Renton effluent (Buckley
and Matsuda, 1973). The Renton effluent was found toxic
to coho salmon (96-hour LC50) at a chlorine residual concen-
tration of 0.20 mg/1 (Buckley and Matsuda, 1973).
The preferred program discharge will have a chlorine
residual concentration of 1.5 mg/1 prior to dechlorination;
after dechlorination, the level is planned to be lower than
0.015 mg/1 (Metro, pers. comm.). This would meet the EPA
(1976) criterion of 0.002 mg/1 following 100:1 dilution.
The actual concentration may be less, however, depending on
the amount of chlorine loss in transport from the Renton
plant to the diffuser in Puget Sound.
Baoteria. Violations of coliform standards at east
Puget Sound beaches have not been attributed to existing
treated sewage discharges. There appear to be no direct
advantages at any alternative Puget Sound discharge site
with respect to maintaining coliform standards.
One benefit associated with the Alki Point discharges
is that combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to the Duwamish estuary
could be intercepted and routed to a discharge point offshore.
The water quality benefits may be marginal. CSOs occur during
or shortly after winter storms, when river flow is high,
and CSO effluent is probably rapidly diluted and carried
into Puget Sound with the high flows.
Heavy Metals. Heavy metals are of concern for their
acute toxicity to aquatic life, and also for their tendency
to accumulate over time in the flesh of organisms and in
sediments. In one sense, the environment has no assimilative
capacity for heavy metals, since they accumulate in the environ-
ment and they do not detoxify or break down.
Table 5-1 shows the effect that a Renton discharge to
Puget Sound would have on background heavy metals concen-
trations after initial dilution (100:1) and dilution after
tidal cycle (500:1). These dilution values are approximations
for the West Point discharge from Schell, et al. (1977).
125

-------
Table 5-1. Effect of Renton Effluent on Heavy Metals Concentrations in ug/1, in Puget Sound
Background
Concentration1
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
0. 36
0.57
3.68
1.	33
2.3
Renton Effluent
(Jan 1978-Sep 1979)2 Receiving Water Concentration
EPA (1976)
Criterion
Average
< 4
20
30
< 20
1.4
30
40
Range
< 4
10-30
20-60
< 20
0.3-2.8
10-40
30-60
After Initial
Dilution (100:1)
< 0.40
0. 86
3. 84
1.61
2.67
After 1 Tidal
Cycle (500:1)
< 0. 37
0.63.3.71
1.	39
2.	38
5.0
100
(freshwater)
0.1
1S0URCE: Huntamer, 1976 in Schell, et al., 1977.
2 SOURCE: Metro, 1979d.

-------
Table 5-1 also shows numerical EPA (1976) receiving water
criteria. It is evident from Table 5-1 that the Renton dis-
charge would increase heavy metals concentrations in Puget
Sound by a small amount.
Table 5-2 compares projected copper, lead, and zinc
loading to Puget Sound from the Renton discharge to other
sources of these metals. The Renton contribution would again
be relatively small.
Although a Renton discharge to Puget Sound would contri-
bute some heavy metals, no direct adverse effects are expected
in light of the great dilution that would occur in Puget
Sound and the relatively small portion of the total metals
load that the Renton discharge would contribute.
Toxic Organic Substances. The potential effect of toxic
substances in Renton effluent on Puget Sound water quality
is unknown. There is little existing information on either
toxic organic substances in Puget Sound or the effects of
chlorination of Metro discharges on the formation of toxic
organisms.
In 197 9, organic compounds were sampled in Hylebos Water-
way near Tacoma (Riley, et al., 1980). Six chlorinated com-
pounds and five aromatic compounds identified were on EPA's
list of priority pollutants. In the same study sampling
in Elliott Bay revealed relatively small or undetectable
amounts of saturate and aromatic hydrocarbons, and there
was no attempt to identify them. Metro is presently starting
a 3-year toxicant study which will study toxicant sources,
treatment processes, and fates in the environment.
Impacts of Redmond Connection Emergency Bypass. One
feature of the Redmond connection, proposed as part of the
preferred program, could adversely affect water quality.
This is an emergency bypass from the York pump station dis-
charging to the Sammamish River. The emergency bypass would
be designed to operate in the event of failure at the Totem
Lake pumping station, which is considered by Metro to be
an event of remote probability. Sewage would be bypassed
to the Sammamish River in such an event.
If such an emergency event were to occur, untreated sewage
would enter the Sammamish River near N.E. 124th Street. Depending
upon the quantity and duration of the discharge, such an event
could cause a DO sag and an increase in ammonia, phosphate,
and nitrate. The significance of the reduction in dissolved
oxygen would depend on the BOD loading and rate of flow in
the river.
An uncontrolled discharge during the low-flow summer
months would have a greater impact on water quality than
if such an event occurred during the winter or early spring.
127

-------
Table 5-2. Estimate of Yearly Copper, Lead, and Zinc Input to Puget Sound
for a Renton Plant Discharging at 100 MGD, Compared to Other
Sources at Present Levels
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Metric
Metric
Metric

Tons
Percent
Tons
Percent
Tons
Percent
Renton-Year 2000
6
1
3
0.1
10
0.6
Rivers
787
92
2,032
84
1,624
92
Seattle Urban Runoff
15
2
350
15
50
3
Metro West Point Plant
29
3
9
0.4
56
3
Other Municipalities
22
3
16
0.7
26
1
Total
859

2,410

1,766

SOURCES: Metro, pers. comm.; Schell, et al., 1977.

-------
It is during those summer months that water quality condi-
tions in the Sammamish River are most critical. Under normal
conditions water temperatures and DO levels often violate
the standards due to the low flows and velocity of the river.
A discharge of untreated sewage would also cause an increase
in coliform bacteria and nutrients which could cause nuisance
problems or possible health hazards.
If the discharge of untreated sewage into the Sammamish
River was substantial enough, aquatic species would be adversely
affected. The most likely effect of nutrient loading would
be a stimulation of algae or rooted aquatic plants in the
sluggish portions of the river and where the river enters
Lake Washington. A substantial inflow of sewage could cause
mortality to invertebrate and fish populations downstream
of the Hollywood pump station.
Alternative A-l. The following discussion evaluates
the water quality impacts of Alternative A-l, which calls
for installation of nitrification processes at the Renton
plant and continued discharge to the Green/Duwamish River.
Effluent dispersion, turbidity, un-ionized ammonia, DO,
nutrients, heavy metals, chlorine toxicity, bacteria, toxic
substances and temperature are considered. When relevant,
water quality improvements that would result from installation
of advanced waste treatment under Alternative A-2 are noted.
Effluent Dispersion. Initial dispersion of effluent
from a continued Green/Duwamish River discharge would be
poor. Presently, river-to-effluent dispersion ratios in
the Green/Duwamish River are as low as 4:1, and "slugs" of
river flow can be as high as 58 percent effluent due to
repeated passage of a block of water past the discharge area
due to oscillating tidal action. A general rule-of-thumb
guideline promulgated by the Washington Department of Ecology
for an acceptable river-to-effluent ratio is 20:1 (Bernhardt,
1980) .
In the year 2000, with a minimum summer instream flow
of 225 cfs and a Renton effluent flow of 100 MGD, the river-
to-effluent ratio would be reduced to 1.5:1. Thus the river
would average 40 percent effluent in the freshwater reach
(about 6 miles) below the discharge during summer low-flow
periods. "Slugs" of river water with effluent concentrations
as high as 70 or 80 percent would probably exist.
The DOE (1980) has recently adopted rules calling for
minimum flows of 300 cfs in the Green River at Auburn. Pre-
sent low flows are about 200 cfs. There is not yet any clear
agreement on how additional flows will be gained.
Effluent residence time in Puget Sound for a Green/
Duwamish discharge would probably be about the same as for
the preferred program with an Alki Point discharge.
129

-------
Turbidity. Recent data indicate that turbidity from
the Renton plant has a "slight impact" on the Green/Duwamish
River (Bernhardt, 1980), though no beneficial use is affected.
Turbidity from an expanded plant with nitrification (Alterna-
tive A-l) would probably continue to have a slight affect.
Alternative A-2 would probably produce a very clear effluent
with minimal turbidity impacts due to the granual media
filtration process to be used.
Un-ionized Ammonia. The Renton discharge presently
causes violations of the EPA 0.02 mg/1 criterion in the Green/
Duwamish River. Sampling in Septeinber 197 9 showed values
as high as 0.105 mg/1 (Bernhardt, 1980).
Nitrification of the discharge into the Green/Duwamish
River would reduce the effluent concentration of total ammonia
nitrogen from present levels of about 15 mg/1 to 1 mg/1.
This decrease would probably eliminate the present violations
of un-ionized ammonia criteria in the Green/Duwamish River.
The nitrification process in sewage treatment can be
difficult to initiate and maintain. Any upset in the nitri-
fication process could create toxic conditions in the Duwamish
River, due to high ammonia loads and poor dilution ratio, or
cause BOD and SS violations due to poor settling. Maintenance
of only seasonal nitrification might be especially difficult.
Dissolved Oxygen. Adequate levels of DO are essential
for fishes and other aquatic organisms to survive. The state
DO standard in the tidally influenced reach of the lower
Green/Duwamish River is 8.0 mg/1 above the Black River (Class A).
Below the Black River (Class B), the standard is 6.5 mg/1
or 70 percent saturation, whichever is greater. DO standards
are 6.0 mg/1 in Elliott Bay and 7.0 mg/1 in central Puget
Sound.
Present discharges from the Renton plant are at least
partially responsible for DO standard violations in the lower
Green/Duwamish River. Organic matter from plankton blooms
has been thought to be the source of oxygen demand which has
caused oxygen sags (Welch, 1969; Welch, et al., 1972; and
Welch, 1980; in Welch and Trial, 1979). Recent modeling
studies (Yake, 1980) concluded that instream nitrification
due to ammonia in the Renton effluent is a principal contri-
butor to the DO sag. Carbonaceous BOD from the Renton plant
apparently is relatively unimportant in the DO sag problem
(Yake, 1980).
Figure 5-3 shows field DO concentrations taken in fall
1971, mathematical modeling curves simulating those conditions,
and a mathematical modeling curve for DO under 19 85 conditions
(upriver flow - 210 cfs; effluent flow - 63 MGD) with no
nitrification (effluent ammonia - 15.2 mg/1). The 1985
modeling results indicate that without nitrification, DO
130

-------
10
MODEL 10/2 - 3/79

7 -
6 -
4 -
Q 3
UJ
V) 2
40% SALTWATER
f -
"T
10
13 12
i
11
I	I	I	I
8 7 6 5
RIVER MILES FROM MOUTH
-LEGEND-
• 0/18-19/79
, ¦ FIELD DATA
-j- 10/2 - 3/79
>
SOURCE: YAKE,1980
FIGURE 5-3. FIELD DATA S MATHEMATICAL MODELING RESULTS
FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN GREEN - DUWAMISH RIVER
131

-------
standards violations would be more severe than they are pre-
sently, with values as low as about 3 mg/1 in the brackish
water reach. Metro (pers. comm.) has performed calculations
showing DO as low as 1.5 mg/1 in the year 2000 without nitri-
fication .
Continued discharge to the Green/Duwamish River with
nitrification (Alternative A-l) would probably alleviate
any DO sag due to ammonia in the effluent. Under this alter-
native, the ammonia nitrogen concentration in the Renton
effluent would be reduced from about 15 mg/1 to 1 mg/1.
Nutrients. A nitrified discharge to the Green/Duwamish
River (Alternative A-l) would continue to discharge nutrients
to the river at present concentrations (about 15 mg/1 N;
about 7 mg/1 total P), but effluent flows would be higher
(about 100 MGD in the year 2000 vs. about 40 MGD today).
Effluent with advanced waste treatment (Alternative A-2)
would have lower nutrient concentrations (about 2 mg/1 N;
about 0.5 mg/1 P) than the present discharge.
Heavy Metals. Input of heavy metals to the Green/Duwamish
River under Alternative A-l would be about the same as the
input to Puget Sound under the preferred program. Most of
the quantities of heavy metals discharged to the river would
be transported to Puget Sound by river flow. Some may settle
out due to flocculation processes in the Duwamish estuary.
There have been no studies of effects of heavy metals
on Duwamish River sediments or biota. However, the DOE
recently estimated heavy metals effluent limits which it
believes are necessary for receiving water aquatic life
based on a 20:1 effluent dilution ratio. Table 5-3 compares
these limits to existing discharge levels. Existing effluent
levels considerably exceed the copper, mercury, and zinc
limitations. Continued discharge under Alternative A-l would
continue this situation.
Advanced waste treatment (Alternative A-2) would reduce
effluent concentrations of chromium, copper, and zinc by
about half compared to the other alternatives (Metro, pers.
comm.). Data for other metals are currently unavailable.
Chlorine Toxicity. Although dechlorination has been
added to the Renton plant (1973), violations of the EPA (1976)
water quality criterion of 0.002 mg/1 have been found. In
November 1979, values as high as 0.19 mg/1 were found in
the immediate vicinity of the discharge, and values as high
as 0.07 mg/1 were found about 1 mile downstream (Bernhardt,
1980).
132

-------
Table 5-3. Effluent Limits Estimated by DOE to be Necessary to Protect
Water Quality and Average Existing Effluent Concentrations
For The Renton Discharge
Estimated Effluent Limits
Cadmium ug/1	1.6
lb/day	4.8
Chromium ug/1	10.0
lb/day	30.02
Copper ug/1	8
lb/day	2.40
Lead ug/1	21
lb/day	6.31
Mercury ug/1	0.2
lb/day	0.06
Nickel ug/1	100
lb/day	30.02
Zinc ug/1	4
lb/day	1.20
Existing Effluent Average1
(January 197 8-Septerober 1979)
< 4
. 18
20
5.9
30
10.3
< 20
3.8
1.4
0.47
30
8
40
12.2
SOURCE: Metro, 197 9d.

-------
Part of the chlorine toxicity problem may stem from
the type of dechlorination system at the Renton plant. The
plant has a "feedback" system, which, in order to function
properly, cannot totally dechlorinate the effluent (DOE,
pers. comm.).
Continued discharge to the Duwamish River could result
in continued residual chlorine violations, unless better
dechlorination or alternative effluent disinfection processes
were installed. Metro is presently investigating different
methods to improve the Renton plant's chlorination system.
Bacteria. Coliform standards are frequently violated
in the lower Green/Duwamish River. Nonpoint source pollu-
tion and CSOs appear to be the main contributors. Continued
Renton discharge to the Green/Duwamish River would probably
not cause violations unless temporary failures in the chlori-
nation process occurred.
Toxic Organic: Substances. High levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) have been found in Duwamish estuary sediments
and fishes (Metro, 1979e). The major sources appear to be
accidental spills, and nonpoint source runoff. The Renton
plant is probably not a significant contributor of PCBs to
the estuary. Continued discharge to the estuary would prob-
ably have little or no effect on PCB concentrations. There
is little information on other toxic organic substances in
the estuary, such as the effects of chlorinating the Renton
effluent on the production of trihalomethanes and other organo-
chlorine compounds. Metro is now starting a 3-year toxicant
study which will investigate toxicant sources, treatment
processes, and fates in the environment.
Temperature. State temperature standards are violated
annually in the Duwamish River estuary and about 1 year in
2 in the lower Green River. The temperature and flow of
the Renton effluent probably increases the frequency and
magnitude of temperature standard violations. Continued
discharge to the river under increasing effluent flow condi-
tions would cause the frequency and magnitude of violations
to increase in the future.
The temperature standards of the Washington DOE for the
freshwater portion of the lower Green/Duwamish River are:
o Confluence of Black River upstream to the limit of
tidal influence (Class A): temperatures shall not
exceed 18.0°C (due to human activities). Tempera-
ture increases shall not, at any time, exceed t=28/(T+7).
When natural conditions exceed 18.0°C, no temperature
increase will be allowed which will raise the receiving
water temperature by greater than 0.3°C.
134

-------
o Confluence of Black River downstream to mouth (Class B):
temperature shall not exceed 21°C due to human activities.
Temperature increases shall not, at any time, exceed
t=34/(T+9). When natural conditions exceed 21.0°C,
no temperature increase will be allowed which will raise
the receiving water temperature by greater than 0.3°C.
To determine the frequency of background water tempera-
ture violations and to evaluate the potential effects of
the Renton discharge on the frequency and magnitude of present
and future violations, river flow and temperature data, and
Renton effluent flow and temperature data, were obtained and
analyzed. The impact of present and year 2000 Renton effluent
flows on river temperature was estimated based on conservation
of heat between the effluent and river flows. This method
is rough, and does not account for the dynamic processes
of evaporation, shading, advection, conduction, and radiation
that may occur in the water masses.
The time period selected for analysis was the month
of August, for the years*1967, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1974-
1978. Daily Green/Duwamish River flow data were from the
USGS gage at Tukwila. Daily maximum temperature data were
from Metro station 311, at the same location. Daily tempera-
ture and flow data were obtained from Metro. The results
of the temperature analysis are described below:
o Background temperature exceeded the 18 °C standard on
77 percent of all August days.
o Addition of the Renton effluent caused the standard
to be exceeded an additional 4 percent of all days,
for a total of 81 percent.
o Effluent temperatures were generally 20-22°C. On days
when the maximum background temperatures approached
effluent temperatures, the effects of the effluent
lessened. On 24 percent of all days, effluent tempera-
ture was actually cooler than background river tempera-
ture. These were generally days when background river
temperatures exceeded 20-22°C.
o At year 2000 effluent flow levels, the standard would
be exceeded an additional 12 percent of all days, for
a total of 89 percent.
Impacts of Redmond Connection Emergency Bypass. Under
Alternative A-l, Redmond connection emergency bypass
discharges to the Sammamish River would occur. The impacts
of these emergency discharges have been described in the
water quality analysis of the preferred program.
135

-------
Impacts of Alternative B-l. Alternative B-l includes
dual treatment centers: the existing Renton plant, and a new
Kenmore plant which would discharge to Puget Sound via a
Richmond Beach outfall. This discussion will focus on how
the impacts of dual treatment centers would differ from those
of centralized treatment.
A Richmond Beach outfall 200 feet deep would probably
give adequate initial dilution, as suggested by studies of
the West Point discharge at'a similar depth (Environmental
Quality Analysts, 1974). Viewing Puget Sound as a whole,
Alternative B-l would achieve better dispersion of Renton
service area effluent than the preferred program or
Alternative A-l because the effluent would enter from two
widely separated sources rather than from a single source.
Residence time of the diluted effluent in Puget Sound would
be shorter for Richmond Beach than for any of the other dis-
charge locations.
Another advantage to Alternative B-l, compared to
Alternative A-l, is that of reduced water quality impacts on the
Green/Duwamish River. Under Alternative B-l, year 2000 flows
to the Green/Duwamish River would be 72 MGD, vs. 99 MGD for
Alternative A-l. Even with this reduced flow, however, the
water quality problems predicted for Alternative A-l would
occur with Alternative B-l, with a lesser degree of severity.
Impacts of No Project. Major adverse ammonia and DO
impacts would occur in the Green/Duwamish River if no project
is constructed and flows continue to increase. Without nit-
rification, un-ionized ammonia would probably exceed by far
the EPA (1976) criterion of 0.02 mg/1. Welch and Trial (1979)
found that, even at present levels of ammonia discharge,
the un-ionized ammonia concentration would exceed 0.5 mg/1
if pH were 9.0 and temperature were 20°C (conditions observed
in the river in 1966).
DO levels in the estuary would decrease due to increasing
ammonia and BOD loadings. BOD would especially increase
because the present treatment facilities could not adequately
treat year 2000 flows. Present effluent BOD concentration
is about 15 mg/1 at 36 MGD during dry weather conditions.
This loading may increase to 30 mg/1 by 198 5 and would become
considerably greater by the year 2000. The Renton plant
could probably give essentially primary treatment to year
2000 flows. DO levels in the estuary during dry weather
would probably approach 0, as they did in past decades before
direct pollutant sources to the estuary were abated.
Aquatic Biology and Fisheries
Background. The biological resources of Puget Sound
and the lower Green/Duwamish River and the known impacts
of Metro wastewater facilities on those resources are
summarized below.	,__

-------
Puget Sound. Puget Sound can be separated into intertidal
(the shore between high and low tide lines), subtidal (the
bottom below the low tide line), and pelagic (open water)
habitats. The most definite effect of existing Metro dis-
charges found to date on the biota of Puget Sound is a trend
toward higher lead and mercury concentrations in mussels
and clams near the West Point outfall; levels found were
within toxicity guidelines (Schell, et al., 1977). Harman,
Stober, et al. (1977) found no statistically significant
effects of the West Point discharge on benthic invertebrate
distribution, but their data do suggest some subtle changes
in species composition. Campbell, et al. (1977) found no
changes in phytoplankton production or standing stock due
to the West Point discharge.
Miller, et al. (1977) found differences in species com-
position and abundance in the nearshore fish fauna between
areas off West Point, Alki Point, and Point Pulley. They
attributed the differences to habitat differences (eelgrass)
not related to wastewater outfalls. In thfir study of demersal
(bottom) fishes, high incidences of Dover sole, rex sole,
and quillback rockfish near West Point were noted as possible
beneficial effects of the West Point discharge. Acoustical
(sonar) tracking surveys indicated no effect of the West
Point outfall on pelagic fish distribution of abundance
(Duxbury, 1976). The acute toxicity of the West Point effluent
(LC50) ranged from 15.4 percent effluent in 96 hours for
shiner perch to 50 percent effluent in 120 hours for shore
crabs (Stober, et al., 1977).
Green/Duwamish River. The fish resources of the Green/
Duwamish River system are of particular importance for this
EIS. Chinook, coho and steelhead runs of the Green River
system are among the largest in the Puget Sound region. Most
of the steelhead and coho are of hatchery origin, whereas the
chinook run is the second largest native run in Puget Sound,
even though significant numbers of chinook are also of
hatchery origin. Other less prevalent anadromous.fish found
in the Green River system include cutthroat trout, Dolly
Varden char, chum salmon and pink salmon. The Muckleshoot
Indian tribe propagates a relatively small hatchery run of
chum salmon (U. S. Pish and Wildlife Service, 1980) .
A conservative estimate of the value of the approximately
220,000 salmon provided by the Green River system to sport and
commercial fisheries is $2.6 million, in 1977 dollars. The
net economic value of the Green River steelhead fishery was
estimated to be $2-$3 million in 1976. (See Appendix C.) In
addition, significant public expenditures are being made to
operate and maintain the fish hatcheries in the system and to
implement watershed improvement projects that maintain or
enhance fisheries.
137

-------
The river and estuary below the Renton plant discharge
is a migratory route for anadromous species. Spawning habitats
do not occur near or below the Renton outfall. The estuary
may also be of importance as a rearing habitat for juvenile
Chinook salmon. Use of estuaries by anadromous salmonids is
a relatively unresearched field. Myers (1980) found that
Chinook, salmon use the Yaquima Bay, Oregon estuary for rearing.
Although water quality standards violations have occurred,
no obvious effects on fish or other biota in the lower Green/
Duwamish River directly attributable to the Renton discharge
have been recorded at effluent discharge levels to date.
Matsuda and Domenowske (1971) found that fish avoided areas in
the estuary where DO approached 1 mg/1 in the mid-1960s, but
the low DO was due mainly to sources that have since been
controlled. Low DO concentrations in summer are now about
4 mg/1, which is marginal for survival of salmonids.
Fujioka (1970) found that at DO levels as low as 3 mg/1,
adult chinook salmon were still able to migrate through the
Duwamish estuary. He did find a positive correlation between
the amount of fall precipitation and the percentage of fish
tagged in the estuary that make it to the Green River Hatchery.
This may be an indication that low DO concentrations in the
estuary affect the survival of fish upstream.
Buckley and Matsuda (1973) found that nondechlorinated
Renton effluent was toxic (96-hour LC50) to fingerling coho
salmon at 29 percent effluent, with a residual chlorine
concentration of 0.20 mg/1. With chlorine removed, no
mortalities occurred with effluent concentrations as high as
100 percent.
Impacts of Preferred Program. In the discussion below
the preferred program is assessed for potential impacts on
algal production, invertebrates, and fisheries.
Algal Pvoduation. Since nitrogen is limiting to algal
growth for brief periods in some years in central Puget Sound,
effluent discharge under the preferred program may have occa-
sional, local biostimulatory effects. These effects would
not be adverse, since algal standing crop levels in Puget
Sound do not presently approach nuisance levels. Small increases
in algal production may actually benefit Puget Sound fisheries
due to a greater primary food source.
Invertebrates. Present discharges at West Point have
not created any measured significant adverse changes in
invertebrate distribution or abundance. A Renton discharge
to Puget Sound will probably likewise have no effect on
invertebrate occurrence. Removal of the Renton discharge
from the Green/Duwamish estuary would alter the late summer
and fall distribution of salt-sensitive estuarine zooplankton
species in response to the altered salinity gradient.
138

-------
A discharge to Puget Sound could cause small increases
in heavy metals accumulation in mussels and clams near the
outfall, as found near West Point. However, the heavy metals
in Renton effluent would be lower than in the West Point
effluent because there are fewer industrial sources in the
Renton service area, and because the Renton plant has a higher
degree of treatment.
Fisheries. In the water quality impacts section of
this chapter, it was predicted that the near-field (within
about 1 mile of the diffuser) chlorine concentration with
a Puget Sound discharge (Alternatives A-3 through A-5) could
be as high as about 0.015 mg/1 before dilution. Exposure of
fingerling coho salmon for 12 weeks in chlorine residual con-
centrations of 0.009-0.0 3 mg/1 resultin in symptoms of hemolytic
anemia (Buckley, et al., 1976). Such effects may not occur
near the proposed outfall, however, due to dilution and
the long exposure time required to produce symptons.
The presence of a Renton effluent plume in Puget Sound
is not expected to adversely affect fish distribution, based-
on studies of fish near the West Point plume (Duxbury, 1976).
The diffuser may actually attract some species, as does the
West Point diffuser (Mieler, et al., 1977).
Impacts of Alternative A-l. In the discussion below,
Alternative A-l is assessed for potential impacts on algal
production, invertebrates, and fisheries, and relevant
improvements that would result from advanced wastewater treat-
ment under Alternative A-2 are noted.
Algal Production. Renton effluent nutrients probably do
not control algal growth in the Duwamish estuary (Welch, 1969;
Welch, et al., 1972; and Welch, 1980 in Welch and Trial, 1979).
Nutrients from the plant under Alternative A-l will therefore
probably have no effect on algal production in the Duwamish
estuary, and nutrient removal under Alternative A-2 may be of
limited value. However, algal-nutrient relationships in the
estuary are not well understood.
Invertebrates. There have been no studies of the effects
of the Renton discharge on invertebrates in the Green/Duwamish
estuary. It is not known whether continued discharge would
have any adverse effects on invertebrates.
Fisheries. Fish migration could be affected by Renton
effluent impacts on dissolved oxygen, temperature, and
toxicity. Each of these factors is reviewed below.
139

-------
Present DO levels in the Duwamish estuary are as low
as 4 mg/1 in summer (Welch and Trial, 1979), a level which
can effectively block the upstream migration of adult salmonids.
The DO sag in the estuary has been attributed largely to
ammonia from the Renton plant (Yake, 1980). This would cease
to be a concern under Alternative A-l due to nitrification.
A second concern regarding the Renton discharge to the
Duwamish is high water temperatures blocking the upstream
migration of adult salmonids in late summer and early fall.
Temperature standards would be violated about 77 percent
of all days in August without a Renton discharge to the river,
but the discharge would increase the frequency of violations
to about 89 percent of all August days in the year 2000.
It is not known whether present delays in upstream migra-
tion of chinook salmon in late summer are caused by low DO
concentration, high temperature, or some other flow-related
factor. Therefore, the incremental thermal effects of discharge
to the Green/Duwamish River on migratory salmon cannot be
predicted at this time.
Effluent toxicity could also affect fish migration.
The main acute toxicity component of the Renton effluent
is residual chlorine. Despite dechlorination to 0.25 mg/1,
the Renton plant discharge results in chlorine levels as
high as 0,19 mg/1 in the immediate vicinity of the discharge,
and 0.07 mg/1 about 1 mile downstream (Bernhardt, 1980).
These concentrations approach levels toxic to fish. The
lethal {96-hour LC50) concentration to coho salmon fingerlings
of residual chlorine in the Renton effluent was found to be
0.20 mg/1 in 29 percent effluent (Buckley and Matsuda, 1973).
The reported value of 0.20 is actually a 48-hour LC50, since
no fish died after 48 hours in the tests.
Under Alternative A-l adverse effects on fish due to
chlorine toxicity may occur if more effective dechlorination
is not implemented. If residual chlorine continues to be
discharged in present concentrations, future river and effluent
flow conditions may result in "slugs" of effluent in the
river with chlorine concentrations of 0.20 mg/1 or above
in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Metro is pre-
sently looking into ways to lower the residual chlorine con-
centration in the Renton effluent. Ammonia toxicity would
not be a long-term problem because nitrification would be
in the Renton treatment train.
High incidences of fin erosion and liver tumors have
been found in starry flounder and English sole in the Duwamish
estuary. The causes of these diseases are unknown. Fin
erosion diseases have been associated with areas of heavy
wastewater discharge in the ocean off southern California
and in the New York Bight (Miller, et al., 1977). In addition,
140

-------
Metro studies (pers. comm.) have found that long-term (91-day)
exposure of coho salmon to 30% Renton effluent produced a
dysfunction of carbohydrate metabolism unrelated to chlorine
or ammonia; such effects could also occur to resident non-
anadromous fish living in the estuary.
Miller, et al. (1977) suggests that the diseases are
actually two manifestations of a single systemic disease
caused by one or more chemical contaminants, possibly PCBs.
The Renton discharge has not been associated with high levels
of PCBs. Continued discharge to the Green/Duwamish River
is not expected to contribute to adverse pathological effects
on fish.
Impacts of Alternative B-l. The aquatic biology and
fisheries impacts of Alternative B-l would stem from water
quality impacts of the alternative. As previously discussed,
the Richmond Beach outfall is unlikely to create measurable
adverse water quality impacts in Puget Sound. Therefore,
no corresponding biological impacts in Puget Sound are expected.
Impacts on aquatic organisms and fisheries in the Green/
Duwamish River under Alternative B-l would be similar in
kind to those previously described for Alternative A-l. Because
effluent flows to the river would be reduced under Alter-
native B-l, potential adverse biological impacts would be
less severe than under Alternative A-l.
Impacts of No-Project. Major adverse impacts on the
fishery of the Green/Duwamish River may occur if no project
is built and new sewer hook-ups are not restricted. The
effects would stem from the water quality impacts on the
river. Un-ionized ammonia would exceed levels toxic to coho
salmon during periods of high pH due to algal blooms. DO
levels would be far below levels necessary for diverse popula-
tions of fish, especially salmon and steelhead. The continued
existence of the fishery would be threatened. The most severe
effects would occur during the low flow periods of summer and
early fall.
Mitigation Measures. This section presents mitigation
measures for the long-term water quality and biological impacts
of Metro's wastewater management alternatives. Mitigation
measures for short-term water quality impacts are discussed
in the following section.
Oceanographic and Biological Studies. Although the
preceding impact analysis concludes that there is little
possibility that Renton plant discharge to Puget Sound
will adversely affect the sound's water quality or ecology,
additional scientific work is necessary to verify this con-
clusion and to design the outfall so as to minimize impacts
on the sound. Additional detailed oceanographic studies
are proposed by Metro to determine optimal outfall alignment.
141

-------
depth of discharge, and diffuser design parameters, and to
predict plume locations, mixing, and dilution. Metro has
also proposed to undertake biological studies to establish
baseline data and monitor biological responses once the outfall
is in operation. These oceanographic and biological studies,
which are described in further detail in the Draft Wastewater
Management Plan, are necessary to more precisely predict and
mitigate the impacts of Renton plant discharge to Puget Sound.
Heavy Metal and Toxic Substances Impacts. Although
the contribution of heavy metals to Puget Sound from the
Renton plant will be small compared to other sources, control
of heavy metals and toxic substance discharges is desirable
because of the potential for long-term irreversible impacts.
Metro has adopted an industrial pretreatment program and
is currently pursuing a comprehensive program concerning heavy
metals and other toxic constituents in its wastewaters. The
toxicant study will identify toxic constituents and sources
within Metro's service areas, propose pretreatment alterna-
tives, propose centralized treatment alternatives, and research
the distribution, inputs and chemical and biological fates
of toxicants in Puget Sound.
Chlorine Toxicity. Chlorination and dechlorination
are the final steps of wastewater treatment under the pre-
ferred program. Improvements are needed to the Renton plant's
chlorination system to prevent toxicity problems, and are
proposed as part of the preferred program. Metro has proposed
near-term improvements in the chemical feed system to reduce
residual chlorine levels in Renton effluent. Once the tunnel
and outfall to Puget Sound is operational, it may be used
for chlorine contact. The Draft Wastewater Management Plan
indicates chlorine doses can be reduced compared to present
practices because contact time will be increased; if the
contact time is long enough, chlorine residuals may decay,
thereby reducing sulfur dioxide requirements for neutrali-
zation.
Short-Term Water Quality and Aquatic Biology Impacts
During Project Design and Construction.
Impacts¦ Under any of the alternatives, short-term
deteriorations in Green/Duwamish River water quality will
occur between the present time and 1985, when the planned
additional facilities are on-line. The expected short-term
impacts, and mitigation measures for these impacts, are
discussed by Metro in its Draft Wastewater Management Plan
and summarized here.
142

-------
Metro projects that during the 1980-1985 construction
period, average wet weather flows will increase from 41 to
50 MGD, excluding the Redmond connection flows. If the
Redmond connection were brought on-line by 1985, 4 MGD
would be added.
As noted in the previous analysis of water quality im-
pacts, water quality standards in the Green/Duwamish River
downstream of the Renton discharge are being violated for
temperature, DO, ammonia and chlorine. Increased flows betweer.
1980 and 1985 will increase the frequency and degree of these
violations (with the exception of chlorine, which is expected
to be brought down to acceptable levels in the near future).
In addition, the DOE recommendations for 20:1 effluent dilution
will continue to be exceeded.
The short-term deterioration in water quality would
probably cause adverse changes in the biology of the Green/
Duwamish River. No effects on fish or other biota directly
attributable to the Renton discharge have been measured at
current discharge volumes, but particular concerns exist
regarding Renton effluent impacts on ammonia toxicity and
DO, as they affect salmonid rearing and migration, other
fish species, and the river's ecology in general. Further
ihcreases in ammonia and decreases in DO will create increased
risks that fisheries will be adversely affected.
Mitigation Measures. Metro has identified several mea-
sures currently available to reduce BOD and SS levels during
periods of excessive flows. These measures are 1) storage
of excess flows in the Renton plant influent sewer, 2) "stress-
ing" of the secondary treatment process, 3) alum addition,
and 4) giving primary treatment to excess flows, and blending
the secondary effluent prior to discharge.
These measures, however, address neither the ammonia
toxicity problem nor the oxygen demand from the un-ionized
ammonia. Metro has identified two groups of mitigation mea-
sures for these problems: measures to be implemented, and
additional measures available. These mitigation measures
are listed in Table 5-4, which also presents Metro's evaluation
of the effectiveness and costs of each measure. Metro believes
that, although few of these measures alone can solve the
ammonia problem, combinations of these measures can adequately
protect fishery resources over the short term.
143

-------
Table 5-4. Interim Measures to Reduce Armenia
Loading to the Duwamish River
Heasurc« to be Implemented
1)	Fast Track Implementa-
tion of Plant Expansion
2)	Diversion of Flow via
Sludge Force Mains
3) Reduced Summer Flushing
Additional Measures Available
Potential Reduction
of Current
Ammonia Load
high
slight
slight
1) Interim Nitrification with moderate
Existing Facilities
H 2) Construct Special Hitrifi-
cation Facilities
^ a) Ammonia Stripping	high
b)	Houghing Filters	high
c)	Breakpoint Chlorination high
3) Use of Kent/Auburn Lagoons moderate
4)	Diversion of Flow via	moderate
Riverton/Renton Pump
Station
5)	Diversion of Effluent	high
for Land Disposal
6)	Local Agency Infiltration slight
Control
7)	Water Conservation	slight
Capital
Costs
to Metro
high
slight
moderate
high
high
high
moderate
high
high
Incremental O/M
Costs to Metro
moderate
¦light
¦light
high
high
high
high
moderate
moderate
high
Comments
Implementation of this alternative would require 3 to < years.
Modifications currently being made to implement this diversion*
Requires implementation of some form of effluent diversion to achieve a slight
amount of ammonia removal.
This alternative could seriously impact treatment plant, operations thus
jeopardizing overall effluent quality.
High capital cost alternatives which could completely remove ammonia in the
effluent. The facilities would have little or no use upon completion of
the Phase 1 program.
Use of this alternative is dependent upon the availabi)ity of the
existing Xent and Auburn Lagoons.
High capital cost project which could allow up to 10 mcid to be diverted to
West Point, Would take 2 years to implement and would be of limited useful-
ness once Phase 1 expansion is completed.
Large amount of land area required near the treatment fiacility may not be
available.
Requires Implementation of some form of effluent diversion to achieve a
slight amount of ammonia removal.
Requires implementation of some form of effluent diversion to achieve a
slight amount of ammonia removal.
8)	Interim River Flow
Augmentation
9)	Fisheries Resource
Protection
10) Sewer Moratorium
high
none	unknown	The success of this alternative is dependent upon the cooperation of the U.S. Army Corj
of Engineers in operating the Howard Itanson Dam, and the availability of stored water.
Moderate	moderate	Requires the cooperation of the Department of Fisheries.
none	none	The effectiveness of this alternative is questionable. Should it prove effective^
its impact would be in the reduction of future ammonia levels.
SOURCE; Metro, 19fi0g.

-------
Resource Use
Energy Use
Each alternative significantly increases energy con-
sumption for study area wastewater management, primarily
due to the treatment stage of each alternative. Other energy
uses are for sludge treatment, influent pumping stations,
effluent pumping (for marine discharges) and disposal (for
land application). The overall energy requirements of each
of the 15 initial alternatives are tabulated in Table 5- 5.
Also shown are the energy requirements for treating each
million gallons of wastewater.
From Table 5-5 it appears that of the initial 15 alterna-
tives, Alternatives B-3, B-4, or B-5 offer the least energy
consumption, using about 66,000,000 Kwh per year, or 1,830
Kwh/mg, primarily due to the lower degree of treatment
required compared to nitrification and AWT alternatives.
Insufficient information is available to determine which
of the three is the most energy efficient. The highest energy
requirement (4,070 Kwh/mg) is for AWT and discharge to the
Duwamish River (Alternative A-2); this high energy cost can
be attributed to the high degree of treatment and the high
energy requirements for recalcination of lime sludge and
regeneration of activated carbon.
Of the four final alternatives, Alternative B-l has
the lowest energy requirement, 2,080 Kwh/mg. Alternative A-l
has the highest energy requirement, 2,710 Kwh/mg. The no-
project alternative would not change energy consumption above
the present rate of increase.
Energy cost is expected to be the highest portion of
the OSM costs, and since energy use is high for each alterna-
tive, energy efficiency is expected to be a critical design
criterion. Maximum use of digester gas recovery is to be pursued
in the alternative selected, and energy-efficient processes
and equipment are anticipated for selection during the design
of the selected project.
Chemical Use
The evaluation of long-term alternatives should consider
the required use of chemicals. Especially important are
lime and activated carbon, which both require regeneration.
As energy costs rise, so will the cost of using these chemicals.
The use and recalcination of lime not only add a cost for
direct chemical purchases, but also greatly increases the
on-site energy use. Activated carbon also creates high costs
145

-------
Table 5-5. Estimated Energy Requirements
for Proposed Alternatives
Alternative
Basic Program
A-l
B-l
C-l
Basic Program and Nutrient
Removal at Renton
A-2
B-2
C-2
Basic Prog rain-Ren ton
discharge at Point Pulley
A-3
B-3
C-3
Basic Program-Renton
discharge in Elliott Bay
A-4
B-4
C-4
Basic Prograin-Rentcn
discharge at Alki Point
A-5
B-5
C-5
* wg = million gallons
Source: Metro, 1980h.
1,000 Kwh/yr
Kwh/rag*
98,000
75,000
76,300
2710
2080
2080
137,000
104,000
105,300
3790
2880
2870
87,000
66,000
67,300
2410
1830
1830
87,000
66,000
67,300
2410
1830
1830
89,000
68,000
69,000
2460
1880
1380
146

-------
for energy because of the periodic regeneration requirements.
Therefore, alternatives which use lime and activated carbon
are substantiallly more energy-intensive and expensive than
other alternatives, other things being equal.
Table 5-6 displays the chemical requirements for each
of the 15 initial alternatives. Lime, methanol and activated
carbon are only used in the AWT proposals (Alternatives A-2,
B-2, C-2) which discharge to the Duwamish River; the AWT
alternatives require more chemical use than any of the other
proposed alternatives. The marine discharge alternatives
do not require dechlorination for discharge and therefore
require the least amount of chemicals. The alternatives
which have nitrification and discharge to the Green/Duwamish
River require sulfur dioxide to dechlorinate the effluent.
All alternatives require chlorine to disinfect the effluent
before disposal. The six small satellite plants, under
Alternatives C-l - C-15, require more chlorine because the
risk of human contact is greater. Ferric chloride is used
to enhance dewatering of solids processed at all proposed
plants.
If the AWT alternatives were to be selected, careful
consideration should be given to large bulk purchases (allowing
lower per unit cost) and energy efficient methods of lime
and activated carbon treatment. Methanol cost may not rise
as fast as the cost of other chemicals because of the fuel
potential and possible greater future supplies of methanol.
Of the four final alternatives, the preferred program
(Alternatives A-3 and A-5) requires the least amount of
chemicals. Therefore, the risk of cost escalation due to
increased energy costs and chemical use is the lowest.
Mitigation Measures
In the design and operation of the selected alternative
efforts should be made to minimize energy and resource use.
This is an important principle, one which Metro is committed
to, from both resource conservation and cost standpoints.
Growth-Related Impacts Resulting from
Staging of Alternatives
Background
Most of the growth-related impacts of the long-term
wastewater management alternatives for the study area are
common to all the alternatives, and these impacts are assessed
147

-------
Table 5-6. Estimated Chemical Requirements
(tons per year)
Activated^	Sulfur^ Ferric^
Alternative	Lime1 Methanol2 Carbon Chlorine^ Dioxide Chloride
Basic Program
A-l	—	760	240	4.3
B-l	—	— 550	170	3.8
C-l	—	— — 580	170	3.8
Basic Program arid
Nutrient Removal
at Renton
A-2	13,550 6,870 540	760	240 3.2
B-2	9,860 4,990	390	550	171 2.8
C-2	9,860 4,990 390	580	171	2.8
Basic Program-Renton
discharge in
Puget Sound
A-3, 4, 5	—	—	—	760	—	3.9
B-3, 4, 5	—	—	—	550	— 4.2
C-3, 4, 5	—	—	—	580	—	4.2
Assumptions
1.	750 pounds lime/million gallons (lb/mg)
2.	380 lb methanol/mg
3.	30 lb activated carbon/mg (make-up)
4.	42 lb chlorine /rug for discharge to water
83 lb chlorine/mg for discharge to land
5.	13 lb sulfur dioxide/rag for discharge to Duwamish River only
6.	60 lb ferric chloride/ton of solids processed for disposal
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell, pers. comm., 1980.
148

-------
in Chapter 6 of the EIS. However, each of the alternatives
has one or more nonmodular facilities; the sizing and staging
of these nonmodular facilities has important growth implica-
tions .
As a general rule, in order to minimize potential growth-
inducing or growth-inhibiting effects of wastewater facilities,
it is desirable to design the facilities so that they can
be added to in modules, allowing flexibility in response
to changes in population projections or land use plans. However,
some facilities are considered nonmodular, because adding
additional modules of capacity is not cost-effective or creates
major adverse construction impacts.
Interceptor sewers are a common example of a nonmodular
facility. Trade-offs always exist in the sizing of interceptors
between providing a large initial excess capacity, which
may be cost-effective and minimize construction disruptions,
and providing a smaller initial excess capacity, which creates
less risk of growth inducement. EPA cost-effectiveness analysis
guidelines (40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart E) provide that federally-
funded interceptor sewers should not be designed for a staging
period of longer than 20 years, unless the long-term growth
projections are consistent with planned land uses in 208
plans and the longer staging period would reduce both primary
and secondary environmental impacts. Although these guidelines
do not apply if the interceptor is locally-funded, they do
indicate EPA's concerns related to adverse impacts of inter-
ceptor staging periods longer than 20 years.
In the analysis that follows, the flexibility of each
long-term alternative is assessed by considering the extent
to which it relies on nonmodular facilities. In addition,
for the preferred program, potential impacts of sizing the
Renton outfall tunnel and Redmond connection for 50-year
flows are discussed.
Impacts of Preferred Program
Overall Flexibility. Because this alternative involves
the construction of several nonmodular facilities (Redmond
connection, North Creek/Hollywood connection, and the Renton
outfall tunnel), it is probably the least flexible of any
of the long-term alternatives being considered, other than
the no-project alternative.
Potential Impacts of the Renton Outfall Tunnel and
Redmond Connection. The method for sizing and staging com-
ponents of the preferred program is described in Section D6j
149

-------
of the companion document to the Draft Wastewater Management
Plan. The basic approach used was to select the staging
period which has the least cost present worth. Based on
this approach, it was decided to expand the Renton treatment
plant into two phases to meet flows projected for the year
2000, but to construct the Renton outfall tunnel and Redmond
connection in single stages to meet projected year 2030 flows.
Peak flow projections used to size the Renton outfall
tunnel and Redmond connection are shown in Table 5-7. Methods
for developing the year 2030 flows are unclear, but appear
to derive from the long-term population projections in Metro's
195 8 comprehensive plan.
Constructing the Renton outfall tunnel and Redmond con-
nection in single, 50-year stages results in the least present
worth cost, delays the potentially major impacts of constructing
new or parallel facilities, and reduces the risks of running
out of capacity if PSCOG's population projections err on
the low side. This approach also has several disadvantages.
First, the projected year 2030 population that underlies
the calculations of year 2030 peak flows is not recognized
by land use planning agencies or PSCOG; this means that the
Redmond connection and tunnel/outfall are being planned in
advance of land use planning for the study area. Second,
if the Metro year 2030 population projections err on the
high side, unneeded capacity would be funded and built. Third,
unless a "bottleneck" exists elsewhere in the sewerage system,
capacity will be available for 20-year flows in excess of
those based on the PSCOG population projections. The Renton
treatment plant capacity acts as a bottleneck for the Renton
outfall tunnel, but it does not appear that such a bottleneck
exists for the Redmond connection, other than the York and
Totem Lake pump stations. If Redmond connection flows were
to exceed the PSCOG-based flow projections, potential treatment
plant capacity problems could result.
Impacts of Alternative A-1
This alternative offers slightly more flexibility than
the preferred program because it does not require construction
of an outfall and tunnel to the sound. The Redmond and North
Creek/Hollywood connection would still be required.
Impacts of Alternative B-l
This alternative is more flexible than the preferred
program or Alternative A-l because construction of the Kenmore
treatment plant eliminates the need for the Redmond and North
Creek/Hollywood connection. The Kenmore treatment plant
150

-------
Table 5-7. Long-Term Peak Flow Projections Used to Size
Renton Outfall Tunnel and
Redmond Connection
(MGD)
Facility
Renton Outfall Tunnela
Redmond Connection
-	North Lake Sammamish Service Area
-	North Lake Washington Service Area
1980	2000	2030
144	238	325
16.9	40.4	75.0
8.2	17.7	38.0
8.7	22.7	37.0
aSOURCE: Metro, 1980h.
bSOURCE: Metro, 1980h.

-------
is more capable of responding to changes in population projec-
tions or land use plans in the north part of the study area than
are the nonmodular effluent lines; the Kenmore treatment plant
is thus less likely to be growth-inducing or growth-inhibiting.
However, a tunnel and outfall to Richmond Beach would be required
under this alternative, raising the same sorts of sizing
and staging concerns as presented by the Renton outfall tunnel.
Impacts of No Project
The no-project alternative is less flexible than any
of the long-term alternatives being considered by Metro,
because it is the least responsive to future growth. By
not expanding the Renton plant, capacity would not be available
to serve planned-for growth within the study area.
Mitigation Measures
The main adverse impacts identified in this section
are the disadvantages associated with sizing and staging
the Renton outfall tunnel and Redmond connection for 50-
year peak flows. Two mitigation measures are available to
mitigate this impact.
Reduce Staging Period. The staging period for the Renton
outfall tunnel and the Redmond connection could be reduced
from 50 years to 40 years or 20 years. The disadvantages
of this measure are that the potentially major construction
impacts of parallel facilities would occur sooner, that a
shorter staging period would have a higher present worth
cost, and that capacity limits may be reached sooner than expected
if PSCOG's population projections err on the low side.
Base 50-year Flow Projections on Land Use plans or PSCOG
Forecasts. Metro could work with local governments and PSCOG
to arrive at 50-year population and peak flow projections
that are more firmly based on current land use policies. For
example, PSCOG in 1978 developed very long-term (to the year
2075) population projections for Seattle water planning (Seattle
Water Dept., 1980). Perhaps Metro could employ these projections
for 50-year flow projections. To the extent this is possible,
the potential growth-inducing impacts of the outfall tunnel and
Redmond connection would be reduced. In its Draft Wastewater
Management Plan, Metro suggests that local agencies review the
50-year flow projections? perhaps a more formalized process of
local agency and PSCOG input to the 50-year projections could be
implemented.
152

-------
Recreation Opportunities
Pursuant to EPA's facilities planning requirements,
Metro has prepared a comprehensive assessment of recreation
opportunities associated with wastewater treatment alterna-
tives; this assessment appears in Section J of the companion
document to the Draft Wastewater Management Plan (Metro,
1980h). Based on this assessment, Metro has identified several
recreation opportunities for possible eventual implementation.
These opportunities, which are listed in Table 5-7, apply
largely to the preferred program, although some could be
implemented with Alternative A-l or B-l as well; recreation
opportunities additional to those shown in Table 5-7 would
be created by construction of the Kenmore treatment plant
and the tunnel/outfall to Richmond Beach under Alternative B-l.
All the long-term wastewater management alternatives
create the potential for additional recreation opportunities
within the study area. It appears unnecessary to determine
which alternative is "best" from a recreation perspective.
Rather, recreation opportunities should be an important con-
sideration in the planning and design of whatever alternative
is selected.
Metro (1980h) notes that the recreation opportunities
listed in Table 5-8 have the potential for eventual imple-
mentation, depending on precise project definitions, site
locations, and alignments. Metro recommends continued
coordination with EPA, the Heritage Conservation and Recrea-
tion Service, the King County Parks Department, the Seattle
Parks and Recreation Department, and other local parks and
recreation agencies, in order to realize the recreation oppor-
tunities identified as part of wastewater management planning.
Impacts of Decentralized Facilities
Under Alternatives C-l - C-5
Alternatives C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, and C-5 have not been
selected as final alternatives by Metro. Nevertheless, the
possibility exists that one or more of the decentralized
treatment plants included in these alternatives could have
sufficient environmental advantages to be included with the
long-term program eventually selected. This chapter assesses
the following selected impacts of the decentralized plants:
impacts on soils, crops, groundwater, and surface water;
and growth-related impacts.
Construction impacts of the decentralized plants are
not discussed here, nor are they mentioned in Chapter 4
{Construction and Site-Related Impacts), since that chapter
focuses on the final selected alternatives. In general,
construction impacts at the sites of the decentralized plants
would be similar in land, but less severe, than those identified
in Table 4-1 for construction of the Kenmore treatment plant.
153

-------
Table 5-8. Potential Recreation Opportunities Provided by Long-Term Alternatives
Preferred	Alternative	Alternative
Recreation Opportunity	 Program	A-l	B-l	No-Project
Interconnection of the Tolt Pipeline Trail,	x	x
Sanmamish River Trail, and the Bridle Crest
Trail via an adjacent linkage of a trail
system provided through the North Creek/
Hollywood connection and Redmond connection.
These trail linkages provide direct and
indirect access to the water bodies of Totem
Lake, Sanmamish River and Lake Saramamish.
Through Renton treatment plant expansion,	x	x	x
provisions are possible for a public infor-
mation network located throughout the
plant components as an environmental educa-
tion feature.
Potential trail access to the Green/Diwamish	x
River adjacent to the existing Renton treat-
ment plant site, with linkage to the Inter-
urban Trail System and Fort Dent Athletic
Center.
Potential design features for proposed punp	x
stations to include provisions for multiple
use, e.g., designing pump stations to include
an observation platform.
Mitigation of disruption to existing park	x
facilities by integrating existing park
amenities with a potential trail system
provided by outfall lines.
aAdditional recreation opportunities would also be created by construction of the Kenmore treatment plant and the
tunnel/outfall to Richmond Beach.
SOURCE: Jfetro, 1980h.

-------
Impact on Soils, Crops and Groundwater
The satellite treatment plants proposed for the decen-
tralized alternatives could have impacts on soils, crops,
or groundwater. As the discussion below suggests, the like-
lihood for such adverse impacts is small. A more detailed
analysis of these impacts may be found in Appendix D.
Impact on Soils. Existing water supplies in the Renton
study area are of excellent chemical quality and the wastewaters
expected to be produced in the service area of the proposed
satellite treatment plants will be predominantly of domestic
nature. Due to these factors the effluent from these plants
is not expected to contain significant concentrations of
toxic or hazardous elements. The major contaminants of concern
will consist of inorganic nitrogen compounds and, potentially,
dissolved phosphorus compounds and pathogenic bacteria. Heavy
metals, boron, PCBs, and chlorinated hydrocarbons are not
expected to pose any problems in nonindustrialized areas.
Due to these factors no adverse soil impacts are anticipated
from irrigation reuse of effluent from these plants under
properly managed land application operations.
Impact on Crops. It is expected that a pasture crop
would be used at the proposed land application sites. As
stated previously the effluents are not expected to contain
any elements which may preclude their use for irrigation
of forage crops. It is anticipated that effluent from the
satellite plants will contain about 50-70 pounds of nitrogen
per acre-foot. Varying amounts of other plant nutrients
will also be present in these effluents. Application of
the effluent would probably supply most of the nutrient
requirements of an irrigated pasture crop.
No adverse impacts are anticipated on the quality and
food value of a forage crop grown through the use of the
proposed satellite treatment plant effluents.
Impact on Groundwater Resources. In this project, nitrate
would be the major constituent of concern with regard to
groundwater pollution potential. Due to the small size of
the proposed land application facilities, and because most
of these facilities would be located on Alderwood soils over-
lying Vashon till, no significant adverse impacts on groundwater
quality are anticipated. In order to prevent any contamination
of domestic water supply wells, it would be advisable to
select a site that is not in the vicinity and upgradient
from such wells. This is especially important for any site
located on Everett Soils which are underlain by recessional
outwash or other highly permeable formations. Bacterial
or viral contamination of shallow domestic wells would also
be of concern under these conditions.
155

-------
Impact on Surface Water Quality
Some risks to water quality and aquatic biology would
result from runoff from the land application sites. If
improper land application practices are used, nutrients may
enter streams and lakes. Small amounts of nutrients entering
streams would probably have no adverse effect, and may actually
enhance anadromous fish productivity. However, if an enriched
stream is tributary to a lake, or if the land application
site drains directly to a lake, nuisance growths of algae
or rooted aquatic plants may be stimulated. These risks
can be minimized by proper effluent application rates and
installation of appropriate drainage facilities at the land
application site.
Growth-Related Impacts
Alternatives C-l through C-5 provide decentralized treat-
ment facilities for six decentralized communities: Sunrise,
Sahalee, Pine Lake, Lake Desire, Timberlane, and Pipe Lake.
The main rationale for selecting these sites is that they
are not contiguous to the central portion of the Metro service
area, so that local land use goals could be enhanced by separate
land-intensive systems. Two types of potential land use
benefits of the decentralized sites have been identified
by Metro: open space benefits from acquisition of land treat-
ment sites, and reduction of the growth-inducing role of
interceptor sewers connecting the decentralized communities
to the central Metro system.
Open Space Benefits. In theory, acquisition of land
treatment sites could support King County open space policies.
A total of 1,164 acres (almost 2 square miles) would be needed
for land treatment, and this land would be assured of long-term
use as agricultural open space. (This estimate of acreage may
be low — refer to Appendix D.) Because specific land
treatment sites have not been identified by Metro, it is
not possible to determine the importance of these potential
open space benefits. Open space benefits of land treatment
would be most apparent if the sites were components of larger
regional open space networks or if the sites were in immediate
danger of being converted to other less desirable uses.
Interceptor Corridor Land Use Benefits. For some
of the decentralized communities, construction of decen-
tralized facilities could lessen development pressures
in interceptor sewer corridors. The potential for inter-
ceptor corridor land use benefits is assessed below for each
community.
It should be noted that in most of the decentralized
communities, uncertainties exist as to whether the
community should be served or how large the local service
area should be. These issues would not, however, be affected
156

-------
by selection of Alternatives C-l through C-5, since all long-
term alternatives assume both an identical initial service
area and an identical process for modifying the service area.
Sunrise. Sunrise is a 207-acre planned residential
subdivision located in the northshore communities planning
area. It is planned for sewer service by County Water District
104.
To serve the Sunrise development, a trunk sewer is planned
to connect to Metro's Sammamish Valley interceptor. The
trunk sewer corridor passes through open space lands, including
valuable Sammamish Valley agricultural lands. Recognizing
the potential growth-inducing impacts of this trunk sewer,
King County Water District 104 has formally committed to
a hook-up ban along the trunk sewer corridor. Assuming this
agreement is enforced, construction of decentralized facilities
at Sunrise in lieu of the trunk sewer would not be expected
to lessen development pressures along the trunk sewer corridor.
Sahalee. Sahalee is a large residential development
of several hundred acres located in the east Sammamish com-
munities planning area; as of 1978, 106 acres have been developed.
Sahalee is provided sewer service by the Sahalee Water and
Sewer District.
Sahalee is presently hooked up to Metro's North Lake
Sammamish interceptor via a trunk sewer which passes through
predominantly open space land. The existing local service
area has been proposed for expansion to the north and east
in the East Sammamish Communities Plan. If the LSA expansion
necessitates expansion of the Sahalee Water and Sewer District
trunk sewer, construction of decentralized facilities in
lieu of the expanded trunk sewer could lessen development
pressures along the trunk sewer corridor.
Pine. Lake. The Pine Lake community, located within
the East Sammamish communities planning area, is primarily
rural, with dispersed-low-^density residential uses. The
south portion of the community is served by a limited pressure
sewer system operated by County Water District 82, connected
to Metro's Issaquah interceptor.
The existing local service area has been proposed for
expansion to the north in the East Sammamish Communities
Plan. Because this would require a new trunk sewer connecting
to the Metro system, which would pass through open space
lands, construction of decentralized facilities at Pine Lake
in lieu of the expanded trunk sewer could lessen development
pressures along the trunk sewer corridor.
Lake Desire. Lake Desire is a low density lakeshore
community located in the Soos Creek communities planning
area. Although the community is presently unsewered, a
157

-------
local improvement district has been proposed to provide a
local collection system; this proposal has created considerable
controversy.
If the sewering proposal is implemented, a trunk sewer
would be needed which would ultimately connect to Metro's
Madsen Creek interceptor or to the Cedar River interceptor.
Because this trunk sewer would pass through predominately
open space lands, construction of decentralized facilities
at Lake Desire in lieu of the expanded trunk sewer could
lessen development pressures along the trunk sewer corridor.
Timberlane and Pipe Lake. Timberlane is a single-family
residential development located in the Tahoma-Raven Heights
communities planning area. Pipe Lake, located in the same
planning area, is a low-density residential community immedi-
ately east of Timberlane. Both communities are currently
served by the Cascade Sewer District.
A trunk sewer currently connects the two communities
to Metro's Clark Fork trunk sewer. Portions of this local
trunk pass through open space areas. The Cascade Sewer District
has indicated to King County planners that the trunk has
sufficient capacity to serve projected growth over the next
6-10 years (King County Planning Division, pers. comm.).
Because this trunk sewer is in place and has available capacity,
construction of decentralized facilities at Timberlane or
Pipe Lake would not be expected to lessen development pressures
along the trunk sewer corridor.
Summary~ Acquisition of land treatment sites could
support King County open space policies by assuring that
1,164 acres would remain in long-term agricultural use; because
specific sites have not been identified by Metro, it is not
possible to determine the importance of these open space
benefits.
In three of the six decentralized communities (Sahalee,
Pine Lake, and Lake Desire), construction of decentralized
facilities could lessen development pressures in trunk sewer
corridors. Lake Desire is currently unsewered, and decentralized
facilities would preclude the need for hook-up to the Renton
system. Although Sahalee and Pine Lake are currently connected
to the Renton system, expansion or paralleling of existing
trunk lines from these communities is contemplated in the
near future, so that decentralized facilities would substitute
for expanded or parallel trunk lines.
The lessening of development pressures along trunk sewer
corridors is not a major land use benefit of the decentralized
plants, however, because of the short distance between the
decentralized communities and the central Renton service
area. Also, other controls are in place (King County Sewerage
General Plan, Metro Resolution 2933) to assist in assuring
that the trunk sewers will not be growth-inducing.
158

-------
Chapter 6
SECONDARY IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
This chapter assesses the growth-related secondary
environmental impacts common to all wastewater management
alternatives considered by Metro. These impacts derive from
the common population and land use projections used to project
wastewater flows for all the alternatives. Growth-related
impacts are of major importance for this EIS, since the Lake
Washington/Green River Basins study area represents the major
growth area for metropolitan Seattle over the next 20 years.
EPA policies require the agency to consider the secondary
environmental impacts of wastewater projects receiving federal
construction grants. These secondary impacts are primarily
caused by the growth which expanded wastewater facilities are
typically constructed to accommodate. The secondary impacts
of a project may often be more significant than the project's
direct impacts.
Because Metro has relied on local land use policies
to designate the sewer service area, and on PSCOG population
projections to project wastewater flows, the proposed waste-
water system improvements will not "cause" the growth projected
by other agencies, but rather will assist its accommodation.
Although neither Metro nor EPA is institutionally "responsible"
for growth and its accompanying secondary impacts within
the study area, the philosophy that EISs are full disclosure
documents dictates that such secondary impacts be examined
in this EIS, and that mitigation measures be identified for
EPA, Metro, or other public agencies when appropriate. This
is particularly important in the case of air quality, agri-
cultural land, wetlands, floodplains, and cultural resources
impacts, for which EPA has developed explicit policies to
mitigate adverse secondary impacts. Those measures identified
for Metro may be the basis for grant conditions.
Relation of Wastewater Alternatives to Growth and Secondary
Impacts
Local Recognition of Relationship Between Sewerage
Availability and Growth. The important relationship between
sewerage availability and growth has been formally recognized
by King County's Sewerage General Plan and General Development
Guide (first draft) policies, and by Metro's Resolution 2933.
(It should be noted that the General Development Guide (first
draft) is currently being revised.) The King County Sewerage
159

-------
General Plan identifies local service areas (the only areas
eligible to receive sewerage service), and establishes a local
service area amendment process to assure consistency of sewer-
ing decisions with the county's growth policies. The county's
General Development Guide (first draft) has development
policies recommending that subdivisions with densities of
three dwelling units per acre or more be served by sanitary
sewers; these policies effectively limit development in areas
without available centralized sewerage service to densities
of less than three dwelling units per acre.
Metro, in its Resolution 2933, requires affected local
agencies to certify that trunk or interceptor sewers and
sewer hook-ups are consistent with applicable local land use
plans before it will construct the sewer. Through this
resolution Metro is limited to constructing only those sewers
which are consistent with local land use policies.
Growth and Secondary Impacts of a No-Project Alternative.
Technically, the most accurate method for assessing the secondary
impacts of a wastewater treatment expansion project is to
compare the impacts of growth patterns, in the absence of
the project, with those that would occur if the project is
implemented. Unfortunately, it is not possible to follow
this procedure in this EIS because PSCOG's regional growth
projections assume major increases in sewered population,
thereby assuming that necessary wastewater treatment capacity
will be available in the future. No regional growth projection
exists which assumes no further increases in sewered population
within the study area, and the generation of such a projection
is a very complex process beyond the scope of this EIS.
In the absence of a sewerage-constrained -growth projection,
this EIS assumes that since expanded wastewater treatment
facilities will play some role in accommodating the population
growth projected by PSCOG, it is appropriate to examine the
environmental impacts of the PSCOG growth projections and
consider these as the secondary impacts of Metro's Wastewater
Management Plan. It is possible, however, to make some general-
izations related to the growth impacts of a no-project alternative.
Lack of expanded wastewater treatment capacity would be unlikely
to affect the Puget Sound regional growth rate, which is
largely determined by birth rates, death rates, and net in-
migration (the latter strongly influenced by job opportunities
and lifestyle preferences). However, lack of sufficient
wastewater treatment capacity could have major effects on
the distribution of new development, by (1) encouraging
development within other portions of the Puget Sound region
with adequate wastewater treatment capacity, and (2) encour-
aging lower density development within the study area more
compatible with the use of on-site systems, which would
require additional acres to be urbanized.
160

-------
Assumptions for Secondary Impact Assessment
Several assumptions have been made in preparing the
following analysis of growth-related secondary impacts.
o Availability of expanded treatment plant capacity
within the study area will assist in accommodating
additional population growth.
o Availability of expanded treatment plant capacity is
only one of many factors (such as employment growth,
market forces, lifestyle preferences, local land use
policies, and infrastructure decisions) that together
operate to influence growth patterns.
o The population growth and land use changes that will
occur in the study area are those projected by PSCOG
in its "policy" projection.
o The adverse secondary impacts of growth have been
recognized by responsible agencies having jurisdiction
within the study area; these agencies have developed
plans, policies and regulations to mitigate such impacts,
and the effectiveness of these measures depends on their
implementation.
o Sewer service will be provided outside of the initial
sewer service area as a result of incremental local
service area changes after 6 to 10 years.
Because of this last assumption, the assessment of secondary
impacts is not limited to the identified sewer service area,
but also takes into account qrowth impacts outside the service
area but within the Wastewater Management Plan study area.
Although the nonsewer area will generally not be served within
the next 6-10 years, amendments to the King County Sewerage
General Plan and future Metro interceptor sewer decisions
will eventually expand the service area for the Renton plant
beyond the present boundary. Expansion beyond the current
sewer service area can occur before all projected sewered
population occurs within the current service area. This
would have the effect of increasing the study area sewered
population beyond that projected by PSCOG, thereby accelerating
the rate at which capacity is used at the Renton plant.
Future EPA decisions related to the Renton sewerage
system may involve incremental expansion of the current service
area boundary. It is therefore important that the secondary
impact analysis in the EIS examine the impacts of growth
throughout the study area in a regional, comprehensive manner.
With this approach, the EIS can serve as the basis for assess-
ment of the cumulative impacts of future sewerage projects
tributary to the Renton plant.
161

-------
Contents of Chapter
The next section of this chapter describes and assesses
the PSCOG population forecasts which underly the Metro
Wastewater Management Plan. The remaining sections of the
chapter describe impacts and mitigation measures within the
following areas: air quality, surface water and biology,
groundwater, land use, public services, and public finance.
Description and Assessment of PSCOG's
Population Projection
Method
To project the geographic distribution of total popula-
tion, employment and land use change within the planning area,
PSCOG used a computer-assisted model called the Activity
Allocation Model (AAM). This model seeks to answer the ques-
tion, "What significant relationships can be found between
the 1960 census data set and the 1970 census data set which
can be used to account for the changes in households and
employment which occurred over that 10-year interval?" It
formulates the answer in a series of ten simultaneous equations
which produce projected changes in the number of households
and number of employees in each defined district. Land use
changes are derived by applying density factors to projected
numbers of households and employees. The AAM operates in
10-year forecast increments, and policy assumptions and model
results are evaluated for each increment.
The model's ten equations require two types of inputs:
data inputs and policy inputs. The data inputs describe the
number and distribution of households in various income cate-
gories, the household density, the amount of employment in
various economic sectors, the relative location of employ-
ment opportunities {expressed as highway traveL times) , land,
use for various economic activities and a "composite amenity
index". The policy inputs include travel time to future
housing and employment locations, water and sewer service
availability, the relative location of households in other
income categories and the amount of vacant land available.
PSCOG has derived two distributions of population, housing
and land use for the study area. One is a trends allocation,
which is characterized by the primary importance of .market
demand in determining patterns of land use. For that alloca-
tion, only the limitations on development inherent in the
current regulatory context were imposed; they included zoning,
subdivision regulation, land costs, availability of services,
existing tax laws and the availability of funds to build
new infrastructure such as highways, sewers and water supply
systems. The other distribution is the policy allocation,
which is characterized by restrictions on the conversion
of land from rural to urban use. The policy allocation
162

-------
therefore provided that only low density uses would be allowed
in unsewered areas, that decisions regarding sewer and water
line extensions would be made by local governments rather
than by sewer and water districts, and that sewer service
areas would be expanded only by small amounts by 1990. In
addition, it contained "a significant increase" in incentives
for infill and compact development.
Projected Population
PSCOG projects that population in King and Snohomish
Counties will increase from 1,575,000 in 1980 to 2,112,500
in the year 2000, an average annual growth rate of 1.5 per-
cent. The projection for the Renton 201 study area, which
includes portions of King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties,
varies between the policy allocation and the trends alloca-
tion. In the policy allocation, area population would grow
from the 1980 level of 537,087 residents to a total of 805,248
residents, an average annual increase of 2.0 percent. This
growth would be concentrated in the western portions of the
study area, with the largest shares of the total increase
occurring in the North Lake Washington, Green River and East
Lake Washington basins. In the trends allocation, the popu-
lation of the study area would grow to a total of 858,450
residents, an average annual increase over 1980 of 2.4 per-
cent. This growth would spread out more completely over
the study area; the largest shares would locate in the Green
River, North Lake Sammamish and North Lake Washington basins.
The distribution of new population in the study area projected
under the two allocations is compared in Table 6-1.
Critique
The AAM used by PSCOG to develop its population projections
relies on trends observed between 1960 and 1970 to predict
changes that will occur in the future. It distills the
observed trends into a series of equations that describe
changes in population and employment factors as well as land
use and transportation conditions and policies.
This approach is subject to question on several grounds,
some of which were noted in a PSCOG information item dated
March 9, 1977. First, because it relies on data from 1960
and 1970, it cannot account for influences on urban form
not present during that decade, such as gasoline and housing
prices and interest rates, that are significantly higher
relative to real income than they were during that period.
Second, because the model predicts on the basis of
observed trends rather than the underlying reasons for those
trends, it is susceptible to the statistical problem known
as covariance; this problem occurs when variation in one
163

-------
Table 6-1
PROJECTED POPULATION INCREASE BY DRAINAGE BASIN,
RENTON STUDY AREA, 1980-2000
Pol icy Allocation
Trends Allocation
Basin
1930
2000
Increase
'o of
Study
Area
Increase
2000
Increase
% ol:
Study
Area
Increase
North Lake Washington
99,611
167,702
68,091
25
153,650
54,039
17
North Lake Sammamish
47,140
81,312
34,172
13
101,972
54,832
17
East Lake Washington
121,142
100,694
59,552
22
151,258
30,116
9
South Lake Washington
63,601
77 ,158
13,557
5
105,217
41,616
13
South Lake Sammamish
38,024
51,863
13,839
5
59,340
21,316
7
Green River
133,075
193,877
60,802
23
230,053
96,978
30
White River
13,804
29,244
15,440
6
33 ,299
19,495
6
Mercer Island
20,690
23,398
2,703
1
23,661
2,971
1
TOTAL
537,087
805,248
268,161
100
858,450
321,363
100
Source: Puget Sound Council of Governments

-------
condition appears to cause variation in a second, but in
reality the variation in both results from the activity of
a third factor. Finally, problems could result from the
availability of local data and the consistency of data
measurement, a factor of particular importance in land use
information.
The accuracy of any forecast, regardless of the method
or model used to develop it, may be expected to diminish
as its distance into the future increases because there may
be influences on development patterns that could not be fore-
seen or incorporated into the forecasting process. Examples
of such influences are changes in technology, changes in
family structures, changes in economic conditions and changes
in government policies. These factors may affect both the
overall level and type of development within a geographic
region and the distribution of that development among sub-
areas of that region.
A more detailed analysis and discussion of the demo-
graphic forecasts prepared by PSCOG may be found in
Appendix A of the EIS.
Comparison of PSCOG Forecast to Other Forecasts
EPA Grant Regulations Relating to Population Forecasts.
In 1978, EPA established requlations for population fore-
casts to be used in facilities planning. The forecasts are
to be based on state projections prepared for EPA by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the Department of Com-
merce in 1977. BEA is the federal agency responsible for
most economic forecasting, and is known in particular for its
OBERS (Office of Business Economics/Economic Research Service)
series of forecasts, on which the projections prepared for EPA
were, in part, based.
EPA has determined that its funding decisions will be
based on BEA's state totals, which each state is required
to disaggregate to water quality planning areas. There are
two exceptions to the mandate to use the BEA projections:
(1) in the event either a state, or a water quality planning
area, had completed its own population forecast prior to
June 26, 1978, that forecast can be used instead of the BEA-
based projection if the state projection does not exceed
by more than 5 percent the BEA state total, and the regional
projection does not exceed by more than 10 percent the re-
gional total determined by disaggregating the BEA state pro-
jection; or (2) the BEA projection may be appealed to EPA in
Washington.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Projections. The
BEA approach is "top down", based on analysis of the national
economy and of each state's economy in relation to the nation
as a whole. For all states, including Washington, BEA developed
projections for 1980, 1985, 1990, and 2000. Because no adopted
165

-------
Washington state forecast predates June 1978, these BEA pro-
jections would normally serve as the basis of EPA funding
decisions in the State of Washington.
Status of BEA Projections in the State of Washington.
The State of Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM)
had undertaken its own population forecasting at the time
BEA's work for EPA was proceeding, and in 1979 the state
published that forecast. Because the state's forecast
deviated sharply from the BEA projection (exceeding the BEA
figures by about 20 percent) a resolution of the difference
was sought by EPA in order to make clear the basis on which
the agency's funding decisions in the State of Washington
would rest.
After reviewing a request by OFM for acceptance of the
1979 state forecast in lieu of the BEA projection, EPA head-
quarters instead authorized interim use of a forecast based on
the BEA projection increased by 10 percent in the year 2000.
Table 6-2 presents a comparison of the forecasts mentioned
so far: the initial BEA projection, the adjusted BEA
projection authorized for EPA use in funding decisions, and
the OFM 1979 forecast rejected by EPA for funding purposes.
A fourth forecast presented in the table represents OFM's
most recent revised state forecast.
The four projections presented in Table 6-2 show a wide
range in year 2000 population levels. Only a small amount
of this difference is attributable to different 1980 bases;
most of it arises from differences in rates of growth. The
State of Washington forecast represents about 24 percent
more people in the state in the year 2000 than the 4,858,000
level acceptable to EPA.
There has been considerable discussion between EPA and
the state about the differences in their forecasts, and EPA
has indicated procedures for challenges to the projections
EPA has proposed to use for funding decisions. It is not
known whether the State of Washington plans further challenges,
nor is it yet known how the anticipated publication of new
OBERS state projections or the actual 1980 census enumeration
(when published) could affect the ultimate population figures
applied in EPA's funding decisions.
Multiplicity of County and Regional Forecasts. Disagree-
ment about the future population is not confined to state-
level projections. There is also lack of agreement about
regional forecasts. At the regional level, the disparity
is of concern not only because it affects funding levels
but alsc because it suggests contradictory guidance to the
regional wastewater agency, Metro. That is, Metro is
required to both use the allocations of state population
projections to regions in its wastewater facilities planning
166

-------
Table 6-2
WASHINGTON STATE POPULATION FORECASTS AND PROJECTIONS
(000s)
1980
1985
1990
2000
1. BEA 1977 Projection
for EPA
3,738 3,908 4,076 4,417
2. BEA Adjusted Projection
Approved for Interim	3,926 4,15 9 4,392 4,858
EPA Use in Funding
Decisions
3. OFM August 1979
Forecasts
4,036 4,490 4,836 5,345
4. OFM December 1979
Revised Forecasts
4,068 4,619 5,090 6,024
Sources:
1.	U. S. Department of Ccrrmerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: Population>
Personal Income and Earnings by Statet Projections to 2000, October 1977.
2.	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Craig Partridge, pers.
conn., April 2, 1980.
3.	Washington, State of, Office of Financial Management: Eeoormended
Washington State Population Forecasts for Use in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grants Program, September 1979.
4.	Washington, State of, Office of Financial Management: State and County
Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 1980-2000 (Special Report No. 30),
January 1980.
167

-------
according to state law, and to abide by regional planning
criteria according to the charter of the agency and according
to the Metro 208 plan. Where state and regional agencies
disagree on the future growth of the region, Metro cannot
follow both paths simultaneously. Table 6-3 compares the
most recent allocations for the Puget Sound region and King
County, including the DOE allocation of the EPA-approved
state population projection. Also shown is the proposed
revision to the PSCOG regional projection, which had not been
adopted as of late 1980.
As shown by Table 6-3, for King County, the DOE alloca-
tion is similar to the PSCOG projection, whereas for the
Puget Sound region, the DOE allocation is significantly lower
than the PSCOG projection. This does not appear to be a
major problem, since most of Metro's study area is within
King County, where the projections generally agree. It should
be noted that the DOE allocation will apply only to grants
issued after January 1981, and that the allocations will
be revised after 1980 census data become available.
Secondary Air Quality Impacts
Background
Under Section 316 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977, the EPA is authorized to withhold, condition, or restrict
any grant for construction of sewage treatment facilities
if the proposed project will accommodate a larger increase
in air pollutant emissions than provided for under the local
portion of the State Implementation Plan.
The Washington State Implementation Plan, which includes
the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the central Puget
Sound region, was conditionally approved by the EPA on June 5,
1980. Details of the central Puget Sound AQMP, which is
a plan for attaining federal standards for ozone, carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulates, may be found
in Appendix B of this EIS.
Assessment of Impacts
To determine whether Metro's wastewater management plan
will accommodate a larger increase in emissions than provided
for in the local AQMP, the population projections underlying
both plans are compared here. Although the AQMP region con-
sists of four counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap)
only portions of the first three are within the wastewater
plan study area; therefore, Kitsap County has been excluded
from the comparison of population projections.
168

-------
Table 6-3. Comparison of Regional and King County
Population Forecasts
(000s)
Area
Projection by
1980
1990
2000
Puget Sound
Region
PSCOG - 1977	2,137	2,570	2,974
PSCOG - Proposed	2,188	2,632	3,073
1980 revision
OFM (8-79)
OFM (12-79)
2,190
2,210
2,655
2,798
2,935
3, 326
King County
DOE Allocation of
EPA Projection
PSCOG
1,235
1,400
(Policy)
1,429
(Trends)
2,679
1,575
N.T.
OFM (8-79)
OFM (12-79)
DOE Allocation of
EPA Projection
1,268
1,280
1,530
1,611
1,707
1,928
1,551
N.T.: Not tabulated.
Sources:
1.	Puget Sound Council of Governments, Mayor Beth Bland: Memorandum to
King Subregional Council regarding Foreeastst February 13, 1980.
2.	Puget Sound Council of Governments, Tim Watterson: Memorandum to
PSCOG staff regarding regional population, employment, income
forecast revision.
3.	Washington, State of, Office of Financial Management: 1979 Revision
of County Population Foreoast for Washington State: 1980-2000 (Table
1), August 1, 1979. December 1979 forecasts fran PSCOG memo cited in
(1) above.
4.	Department of Ecology: Letter to EPA Region X, September 4, 1980.
169

-------
Emission forecasts for population-dependent source categories
were developed for the AQMP by utilizing the September 197 8
PSCOG population projection. In contrast, the Lake Washington/
Green River Basins wastewater management plan is based on
PSCOG's 197 9 population projection. As indicated in Table 6-4,
there is less than 1 percent difference between the September
1978 and May 1979 PSCOG population projections for the three
counties. This difference is not considered significant,
since emissions forecasts for population-dependent source
categories are based upon emission factors which exhibit
larger- margins of error than 1 percent.
From the comparison in Table 6-4, it can be concluded
that the proposed plan is consistent with the Central Puget
Sound AQiMP; a re-evaluation of consistency would be required
if either the local portion of the State Implementation Plan
or the facilities plan are amended to incorporate updated
population forecasts. Since the population projections used
in Metro's wastewater management plan are consistent with
those used in the AQMP, the secondary air quality impacts
of growth accommodated by the wastewater plan have been examined
in the AQMP.
It should be noted that population growth is only one
factor affecting ambient air quality. Some of the interrelation-
ships between growth and air quality are explored in a recent
PSCOG study (PSCOG, 1980).
Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Impacts
The AQMP air quality control measures act as mitigation
measures for the wastewater plan's secondary air quality
impacts; no additional mitigation measures are needed for
this EIS. The AQMP control measures are intended to attain
and maintain federal air quality standards in the central
Puget Sound basin.
Secondary Surface Water and Biological Impacts
This section describes the generalized secondary impacts
of study area population growth on surface water quality,
aquatic ecosystems, and terrestrial ecosystems. Details
regarding existing biological and water quality conditions
within the study area may be found in Appendix C of the EIS.
Secondary Surface Water Quality Impacts
Background. The many lakes and streams in the study
area generally have good chemical water quality, in terms
of conventional toxic or oxygen-depleting pollutants. The
main types of water quality problems in the study area are
170

-------
Table 6-4. Comparison of September 1978 and
May 1979 PSCOG Population Forecasts
for the Three-County Puget
Sound Air Quality
Planning Region
County/PSCOG
Forecast Year
1980
Year
1990
Pierce
September 1978
May 197 9
Difference
Percent Difference
Snohomish
September 1978
May 197 9
Difference
Percent Difference
King
September 197 8
May 197 9
Difference
Percent Difference
Three-County Total
September 1978
May 197 9
Difference
Percent Difference
405,870
414,998
9,128
2.3
291,256
291,266
0
0
1,203,756
1,207,756
4,000
0.3
1,900,892
1,914,020
13,128
0.7
499,348
516,092
16,744
3.4
361,418
375,076
13,658
3.8
1,378,111
1, 367 , 440
10,671
-0.8
2,238,877
2,258 ,608
19,731
0.9
171

-------
generally high coliform bacteria levels caused by malfunc-
tioning septic tank systems, or by pet, livestock, or wild
animal wastes; and erosion and sedimentation caused by land
disturbance and impervious surfaces that accompany urbanization.
Water Quality Impacts of Urban Runoff. The land use
changes that accompany population growth alter the runoff
characteristics of land. The general effect is to increase
the amount of immediate surface runoff for a given amount
of rainfall. Higher runoff rates are caused by impervious
surfaces (rooftops, driveways, streets) and other factors
such as decreased raindrop interception by vegetation and
lower moisture-retention capacity of disturbed soil.
Runoff coefficients (the ratio of runoff to rainfall)
chosen by Metro for use in runoff modeling studies (Buffo,
1979) illustrate the great effect urbanization can have.
The runoff coefficients for different land uses are as follows:
Industrial	.95
Commercial	.90
High Density	.60
(multifamily)
Medi Density	.35
(multifamily)
Low Density	.20
(single family)
Open Space - Rural	.05
Agricultural	.01
Forest	.005
Urban runoff can cause adverse water quality impacts in streams
and lakes. Study area streams are probably most affected by
sedimentation caused by raindrop impact on disturbed soils,
increased runoff rates, and streambank erosion. Study area
lakes are probably most affected by nutrient enrichment,
primarily phosphorus.
Metro has developed suspended solids, phosphorus, and
lead loading rates for various land use types within the
study area (Buffo, 1979); similar loading rates for other
nonpoint source pollutants are not available. Table 6-5
presents some of these loading estimates and indicates the
great increases in nonpoint source pollutants that occur
with urban vs. nonurban uses, and with stable vs. unstable
(recently disturbed) sites.
172

-------
Table 6-5. Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading Estimates for Land Use
Types in Locations near Kent, Washington
Industrial
Ccnmercial
High Density
Multi family
Site
Characteristics
Stable
Unstable
Stable
Unstable
Stable
Unstable
Total
Phosphorus
(lb/acre/yr)
1.1
3.2
0.8
3.6
0.9
2.7
Total Suspended Solids
(lb/acre/yr)
356.3
1,500.4
161.4
921.6
369.3
421.9
Lead
(lb/acre/yr)
0.98
1.4
0.2
Medium Density
Multifaroily
Stable
Unstable
0.1
1.8
31.2
286.8
0.1
Low Density
Single family
Open Space Rural
Agricultural -
Pasture
Agricultural -
Farming
Forest - Douglas-
fir
Stable
Unstable
Stable
Unstable
Stable
Stable
Stable
0.08
0.5
0.01
0.07
0.38
0.0002
0.00002
8.2
93.8
1.4
1.5
0.2
0.001
SOURCE: Buffo, 1979.

-------
It should be noted that pollutant loading rates are only
a rough indication of potential nonpoint source water quality
impacts. Of greater importance are the actual effects of
nonpoint source pollutants on specific receiving waters. Such
an analysis can only be done by considering each water body
individually.
Metro has used the phosphorus loadings in Table 6-5
to estimate the phosphorus loading to Lake Washington under
future year 2000 conditions of increased urbanization
(Figure 6-1). Because the population and land use projections
used by Metro are similar to those used in this EIS, it can
be assumed that the phosphorus loading increase shown in
Figure 6-1 is similar to that which can be expected using
the current PSCOG projections.
Water Quality Impacts of On-site Systems. One possible
significant impact of urbanization is nutrient impact to
lakes from septic tank seepage. For example, Davis, et al.
(1978) estimated that 14 percent of the annual phosphorus
loading to Lake Meridian was from the 65 active septic tanks
in the watershed, as compared to 3 percent from storm runoff
and inlet flow, and 16 percent from nonstorm runoff and ground-
water. Also, Metro is presently attempting to define the
role of septic tank seepage in Pine Lake in a special lake
restoration study.
Within the drainage of a particular lake, water quality
trade-offs can exist at the time that sewering decisions
are made. The potential for nutrient enrichment from septic
tanks must be balanced with the potential for nutrient enrich-
ment and sedimentation from the increased impervious acreage
that would occur if sewers are installed.
A more detailed analysis of on-site system problems
is presented in a later section of this chapter discussing
secondary groundwater impacts. Mitigation measures for
potential adverse water quality impacts caused by failing
on-site systems are also discussed in the groundwater impacts
section.
Secondary Impacts on Aquatic Biology and Fisheries
Background. The inland lakes and streams of the study
area are complex ecosystems that include a variety of fresh-
water and anadromous fishes, which are of economic, recrea-
tional, and cultural importance. Common anadromous fishes
in the study area include coho salmon, red salmon, chum salmon,
steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout.
174

-------
-J
cn
O
«T
z
o
"X
o

a:
O
X
Q_
to
O
«t
»—
o
2.5 -
2.0 -
1.5 —I
1.0-
0.5-
SOURCE DRAFT DATA OF DAVIS,1979
1957 1962 1964 1970 1971 197 2 1973
BEFORE SEWAGE DIVERSION
1974 1975 CURRENT
'AVERAGE"
2000
HIGH
EST.
AFTER SEWA6E DIVERSION
FIGURE €-1. HISTORICAL, CURRENT & PROJECTED
PHOSPHORUS LOADING TO LAKE WASHINGTON

-------
Streams. The following discussions describe expected
effects of increased runoff or nonpoint source pollution
loadings on stream flora, invertebrates, and fish.
Flora. Increased algal and aquatic plant growths in
streams due to higher nutrient loadings may occur (this can
be counteracted by the scouring effects of higher storm peaks).
The most likely areas for increased plant growth would be
backwater areas and the lower, slow-flowing reaches of streams.
The effects of increased plant growths in streams could be
adverse if biomass reaches levels that actually physically
choke the stream or cause dissolved oxygen depletion, or
if growth in rooted plants along stream margins slows stream
flows, causing increased sedimentation. Moderate increases
in plant growth could actually enhance invertebrate and fish
production.
Invertebrates. The data plotted on Figure 6-2 illustrate
how urbanization is affecting stream invertebrate communities
in the study area. This figure shows the average "percent
EPT" for stream invertebrate samples gathered in a subdrainage
basin as a function of the percentage of the subdrainage
basin that is urbanized. The percent EPT is the percent
of stream invertebrates in a sample that belongs to the insect
orders emphemeroptera (mayflies) , plecoptera (stoneflies) ,
or trichoptera (caddisflies). These insect groups are generally
regarded as good fish food. Furthermore, these insect groups
are relatively intolerant of sediment or organic pollution,
as opposed to some forms of oligochaete worms and fly larvae.
Thus, the percent EPT is a "living index" of physical and
chemical stream quality.
Figure 6-2 is a scientific indication that urbanization
is having adverse impacts on stream habitat quality in the
study area. Sedimentation is probably the main factor causing
this general decline. The study area as a whole is currently
19 percent urbanized, which would result in an average EPT
index of 51 percent, according to the regression line. With
the study area 28 percent urbanized in the year 2000 (projected
in the PSCOG policy projection), the average EPT index would
be reduced to 4 5 percent, which is a significant reduction.
Fish. The hydrologic, water quality, invertebrate com-
munity, and other changes accompanying urbanization will
adversely affect stream salmonid (salmon and trout) popula-
tions through a variety of interacting pathways. Figure 6-3
illustrates some of these pathways. Increased runoff and
soil erosion from urbanization can induce flooding, stream-
bank erosion, scouring, stream channelization (a human response),
sedimentation, and adverse effects on stream invertebrates
and fishes. Among fishes, salmonids are particularly sensitive
to sedimentation and scouring because they bury their eggs
in stream gravels.
176

-------
IOA

IUU


80-
0

1ft
z
If>
•

OD
•




or 2 60-
o

UJ 3 SAMPLES/BASIN OR FEWER SAMPLES.

—— y * 62. 9 - 0.65X

r * 0. 71

rt * 0.50

p* 0.05
FIGURE
6-2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URBANIZATION
AND CLEAN-WATER STREAM INSECTS (PERCENT
Ephemeroptera , Plecoptera, Trichoptera } IN RENTON
STUDY
AREA.

177

-------
LAND
SURFACE
URBANIZATION
MPERVIOUS
SURFACES
DEVEGETATION
SOIL
DISTURBANCE
POLLUTANTS
RUNOFF RATE
C> SOIL EROSION
Ł> STREAM BANK
^ EROSION
FLOODING
STREAM L
CHANNELIZATION
SEDIMENTATION
FISH EGG
MORTALITY
SCOURING
INVERTEBRATE
COMMUNITY
k QUALITY
DECLINES
FISH HABITAT
VARIETY
DECREASES
POACHING
i> FISHERY
DECLINE
FIGURE 6-3. URBANIZATION IMPACTS ON
SALMONID FISHERY RESOURCES
178

-------
The relationship between the percentage urbanization
of a subdrainage basin and the degree of overall aquatic
habitat degradation in the basin's streams appears to be
direct as suggested by Figure 6-2, Therefore, one way to
analyze the impacts of future growth on fishery resources
is to simply look at the increase in urban acres within sub-
drainage basins.
Table 6-6 shows the increase in urban acres between
1980 and 2000 for subdrainage basins within the study area,
as projected in PSCOG's policy projection. Subdrainage basins
with percentage increases in urban acres in excess of 40
percent (the study area average) are considered "high growth"
for purposes of the EIS secondary impact analysis.
Of the subdrainage basins considered high growth,
Mill Creek, Swamp Creek, and North Creek have the greatest
potential for fishery declines due to urbanization because
of their dramatic increases in urban acreage (greater than
50 percent increase in urban acres between 1980 and 2000).
Evans Creek and the White River basin also show increases
in urban acres of greater than 50 percent, but these per-
centage increases are misleading because the number of urban
acres in 1980 is relatively small, and the basins will remain
relatively unurbanized through the year 2000.
By the year 2000 Swamp Creek is projected to become
55 percent urbanized, North Creek is projected to become
46 percent urbanized, and Mill Creek is projected to become
40 percent urbanized; present levels of urbanization for
these three basins are 35 percent, 30 percent, and 18 percent,
respectively. As the level of urbanization exceeds 40 percent,
natural reproduction contributing to the fisheries in the
subdrainages could be totally lost; for example, Juanita
Creek is presently 46 percent urbanized and its natural fishery
has been essentially eliminated. Fishery losses due to urbani-
zation will occur in other high growth subdrainage basins,
but probably not to the extent of Swamp Creek, North Creek,
and Mill Creek.
North Creek and Swamp Creek support primarily coho salmon;
in 197 6 there were about 2,200 spawners in North Creek and
1,700 spawners in Swamp Creek (Metro, 1978c). Numerical
estimates are not available for Mill Creek. The coho runs
in Swamp Creek and North Creek have a net economic value
(1976 dollars) of about $102,000 annually, based on a catch/
escapement ratio of 2.0; a commercial harvest/sport harvest
ratio of 3.1; a commercial value of $4.88 per fish; and a
sport value of $92.40 per fish (Miller, 1976).
Lakes. Population growth accommodated by expansion
of Metro's wastewater facilities may affect study area lakes
due to sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Possible general
effects on lake flora and fishes are reviewed below.
179

-------
Table 6-6. Increase in Urban Acres by Subdrainage Basin, 1980-2000
Major Basin
Subbas in
Estimated
Total
Acres 	
Urban Acres
1980
(percent)
Urban Acres
2000
(percent)
Additional
Acres
Urbanized
1980-2000
Percent
Increase in
Urban Acres
1980-2000
North Lake Washington
149,645
14,086
(28)
21, 590
(43)
7,504
53
Swamp Creek*
15,738
5,572
(35)
8,668
(55)
3,096
56
North Creek*
21,062
6,386
(30)
9, 808
(46)
3,422
54
Little Bear Creek*
12,845
2,128
(17)
3,114
(24)
986
46
North Lake Sammamish
51,188
8,658
(17)
12,233
(24)
3, 575
41
Sammamish River
11,738
3, 534
(30)
4,744
(41)
1,210
34
Evans Creek*
31,533
4,111
(13)
6, 160
(20)
2,049
50
Pine Lake
7,917
1,013
(13)
1,329
(17)
316
31
East Lake Washington
33,728
16,346
(48)
19,702
(58)
3,356
21
Juanita Creek
16,851
7 ,759
(46)
9,612
(51)
1,853
24
Kelsey Creek
4, 973
2,922
(59)
3, 398
(68)
476
16
Coal Creek
11,904
5,665
(48)
6,692
(56)
1,027
13
South Lake Washington
41,120
89,044
(22)
11,165
(27)
22,021
25
May Creek
10,669
2,744
(26)
3,553
(33)
809
29
Cedar River
30,451
6,200
(20)
7,612
(25)
1,412
23
South Lake Sammamish
51,104
5,896
(12)
7 , 324
(14)
1,428
24
Tibbetts Creek
9,165
3,145
(34)
3,478
(33)
330
11
East Lake Sammamish
4,736
724
(15)
968
(20)
244
34
Issaquah Creek*
37,203
2,009
(5)
2,878
(8)
8 6 9
43
Green River Basin
136,869
18,293
(13)
28 ,681
(21)
10,388
57
Mill Creek*
28,460
5,234
(18)
11,310
(40)
6,076
116
Green River
18,406
4,458
(24)
5,888
(32)
1,430
32
Soos Creek*
17,414
3,199
(18)
4,613
(27)
1,414
44
Lake Young
3,309
463
(14)
563
(17)
100
22
Jenkins Creek
12,160
1,524
(12)
1,867
(15)
343
23
Covington Creek
35,859
2,488
(7)
3,172
(9)
684
27
Newaukum Creek
21,261
927
(4)
1,268
(6)
341
37
White River Basin*
27,475
2,701
(10)
4 ,940
(18)
2,239
83
Mercer Island
4,109
2,560
(62)
2,878
(70)
318
12
TOTAL
395,238
77,484
(20)
108,513
(27)
31,029
40
~Denotes subdrainage basins with urban acre increase greater than 40 percent, considered "high
growth" for purposes of secondary impact analysis.
180

-------
Flora. Nutrient enrichment due to higher nutrient
loadings may increase algal and aquatic plant standing crops.
However, this may be offset in some locations by nutrient
diversion due to sewering of septic tank areas; for example,
nutrient concentrations in Lake Meridian decreased immediately
following installation of sewers in 1973 (Davis, et al.,
1978). Future nutrient loadings will depend on the degree
of urbanization and sewering decisions. Excessive algal
and plant growth would have adverse impacts on recreation
(swimming, boating, waterskiing) and aesthetics.
Fish. The impacts of additional algal or aquatic plant
growth on fish depend on the degree of such growth. Moderate
algal or plant growth could increase lake fish productivity
by providing more energy at the base of the food web. Also,
aquatic plants provide small fish protection from predators.
If aquatic plant or algal growth results in dissolved oxygen
levels below approximately 6 mg/1 in the deep portions of
lakes then the value of the lake as fish habitat would
decrease.
Mitigation Measures for Water Quality and Fisheries
Impacts
The preceding analysis has attempted to identify the
streams in which fisheries will be most affected. inaccuracies
undoubtedly exist due to the uncertainty associated with
PSCOG's land use projections, and the imperfect nature of the
correlation between urbanization, water quality impairment,
and habitat degradation. The important point is that water
quality impairment and anadromous fish losses are occurring
due to urbanization and could continue to occur in the future.
Metro and other local agencies are conscious of this
problem and have initiated steps to mitigate it. As Figure 6-3
shows, the key to mitigating fishery losses, as well as miti-
gating flooding, streambank erosion, and sedimentation problems
caused by urbanization, lies in controlling runoff rates
and soil erosion. Consequently, these problems have been
addressed comprehensively in drainage planning studies, in
particular the RIBCO drainage studies, Metro's 208 plan,
and local drainage planning.
RIBCO Studies. The 1974.RIBCO studies (STR, 1974a;
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974) identified present and
future water quality and drainage problem areas in the Cedar
and Green River basins, and proposed institutional and struc-
tural solutions. Alternative solution plans were prepared
for each subdrainage basin. The RIBCO studies recommended
that coordinated drainage management programs be worked out
among the various jurisdictions in each subdrainage. Recom-
mended RIBCO policies call for retention of the natural open
drainage system, wetlands protection, and floodplain zoning,
with local government being responsible for detailed faci-
lities planning.
181

-------
Metro 208 Plan. The RIBCO studies were followed by
Metro's 208 areawide water quality planning. As the desig-
nated 208 agency for the Cedar-Green River basins, Metro
is responsible for areawide water quality management planning,
partially funded by EPA under the Clean Water Act. The Metro
208 plan's primary objective is the development of adequate
surface drainage control programs. The plan reiterated RIBCO's
emphasis on developing cooperative local government agreements
for drainage control in each basin.
Progress in implementing the 208 plan, as of June 1980,
has been summarized by Metro (1980i). Metro reports that
roughly two-thirds of the assigned local responsibilities
are either completed or in progress. Significant local
actions have included: 1) completion of a Union Bay demon-
stration project by Seattle, King County and Metro; 2) adop-
tion of a Surface Water Master Plan and a revised clearing
grading ordinance by Bellevue; 3) approval by Bellevue voters
of an advisory ballot issue representing a strong local
commitment for purchase of wetlands and open space? 4) develop-
ment of a draft Drainage Management Plan by Seattle; and
5) development of options for a coordinated surface water
management program by King County staff. Metro has also made
substantial progress in developing an agressive water quality
planning and management approach.
Areas of least accomplishment by local jurisdictions
reported by Metro are 1) development and implementation of
local water quality enforcement programs; 2) development of
water quality expertise in local staff as part of the ordinance
process; 3) funding for surface water programs; and 4) imple-
mentation of best management practices for nonpoint source
pollution control.
Of course, even full implementation of 208 plan recom-
mendations would not completely eliminate nonpoint source
impacts. Also, not all jurisdictions are moving forward to
implementation as quickly as was hoped. For example, although
creation of a surface runoff utility for King County was
identified in the 208 plan as an important method to control
runoff from urbanization, such a utility has yet to be created,
due to budgetary and other constraints.
Local Plans and Policies. The Juanita Creek Basin Plan
(King County, 1977), the Green River Basin Program, and the
City of Bellevue comprehensive drainage plan are examples
of more local drainage basin planning for solution of drain-
age problems. However, in many of the subdrainage basins
projected for large increases in urban acres, local drainage
planning has not been undertaken.
King County has proposd many policies relating to drainage
in its General Development Guide {first draft). Among these are:
182

-------
o Controls on development adjacent to water bodies
o Maintenance of natural watercourses
o Preservation of wetlands
Shoreline Management Act. Another possible means of
protecting water quality and fisheries from effects of
urbanization is the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
Implementation depends greatly on local formulation and
implementation of shoreline management plans.
Summary. In summary, several institutional mechanisms
are currently in place to address fisheries and other drainage-
related impacts caused by urbanization. Although these pro-
grams are not comprehensive and their success cannot be assumed,
EPA is providing funding for 208 continuing planning.
Additional mitigation measures other than continued funding
for 20 8 planning do not appear appropriate at this time as
part of this EIS.
Secondary Impacts on Terrestrial Ecosystems
The principal secondary impact of growth on terrestrial
ecosystems will be conversion of coniferous and deciduous
forests, and agricultural and rangelands, to urban uses.
Secondary impacts on agricultural and forestlands, wetlands,
and floodplains are discussed later in this chapter under
secondary land use impacts.
It can generally be stated that urban development has
adverse effects on natural terrestrial ecosystems, primarily
through destruction or extensive modification of habitat.
Given the regional nature of the growth projections examined
in this EIS, it is not reasonable to further assess the impacts
of urbanization on terrestrial wildlife and ecosystems, largely
because these differ with different urban land uses. In
general, industrial and commercial land uses have substantially
less value to wildlife than low density residential uses.
The degree of impact on wildlife depends on mitigation mea-
sures implemented as part of site planning, particularly
retention of tracts or corridors of open space. No new miti-
gation measures for secondary impacts on terrestrial ecosystems
are proposed as part of this EIS.
Secondary Groundwater Impacts
Background
A substantial proportion of the population growth projected
for the Lake Washington/Green River Basins will rely on on-
site systems as a long-term waste disposal option. For the
year 2 000, PSCOG projects the unsewered population within
the study area to be 124,078.
183

-------
Treatment Capability of Local Soils. Most of the soils
in the Renton study area have moderate to severe limitations
for use as septic tank leach fields. in particular, the Alder-
wood and Beausite soil series which cover most of the nonsewer
area have severe limitations due to shallow depth and an
extremely slow permeability in the subsoil. Everett soil
series have moderate limitations due to the extremely high
permeability of the entire soil profile. Additional data
on soil limitation ratings for seDtic tank leach fields are
presented in Appendix D.
Major Contaminants of Concern. The contaminants of
concern with respect to domestic on-site disposal systems
consist of those elements that can degrade the quality of
surface or groundwater resources, thereby creating direct
and indirect health hazards to human beings relying on such
sources of supply. These contaminants consist of nitrogen
compounds and pathogens. If effluent from on-site systems
enters surface water bodies, other elements such as phos-
phorus may also create water quality problems.
Assessment of Impacts
Analysis of Septic Tank Failure Data. Individual septic
tanks/soil absorption systems operate at a high failure rate
in the Renton study area. The King County Health Department
estimates that between 5 and 10 percent of such systems may
be experiencing failure at any one time. Failures result
from the often unfavorable site conditions, inadequate design
of the system, poor quality construction, and lack of regular
maintenance. Two social causes may also contribute signifi-
cantly to these problems. First, the traditional view toward
on-site systems is that they are temporary solutions for
the waste disposal problem. Thus, until recently, there
was little motivation to spend more than the minimum amount
of resources in design and construction of on-site units.
Second, because septic tanks are low visibility, they are
often ignored by the homeowner, who may not even be aware
of septic tank and drain field locations.
A small survey of home loan certification forms in King
County found that 36 out of 92 systems surveyed (40 percent)
were either failing or showed signs of a potential failure
(Metro, 1980g). Common problems found included:
o Construction of driveways, garages, patios, decks,
or other structures over the drain field;
o Diversion of surface water runoff to the drain field
area;
o Compaction of the drain field by parking cars over
the field or pasturing of animals on the field;
184

-------
o Irregular or nonexistent septage pumping and pro-
vision of other maintenance.
In addition, when no reserve drain field area is available,
repair of a failing system becomes extremely difficult. New
regulations of the Seattle/King County Health Department
require a reserve drain field area of either 50 or 100 per-
cent, depending upon the system's location.
When on-site systems fail and effluent surfaces, potential
risks to public health are created. In addition, the septic
tank effluent can cause nutrient enrichment problems if it
reaches streams and lakes. A less visible, but equally serious
impact, can result if septic tank effluent reaches groundwater.
Risks to groundwater from on-site systems in the study area
are reviewed below.
Risks to Groundwater. "Groundwater failure" occurs
when inadequately treated effluent reaches groundwater bodies.
Groundwater failure may result from drain field installation
on excessively permeable material offering inadequate biochemical
renovation capability, or where effluent is discharged directly
into a shallow water table, receiving inadequate treatment
due to the saturated conditions. Phosphorus, bacteria, and
viruses are known to migrate over long distances under con-
ditions of saturated flow.
Groundwater failure of an individual septic tank system
can affect the quality of water pumped from a shallow down-
gradient well, depending on the distance between the site
and the well, and on the local aquifer's hydraulic conditions.
On a broader scale, groundwater failure can seriously pollute
a regional aquifer if many systems are installed on excessively
sandy or gravelly material; this type of hazard results from
system design and site selection. Because it is extremely
difficult to locate, document or evaluate groundwater failure,
only recently have regulatory agencies recognized such failure
as a pollution hazard.
Although accurate estimates of pollutant loadings to
groundwater aquifers cannot be developed at this time due
to the lack of data on distribution pattern and density of
on-site disposal systems in nonsewered portions of the study
area, rough estimates are possible. It is generally agreed
that there are 65,000 septic tanks currently in use in the
study area. If it is assumed that average household size
is 2.7 people per dwelling and total annual wastewater flow
and nitrogen emissions in the study area can be calculated
as follows:
annual effluent discharge = 13,000 acre-feet
estimated nitrogen concentration = 40 mg/1
annual nitrogen load = 700 tons
185

-------
These areawide loading data may exaggerate the importance
of groundwater quality impacts, because on-site systems may
be widely scattered and not all the effluent discharged from
these systems reaches the groundwater body. More importantly,
the loading from the on-site systems is diluted by natural
recharge and by mixing with large volumes of high quality
groundwater.
On a local basis, however, emissions from even a few
on-site disposal systems could be a major concern for pro-
tecting the quality of existing water supplies. Thousands
of shallow domestic wells are in use in the Renton study
area. Unfortunately, data are generally not available on
the chemical characteristics of water pumped from these wells.
Data that are available generally do not indicate contamination
of groundwater from on-site systems, with the possible exception
of nitrate, which tends to be of greater concentration in
shallow, unconfined aquifers than'in deeper, more confined
aquifers; observed nitrate levels in shallow wells are, however,
well below drinking water standards.
Generally, under optimal conditions, shallow wells drilled
in Vashon till would have relatively little risk of ground-
water failure. If drain fields are installed at high densities,
or if inadequate distance is allowed between drain fields
and water supply wells, groundwater contamination would result
even in the Vashon till. For wells constructed in recessional
outwash and other highly permeable deposits, the risk of
groundwater contamination from on-site disposal systems
increases significantly, even though no evidence of surface
failure of septic tank drain fields may be detected.
Mitigation Measures for On-Site Systems
Metro-proposed Measures. In its Draft Wastewater Manage-
ment Plan, Metro has proposed the following recommendations
for on-site systems management in the nonsewer area:
o Establish a comprehensive program for design, con-
struction, and maintenance of on-site and community
systems.
o Identify an areawide management agency and imple-
ment a program demonstrating long-term commitment
to management of nonsewer areas.
o Establish on-site management zones in nonsewer
areas where system performance or soil condition
is poor.
o Establish a routine performance monitoring system.
o Further strengthen existing rules and regulations
to emphasize proper design and construction.
186

-------
o Provide adequate staffing and funding for on-site waste-
water management programs, and provide adequate enforcement
of rules and regulations.
o Encourage experimentation with alternative technologies.
o Establish a public education program emphasizing the long-
term nature of on-site systems and proper design,
construction, and maintenance.
Determine Groundwater Carrying Capacity. The emphasis
in the Metro recommendations is on solving the problems
created by poorly functioning or failing on-site disposal
systems, in the context of traditionally accepted defini-
tion of septic tank failure. Attention should also be
directed to the groundwater impacts of such systems, even
where apparent system failure, such as surfacing of wastewater,
may not have been observed. In the context of this objective,
it is recommended that the following additional measures
be undertaken to: 1) determine groundwater quality impacts
of on-site disposal systems, and 2) evaluate the carrying
capacity of various hydrologic or drainage units:
o Selected shallow domestic water supply wells in areas
of the Alderwood soil series on Vashon till deposit
should be monitored. These wells should be selected in
subareas with low, medium, and high densities of on-site
disposal systems. (Details of a proposed monitoring
program are given in Appendix D of the EIS.)
o A similar groundwater monitoring program should be
carried out in areas of the Alderwood soil series on
alluvial deposits and Everett soil series on recessional
outwash deposits for zones of low, medium, and high
septic tank densities.
o If the results of the shallow domestic well monitoring
programs indicate the occurrence of groundwater con-
tamination, the density of the monitoring network should
be increased and wells of medium and high depth should
also be included in the sampling program.
o Results of the monitoring program should be used to
identify areas of potential groundwater contamination
in the study area.
o Data on groundwater carrying capacity of hydrologic
units or drainage basins should be developed prior to
establishing allowable development density levels in
nonsewer areas. The carrying capacity can be deter-
mined on the basis of geologic, hydrologic, and aquifer
hydraulic conditions.
187

-------
EPA Role. EPA encourages the implementation of the
previously-listed mitigation measures for on-site system
management. Without such improved management, groundwater
or surface water quality problems may result from continued
use of these systems in the nonsewer portion of the study
area.
The main responsibility for implementing improvements
on on-site system management rests with local land use and
health agencies; nonetheless, Metro has the responsibility
for water quality management in the nonsewer areas. As an
additional mitigation measure for this EIS, EPA could request,
or require as a grant condition, that Metro and the appro-
priate local agencies enter into an agreement to cooperatively
coordinate on-site systems management and water quality manage-
ment in the nonsewer areas. This agreement, at a minimum,
could be an agreement to implement the triggering mechanism
proposals for nonsewer areas (see Chapter 3).
Secondary Land Use Impacts
Study area population growth will be accompanied by
changes in land use patterns within the study area. This
section assesses three land use impacts of special import-
ance to EPA: the consistency of Metro's proposed service
area with local plans and policies, the conversion of prime
farmland to urban uses, and the impacts of development on
environmentally sensitive areas.
Consistency of the Metro Service Area with Local Land
Use Policies
EPA requires that wastewater facilities plans be con-
sistent with applicable land use plans and policies. The
major aspect of Metro's facilities planning with land use
implications, aside from the population and land use pro-
jections, is the service area map.
Metro's service area map (Figure 3-1) delineates three
categories of land within the study area: the sewer service
area, the nonsewer area (long-term land use certain), and
the nonsewer area (long-term land use uncertain). The sewer
service area consists of those lands which known local land
use policies suggest should be sewered; King County's Sewerage
General Plan, which is not a 20-year plan but is subject to
periodic amendment, provided the major basis for mapping of
service areas within King County. The nonsewer area (long-term
land use certain), consists of those lands which local policies
suggest should not be sewered over the 20-year planning period;
these lands consist of small pockets of agricultural land
188

-------
in unincorporated King County and Redmond. The nonsewer
service area (long-term land use uncertain) consists of lands
for which there is no present land use policy guidance; these
lands are treated as nonsewer lands in the Metro Wastewater
Management Plan, and would be included within the sewer service
area once local governments designate these lands for sewer
service. Therefore, the 20-year service area for the Renton
sewerage system is likely to be larger than that shown on
Figure 3-1, since it is likely that additional lands will
be designated for sewer service by local governments within
the next 20 years.
Metro's intent is to show as a designated sewer service
area only those areas which local policies dictate should
be sewered. The service area map appearing in Metro's pre-
liminary plan was assessed for potential inconsistencies
with local policies by the consulting firm Kahn/Mortimer
Associates as part of the EIS effort. As a result of that
assessment (which appears in full in Appendix A of the EIS)
revisions were made to produce the service area map appearing
in the Draft Wastewater Management Plan. It appears that
the revised service area map appearing in the Draft Waste-
water Management Plan is now consistent with known land use
plans and policies of local jurisdictions. The review process
of the draft plan and EIS provides an opportunity for identifying
any remaining inconsistencies.
Prime Farmland Conversion
Background. An important issue in this EIS is the effect
of growth projected for the study area on prime farmlands.
This background section summarizes the following topics:
definitions of agricultural lands, rationale for protection
of agricultural lands, agricultural land resources within
King County, the economics of agriculture in King County,
and existing King County policies for agricultural land pro-
tection. Further background information on agriculture in
King County may be found in Appendix A of the EIS.
Definition of Agricultural Lands. The terms prime farm-
land, cropland, and important farmland are important to dis-
tinguish for purposes of this analysis. The following defini-
tions will be used.:
Prime farmland: Land suitable for farming or silvi-
culture with "soil quality, growing season, and moisture
supply needed to economically produce sustained high
yields of crops when treated and managed, including
water management, according to acceptable farming methods"
(Lee, 1978). Prime farmlands are the "most efficient,
energy conserving, environmentally stable lands available
for meeting food needs" (CEQ, 1978).
189

-------
Cropland: Land in cropland use. Not all cropland is
prime farmland.
Important farmland: Important farmland is that farmland
being mapped by the SCS under its current (LIM-3) mapping
program. It consists of the following categories: prime
farmland, unique farmland (additional farmland used
for the production of specific high value crops), addi-
tional farmland of statewide importance (to be determined
by state agencies), and additional farmland of local
importance (where appropriate, to be determined by local
agencies).
Rationale for Protection of Agricultural Lands. Between
1967 and 1975, about one million acres of prime farmland
in the United States were converted to nonfarm use (Diderikson,
1977). This amounts to a loss of more than 3 square miles
of farmland per day. The conversion of prime farmland to
urban uses is essentially an irreversible change. National
policies to slow the conversion of prime farmland have been
developed for several reasons:
o It is increasingly important to preserve those lands
best able to produce crops because the rate of farm
productivity growth has been decreasing and export
demands are increasing.
o Farmland preservation provides open space, aesthetic,
and environmental benefits.
o In some areas, consumers benefit from lower food prices
when commodities are produced locally.
Due to these factors, EPA in 1978 established an agency-
wide policy to assure that its actions, regulations, and
programs reinforce the retention of environmentally-signifi-
cant agricultural land (EPA, 1978a).
Agricultural Land Resources Within King County. Agri-
culture played an important role in the history of King County,
in that early settlers were attracted to the county's agri-
cultural potential and accessibility to markets. Urbaniza-
tion of the county since 1950, and development of irrigated
agriculture in eastern Washington; have reduced the importance
of King County agriculture to the local, state, and national
economies. Nevertheless, preservation of remaining prime
farmland in King County is important for the economic and
environmental reasons listed previously.
The SCS has recently completed its inventory of important
agricultural lands in King County. These lands are mapped
in Figure 6-4. The prime farmlands shown on this map consist
of Class II and Class III soils. The additional farmland
of statewide importance shown on this map consists of certain
190

-------
WraSXBSTrSKTK?
¦CAW CWKK	
FIGURE a-4. MAP OF SCS IMPORTANT FARMLANDS & OF
KINO COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS

-------
Class IV soils considered to be prime forestland. The SCS
map of important farmlands must be used with caution for
planning purposes, because development has occurred on some
of the lands designated as important farmlands (King County
Office of Agriculture, pers. comm.).
King County Ordinance 3064, adopted in 1977, establishes
eight agricultural districts (areas where agricultural
activities are concentrated) and designates certain lands to be
agricultural lands of county significance. Agricultural lands
of county significance are defined by Ordinance 3064 to include:
1) unincorporated lands with Class II, III and (under some
circumstances) IV soils, 2) lands not in wooded or urban uses,
3) lands where urban-level water or sewer lines are not in
place, and 4) lands with contiguous parcels greater than
20 acres.
Four King County agricultural districts are located within
the Lake Washington/Green River Basins. {See Figure 6-4.)
These are Sammamish Valley/Bear Creek, Lower Green River Valley,
Upper Green River Valley, and Enumclaw Plateau. These four
districts cover 70,635 acres (65 percent of the land in agri-
cultural districts) and contain 22,475 acres of agricultural
lands of county significance (69 percent of the lands so
designated).
Eaonomics of AgvLcuttuve in King County. King County
gross farm receipts increased from $20.5 million in 1959
to $40.5 million in 1974. When accounting for inflation,
real increases in farm sales amounted to about 17 percent
(John M. Sanger Associates, 1978). Farm income in 1978 for
King County is estimated at $50-55 million. The 270 com-
mercial farms in King County account for 92 percent of this
farm income (John M. Sanger Associates, 1978).
Dairy products have been and continue to be the single
largest sector of King County agriculture, accounting for
46 percent of the county's gross farm receipts in 1974. Other
important sectors are ornamental horticulture (20 percent),
poultry and poultry products (16 percent), cattle and calves
(9 percent), vegetable and berries (6 percent), and other
livestock (3 percent).
In 1974, agricultural employment within King County
was estimated to be about 2,300 full-time equivalent jobs
(John M. Sanger Associates, 1978). The actual number of
farm job positions is considerably higher (about 5,600 during
peak months) due to part-time and seasonal help.
From an employment perspective, King County agriculture
is generally not considered to be economically significant
to either the regional or the local economies of King County;
agricultural employment is less than 1 percent of the total
employment of the King-Snohomish-Pierce Counties region.
However, local agriculture does result in consumer savings
for consumers who purchase products at farm stands or farmers
markets, or who pick these crops themselves.
192

-------
Existing Policies for Agricultural Land Preservation in
King County. King County has sought to preserve its agri-
cultural land through a series of increasingly stronger policies
and programs. These include policies in the King County
Comprehensive Plan and communities plans, agricultural policies
adopted in 1972 and 1974 (Ordinances 1096 and 1839) , policies
establishing agricultural districts and agricultural lands
of county significance adopted in 1977, and policies limiting
the sewering of significant agricultural lands found in the
county's Sewerage General Plan (under revision as of early
summer 1980) . The latter policies have been adopted by Metro
as well.
The main agricultural land preservation program currently
in effect in King County is the purchase of development rights
(PDR) program (Ordinance 4341). Under this program, a $50
million bond issue has been approved to acquire the voluntarily-
offered development rights for priority farmlands. The
PDR program, as well as the policies listed above, are reviewed
further in the following discussion of mitigation measures
for prime farmland conversion.
Assessment of Impacts. To assess the impacts of the
growth projected for the study area on prime farmland conver-
sion, a prime farmland conversion forecast was prepared.
Methods. Although the SCS mapped "important farmlands"
(Figure 6-4) consist of both prime farmland and prime forest-
land, the EIS forecast of agricultural land conversion con-
siders prime farmland only; it should be noted, however,
that conversion of forestland to urban uses in western Washington
is also an issue of economic and environmental concern. Also,
the EIS forecast does not consider agricultural land conversion
within the Enumclaw Plateau, since little urban growth is
projected for this region.
The forecasting method employed assumes that within
each of the remaining three agricultural districts within
the study area (Sammamish Valley, Lower Green River Valley,
Upper Green River Valley), prime farmland will be converted
to urban uses at the same rate that suitable vacant land
will be converted to urban uses; the vacant land conversion
rates were in turn calculated based on PSCOG land use pro-
jections for AAM districts. Low conversion and high con-
version scenarios were developed to establish a forecast
range. The low conversion scenario uses the PSCOG policy
land use projection, and assumes that agricultural lands
of county significance will be protected. The high con-
version scenario uses the PSCOG trends land use projection,
and also assumes that county significant lands will be con-
verted at the same rate as noncounty significant prime
farmlands.
193

-------
Results and Discussion. Table 6-7 presents forecasts
of conversion of prime farmland between 1980 and 2000. The
total prime farmland converted ranges between 3,950 acres
(low scenario) and 5,213 acres (high scenario) over the 20-
year period, representing a loss of 21 percent to 27 percent
of the remaining prime farmland in the three districts. In
the Sammamish Valley district, forecast conversions range
from 698 acres to 1,464 acres; in the Lower Green River Valley
district, from 3,252 acres to 3,600 acres; and in the Upper
Green River Valley district, from 0 acres to 149 acres.
These findings must be qualified by the limitations
of the forecasting methods employed. These include the
assumptions that prime farmland will be converted at the
same rate as suitable vacant land; the exclusion of hobby
farms and vacant land held for speculation from the con-
version forecast; and the lack of an up-to-date statistical
inventory of prime farmlands.
Several factors will influence whether the low con-
version scenario or the high conversion scenario is more
likely to occur. These include the county's PDR program,
the King County Sewerage General Plan process, urbanization
trends, and existing zoning constraints.
Of these factors, the success of the PDR program is
perhaps the most critical. As shown in Table 6-7, lands
eligible for Priority 1 of the PDR program include all the
prime farmland in the Upper Green River Valley, about 36
percent of the prime farmland in the Sammamish Valley, and
only 10 percent of the prime farmland in the Lower Green
River Valley. Therefore, if the development rights of 100
percent of the Priority 1 lands were to be purchased by King
County in all three districts, prime farmland in the Upper
Green River Valley district would be completely protected,
whereas most prime farmlands in the Sammamish Valley and
the Lower Green River Valley districts would not be protected.
Prime farmland conversion will have environmental and
economic impacts which will depend largely on the size and
productivity of the prime farmland parcels converted. Under
either scenario, much of the acreage converted is prime farm-
land that is not of county significance and not included
in Priority 1 of the PDR program. Although some of the non-
county significant and non-Priority 1 prime farmland is pro-
ductive land within municipal boundaries, much of it is of
limited productivity because it is in small parcel sizes,
or not being actively farmed. Conversion of these noncounty
significant and non-Priority 1 prime farmlands, nevertheless,
represents the irreversible loss of a nonrenewable resource.
194

-------
Table 6-7. Forecast of Prime Farmland Conversion*
Agricultural Districts
Item
Total acres
Prime acres
Agricultural land of
county significance
(acres)
Land eligible for
priority 1 of PDR
program (acres)
u>
cn Vacant land conversion
rate, 1980-2000 (policy)
Vacant land conversion
rate, 1980-2000 (trend)
Prime farmland con-
version, 1980-2000
(low forecast)
-	acres
-	% of total prime
farmland
Prime farmland con-
version, 1980-2000
(high forecast)
-	acres
-	% of total prime
farmland
Sammamish
Valley
11,535
6,100
1,735
2,193
16%
24%
698
11
1,464
24
Lower Green
River Valley
18,840
12,000
1,510
1,518
31%
30%
3,252
27
3,600
30
Upper Green
River Valley
2,965
865
865
2,180
6%
17%
0
0
149
17
Study Area
Total
33,340
18,965
4,110
5,891
3,950
21
5,213
27
*Excludes Enumclaw Plateau.

-------
Mitigation Measures for Prime Farmland Conversion.
Overview of Types of Mitigation Measures. Measures
to mitigate the loss of agricultural lands to urban uses
have been comprehensively reviewed in a recent EPA (197 9b)
EIS for wastewater facilities improvements in Modesto,
California, located in the highly-productive San Joaquin
Valley. Table 6-8 lists and evaluates the mitigation
measures developed for that EIS.
Mitigation Measures for Metro Wastewater Management Plan.
Of the general types of mitigation measures shown in Table 6-8
several are already in place in King County. For purposes
of this EIS, the most important of these include the PDR
program, King County's Sewerage General Plan, and Metro Resolu-
tion 3380 adopting the Sewerage General Plan. The effectiveness
of these measures in mitigating the conversion of prime farmland
is assessed below, and additional mitigation measures are
then identified.
PDR Program. The PDR program has established three
priority levels for acquisition of development rights. The
first priority consists of 6,000 acres of lands most threatened
by urban development in the Sammamish River Valley, the Lower
Green River Valley near Kent, and the Upper Green River Valley,
and 1,7 00 acres of farmland producing food for human consumption.
The second priority consists of farmlands in the lower Snoqualmie
Valley and Enumclaw Plateau, mostly dairy farms. The third
priority consists of all other farmlands located within the
county's agricultural districts.
Although it is not possible to predict exactly how much
acreage that will be protected by the PDR program, the PDR
program cannot offer complete protection for prime farmlands
threatened by development because: 1) some landowners will
refuse to participate in the program, and 2) the initially
authorized $50 million is inadequate to purchase development
rights for the third priority lands which constitute most
of the prime farmland within the study area. As of late 1980,
the initial $50 million in bonds had not been sold due to
litigation. Though the possibility exists that more funds
will be authorized, the PDR program can be considered only a
partial mitigation measure for the loss of prime farmland within
the study area, since it is unlikely that development rights
for the third priority lands will be purchased.
King County Sewerage General Plan. As initially adopted,
the King County Sewerage General Plan excluded designated
agricultural lands of county significance as defined in
Ordinance 3064 from local service areas, thereby prohibiting
the sewering of these lands. A proposed amendment to the
county's Sewerage General Plan (which has been adopted by
Metro - see below), establishes the Priority 1 lands in the
196

-------
Table 6-8.
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND MITIGATION MATRIX

WUOWTJtTIOl
n« or,
WUVM '
otm
*ATI»
tflKWM
«*
IVLJ^WTAtl*'
LIULV
crRcrivtaut
«mvu rtvaiD
LOCAL
inn
no»
IUI
MOJ-
U«
TtO*
:»cx»-
Tlvr
UMI
*Ł *1-
CUL-
tTJKAL
P1JUCT
l»-
elHcr
• NDVT
IUI
U3«C
M
nnc
mar
u»*
ifftat swwil of 4tv*lti9*r*t
Lltll US* >fll|M Of Iwi UM< (Of WUt tOVOlOfMOt [ f


•

o
o

•

•


Liut AMtai ol ouilflir* #*r«ito u«>*4
•


•

o
o

•



•
Lttit uriyitiul fiank HMitttri
•


•

o I

0
o



•
eta it-wt 1) of

•



0
o
I 0

0


•
Niqft HIM l«t ti«M in fw«l •(«••
•


•


•
0

•

•


HJIIM l«t lllll tfl W«M
•


•

o

0

o

•


Kimaua nokVAMChoerf <»n»it i«t in wtw «vooo
•


•

0

0

•

•


Ulllt ia «im« «r«M
•


•
0
0
1 0

o

•


Clutter do«o lOfOMftt i» wchon •«•••
•



0
0
i o





•
Cluitir in «rooo
•


•


•
0

0


•

ifftst t>>* ijtvi itfi af usta* location*
ifovth on or tg»«rtf n«n*piui londi
•


•

o
I 0

•

I
•
FroMOit*«« of ii«divi»tu o* unincorpo<»t«4 k»n4o
•


•

o
i 0

o

• I

tli«kbil4if for Muoin* proqrtaa

•
•
•
0
o
1
o

•
j
•
CliOifeilKy for towudUf d«volepo»nt/r«4«volopaont ««4

•
•
•
0
0
1
•

•

•
Now town* or ««iollit4 tovri

•
•

o
o


0

•

' •


•

•
0
0


0
o

I
•

tun I loeatio**












Control ploni
•


•


•
0

•


I •
fodorol (tnd/or it4t«l rovi** ol ftnorol pion iloaonto

•
•
•


•
0

•


•


•

•
0

•
0

•


•
Stoto rtfiUtiM of Mrtcutiut*! U*<

•

•


•
0


•

•



•
•


•
0


•

•

•
•

•
0

•
0


•
•3
m si
Coapon»«fti« toqwUco*

¦

•


•
0


•
•

OwtnqM pvrurcMi« of roMtndor lAtirtit

•
•
•


•

0

• J
•
»t«ii tk» tveil.tbi li tj of up*a« m/nso c/nstitii















•


•

•

•

•

•


Cotoelioh «n uiM" ooponaion «(•« lor ionftora
•


•

0

•

•

•

,

•
•
•

0


•
•



• :
¦oitrici »(oto *n4 (Mirtl hifiwop til

•
•

0
•


•

•


•
rorior*! M410MJ OaiiMkl (wrltMtiM


•
•

o
•
o
0

#


~ i
Prvott ti^ncitlsurti





»

•
o

• i •


•
•


Put pursMiod l«nd to nrte«li)ir*l mo

•

•
•

• I •


•
•


GrOBlA of

•
•

•

•

•

•

•

now Mrenaiwlioifio musm

•
•

o

•

0

•


•


•
•

•

•

•

•


#
•oiiOMl i»n*/or nou> fum oqriruiturol loM p»Ucy

•
•
•
o

•
o

•



•
Mourt a4aqwocv of fxtwo attif tuppUot fCMaarvatLOi.
ricltMUM. no» pr«)oct«t

•
•

o

•

•

•


• i
!¦«« (4M poiicy to pt>ot«et or a^KAiiuPtl aeiivit













Oaffoiontiol for r*p*rt« iu rt*9foo*

•


o

•

o
o


•
!


•


•

•

•
•



• '
Apptc «•!»• eapturo u Lm4 fr««
•
•


o

•

•

•


n
o«ri«ulloro »iUi


•

o

•

0

•


•
AitOf III »!*» f«f tMUtrilS lM||t«l(

•
•

•

•

•

•


•

•
•


0
o


o

•


• I
liiiid andJtot












CootAonofit onoiyoia of *otio«o4 |ttoo o«rk«ultitcoi lo«4
pr HirviitM


•






•
.1


c«ap«tui>i mur-ilky «Mifiu «r priM MfUtaiwoi m
rotoniion


•






•
1


Parfnfwm iMMviit for looat fnwili







TMrOOMl* tMtlliMtO
•
•
•
• r
0

•

•

•



•
•
•
• i
•

•

•

•


'*• UflflMUtW •( Ml HMNIH m14 M	ftt OttjMr t^iUUW — tMlllN.
'ktmi fMlUllttf. tMtpMM W « WlW MflHU	of UH wHli «• HUftltil '»•« «'
iwiM« tuu m4 Mtnl oiwi*y m offwi.
'OMnNllM lUMfl U«M
-------
PDR program as the "designated" lands to which sewer service
will not be provided. Once this amendment is adopted, its
main effect will be to make it more difficult to convert
Priority 1 lands to urban uses, regardless of whether the
development rights to these lands have been purchased. As
previously discussed, the Priority 1 lands include all the
prime farmland in the Upper Green River Valley district,
36 percent of the prime farmland in the Sammamish Valley
district, and only 16 percent of the prime farmland in the
Lower Green River Valley district. Because the Sewerage
General Plan affords no protection to non-Priority 1 prime
farmlands, it can be considered only a partial mitigation
measure for prime farmland conversion.
Metro Resolution 3380. Metro's adoption of King County's
Sewerage General Plan (Resolution 3380) prohibits Metro's
sewering of unincorporated "designated agricultural lands",
defined as Priority 1 lands under the PDR program. Because
Resolution 338 0 affords no protection to non-Priority 1 farm-
lands (like the Sewerage General Plan), or to Priority 1
lands within the city limits of Kent and Redmond, it can
be considered only a partial mitigation measure for prime
farmland conversion.
Additional'Mitigation Measures. Within the existing
institutional framework in the study area, several additional
mitigation measures exist which could more completely mitigate
the loss of prime farmland.
o Metro could conduct detailed prime farmland assessments
in future state-required EISs for interceptor sewer
projects where these projects could adversely affect
prime farmlands. These EISs would focus on more location-
specific impacts and mitigation measures, as compared to
the more regional approach taken in this EIS.
o King County could modify its Sewerage General Plan. The
proposed amendment to the Sewerage General Plan could be
strengthened by broadening the definition of designated
farmland to include some or all prime farmland within
King County agricultural districts that is not designated
Priority 1 in the PDR program.
o The Cities of Kent and Redmond could adopt policies
similar to King County to protect Priority 1 farmland
located within municipal boundaries. Metro could then
modify Resolution 3380 to reflect these policies.
198

-------
Impacts on Sensitive Areas
Background. An important issue in this EIS is the effect
of study area projected growth on environmentally sensitive
areas. Environmentally sensitive areas, as defined by King
County, consist of soil-related sensitive areas, floodplains,
and wetlands. EPA policy requires that an assessment of
floodplains and wetlands impacts be made and that adverse
impacts be avoided or minimized if no practical alternative
to the action exists. At the local level, King County has
recognized the importance of environmentally sensitive areas
by mapping those areas considered sensitive to development and
by strengthening its policies for protection of these lands.
Assessment of Impacts. In this analysis, the locations
of high growth subdrainage basins and sensitive areas are
mapped. Impacts of projected urbanization on soil-related
sensitive areas, wetlands, and floodplains are then discussed.
Ider.tifiaa.tion of High Growth Subdrainage Basins. Eight
high growth subdrainage basins within the study area were
identified earlier in the secondary impacts analysis (see
Table 6-6); these subdrainage basins are projected to show
increases in urban acres greater than 40 percent (the study
area average) between 1980 and 2000. Figure 6-5 shows the
location of the high growth subdrainage basins.
The generalized locations of environmentally sensitive
areas are shown in Figure 6-6. The original mapping of sen-
sitive areas was done by King County (King County Department
of Planning and Community Development, Planning Division,
1980); the composite map of sensitive areas was prepared
by Metro (1979a). Comparison of Figures 6-5 and 6-6 can
indicate which subdrainage basins have the greatest potential
for secondary adverse impacts on sensitive areas. These
subdrainage basins are identified in the following sections.
Soil-Related Sensitive Areas.
Characteristics and Potential Impacts of Urbanization.
Areas identified on Figure 6-6 as soil-related sensitive
areas include: Class III slide and slippage (landslides)
areas, Class III seismic areas, erosion areas and coal mine
areas.
Landslide hazards are commonly associated with the hill-
sides of many of the major valleys. These areas are char-
acterized by steeply sloping unconsolidated glacial deposits
that are very susceptible to gravity sliding.
199

-------

%
\
FIGURE B- O. LOCATION OF HIGH GROWTH SUB DRAINAGE BASINS

-------
¦ till

-LEGEND-
COUNTY wmtmit «r PLMIIN t CM
M«iLonH«r, »ivi«im m riMWM4 *«Minva uim
m# rot.»©¦ Miif mum coumck f mm
MM MUTABILITY i««LTMa. »r«
FIQURC «-•> COMPOSITE MAP OF
AREAS WITHIN STUDY AREA
NSITIVE

-------
The entire Lake Washington/Green River Basins region
is seismically active (King County, 1980), In most river
basins, the extensive deposits of alluvial material and
unconsolidated glacial materials contribute to an especially
high susceptibility to earthquake damage.
Erosion hazard areas are a concern mainly due to sedi-
mentation, a process which occurs as eroded matter accumulates
in receiving waters (streams, channels, lakes). Eventually,
sedimentation can result in costly expenditures to dredge
or otherwise remove the unwanted material. In addition,
the threat to the proper functioning of delicate ecological
systems is an important concern since both erosion and sedi-
mentation are frequently accelerated by land use modification.
The abandoned subsurface mine workings associated with
coal activates present potential danger of surface collapse
and leakage of noxious gases. Many abandoned mines have
been filled or partially filled by natural caving processes,
which poses a potential danger of subsidence-. Although coal
mine areas are generally quite remote, occasional problems
do arise (King County Department of Planning and Community
Development, 1978).
Subdrainage Basins with Greatest Potential for Adverse
Impacts on Soil-Related Sensitive Areas. Based on the com-
parative locations of high growth subdrainage basins and
soil-related sensitive areas (Figures 6-5 and 6-6), the fol-
lowing subdrainage basins appear to have the greatest poten-
tial for adverse impacts: Issaquah Creek, Mill Creek, Soos
Creek, and the White River basin. In addition, the following
subdrainage basins, although not defined as high growth,
also have a high potential for a significant adverse impact:
Sammamish River, Coal Creek, May Creek, Tibbetts Creek, Green
River, and Newaukum Creek.
It should be recognized that this identification serves
only to "red flag" subdrainage basins with the greatest po-
tential for adverse impacts. To evaluate the direct impact
of development on soil-related sensitive areas, site-specific
analyses must be conducted.
Mitigation Measures. In recent years, King County has
adopted a series of policies and ordinances which provide
guidelines for development of soil-related sensitive areas.
In addition, many cities in King County have developed policy
guidelines to direct development away from soil-related sensitive
areas. To the extent that these policies and ordinances
are implemented, adverse impacts of urban development on
soil-related sensitive areas will be reduced. The following
section reviews and evaluates existing King County policies.
202

-------
Historically, policy concerning soil-related sensitive
areas in King County has been included within open space
policy. The open space element of the county comprehensive
plan, together with subsequent amendments (Ordinance 1096
and Ordinance 1683), provides the existing basis for policy
protection of soil-related sensitive areas. In recent years,
the need for new and more specific policies has been recognized.
King County's proposed General Development Guide (first draft)
contains policies which, if adopted, would replace the existing
policies relating to soil-related sensitive areas. These
policies discourage development on slopes greater than 40
percent, and in landslide and coal mine hazard areas, and
recommend reduced development intensity as slopes increase.
Implementation of policies relating to soil-related
sensitive areas has been provided for with the adoption of
King County Ordinance 4 365 in July 197 9. This ordinance
defines and incorporates maps of .soil-related sensitive areas,
and establishes a review process on a case-by-case basis
for development proposals in these areas. Before the ordinance
can become effective, however, administrative guidelines
to implement its provisions must be developed. These include
uniform standards for development approvals, provisions to
expedite the case-by-case review process, and incentives
for dedications of lands for open space.
Wetlands.
Characteristics and Potential Impacts of Urbanization.
In general, wetlands are lands where saturation with water
is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil develop-
ment and the types of plant and animal communities inhabiting
the area. The wetlands shown on Figure 6-6 include marshes,
bogs and swamps. Classification of wetlands by subtype is
often difficult due to gradational physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics. In the larger marshes, shallow
water is usually retained throughout the drier season. In
contrast to bogs, marsh substrate is generally mud or muck
with minor areas of peat. Swamps are similar to marshes
except they are characterized by trees and larger shrub
vegetation.
Wetlands are significant with respect to the wildlife
they support and their role in maintaining water quality.
Wetlands support a variety of wildlife, including small mammals,
waterfowl, and other birds. Wetlands can also act as natural
water purifiers, filtering out sediments and stripping nut-
rients, and thus helping mitigate the effects of upstream
urbanization on downstream areas.
The main impact of urbanization on wetlands is the outright
loss of the wetlands through conversion to urban uses. This
may happen by filling, diking, draining, or otherwise removing
the water from the land. When this happens, the wildlife,
water quality, and aesthetic benefits of the wetlands are
lost.
203

-------
Subdrainage Basins with the Greatest Potential for Adverse
Impacts on Wetlands. Based on the existence of a relatively
large amount of wetlands, the following subdrainage basins
appear to have the greatest potential for adverse impacts on
wetlands: Evans Creek (a high-growth subdrainage basin), Coal
Creek, and Covington Creek. These are general red flag areas,
based on a very general level of analysis. Impacts of indivi-
dual projects on wetlands should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
Mitigation Measures. The King County Sewerage General
Plan prohibits sewering of designated King County wetlands.
Metro adopted the provisions of the plan for existing
unincorporated areas in its Resolution 3380. Policies on
sewering of development on wetlands in incorporated areas of
King County, and in Snohomish and Pierce Counties, are more frag-
mented and varied. Study area cities could adopt stronger
policies to prohibit or discourage sewering of wetlands within
existing municipal boundaries.
King County's proposed General Development Guide "(first
draft) contains proposed policies for additional protection
of wetlands in the county. These policies encourage retention
of wetlands in their natural state and discourage development
adjacent to wetlands where wetlands would be adversely
affected.
Floodplains.
Characteristics and Potential Impacts of Urbanization.
The floodplain designations on Figure 6-6 are 100-year flood-
plains. These areas are lands expected to be covered by
floodwaters at least once over a 100-year period. Partial
flooding may occur more frequently. Excessive storm runoff
and snowmelt are generally the sources of floodwaters.
Floodplains are significant areas with respect to their
value as occasional watercourses and their value as wildlife
and fishery habitat features. Natural floodplains in an
overbank flow situation carry floodwaters at greatly reduced
velocities, as compared to a diked or modified river channel
designed to carry floodwaters within the confines of the
channel. Thus, natural floodplains minimize erosion and
detain the flow somewhat to lessen flooding in downstream
areas. Floodplains also contain riparian habitat areas
which support a great variety of animal life and provide shade
and sustenance to stream fish.
The impacts of urbanization on floodplains occur through
urban development on the floodplain area, and also through
urban development of the floodplain's watershed. Develop-
ment of the floodplain area can eliminate riparian vegetation
and its benefits to wildlife and the stream community.
204

-------
Streams are often channelized and diked to protect invest-
ments on floodplains, thus further destroying riparian vege-
tation. Sometimes streams overcome these structural control
measures, causing economic loss and physical danger to people
occupying the floodplain.
Development of a floodplain's watershed increases the
areal extent of a flood of a given frequency (e.g., 10-year
flood, 100-year flood). This is caused by higher runoff
water due to impervious surfaces, and less infiltration of
water into the ground. Thus, the 100-year floodplain area
actually grows larger as urbanization of a watershed progresses.
Subdrainage Basins with the Greatest Potential for Adverse
Floodplain Impacts. Based on the existence of relatively
extensive floodplains, the following subdrainage basins appear
to have the greatest potential for adverse floodplain impacts:
Evans Creek, Coal Creek, Cedar River, Issaquah Creek, Mill
Creek and White River basin. Four of these subdrainages are
high'growth, whereas two (Coal Creek and Cedar River) are not.
These are general red flag areas identified by a very general
level of analysis. Impacts of individual developments on flood-
plains should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Mitigation Measures. The King County Sewerage General
Plan prohibits sewering of designated floodplain areas in King
County. Metro adopted the provisions of the plan for existing
unincorporated areas in its Resolution 3380.
Implementation of floodplain protection programs in
incorporated areas of King County, and in Snohomish and Pierce
Counties, is more fragmented and varies with local government
policies. Some floodplain areas (adjacent to water bodies
larger than 20 acres in size or streams with mean annual flow
greater than 20 cubic feet per second) may be partially
protected from development by local shoreline management
plans prepared pursuant to the State Shoreline Management Act
of 1971. Study area cities could adopt stronger policies
prohibiting or discouraging the sewering of floodplains within
existing municipal boundaries.
King County's proposed General Development Guide (first
draft) contains proposed policies for additional protection of
floodplains in the county. These policies discourage develop-
ment within the 100-year floodplain and prohibit development
within the floodway.
The federal Flood Insurance Program requires participating
communities to participate in mandatory floodplain management
and flood protection measures, and to apply common sense
and good engineering practice in reviewing and approving
building permit applications.
205

-------
Summary of Mitigation Measures for Sensitive Areas.
A number of laws, plans, and policies currently exist for
the protection of sensitive areas within the study area.
In addition to those already mentioned, an important mitiga-
tion measure is the SEPA's requirement for preparation of
EISs when individual development projects could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment. To the extent that the
existing laws, plans, and policies are implemented, impacts
on sensitive areas will be mitigated.
An additional mitigation measure could be for Metro to
conduct detailed assessments of sensitive areas impacts in
future SEPA EISs for interceptor sewers connecting to the
Renton plant. These EISs would focus on location-specific
impacts and mitigation measures.
Public Service Systems
Most local governments within the Lake Washington/Green
River Basins have policies encouraging the coordination of
growth and the provision of public services. This section
of the EIS discusses the effects of growth projected for
the study area on public service provision.
Appendix A to this EIS describes in detail the existing
management system and plans and policies regarding service
provision, wastewater management, water supply, drainage,
solid waste management/ recreation, social services, trans-
portation, and electricity and gas. This section of the
EIS, for each of the services, summarizes the existing
management system, identifies known existing capacity problems
and describes the potential impacts of projected growth.
Since comprehensive data on local system capacities are
generally not available for all public service systems,
emphasis is placed here on regional, macrolevel public service
impacts. Mitigation measures for adverse impacts of growth
on public services, consisting of local comprehensive and
special-purpose plans and policies, are discussed at the
end of this section.
Wastewater Management
Existing Management System. Within the study area,
sewerage service is provided by local cities, water districts,
and sewer districts, and by Metro, acting as a sewerage
"wholesaler". Metro component agencies and existing Metro
wastewater facilities within the study area are described
in Chapter 2 of this EIS.
206

-------
Existing Capacity Problems. As part of the identi-
fication of near-term actions for its facilities plan, Metro
facilities with capacity problems were identified. In addition
to these capacity problems, scattered local collection systems
managed by cities and water or sewer districts are also experi-
encing capacity problems, or will experience such problems
in the near future. In general, little information is available
on local collection system capacity within the study area.
Impacts of Growth. PSCOG projects the sewered population
within the study area will double over the next 20 years, from
340,890 in 1980 to 681,170 in the year 2000. In addition
to the facilities planned in Metro's Draft Wastewater Manage-
ment Plan, additional non-Metro facilities {in particular,
collection sewers) will also be required to serve this growth.
Some appreciation for the additional local collector sewers
needed to serve projected growth may be gained by examining
PSCOG's projections of sewered urban land within the study
area. PSCOG's policy projection, shown in Table 6-9, predicts
that sewered urban land will increase by 39,34 9 acres between
1980 and 2000. This amounts to 61.5 square miles of land,
one-tenth of the entire study area, that must be provided
with local collector sewers by Metro's component agencies
over the next 20 years.
Numerous local sewer system, projects will therefore
be required to serve projected growth. Many of the needed
local sewer projects have been identified in the comprehen-
sive sewer plans which must be prepared by every local sewer
agency within King County. If sewer system projects are
not implemented in a timely fashion, growth could continue
to create local sewerage system capacity problems.
The unsewered population growth within the study area
will also place service demands on local agencies, particularly
if increased on-site system management activities are imple-
mented. Overall, PSCOG projects the study area's unsewered
population to decrease from 196,198 in 1980 to 124,078 in
the year 2000. However, this net decrease is attributable
to much of the currently unsewered population becoming sewered
over the next 20 years, and does not show that new population
in outlying areas will continue to rely on on-site systems.
Water Supply
Existing Management System.. Almost all of the study
area is supplied with water by the City of Seattle Water
Department, either directly or indirectly through approxi-
mately 36 retail water purveyors (cities and water districts).
Seattle-supplied surface water from the Cedar River and Tolt
River is the main source of water for most of the study area
residents, with some outlying communities supplied by local
wells.
207

-------
Table 6-9. PSCOG Projections of Sewered Urban Acres
by Subdrainage Basin, 1980-2000
Percent
Increase	Increase
Major Basin/Subbasin
1980
1990
2000
1980-2000
1980-2000
North Lake Washington
7,264
13,206
19,416
12,152
167.3
Swamp Creek
2,799
5,809
8,347
5,548
198.2
North Creek
3,668
6,177
9,348
5,680
154.9
Little Bear Creek
797
1,220
1,721
924
115.9
North Lake Sanmamish
3,953
6,266
8,171
4,218
106.7
Sammamish River
2,710
3,818
4,561
1,851
68.3
Evans Creek
931
1,497
2,420
1,489
160.0
Pine Lake
312
951
1,190
878
281.4
East Lake Washington
13,565
17,608
19,407
5,842
43.1
Juanita Creek
6,173
8,455
9,513
3,340
54.1
Kelsey Creek
2,656
3,031
3,382
726
27.3
Coal Creek
4,736
6,122
6,512
1,776
37.5
South Lake Washington
4,368
6,877
7,652
3,284
75.2
May Creek
947
1,540
2,047
1,100
116.2
Cedar River
3,421
5,337
5,605
2,184
63.8
South Lake Saramamish
3,499
4,029
4,305
806
23.0
Tibbetts Creek
2,665
2,955
2,990
325
12.2
East Lake Saramamish
138
201
260
122
88.4
Issaquah Creek
696
873
1,055
359
51.6
Green River Basin
10,142
15,159
20,800
10,658
105.1
Mill Creek
4,903
7,241
9,889
4,986
101.7
Green River
2,905
4,122
5,306
2,401
82.7
Soos Creek
1,551
2,558
3,822
2,271
146.4
Lake Young
44
77
111
67
152.2
Jenkins Creek
415
661
872
451
110.1
Covington Creek
288
419
669
381
132.3
Newaukuu Creek
36
81
131
95
263.9
White River Basin
643
1,480
2,965
2,322
361.1
Mercer Island
2,534
2,761
2,601*
67
2.6
Study Area Total
45,968
67,386
85,317
39,349
85.6
*Decrease represents probable error in PSCOG projection.
SOURCE: PSCOG.
208

-------
Existing Capacity Problems. Water supply capacity problems
are of two types: regional and local. Regional water supply
issues have been most recently addressed by the Comprehensive
Regional Water Plan (Complan) prepared by the water department
of Seattle (1980). The Complan projects that Seattle service
area water demand will increase from a current demand of
155 MGD to 253 MGD in the year 2025. Since the existing
system's capacity is 210 MGD (excluding groundwater), the
Complan concludes that an additional supply of 50 MGD is
needed by the year 19 95. The Complan tentatively recommends
that the North Fork Tolt River, with a firm yield of 7 0 MGD,
be developed to provide the additional supply; development
of the North Fork Snoqualmie River could become the preferred
water source if its costs were equivalent to the North Fork
Tolt River and if it were feasible.
Locally, scattered water supply problems related to
insufficient capacity have been noted in areas such as the
City of Kent and King County Water Districts 94, 105, and
111 (King County Department of Building and Land Development,
pers. comm.); these capacity deficiencies have not been com-
prehensively documented. Lack of adequate water systems
has been an important concern in developing the Tahoma/Raven
Heights Community Plan (Monohan, 1980). Also, in some rural
areas, water systems are not sufficient to meet county fire
flow requirements.
Impacts of Growth. Growth projected for the study area
will generate additional needs for regional water supplies
and local water system improvements. Study area growth is
primarily responsible for the need for Seattle to develop
an additional surface water supply, since 90 percent of the
population growth projected by Seattle's Complan is projected
to Occur in "suburban purveyor areas", incorporating most
of the study area. The Complan project's total costs, through
the year 2025, will be $221 million.
At the local level, numerous local water system improve-
ment projects will be required to serve projected growth.
Many of the needed local water improvement projects have
been identified in the comprehensive water plans prepared
by water purveyors within King County. If planned water
system improvement projects are not implemented in a timely
fashion, growth could create local water system capacity
problems.
209

-------
Drainage and Flood Control
Existing Management System. Local drainage facilities
planning and implementation are the responsibility of cities
and counties within the study area. The Army Corps of Engineers
is responsible for several major flood control drainage projects.
The Corps has also widened and deepened the Sammamish River
Channel to prevent flooding, and periodically dredges the
Duwamish River and Lake Washington Ship Canal to maintain
navigation.
Existing Capacity Problems. The urbanization process,
through development in flood-prone areas and through paving
of previously permeable surfaces, increasing runoff volumes
and flow rates, creates the need for drainage and flood control
measures. At the local level, drainage improvement projects
to manage increased storm flows can be found in the capital
improvements program of virtually every local government within
the study area. Many local drainage problems were identified
as part of the RIBCO urban drainage study in 197 5.
At the regional level, the major existing drainage problem
within the study area is flooding along tributaries to the
Green River caused by insufficient capacity of the river
to handle peak storm flows. To minimize flood damage and
also ensure continued multiple use of the Green River, the
Green River Basin Program was initiated by several local
agencies in 1978.
Impacts of Growth. Projected population growth will
generate the demand for additional drainage and flood control
facilities, as well as for nonstructural control measures.
These drainage facilities include both the types of trunk
drainage facilities described in the RIBCO urban drainage
study (e.g., holding ponds, drainage channels, streambank
protection with riprap, erosion control weirs, pumping stations,
levee improvements) and local collector facilities. If
drainage programs are not implemented in a timely fashion,
growth could continue to create both local and regional drainage
and flooding problems.
The financing of drainage system maintenance in King
County is an important service issue for the future. Currently,
the county requires developers to maintain residential storm-
water control facilities for only 1 year following construction,
after which the county "may" take over responsibility. A
countywide surface water utility district has been discussed
as a method for financing drainage system maintenance, the
costs of which have been estimated at $42.5 million over
the next 30 years (Penhole, 1980b).
210

-------
Solid Waste Management
Existing Management System. The local solid waste manage-
ment system involves the basic steps of collection, transfer,
and disposal. The King Subregional Council is the Solid Waste
Management Board for King County. Most of the solid waste in
the study area is collected by private companies. King County
and the City of Seattle operate the main transfer stations and
landfills which serve the study area. The Cedar Hills landfill
is the major landfill serving the study area, and will play an
even greater role in solid waste disposal as rural landfills
within King County are phased out. The Cedar Hills landfill
has enough capacity to last for approximately another 20 years
(King County Department of Building and Land Development, pers.
comm.). The feasibility of establishing waste-to-energy
conversion plants as an alternative to continued landfilling
is currently being studied by King County.
Existing Capacity Problems. No near-term capacity prob-
lems appear to exist with the solid waste management system.
Impacts of Growth. Growth projected for the study area
will generate additional needs for solid waste transfer and
disposal facilities. A rough estimate of the additional
solid waste generated by population growth can be made using
the RIBCO solid waste plan per capita figures of 19.77 pounds
per capita per day for solid waste generation and 5.74 pounds
per capita per day for solid waste remaining for ultimate
disposal; these figures include residential, commercial/industrial,
arid special wastes. Using these figures and the PSCOG policy
projection for the year 2000, solid waste generation within
the study area can be projected to increase from 1.94 to
2.91 million tons per year between 1980 and 2000, and solid
waste remaining for disposal can be projected to increase
from 0.56 to 0.84 million tons per year.
Recreation
Existing Management System. A number of federal, state,
and local agencies provide recreation services to study area
residents. Within the study area and its vicinity, residents
enjoy a wide range of recreation opportunities. In particular,
rivers, lakes, marine shorelands, and the inland waters of
Puget Sound offer many opportunities for water-oriented recreation.
Existing Capacity Problems. King County's draft General
Development Guide distinguishes among four types of parks:
neighborhood (5-10 ac), community (20-40 ac), resources-
based (1-100 ac) and major urban (at least 100 ac). No com-
prehensive data on park capacity problems exist. Through
the communities planning process, deficiencies in one or more of
these types of parks have been noted within different communities
211

-------
planning areas. In addition, a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
(1977) study of the recreational needs of the study area
and its vicinity identified boating facilities, swimming
beaches, and shoreline access as high priority recreational
needs common to all local jurisdictions.
Impacts of Growth. Growth projected for the study area
will generate additional demands for parks and recreation
facilities. The King County draft General Development Guide
recommends 5 acres per thousand persons as the standard for
major urban parks (the draft General Development Guide
also contains standards for neighborhood and community parks,
but within built-up areas only). Using this standard, the
projected increase in population for the study area of 321,000
between the years 1980 and 2000 would require 1,600 acres
of additional major urban parks.
Social Services
Existing Management System. Schools and police and
fire protection typically fall within the category of social
services. Schools within the study area are run by 15 inde-
pendent school districts. Centralized administrative support
is provided by Educational Service District (ESD) 121 in
King County and ESD 189 in Snohomish County. Police and
fire services within the study area are provided by cities
within their boundaries and by counties in unincorporated
areas.
Existing Capacity Problems. No comprehensive data exist
regarding existing capacity problems of schools, police,
or fire services. Through the communities planning process,
deficiencies in one or more of these services have been noted
within individual communities planning areas. As a general
rule, schools are seldom provided for in advance of development,
and school capacity is often the major social service concern
in rapidly growing areas.
Impacts of Growth. Projected population growth will
generate demand for additional social services. If these
services are not provided in a timely fashion, the quality
of social services within the study area could deteriorate.
It is possible to estimate the number of additional
students who will require classrooms by using ESP 121's
planning rule of thumb estimate of 20 students per 100 persons
added within King County. Using this figure, the projected
increase in population for the study area of 321,000 between
the years 1980 and 2000 would generate an additional 64,200
students. Of course, schoolroom capacity would not be needed
for all 64,200 at one time, since students generated early
in the planning period would be leaving the public school
system prior to the year 2000.
212

-------
Transportation
Existing Management System. Management of roads and
highways within the study area is the responsibility of the
federal and state Departments of Transportation, PSCOG, and
cities and counties. (This section is limited to examining
the impacts of projected growth on roads and highways, and
does not consider airports, railroads, or ferry services.)
Metro is responsible for operating the regional mass trans-
portation system.
Existing Capacity Problems. Capacity problems exist
for both local roads and regional highways. Some of these
have been identified in communities plans. PSCOG is in the
process of identifying regional and subregional highway prob-
lems as part of its current updating program for the 1990
Transportation System Plan.
Impacts of Growth. Projected population growth will
generate additional person-trips and vehicle-miles travelled.
Many highway and transit improvements have been programmed
by PSCOG, local governments and Metro to meet projected demands.
Metro's 10-year capital expenditure needs for transit improve-
ments alone were recently estimated at $1.9 million (Penhole,
1980a). If transportation facilities and services are not
provided in a timely fashion to meet increased demands, or
if strategies to reduce vehicle-miles-travelled are unsuc-
cessful, additional congestion and increased travel times
could result. This could have localized air quality impacts.
A good indicator of the increase in transportation demand
is the number of home-to-work trips. Table 6-10 shows PSCOG's
projection of home-to-work/college trips by place of residence
and place of work for 10 planning districts in Pierce, King,
and Snohomish Counties. The trip projections are based on
PSCOG's policy population projection, identical to that used
for Metro's wastewater facilities planning. The data in
Table 6-10 indicate that the five transportation planning
districts located within the study area are all expected
to show significant increases in trips from home and trips
to work.
Electricity and Gas
Existing Management System. Electricity is supplied
to most of the study area by Puget Sound Power and Light
(PSP&L); in Snohomish County, electricity is supplied by
Snohomish Public Utility District. In 1979, 78 percent of
the electricity supply by PSP&L came from hydroelectric plants,
with thermal sources accounting for the remaining 22 percent.
Natural gas is supplied in the study area by Washington
Natural Gas. Supplies are purchased from the Northwest Pipe-
line Corporation.
213

-------
Table 6-10. Projected Hcme-Work/College Trips by Place
of Residence and Place of Work
Trips from Heme	Trips to Work
in this District	in this District
District
1977
2000
Percent
Change
1977
2000
Percent
Change
1.
Tacoma/Lakewood
157.2
216.9
+ 38.0
179.1
255.4
+ 42.6
2.
Puyallup, Spanway, S. E. Pierce County
88.2
192.7
+118.5
41.1
103.9
+152.8
3.
Federal Way, Aubum, Kent, Maple Valley*
119.8
234.6
+ 95.8
83.5
175.7
+110.4
4.
Renton, Tukwila, Barien, Sea-Tac*
137.0
168.1
+ 22.7
113.3
182.7
+ 61.3
5.
Seattle, South of Ship Canal
201.5
227.4
+ 12.9
412.6
505.9
+ 22.6
6.
East Lake Washington*
184.3
286.9
+ 55.7
104.4
186.1
+ 78.3
7.
North Seattle's Shoreline
203.6
212.7
+ 4.5
199.7
239.5
+ 19.9
8.
Montlake Terrace, North Creek, Alderwood
Manor*
37.0
103.7
+180.3
9.2
33.1
+259.8
9.
Edmunds, Lynnwood*
69.6
114.0
+ 63.8
39.9
88.4
+121.6
LO.
Everett and Suburban Areas
63.0
129.0
+104.8
82.3
144.2
+ 75.2
County Totals






Pierce
245.4
409.6
+ 66.9
220.2
359.3
+ 63.2
King
846.2
1,129.7
+ 33.5
913.5
1,289.9
+ 41.2
Snohomish
169.6
346.7
+104.4
131.4
265.7
+102.2
*Denotes districts within Lake Washington/Green River Basins.
SOURCE: PSCOG, 1979a.

-------
Existing Capacity Problems . The near-term outlook for
electricity supplies in the study area is uncertain. That
electricity supplies could be a problem is best demonstrated
by a pending petition filed in late 1979 by PSP&L with the
Washington Utility and Transportation Commission. This peti-
tion requests a 4-year restriction on new electricity hook-
ups where other fuel types would be more efficient or where
supplies are more available; the main effect of this petition
would be to limit new hook-ups for residential space heating
or water heating. In contrast to the electricity outlook,
the near-term outlook for natural gas within the study area
is considered good.
Impacts of Growth. Population growth projected for
the study area will generate additional energy demands. Current
uncertainties in factors such as the future of nuclear power,
energy pricing policy, and the role of conservation, among
others, make projections of 20-year energy demand and supply
quite difficult, and such projections are not attempted here.
Mitigation Measures for Public Services Impacts
In an effort to assure the coordination of growth and
provision of public services, local agencies within the study
area have developed numerous comprehensive and special purpose
(functional) plans and policies. The status of plans and
policies is described in detail in Appendix A of this EIS.
Some of the more important plans and policies affecting public
services provisions are listed below.
Comprehensive Plans. King County General Development
Guide (first draft), community plans in King and Snohomish
Counties, comprehensive plans prepared by cities.
Wastewater Management Plans. Sewer district compre-
hensive plans, King County Sewerage General Plan/ Metro
Resolution 2933, nonsewer policies of Seattle-King Counties
and Snohomish County Health Departments.
Water Supply. Water district comprehensive plans,
Seattle Complan.
Drainage and Flood Control. Metro 208 plan, local govern-
ment drainage policies, Green River Basin Program.
Solid Waste Management. King County Solid Waste Manage-
ment Plan.
Transportation. PSCOG 1990 Transportation System Plan
update, PSCOG subregional transportation plans.
215

-------
To the extent that these and other local plans and policies
regarding public services provision are implemented, the
potential adverse impacts of growth on public services will
be mitigated; if public services plans and policies are not suc-
cessfully implemented, localized service deficiencies could
create changes in growth patterns, but these are unlikely
to be of sufficient magnitude to affect the study area's
projected growth rate or the phasing of Metro's wastewater
facilities. At this time, development of additional mitigation
measures as part of this EIS does not appear warranted.
Secondary Impacts on Public Finance
Background
Growth accommodated by the Metro Wastewater Management
Plan will affect the balance between public costs and revenues.
Public costs are incurred with the provision of services
such as police, fire protection, streets and roads, water,
sewers, libraries and public health. Revenues are obtained
from property taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, charges
for services, fines and transfers from other (such as state
and federal) governments.
The municipal budgeting process and collection of reve-
nue to pay for public services are governed by a well-defined
set of regulations. According to Washington state law, local
government budgets must be balanced; that is, revenues must
equal costs.
The amount of revenue collected is not specifically
limited, but there are some constraints. Revenue from pro-
perty taxes in any year may not exceed 106 percent of the
largest property tax collection in the previous 3 years,
with three exceptions: (1) voters may suspend this limitation
one time only, for a period of 1 year; (2) voters may authorize
the sale of general obligation bonds to be repaid by an extra
property tax levy; and (3) new development may be added to
the collection base subject to certain rules. Sales tax
receipts are derived from a distribution of state sales tax
revenues. Municipal bonds, issued by local governments to
cover capital costs, are limited by the total assessed valua-
tion in the jurisdiction (for general obligation and local
improvement district bonds) or the revenue of the enterprise
(for revenue bonds).
Responsibility for Provision of Services
Public services in the study area are provided by a
combination of local government entities. Within cities,
King County is responsible for county streets and roads;
health; law, safety, and justice (excluding police); solid
216

-------
waste collection; and some parks. The city provides general
government, police and fire protection, parks and recreation,
water and sewer services. Some cities also provide libraries.
In unincorporated areas of the county, King County provides
general government; streets and roads; law, safety and justice
(including sheriff); solid waste collection; and parks and
recreation. Fire protection, water and sewers are provided
by special districts.
Further details regarding the existing management system
for study area public services may be found in the previous
section assessing secondary public services impacts.
Fiscal Outlook of the Study Area
Interviews were held with finance officers and city
treasurers in the seven largest cities in the King County
portion of the study area and with staff of the King County
budget division to assess the fiscal outlook. Officials
in six of the seven cities - Auburn, Bellevue, Kirkland,
Kent, Redmond, and Renton - indicated that the fiscal condi-
tions and outlooks of those cities are similar. In all six,
diversified tax bases provide substantial property and sales
tax revenues. Continuing development, especially of com-
mercial and industrial uses, allows property tax collections
to increase at a greater rate than 6 percent per year and
helps in covering the cost of services to residential areas.
Sales tax receipts, which rise not only with new commercial
development but also with inflation and real income gains
(the amount by which increases in income exceed inflation),
contribute additional funds.
Several of the cities place major importance on user
fees to generate revenue not only for water and sewer ser-
vice but also for development processing and recreation pro-
grams. A notable example is the City of Kent, which serves
a large population in the unincorporated area around the
city, and charges for services in an effort to assign the
costs of those services to the people who actually use them.
Several of the cities have additional sources of revenue -
such as business and occupation tax and gross receipts tax -
available to them when the constraints imposed by the 106
percent limit become too severe. All of the cities have
major portions of their bonding capacity uncommitted, and
none has had trouble passing bond issues when they have
been submitted to the voters. In general, these cities have
adopted a conservative approach to budgeting, overestimating
expenses and underestimating revenues, in an attempt to main-
tain solvency and respond adequately to the service needs
and demands of their residents.
217

-------
There are, nonetheless, some differences among these
six cities. Some have substantial cash reserves available
to cover emergency funding requirements, while others have
virtually none. Some of the cities anticipate significant
population growth in the future, in some cases involving
annexations as well as new development within current city
boundaries, while others expect only minor infill development.
Officials in the six cities expressed confidence in
their fiscal soundness and their abilities to handle future
growth. They based this optimism on increasing sales tax
revenues, future possibilities of additional revenues from
other sources (user charges, business and occupations tax),
the future possibility of suspending the 106 percent property
tax limit and careful management practices.
The seventh city, Mercer Island, differs from the other
six in several ways. It is completely contained by the is-
land, almost fully developed and almost completely residen-
tial . The residential character of development means that
the city must rely heavily on property taxes for locally-
generated revenues, knowing that most costs will rise at a
greater rate than 6 percent per year and thus that the city's
finances face continual strain in the future. Voters suspended
the 106 percent limit this year, leaving that option unavailable
in the future. Even the very limited potential for future
population growth and the knowledge that whatever growth
does occur will probably not significantly increase city
costs (because it will occur within the existing framework
for service provision) does not bolster the city's fiscal
outlook. Smaller cities in the study area with development
characteristics similar to Mercer Island are likely to find
themselves in the same fiscal condition.
The King County government, which provides some services
countywide and some to the unincorporated area, shares the
fiscal outlook of the City of Mercer Island, although for
different reasons. The services provided by the county -
primarily law, safety and justice, streets and roads, and
public health - are difficult or impossible to finance with
user charges (parks and recreation in the unincorporated
area may be an exception). Therefore, the county must rely
on property and sales taxes for revenue. Its property tax
levies and sales tax receipts differ, however, between the
incorporated and unincorporated areas; property tax levies
in the incorporated areas (city territory) are lower because
the county provides fewer services there, and sales tax receipts
are lower because the cities share in the revenue. The county
policy which encourages new development in existing urban
concentrations makes it likely that the county will receive
a smaller share of the fiscal benefits from that development
than it would if construction in unincorporated areas were
more acceptable.
218

-------
The county also has more difficulty than the cities
in mounting and passing bond issues, because a county issue
must be approved by residents of both the incorporated and
unincorporated areas. The greater diversity of population
and interests in the countywide electorate dilutes the appeal
of any county proposal and requires a major political effort
to adopt a bonding program.
It should be noted that neither county special districts
nor Snohomish nor Pierce Counties budget officials were
interviewed for this study, and consequently the foregoing
description of county finances presents only a partial pic-
ture .
Mitigation Measures for Fiscal Impacts
Local jurisdictions within the study area are implementing
a variety of measures to finance the public costs of growth.
For example, as part of its General Development Guide program,
King County is examining the fiscal impacts of four alterna-
tive development patterns, and fiscal considerations will
play an important role in determining which alternative is
selected. At this time, development of additional mitigation
measures as part of this EIS does not appear warranted.
219

-------
Chapter 7
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
Overview
EPA's objective for the 201 construction grant program
is to assist public agencies to meet their responsibility for
work toward the goals of the Clean Water Act. The primary
methods EPA and the State of Washington use to meet water
quality goals are to establish water quality standards
necessary to protect the beneficial uses of streams, and to
administer the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) whereby effluent discharge permits contain
terms intended to maintain water quality standards. EPA will
consider a wastewater treatment construction grant application
to assist Metro in meeting the terms of its NPDES permit, and
to protect water quality.
EPA's implementation procedures for the National Environ-
mental Policy Act 1NEPA) require, in addition to considering
the grant applicant's alternatives, that EISs explicitly
consider alternatives available to EPA. These alternatives
may include structural or locational alternatives not investi-
gated by the grant applicant, or can be administrative only.
The administrative options may include such choices as funding
or not funding the proposed action; funding portions of the
project; funding the project in stages; or providing a reduced
or increased level of funding. Administrative options can
also relate to grant conditions, including impact mitigation
measures that EPA may wish to make part of any subsequent
grant offer to the applicant.
Structural Alternatives
EPA, at its discretion may propose, within its EIS,
facility alternatives in addition to those proposed by an
applicant. In the case of Metro's Draft Wastewater Management
Plan for the Lake Washington/Green River Basins, EPA believes
that Metro has examined a full range of long-term facility
alternatives. These include both centralized and decentralized
approaches, as well as several discharge options. Broad new
facilities approaches do not appear warranted at this time as
part of this EIS. The option of exploring additional alterna-
tives for implementing specific components within Metro's
221

-------
preferred plan will be retained. For example, EPA could
include alternative sizing of nonmodular facilities or
alternative mitigation measures to alleviate environmental
impacts.
Administrative Alternatives:	Funding
Fund or Not Fund Project
EPA funding is based on a determination that the appli-
cant's preferred alternative is approvable. An approvable
alternative must be the cost-effective and environmentally
acceptable means of accomplishing the project objectives. If
these requirements were not met and federal funds were not
provided, the applicant's preferred alternative would need to
be funded entirely from state and local sources: otherwise,
it might not be built. In the former case, increases in costs
to local ratepayers might be expected. In the latter case,
impacts such as those discussed in this EIS under the no-project
alternative could be expected, including serious water quality
and fisheries impacts.
If the preferred alternative is found to be cost-effective
and environmentally acceptable, federal funding could be
provided, but funding would be dependent on availability of
funds and funding priorities. Under the Clean Water Act, EPA
may provide grants of up to 75 percent of eligible project costs. It
is possible that the EPA would be able to provide 75 percent funding
for only a portion of the $310 - 410 million capital costs of
Metro's preferred program. Recent EPA construction grant annual
funding for Washington State has ranged from close to $80 mil-
lion in 1978 to near $60 million in 1980. Annual funds may be
expected to continue in the $60 - 80 million range in the near
future. Administration or Congressional actions or national
economic trends may affect this estimate. Full EPA funding of
this project could therefore be expected to require the commit-
ment of all Washington State's share of federal construction
grant funds for several years. This in turn would require
denying funding for other projects within Washington State.
Actual distribution of federal funds to projects in
Washington State is determined by the State Department of
Ecology. The most recent state priority list shows that design
funds for this Metro project will not be available until
FY 1983. The state estimates that after FY 1984 the maximum
annual amount of federal funds made available for this project
is likely to be approximately $20 million per year.
222

-------
Washington State voters recently passed a bond measure
providing $315 million over 10 years for wastewater treatment
projects. This program will be administered by the Department
of Ecology. It is anticipated that this money will be used to
fund projects at between 50-7 5 percent of eligible costs.
Due to the wastewater treatment needs of small communities,
Metro has in the past received only about 12 percent of the
funds from past state bonding authorities. The State of
Washington expects that Metro's fair share of the new
bonding authority will be higher, based on the realization
that a majority of the state's population and a significant
portion of the state's remaining wastewater treatment needs
are in the Seattle metropolitan area. Therefore, state funds
may be available to supplement federal funds for this Metro
project.
EPA approval of the preferred program would be approval
of the entire program. Since the entire program is necessary
to prevent water quality problems, EPA funding would be
dependent on Metro's commitment to implement the entire program.
If only a portion of the program were to be completed, EPA
would not have achieved its intent in approving the preferred
program, and water quality standards violations could occur.
Recognizing the need to commit to implementing the entire
preferred program, and recognizing the limits and uncertainties
of federal and state funding, Metro will need to prepare a
realistic financial plan. Such a plan should show the sources
of funds needed for Metro to implement the entire preferred
program, including realistic estimates of federal, state and
local funds. This plan should include a critical path schedule
showing target dates for various portions of the preferred
program to come on-line, starting times for design and con-
struction phases of the various portions necessary to meet
those target dates, and amounts and sources of funds needed to
accomplish each phase. A financial plan of this nature is
needed to assure EPA and the Department of Ecology that federal
and state funds will be spent as part of an agreed-upon total
program to meet wastewater treatment objectives in an environ-
mentally-acceptable manner.
Planning of project phasing should recognize that some
portions of the preferred program are essential to achieve
water quality objectives. For example, under the preferred
program, project phasing should guarantee that the tunnel and
outfall will come on-line in time to transfer to Puget Sound
the increased discharge from treatment plant expansion. If
increased discharge from plant expansion preceded completion of
the tunnel and outfall, unacceptable water quality impacts in
the Duwamish River might occur.
223

-------
Funding of Project Phases
Metro has proposed to stage the design and construction
of its preferred long-term program in two phases. Phase
1, consisting of expansion of treatment plant and solids-
handling facilities to 72 MGD, the effluent tunnel/outfall,
and Phase 1 of the Redmond connection, would start in 1981
and be complete by 1985. Phase 2, consisting of expansion
of treatment and solids handling capacity to 99 MGD, Phase 2
of the Redmond Connection, and the North Creek/Hollywood
connection, would start in 1986 and be complete in either
1991 or 1993, depending on the facility.
EPA intends to provide initial federal funding for only
Phase 1 of the preferred program (if selected). An alterna-
tive would be to provide funds at this time for both phases;
this alternative does not appear necessary given funding
constraints, the relative independence of the two phases
(i.e., Phase 2 is not a necessary part of Phase 1), and their
separation in time.
Funding Beyond 20-Year Capacity
EPA cost effectiveness guidelines require that cost-
effectiveness analyses be based on a planning period of 20
years. As a general rule, EPA does not fund facilities
beyond their 20-year capacities. If Metro's preferred program
is selected, it is unlikely that EPA would fund the Redmond
connection and the tunnel and outfall to Puget Sound beyond
their 20-year capacities. The costs of additional incremental
capacity would therefore need to be funded entirely from local
sources, assuming the Department of Ecology would also not
fund beyond the 20-year capacity.
Administrative Alternatives: Grant Conditions
A number of potential adverse environmental impacts
have been identified throughout this EIS. In many cases
measures can be taken to mitigate these impacts. Mitigation
measures have been discussed at various places in the body
of this EIS and are summarized in the EIS Summary (Table
S-l). Specific mitigation measures are the responsibility
of various federal, state or local agencies. For example,
several agencies have responsibilities to implement 208 plan
recommendations necessary to mitigate nonpoint source impacts
of urbanization on surface water in the study area. Certain
mitigation measures can also be taken by Metro.
224

-------
Where EPA determines that mitigation measures are
necessary to prevent or minimize unacceptable adverse impacts
of the selected project, and that such measures could be
taken by Metro, EPA may place conditions on the award of
subsequent grants to require that Metro take appropriate
mitigative actions. Grant conditions can include specific
monitoring requirements, requests for supporting ordinances,
and a variety of other controls on the construction and
operation of the wastewater treatment and disposal facilities.
EPA regulations require EPA to ensure that a grantee
has the authority to fulfill grant conditions. Suggested
mitigation measures not included as grant conditions, which
are beyond Metro's authority, have been included in this
EIS to give the public an idea of measures that could be
implemented, and which agencies have responsibility for them.
Although these additional measures are not part of the proposed
action, and the proposed action is not dependent on them,
EPA believes it is appropriate to present them in this EIS.
EPA is considering several potential grant conditions
for the Metro facilities plan. Final decisions on grant
conditions will be made following public review and comments
on this EIS. The general types of grant conditions being
considered are discussed here.
Construction and Site-Related Impacts
1.	Completion of cultural resources surveys for the routes
of the Redmond connection, the North Creek/Hollywood
connection, and the tunnel and outfall to Puget Sound.
2.	As proposed by Metro, completion of additional predesign
engineering and geotechnical studies for the tunnel and
outfall to Puget Sound.
Operational Impacts
1.	As proposed by Metro, completion of additional predesign
oceanographic and biological studies for the selected
Puget Sound outfall.
2.	To reduce short-term water quality and fisheries impacts
in the Green/Duwamish River:
a. Implementation of measures proposed to be implemented
in Metro's Draft Plan.
225

-------
b.	Implementation of some combination of additional
measures available mentioned in Metro's Draft Plan,
such as diversion, increased treatment, reduced
influent pollutant loads, or in-river actions, which
can be reasonably expected to correct the short-
term problem.
c.	Reduction of residual chlorine levels in Renton
effluent as soon as possible.
3. Further consultation with local planning agencies and
PSCOG to determine 50-year population and peak flow
projections derived to the greatest extent possible
from current planning or projections.
Secondary Impacts
This Draft EIS has identified a number of potential
impacts that could result from projected growth within the study
area, for example, impacts on agricultural lands, floodplains
and wetlands. EPA recognizes that questions of growth management
and land use are primarily the responsibility of local land
use agencies. In fact, the King County Sewerage General Plan
and General Development Guide (first draft) contain measures
designed to protect agricultural lands and sensitive areas.
Metro's Resolution 3380 adopts those measures contained in
the Sewerage General Plan. However, as shown in this EIS,
not all agricultural and sensitive areas which may be important
in the study area are protected by these measures.
EPA recognizes that land use and planning and regulation
are the responsibilities of local governments. EPA must
also be responsive to federal policies. These include Executive
Orders 11988 and 11990 on floodplain and wetland protection,
and EPA"policies on floodplains, wetlands and agricultural
lands. EPA regulations require that EPA shall avoid direct
and indirect support of floodplain and wetland development
wherever there is a practicable alternative. In addition,
EPA policy states that EPA shall determine primary and
secondary impacts on agricultural land as part of EPA EISs,
and recommend mitigation measures. If EPA funds expansion
of sewage treatment capacity, and if subsequently that capacity
is used to treat wastewater from new development located
in agricultural or sensitive lands, which might not otherwise
have located in those areas, then the impacts on those lands
can logically be considered a secondary or indirect impact
of EPA's action, which EPA should attempt to mitigate to
the greatest extent practicable.
226

-------
Given these policies, grant conditions for secondary
impacts being considered may provide that:
1.	Prior to Metro's construction of any interceptor or trunk
sewer projects which will discharge to the Renton treatment
plant and which will serve agricultural, floodplain or
wetland areas not included in local protective measures,
Metro will conduct an analysis, with public involvement,
of likely impacts on those areas. These analyses will
include an exploration of practicable alternatives which
may prevent impacts and measures which may be used to
mitigate impacts. These analyses may be incorporated
into environmental reports or impact statements prepared
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
2.	Prior to hook-up of any locally-constructed interceptor
to Metro's Renton collection system, Metro will ensure
that the responsible local agency has completed an analysis
of impacts to agricultural, floodplain or wetland areas
as described above. Metro will be responsible for com-
pletion of such an analysis if it is not prepared by
the responsible local agency.
3.	As an alternative to 1 and 2 above, EPA could consider
alternative grant conditions which require Metro to
certify, before any future Metro collection facilities
or local interceptors are allowed to discharge to the
Renton system, that such facilities do not and will not
service development in designated agricultural, floodplain
or wetland areas which are not already protected by local
policies.
4.	For water quality impacts caused by on-site systems in
the nonsewer area, a further grant condition which could
be considered is to require assurance that institutional
agreements are in place establishing responsibilities
for septic tank management in nonsewer areas.
227

-------
Chapter 8
COORDINATION
Introduction
Section 6.203 of EPA's procedures for implementation
of the National Environmental Policy Act requires that EISs
discuss the extent and results of coordination activities
conducted prior to publication of EISs. This chapter describes
the involvement of government agencies, interest groups,
and the public in general in determining the scope and content
of this EIS.
Public Participation
Public participation for this EIS has been coordinated,
and, where possible, integrated with the full-scale public
participation program undertaken by Metro in preparing its
Draft Wastewater Management Plan. Key EIS public partici-
pation activities to date are summarized below.
Information Brochure
In August 197 9 EPA published a brochure entitled Deci-
sions on Water Quality in the Renton Area. This widely-
distributed brochure provided background information on the
Wastewater Management Plan being prepared by Metro, listed
and discussed key issues for the EIS, described EPA's role
in decision making and in preparing the EIS, and identified
future public involvement opportunities. The brochure also
included a Notice of Intent inviting members of the public
to attend the initial project "kickoff" and scoping meetings.
Scoping Meeting
An initial kickoff/scoping meeting was scheduled for
September 16, 1979. Because attendance was much larger
than anticipated and exceeded the capacity of the meeting
room, the kickoff/scoping meeting was rescheduled and held
on October 17, 1979.
Because the kickoff/scoping meeting was jointly held
by Metro and EPA, both wastewater planning and EIS issues
were discussed. In addition to Metro's presentation,
presentations were made by EPA staff and the EIS consultant
regarding EPA1s role in preparing the EIS and some of the
important issues that would be addressed in the EIS.
229

-------
Following the presentations, most public comments
addressed the Wastewater Management Plan. However, one issue
was raised by a citizen regarding the importance of air quality
considerations in the EIS. This citizen felt that the EIS
should consider the inadequacy of the existing monitoring
station network for carbon monoxide within the study area;
without more monitoring stations in certain "hot spots",
the commenter felt, it would be difficult to predict and
mitigate the air quality impacts of future growth in the
study area. The EIS consultant responded at that time that
the EIS would probably not undertake new efforts to predict
and mitigate future air quality problems unless the population
projections used for wastewater planning were inconsistent
with those used for the Washington State Implementation Plan;
these population projections have been determined to be con-
sistent in this EIS (see Chapter 6).
Notice of Intent
On October 2, 1979, EPA's formal Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register.
Presentation to Wastewater Plan Citizens Advisory
Committee
On January 23, 1980, the EIS consultant presented a
status report on the EIS to the Renton 201 Citizens Advisory
Committee. The different emphases of the Wastewater Manage-
ment Plan and EIS were discussed.
Public Meeting on Alternatives
On February 6, 1980, Metro held a public meeting to
obtain public input on the advantages and disadvantages of
various wastewater management alternatives. EPA staff and
the EIS consultant attended this meeting, gave a short pre-
sentation on the status of the EIS, and participated in the
small group discussions which were the focus of the meeting.
Public Meetings on Preliminary Plan
On May 13, 14, and 19, 1980, Metro held a series of
public meetings on its preliminary plan; in these meetings
the contents of the plan were discussed by Metro staff and
consultants, followed by a question-and-answer session. EPA
staff or the EIS consultant were in attendance at each of
these meetings. Two questions arose specifically related
to the EIS: 1) whether the EIS would focus on a preferred
action or alternative actions, and 2) whether the EIS would
address the land use impacts of a Kenmore treatment plant.
230

-------
Answers given at the meetings to these questions were: 1) alter-
native courses of action will be assessed in the EIS, and
2) site-specific impacts of the Kenmore plant would be addressed
in the EIS, the level of detail depending on the specificity
of the Wastewater Management Plan regarding alternatives
sites.
Comments and Suggestions Received During
Preparation of the Draft EIS
During the preparation of the Draft EIS numerous comments
and suggestions on the EIS approach and content were made
by both citizens and agencies. The citizen comments were
received in conjunction with the public participation
activities reviewed above. Agency input to the Draft EIS
was of two types: formal written comments and informal
suggestions.
Only two formal written comments were received regarding
the scope of the Draft EIS while it was being prepared.
Mr. Bob Ziegler, applied ecologist with the Washington
Department of Game's Environmental Affairs Program, expressed
the following concerns in a April 14, 1980 letter to the
EIS consultant: loss of fish and wildlife habitat caused
by sewering of unsewered areas and accompanying urban growth;
cumulative impacts to the Green-Duwamish fishery resource
from proposed widening and deepening of the Duwamish, as
well as from stormwater runoff; loss of wildlife habitat
from conversion of wetlands in the Green River drainage basin
from watershed projects; loss of riparian habitats and wildlife
corridors along streams; consistency of the Wastewater Manage-
ment Plan with local land use planning; and alternatives
to sewering. EPA believes that most of the Department of-
Game's concerns regarding the impacts of urban growth on
fish and wildlife are addressed in the secondary impact
analysis in Chapter 6 of this EIS; alternatives to sewering
are addressed most fully in Metro's Draft Wastewater Manage-
ment Plan and are presented in Chapter 3 of this EIS.
The second written comment was made by Mr. Bruce Laing,
Chairman of King County Council's Growth Management Committee,
in a June 6, 1980 letter to Metro. Mr. Laing requested the
EIS to analyze the relative impacts of developing six new
decentralized treatment plants (under example program C)
along the urban fringe, in contrast to continuing inter-
ceptor sewer service to the sites. In response to this comment,
a section analyzing the land use impacts of the decentralized
plants was prepared and is included in Chapter 5 of this EIS.
In addition to these two written comments, numerous
suggestions were made to EPA staff or the EIS consultant
during meetings with affected agencies. In particular,
valuable input was given by staffs of the following agencies
during preparation of the Draft EIS: Washington Department
231

-------
of Ecology, Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington
Department of Game, Washington Department of Ecology, King
County Planning Division, King County Office of Agriculture,
King County Department of Building and Land Development,
Puget Sound Council of Governments, and Metro.
Upcoming Coordination Efforts
This Draft EIS has been forwarded to numerous federal,
state and local agencies, special interest groups, and private
citizens to act as both an informational document and as
an avenue to comment on the proposed wastewater project.
The distribution list is shown in Table 8-1. The document
has been forwarded to public libraries in the study area
so that other concerned residents can review the potential
impact of the project.
Individuals of groups that wish to comment on the EIS
may forward written comments to:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Roger Mochnick M/S 44 3
Comments should be sent by February 2, 1981.
Joint public workshops have been scheduled on the Draft
Wastewater Management Plan and Draft EIS by Metro and EPA
during early January 1981. Citizens and agency representa-
tives will have a chance to learn about the plan and EIS,
and discuss their questions and concerns in an informal work-
shop atmosphere. Formal public hearings on the Draft Waste-
water Management Plan and Draft EIS have been scheduled for
late January 1981, During these public hearings, formal
oral and written testimony will be received.
All oral and written comments received on the Draft
EIS will be recorded and responded to in a Final EIS, which
will be made available to interested individuals, groups
and agencies approximately 3 months after the public hearing.
232

-------
Table 8-1. Distribution List foe Draft EIS
Office of the Secretary
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture
Coordinator of Environmental
Quality Activities
Washington, DC 20250
Mrs. Kathi Wilson
Office of Environmental Review
EIS Filing Section (A-104)
0. S. Environ. Prot. Agency
401 M Street, SW, Room 2119 WSM
Washington, DC 20460
Ernest E. Sligh, Director
Environ. Impact Div., PEA
New Post Office Bldg.
12th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20461
John D. McDermott, Director
Office of Review & Compliance
Adv. Council on Hist. Preserv.
P. O. Box 25085
u Denver, CO 80225
u>
w Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Mgmt. Analysis and Systems
Dept. of Health, Educ. & Welfare
200 Independence Ave., SW, Room 514F
Washington, DC 20201
Environmental Officer for
Community Plan. 6 Mgmt.
Housing and Urban Development
1321 2nd Ave., Arcade Plaza
Seattle, WA 98101
Donald Samuelson, Reg. Rep.
Dept. of Transportation, Region X
Arcade Plaza Bldg.
1321 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Oil & Special Materials Div.
Water Prog. Operations (WH-548)
Environ. Prot. Agency
Room 2106, Waterside Mall
Washington, DC 20460
Santo A. Furfari
Public Health Serv.-DHEW
Northeast Technical Center
CB Center Bldg., S-26
Davisville, RI 02854
Adv. Council on Hist. Preserv.
Office of Arch. 6 Environ. Pres.
Suite 430, 1522 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
Mr. Bruce Blanchard, Dir.
Office of Environ. Proj. Review
Interior Bldg., Room 4256
Washington, DC 20240
Office of Legislation (A-102)
Environ. Prot. Agency
Room 3105, WSM
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Public Affairs (A-107)
Environ. Prot. Agency
Room 3014, WSM
Washington, DC 20460
National Marine Fisheries
NOAA
Dept. of Commerce
P. 0. Box 4332
Portland, OR 97208
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture
Area Conservationist
Suite 214, Bldg. 4
300 120th Ave., NE
Bellevue, WA 98005
Seattle Dist. Corps of Engineers
Corps Engineering Division
4735 E. Marginal Way, S
Seattle, WA 98134
H. Paul Friesema
Center for Urban Affairs
Northwestern U - 2040 Sheridan
Evanston, IL 60201
Dr. R. D. Daugherty, Director
WA Arch. Research Center
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99163
Facility Requirements Division (WH-595)
Environ. Prot. Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Sylvia Lowrance
Kaylor Martinson, Regional Director
USDOI/Fish & Wildlife Service
Lloyd 500 Bldg. - 1692
500 NE Multnomah Street
Portland, OR 97232
Office of the Governor
State Planning Division and Community
Assistance Division
100 Insurance Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98504
Ecological Commission
c/o WA Dept. of Ecology
Olympia, WA 98504
Director, WA Dept. of Fisheries
Room 115, General Admin. Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98501
Director, Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Services
Room 312, 915 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Commissioner of Public Lands
WA Dept. of Natural Resources
Public Lands-Social Security Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98501
Director, WA Dept. of Ecology
P. O. Box 829
Olympia, WA 98504
Director, WA Dept. of Game
600 North Capital Way
Olympia, WA 98501

-------
President, WA State Sportsmen's Council
P. O. Bo* 98236
Tacoma, WA 98499
WA Environmental Council
107 South Main St.
Seattle, HA 98104
Lynn A. Brown
State Conservationist
360 0. S. Courthouse
W 920 Riverside Avenue
Spokane, WA 99201
J. Kerrell
AN VIC
340 Somerset Lane
Marietta, GA 30067
News Editor
Auburn-Globe News
236 E. Main
Auburn, WA 98002
Dennis Moote
Enhancement Biologist
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
38811 172nd Ave., SE
Auburn, WA 98002
Ranier Valley Audubon Society
P. 0. Box 778
Auburn, WA 98002
Bellevue Chamber of Commerce
Bud Erickson
550 106th NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
J. W. Barton
Hunts Point Mayor
3000 Hunts Point Road
Bellevue, WA 98004
Honorable Miles Nelson
Mayor of Clyde Hill
9615 NE 24th St.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Doris Maca
15025 SE 43rd St.
Bellevue, WA 98006
S. William Halgren
2230 151 Place, SE
Bellevue, WA 98007
Sammamish Community Council
c/o Don Riggs
234 W. Lake Samm. Blvd., SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Daily Journal American
Mews Editor
P. 0. Box 310
Bellevue, WA 98009
Ms. Ann Aagaard
16524 104th NE
Bothell, WA 98011
Michael Gill
15803 118 Place, NE
Bothell, WA 98011
Daniel W. Taylor
Director, Community Develop.
18305 - 101st Ave., NE
Bothell, WA 98011
Honorable Fred Farman
Mayor of Enumclaw
1339 Griffin Avenue
Enumclaw, WA 98022
Cougar Mountain Resid. Assoc
c/o Jim Lyon
6816 166th Way, SE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Ruth Kees
9506 240th Ave., SE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Robert Kristofferson
City of Kent
P. 0. Bo* 310
Kent, WA 98031
Hews Editor
Kent News Journal
704 W. Meeker
Kent, WA 98031
Robert B. Eaton
Water District No. 86
23232 SE 312th
Kent, WA 98031
Ralph Puri
11008 108th NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
Attn: Juanita Bay Valley
Comm. Assoc.
John P. Roth, Jr.
909 Kirkland Ave.
Kirkland, WA 98033
Greater Maple Valley
Chamber of Commerce
Doreen Hunt, Manager
P. 0. Box 302
Maple Valley, WA 98038
WA Environ. Council
Ken Vernon, King Co. Chmn.
7785 Westwood Lane
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Larry Diener
2400 W Lake Sammamish Road,
Redmond, WA 98052
R. M. Stredicke
Ronton City Council
200 Mill Ave., S
Renton, WA 98055
Henry Hart
13743 SE 172nd
Renton, WA 98055
Sherry Laplant
14840 154th PI., SE
Renton, WA 98055

-------
Diane Matthai
14001 145th Ave-, SE
Renton, WA 98055
Lee and Sylvia Palmer
10405 151st Ave., SE
Renton, WA 98055
Ralph and Margaret Ruby
10409 151st SE
Renton, HA 98055
Greg Irvine
Seattle King Co. Health Dept.
3001 NE 4th
Renton, WA 98055
Beat Creek Valley Association
c/o Carl Sheve
14548 Bear Creek Road
Woodinville, WA 98072
Ken Lowthian
City of Seattle
Water Department
1015 3rd Ave.
m Seattle, WA 93101
u
1/1
By Tanino
Planning and Development
Arcade Plaza Bldg.
1321 2nd Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Mike Ruby
4128 Burke Ave., N
Seattle, WA 98103
J. J. Gordon, Mgr., Prop. Mgmt.
Burlington Northern, Inc.
Central Bldg., Lobby 2
Seattle, WA 98104
Harold Robertson
Community Planning Section
King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104
Diane Gale
1106 Municipal Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104
Jerry Allen
Office of Planning and Eval.
Yesler Bldg., 400 Yesler way
Seattle, WA 98104
Henry Sharp
Puget Sound Council of Govts.
216 1st Ave., S
Seattle, WA 98104
Pete Renault, Environ. Affairs
Seattle City Light
1015 3rd Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104
Mr. Joe Talbot
Mail Code 10901
City of Seattle
Municipal Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104
Richard C. T. Li, Inc.
4740 University Way, NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Dan Higgins
5400 W. Marginal Way, SW
Seattle, WA 98106
Vivian Kahn, AICP
Kahn/Mortimer Associates
2934 S. Edmunds St.
Seattle, WA 98108
Assoc. of General Contractors
Seattle Chapter
1200 Westlake N., Suite 301
Seattle, WA 98109
Attn: W. Netelenos
Pete H. Hansell, President
Seattle Master Builders
170 Heccec St.
Seattle, WA 98109
The Seattle Sun
524 15th Ave., E
Seattle, WA 98112
Sydney Steinborn
7936-B Seward Park Ave., S
Seattle, WA 98118
News Editor
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
521 Wall Street
Seattle, WA 98121
John A. Lee
3609 E. Denny
Seattle, WA 98122
J. D. Pugel
Bethlehem Steel, C-3B27
4045 Deltidge Way, SW
Seattle, WA 98124
Mrs. Sydell Polin, Mgr.
Ronald Sewer District
17505 Linden Ave., N
Seattle, WA 98133
Eugene Blonder
Seattle-King County Health Dept.
10821 Bth, SW
Seattle. WA 98146
Water District #125
P. 0. Box 68161
Seattle, WA 98168
Society of Prof. Engineers
Thelma Guttell, Secty.
7716 S. Sunnycrest Road
Seattle, WA 98178
News Editor
Des Moines News
22307 Marine View Dr., S
Des Moines, WA 98188
Mr. T. J. Katelit-h
Val Vue Sewer District
P. 0. Box 68063
Seattle, WA 98188
Eugene B. Welch
Civil Engineering Dept. FX-10
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195

-------
Dr. Patrick D. Goldsworthy
2514 Crestmont Place, W
Seattle, WA 98199
Leo A. Moser
Snohomish County Courthouse
Everett, HA 98201
Nancy Nelson
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
262S Parkmont Lane, Bldg. B-3
Olympia, WA 98502
Robert Anderson
Council Member
City of Auburn
P. O. Box 989
Auburn, WA 98002
Pat Nevin
25 W. Main Street
Auburn, WA 98002
Steve F. Dice
2267 SW 313th
Federal Way, WA 98003
Bellevue Coalition Comm. Clubs
c/o Maria Cain
10471 NE 17th
Bellevue, WA 98004
KZAM
Jim Stutzman
10245 Main St
Bellevue, WA 98004
Donald O. Norman
1450 114th SE, #102
Bellevue, WA 98004
Mr. Sam Macr i, Manager
Water District 1107
5806A - 119th SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
George Kellock
Narod Center
14711 NE 29th Place
Bellevue, WA 98007
Bob Howell
Seattle King County Health Dept.
2424 156th NE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Raul Ramos
855 106 Ave., NE
Bellevue, WA 98009
Honorable Sue Walsh, Mayor
City of Bothell
18305 101st, NE
Bothell, WA 98011
Kathy Miller
11206 E. Riverside Dr.
Bothell, WA 98011
Honorable Ervin C. Harder, Mayor
City of Duval
P. O. Box 47
Duval, WA 98019
Susan Boescher
2359 215th Ave., SE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Don Gerend
P. O. Box 836
Issaquah, WA 98027
Lake Sammamish Community Club
P. O. Box 799
Issaquah, WA 98027
William Carey
Council Member
City of Kent
P. O. Box 310
Kent, WA 98031
Ms. Kathreen Mechem
30225 - 234th, SE
Kent, WA 98031
Western Processing Company
S. Nieuwenhuis
7215 S. 196th
Kent, WA 98031
Arthur E. Knutson
210 Main Street
Kirkland, WA 98033
Pat Vasche
Trans. & utilities Chairman
Ryan Instruments
402 6th Street, S
Kirkland, WA 98033
Honorable Beth Bland, Mayor
City of Mercer Island
3055 80th #202
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Honorable Oscar B. Miller, Mayor
P. O. Box 896
North Bend, WA 98045
Robert McCormick
State Dept. of Ecology
4350 150th Ave., NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Jane and Thomas Cogan
14106 141st Ct., NE
Renton, WA 98055
Gary Kinkade
14436 183rd Ave., SE
Renton, WA 98055
Paul Lindberg
13836 SE 131st
Renton, WA 98055
Casey McCarty
10502 148th SE
Renton, WA 98055
Mike Porter
1610 Rolling Hills Ave., SE
Renton, WA 98055
Barbara and Henry Schollert
3506 Park Ave., N
Renton, WA 98055
John E. Shetz
223 Lake Desire Drive, S
Renton, WA 90055
Jeffrey R. Bock
Bear Creek Valley Assoc.
14420 Avondale Road
Woodinville, WA 98072

-------
C. Carey Donworth
1111 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Barbara Alderman
512 BoyIston E., #105
Seattle, HA 98102
Shorelines Coalition
Virginia Richmond
4207 Bagley Ave., N
Seattle, WA 98103
John Chambers
402 KC Courthouse
Seattle, HA 98104
Martin Dicker
516 Smith Tower
Seattle, HA 98104
Donna Gordon
Program Development
400 KC Courthouse
Seattle, HA 98104
Ted Tarantino
King County Planning Div.
KC Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104
Walter R. Hundley, Supt.
Dept. of Parks & Recreation
610 Municipal Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104
Karen Rahra
Planning Division
King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104
Seattle/King County
Dept. of Public Health
Public Safety Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104
Attn: John Nordin
Paul Tanaka
400 King County Courthouse
516 3rd Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104
Charles Parrott
5741 Twin Maples Lane, NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Lloyd Stewart
9658 22nd Ave., SW
Seattle, WA 98106
Kenworth Truck Company
Robert B. Kemp
Plant Engineer
P. O. Box 80222
Seattle, WA 98108
Evergreen Safety Council
Attn: Steve Davis
822 John Street
Seattle, WA 98109
Carlos Young
Systems Architects Engr.
112 5th Ave., N
Seattle, WA 98109
Thomas 0. Wimmer
7756 Seward Park Ave., S
Seattle, WA 98113
Attn: Citizens for Clean Water
Pacific Testing Laboratories
3220 17th Ave., W
Seattle, WA 98119
Attn: Miriam Bowers
Earnest F. Dodge
URS Company
4th and Vine Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98121
Leschi Improvement Council
Melvyn J. Siraburg, Pres.
P. 0. Box 22391
E. Union Station
Seattle, WA 98122
Howard Donelson, Manager
Environ, and Utilities Control
Boeing Aerospace Company
P. 0. Box 3707, MS-14-41
Seattle, WA 98124
Gerry Cox
Seattle-King Co. Health Dept.
10601 Meridian N
Seattle, WA 98133
Jim Hendricks
Seattle-King Co. Health Dept.
10821 8th SW
Seattle, WA 98146
Mr. Donald Sorenson
12617 76th Ave., S
Seattle, WA 98178
Ron Griffin
16052 46th Ave., S
Seattle, WA 98188
WA State Assn. of Sewer Districts
2240 S. 223rd
Seattle, WA 98188
Prof. Ronald E. Nece
Civil Engineering Dept.
Univ. of Washington FX-10
Seattle, WA 98195
Magnolia Comm. Club
Attn: Joe Haggard
P. O. Box 99164
Seattle, WA 98199
Leo Moser
Snohomish Health District
Snohomish County Courthouse
Everett, WA 98205
Ted Higley
P. 0. Box 400
Auburn, WA 98002
Newcastle Community Planning
Attn: Jay McCain
31811 47th S.
Auburn, WA 98002

-------
Federal Hay Comm. Council
Attn: Dr. James Burbidge
29411 12th Ave., SW
Federal Hay, HA 98003
Doan Corporation
Attn: Aileen
1000 ONB Plaza
10800 NE 8th
Bellevue, HA 98004
Mr. and Mrs. Landau
9160 NE 19th
Bellevue, HA 98004
Philip M. Botch & Associates
1021 112th NE, #110
Bellevue, HA 98004
Hater District #117
c/o Donald E. Emerson
5303 146th Ave., SE
Bellevue, HA 98006
Crossroads Citizens Assoc.
Attn: Nan Campbell
480 H. Lk. Samm. Blvd., NG
Bellevue, HA 98008
Honorable Richard Foreman, Mayor
111 - 116th Ave., SE
Bellevue, HA 98009
Marshall Wilson
Seattle Times
10843 NE 8th Street
Bellevue, HA 98009
George Cook
16031 119th Place, NE
Bothell, HA 98011
Northshore Citizen, Editor
Box 706
Bothell, HA 98011
A. Pieter Bocrlage, President
Enumclaw City Council
1339 Griffin Avenue
Enumclaw, HA 98022
Rodney Anderson
Council Member
City of Issaquah
635 Mt. Fury
Issaquah, WA 98027
G. F. Hinkleday
1024 212th SE
Issaquah, HA 98027
Mr. Mark Spahr, Manager
Hater District #82
2918 - 228th Ave., SE
Issaquah, HA 98027
John H. Dodd, Manager
KCHD #105
30033 188th Ave., SE
Kent, HA 98031
Dave Mooney
P. O. Box 116
Kent, HA 98031
Don E. Wickstrom
P. 0. Box 310
Kent, HA 98031
Joseph A. Martineau
10932 NE 49th Street
Kirkland, WA 98033
Leonard Steiner
13239 NE 100th
Kirkland, WA 98033
Mr. Minford I. Stuckey
Office Manager
East Mercer Sewer District
P. 0. Box 51
Mercer Island, HA 98040
Dick Barthol
15670 NE 85th
Redmond, HA 98052
Sammamish Valley News
Pete Rinearson, Editor
TJox 716
Redmond, HA 98052
East Renton Plateau Community Council
c/o Dave Kappler
17929 SE May Valley Road
Renton, HA 98055
Larry Kirchner
3001 NE 4th
Renton, HA 98055
John Malek
16225 132nd Place, SE
Renton, HA 98055
Sally Lou Nipert
14004 156th SE
Renton, HA 98055
News Editor
Renton Record Chronicle
801 Houser Hay, S
Renton, HA 98055
Sharon Schramm
14033 145th Ave., SE
Renton, WA 98055
Water District #108
c/o Robert M. Sloboden
18300 SE Lake Young Road
Renton, HA 98055
Peter Schoening
Chemical-Proof Corporation
19205 - 144th Ave., NE
Woodinville, HA 98072
Mr. Robert Gunter
Preston, Thorgrimson, Ellis,
Holman and Fletcher
2000 IBM Bldg.
Seattle, HA 98101
Jerry Heiner
MFM Company, Inc.
2366 Eastlake Ave., #228
Seattle, WA 98102
Irving Berteig
Building & Land Development
King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104

-------
Larry Goetz
Community Planning Section
King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104
Bill Eckel
W-220 King County Courthouse
516 3rd Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Governmental Research Assistance Library
307 Municipal Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104
William F. Liening — 3rd District
Seattle-King County Health
Room 904 - Public Safety Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104
Ken Pausch
Municipal Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104
Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Wally Bunn/Mark Uoraoto
Ben Hayes/Janes Scroggs
215 Columbia
Seattle, WA 98104
Craig Kyte - Documents Division
Seattle Public Library
1000 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Sheila Manus Vortinan, Mgr.
Program Development Division
400 King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104
Ms. Cynthia M. Pruitt
4019 4th NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Ardith Lindgren
916 NW 59th Street
Seattle, WA 98107
Precision Engineering Inc.
J. E. Riederaan/Dick Morgan
1231 S. Director St.
Seattle, WA 98108
NBPC Environmental Council
Attn: Liz Greenhagen
P. O. Box 9578
Seattle, WA 98104
John Dohrmann
Planning and Research Department
Port of Seattle
P. O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111
G. Patmont
2408 NW 87th Street
Seattle, WA 98117
Building t Construction Trades Council
William E. Croake
2700 1st Ave., #211
Seattle, WA 98121
Harold Boyle
565 13th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
United Construction Workers Assoc.
1812 East Madison
Seattle, WA 98122
Lloyd Eagen, Environ. Coordinator
Environ. Resources
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box C - 3755
Seattle, WA 98124
Chris Zurschmiede
Seattle-King Co. Health Dept.
10501 Meridian N
Seattle, WA 98133
Guenther Pomer
13649 17th Ave., SW
Seattle, WA 981G6
J. G. McCurdy
Highlands Service Committee
The Highlands
Seattle, WA 98177
L. C. Bohrer
14731 59th Ave., S
Tukwila, WA 98188
T. R. Monaghan
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Water District #75
P. 0. Box 68100
Seattle, WA 98188
Dr. Foppe Dewalle
University of Washington
Dept. of Environmental Health
M/S SC 34
Seattle, WA 98195
Mr. Scott Smith
2919 26th W
Seattle, WA 98199
L. C. Sharley
Pierce County Health Dept.
3629 S "D" Street
Tacoma, WA 98408
Social & Health Services
Gary Plews
Olympia, WA 98504
League of Women Voters of
South King County
President
2450 Star Lake Road
Auburn, WA 98002
Lynn Postler
636 8th NE, #137
Auburn, WA 98002
Northshore Plan Revision
John Krausser
1027 SW 294th
Federal Way, WA 98003
Envirosphere Company
10800 NE 8th Street
Bellevue, WA 98004
Bridle Trails Community Club
c/o Tony Lombardo
13419 NE 27th
Bellevue, WA 98005

-------
Robert J. Broughton
3205 148th Ave., SE
Bellevue, MA 98007
Howard C. Done1son
354 W. Lake Sammamish Blvd., N.
Bellevue, WA 98008
Halt Davis
City of Bellevue
111 116th Ave., SE
Bellevue, WA 98009
Honorable Vivian Bainton, Mayor
P. O. Box D
Black Diamond, HA 98010
Mr. Clifford Davidson
15423 Arrowhead Drive
Bothell, WA 98011
Eric Rathbone
14715 107th NE
Bothell, WA 98011
News Editor
Enumclaw Courier-Herald
1627 Cole Street
Enumclaw, WA 98022
Michael Winton
Director of Public Works
City of Issaquah
P. O. Box M
Issaquah, WA 98027
News Editor
Issaquah Press
45 Front Street, S
Issaquah, WA 98027
R. D. Smigh
P. O. Box 160
Kentnore, WA 98028
Kent Chamber of Commerce
Attn: Dave Finstad
P. O. Box 65
Kent, WA 98031
Pacific Propeller, Inc.
C. W. Johnson
P. 0. Box 946
Kent, WA 98031
Rudy Bankson
Council Member
City of Kirkland
210 Main Street
Kirkland, WA 98033
Eugene Peterson
11829 103rd NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
Don Schutt
3626 156th St., SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Randy Peterson
3876 West Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Roger I. Trepanier
Council Member
City of Redmond
15670 NE 85th
Redmond, WA 98052
Barbara Y. Shinpock, Mayor
200 Mill Ave., S
Renton, WA 98055
Leon R. Harris
14210 W Lk. Kathleen Dr., SE
Renton, WA 98055
Joe Korbecki
15066 Maple Valley Rd.
Renton, HA 98055
Maplewood Heights Maint. Corp.
c/o Ray Griffin
14306 144th SE
Renton, HA 98055
George & Katie Quimet
14038 156th Ave., SE
Renton, WA 98055
Janet Richards
1033 Kirkland Ave., NE #1
Renton, WA 98055
Larry Kirschner
Seattle-King Co. Health Dept.
3001 NE 4th
Renton, WA 98055
Carol Logan
P. O. Box 334
Seahurst, WA 98062
Rosemary Zeutschel
17810 164th NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
Management & Planning Services
Dave Hawor th
735 Skinner Bldg.
1326 - 5th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Robert Kildall
Olympic Distributors
3806 Woodland Park, N
Seattle, WA 98103
Mary Bundy
Community Planning Section
King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104
Mike Elliott
W217 King County Courthouse
516 3rd Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104
Susan Allen
Growth Management Section
King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104
Bill Lum
King County Courthouse, Room 402
Seattle, WA 98104
Puget Sound Council of Govts.
Pete Beaulieu
216 1st Ave., S.
Seattle, WA 98104

-------
Jan Morgan
Seattle Chamber of Commerce
2X5 Columbia
Seattle, WA 98104
SEPA Information Center
5th Floor, Municipal Bldg.
Seattle, HA 98104
Pete Steele
Carnation Company
2746 NE 45th
Seattle, HA 98105
Gil Zeraansky
c/o Friends oŁ the Earth
4512 University Way, NE
Seattle, HA 98105
Pat Dillenburg
Committee to Unify Beacon Hill
2617 S. Holly
Seattle, HA 98108
South Park Comm. Serv. Center
Maxine Macinski, Chairperson
8201 10th Ave., S
Seattle, HA 98108
Fritz Hedges
Parks Planning Office
100 Dexter Ave., N
Seattle, WA 98109
News Editor
The Seattle Times
Fairview N 6 John St.
Seattle, WA 98111
I. K. Schlamp
3603 S. Alaska
Seattle, HA 98118
King County Labor Council
2800 1st Ave.
Seattle, WA 98121
Edward J. Foster
P. 0. Box 129
Seattle, WA 98122
Honorable Gary A. Zimmerman
Seattle University
Liberal Arts Building
900 Broadway
Seattle, WA 98122
Audubon Society
Dave Nurney
12213 oensmore Ave., N
Seattle, WA 98133
Shirley M. Farley
13010 8th Place, SW
Seattle, WA 98146
Suburban Mayors' Association
Attn: Edgar D. Bauch
14475 59th Ave., S
Seattle, WA 98168
Robert Sylvester
10218 Richmond Ave., N
Seattle, HA 98177
Lionel C- Bohrer
Council Member
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 981B8
Dennis Robertson
16038 48th S
Seattle, WA 98188
Hard R. Williams
17100 W. Valley Road
Tukwila, WA 98188
Polly Dyer, Public Serv. Coord.
Institute for Environ. Studies FM-12
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
C. H. Manguro, Asst. Dir.
Snohomish County Courthouse
Everett, WA 98201
Don Olivet
Tacoma/Piecce County Health
3629 "D" Street
Tscoma, WA 98408

-------
Chapter 9
LIST OF EIS PREPARERS
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA
Charles R. Hazel. B.S., M.S., and PhD., Fisheries
Biology. Formerly with California Department of Fish and
Game as Director of Water Pollution Control Laboratory. As
vice-president of Jones & Stokes Associates, has managed
numerous environmental studies and reports and served as
expert consultant in fisheries and water quality ecology.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Project management.
Albert Herson. B.A., and M.A., Psychology, M.A. Urban
Planning. As staff environmental planner, responsibilities
are project management and preparation of planning studies,
specializing in land use planning, growth policy, and public
service systems. Formerly water quality planner for Southern
California Association of Governments. Member, American
Institute of Certified Planners (AICP).
Area of EIS Responsibility. Project coordinator;
growth, land use, and secondary impact analysis.
Thomas C. Wegge. B.A., Urban Studies, M.S., Environ-
mental Economics. Environmental economist specializing in
socio-economic impacts of land use changes, cost-benefit
and risk analysis, and energy impact assessment.
Area of EIS Resyonsibility. Growth, land use, and
secondary impact analysis.
Douglas P. Albin. A.B., Zoology, M.S., Fisheries.
Formerly with California State Water Resources Control Board,
where projects included instream flow requirement program.
Specialty areas are anadromous fisheries and freshwater
ecology of coastal streams.
Area of EIS Responsibilitu. Surface water quality,
biological and fisheries impact analysis.
Paul Wisheropp. B.S., Environmental Engineering,
B.S., Water Resources Management. Environmental engineer
specializing in quantitative hydrologic and water quality
investigations.
243

-------
Area of EIS Responsibility. Surface water quality impact
analysis.
Jeffrey D. Civian. B.S., Renewable National Resources.
Environmental specialist experienced in air quality and noise
analyses with emphasis on line source modeling and emission
forecast development.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Air quality impact analysis.
Douglas Updike. B.A. and M.A., Biology. Staff biologist
with previous experience in EIS coordination and production.
Area of EIS Responsibility . Technical coordination.
Patricia S. French. B.A., French, M.L.S., Library and
Information Studies. Staff librarian responsible for acquisi-
tion and organization of reference documents. Conducts litera-
ture studies and compiles bibliographies, and assists in
technical editing.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Preparation of reference
listing and index.
Clean Water Consultants, Santa Ana, CA
William Wittenberg. P.E., B.S., Civil and Environmental
Engineering. Past projects with CWC include assessing impacts
of water quality on consumer costs and studies developing
processes for water and wastewater treatment. Formerly with
Orange County Water District, where responsibilities included
technical support for a 15 MGD advanced wastewater treatment
plant.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Alternatives description
and cost and resource impact analysis.
Gruen Gruen + Associates, San Francisco, CA
Roberta M. Mundie. B.A., Social Sciences, Master of
City Planning. Held positions with several public planning
agencies; 8 years experience in socio-economic impact analysis
and forecasting with consulting firm, with emphasis on land
use, land development and related issues. Supervises major
socio-economic and land use projects for Gruen Gruen + Associates.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Population projections
and economic/fiscal impact analysis.
244

-------
Suzanne Lampert. A.B., Urban Studies, Master of Public
Affairs and Urban Planning. Experience with both public
agencies and private firms in environmental analysis (es-
pecially socio-economic) and general planning. In three
years with Gruen Gruen + Associates, has focused on the
economic and fiscal impacts of public plans and policies.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Population projections
and economic/fiscal impact analysis.
H. Esmaili & Associates, Inc., Berkeley, CA
Houshang Esmaili. B.S., Agricultural Engineering,
M.S., Irrigation Science, Dr. Eng., Water Resources Engi-
neering. Twelve years experience as a consulting civil and
agricultural engineer. As president of H. Esmaili & Associates,
Inc., has supervised the conduct of over 20 engineering projects
and environmental studies.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Soils and groundwater impact
analysis.
Roger D. Abraham. B.S., Soils and Plant Nutrition,
M.S., Soil Science. Experienced soil scientist whose previous
projects with HEA include agricultural nonpoint source assess-
ments, soil resource inventory, and feasibility studies of
agricultural reuse of municipal wastewater.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Soils and groundwater impact
analysis.
Robert H. Enkoboll. A.B., Geology, M.S., Earth Sciences.
Earth scientist whose previous projects include sampling,
analyzing, and interpreting channel sands to determine source
areas and relative sediment yields in hydrologically-complex
watersheds.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Soils and groundwater impact
analysis.
Barry Hecht. A.B., Geology, Geography/Planning, M.A.,
Geography. Responsible for a wide range of geologic and
hydrologic investigations. Previous projects include a variety
of sediment transport studies, analysis of nonpoint source
groundwater pollution controls, and assessments of groundwater
impacts of land application of effluent and sludge.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Soils and groundwater impact
analysis.
245

-------
Kahn/Mortimer Associates, Seattle, WA
Vivian Kahn. B.A., English Literature. Experienced
Seattle-area planner whose recent projects include 1-90
corridor study and fiscal impact analysis of proposed King
County comprehensive plan. Formerly Chief of Community
Assistance, California Office of Planning and Research.
Member, American Institute of Certified Planners.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Assessment of local planning
consistency.
Holland Associates, Seattle WA
Susan Hall. B.A., President of Holland Associates, a
public participation consulting firm. Experience includes
drafting of public participation policies for federal
agencies, and designing and managing public participation
programs.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Preparation of public
summary and assistance in conducting public workshops.
University of Washington, Office of Public
Archeology, Seattle, WA
Hal K. Kennedy. B.A., Anthropology, M.A., Anthropology.
Experienced cultural resources researcher with extensive
field experience in the Pacific Northwest.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Cultural resources impact
assessment.
University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute,
Seattle, WA
Dr. Quentin J. Stober. B.S. and M.S., Fish and Wildlife
Management, PhD., Aquatic Ecology. Currently research pro-
fessor, Fisheries Research Institute. Research interests
include aquatic ecology, impacts of stream flow alteration
and wastewater effluent discharges.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Review of fisheries
impact analysis.
246

-------
G-ological Drafting Service, Sacramento, CA
Steve Fleming. Extensive experience preparing maps,
charts, and illustrations for technical reports and documents.
Additional experience preparing cartoons and illustrations
for various reports and publications.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Report graphics.
247

-------
Chapter 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, J. R., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer.
1976. A land use and land cover classification system for
use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Prof.
Pap. 964. 28 pp.
Auburn (City of). 1980. Final budget.
Beaulieu, Peter D. 197 9. The water supply source selection
issue, with resources planning in the Cedar Green and the
Snohomish basins: staff report. Water Resources Committee,
King Subregional Council, Puget Sound Council of Governments.
Bellevue (City of). 1978. 1978 annual financial report.
	. 1980a. Official budget.
	. 1980b. Official statement, water and sewer bonds.
Bernhardt, J. 1980. Effects of wastewater discharged from the
Renton sewage treatment plant on water quality of the Green/
Duwamish River: draft staff report. Washington Dept. of
Ecology, Olympia. 21 pp.
Bish, R. L., et al. 1975. Coastal resources use: decisions on
Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Bland, Beth. February 13, 1980. Memorandum to King Subregional
Council regarding forecasts. Puget Sound Council of Governments,
Seattle.
Brenner, R. N., R. Morrice, and R. Svartz. 1978. Effects of
stormwater runoff on the Juanita Creek drainage basin (a
baseline study). Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
Brown and Caldwell. 1958. Metropolitan Seattle sewerage and
drainage survey. Seattle.
1979a. Duwamish 201 facility configuration.
Seattle.
	. 1979b. Combined sewer overflow control program.
Seattle.
	. 1979c. Combined sewer overflow control program:
first-phase-site-specific environmental impact assessment.
Seattle.
249

-------
	. 1979d. Eastside watershed project: P-l channel
design alternatives. Seattle.
Buckley, J. A. 1978. Acute toxicity of un-ionized ammonia
to fingerling coho salmon. Prog. Fish-cult. 401 (1): 30-32.
Buckley, J. A., and R. D. Matsuda. 1973. Toxicity of the Renton
treatment plant effluent to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 32 pp.
Buckley, J. A., C. M. Whitmore, and R. I. Matsuda. 1976.
Changes in blood chemistry and blood cell morphology in
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following exposure
to sublethal levels of total residual chlorine in munici-
pal wastewater. J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 33:776-782.
Buffo, J. 197 9. Water pollution control early warning system,
section 1: non-point source loading estimates. Water Quality
Division, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 47 pp.
CH2M Hill. 1974a. Environmental management for the metropolitan
area, part 1: water resources. Seattle.
	. 1974b. Environmental management of metropolitan
area, part 4: solid waste. Seattle.
Comis, J. G., et al. 1971. Stream ecology study: an interdis-
ciplinary watershed study of Kelsey and Coal Creeks, King
County, Washington. Water and Air Resources Division, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle. 193 pp.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, L. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United
States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
103 pp.
Cyre, H., and A. C. Skutt. 198 0. On-site wastewater management
for King County, Washington. Prepared for King County.
Davis, J. 1979. Water pollution control early warning system,
section 2: assessing current and probable future status of
lakes: draft report. Water Quality Division, Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle. 42 pp.
Davis, J., J. M. Buffo, D. S. Sturgil, and R. D. Matsuda. 1978.
A study of the trophic status and recommendations for the
management of Lake Meridian. Water Quality Division, Munici-
pality of Metropolitan Seattle. 156 pp.
Dideriksen, R. I. 1977. Potential cropland study. U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture Statistical Bull. 578. Washington, D.C.
250

-------
Duxbury, A. C. 197 6. Interim reports for the Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle. Metro Puget Sound studies.
Ebbesmeyer, C. C., and A. Okubo. 1974. A study of current
properties and mixing using drogue movements observed near
West Point. Metro Puget Sound Studies. Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle.
Edmunds, R. L., and D. W. Cole, eds. 1976. Use of dewatered
sludge as an amendment for forest growth, vol. 1: environmental,
engineering, and economic analyses. Metro sludge utiliza-
tion research report. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
	. 1977. Use of dewatered sludge as an amendment for
forest growth, vol. 2: management and biological assessments.
Metro sludge utilization research report. Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle.
Emery, R. M., C. E. Moon, and E. B. Welch. 1972. Urban runoff
and lake enrichment: enriching effects of urban runoff on the
productivity of a metropolitan lake. Dept. of Civil Engineer-
ing, University of Washington, Seattle. 20 pp. Unpublished
manuscript.
Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc. 197 4. Study of wastewater
discharge areas: Carkeek Park, West Point submarine outfalls.
Seattle.
Farmlands Study Committee. 1979. Saving farmlands and open
space. Seattle.
Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle. 1980. Housing vacancy sur-
vey.
Fujioka, J. T. 1970. Possible effects of low dissolved
oxygen content in the Duwamish River estuary on migrating
adult Chinook salmon. Master's Thesis, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Greengo, R. E., and R. Houston. 1970. Excavations at the Mary-
moor site. Seattle. Unpublished report.
Harman, R. A., et a_l. 1977. Distribution of subtidal benthic
organisms, secTiments, and habitats near the West Point outfall
and partial analysis of data. Metro Puget Sound interim
studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
Haushild, W. L., and E. A. Prych. 1976. Modeling coliform
bacteria concentrations and pH in the salt-wedge reach of the
Duwamish River estuary, King County, Washington. U.S. Geo-
logical Survey open-file rep. 76-415.
251

-------
Hedlund, Gerald. 1973. Background and archaeology of inland
cultural sites on Conel's Prairie, Washington. Green River
Community College, Auburn, Washington.
1976. Mudflow disaster. N.W. Anthropological
Res. Notes 10(l):77-89.
Houston, R. B. 1971. Archaeological excavations at the Marymoor
site, 1964-1970. B.A. honors thesis, University of Washington,
Seattle.
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 1979. Washington
statewide outdoor recreation plan.
Interim Snohomish Basin Coordinating Committee. 197 5. Snohomish
Basin recommendations. Everett, Washington.
Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of soil formation: a system of quanti-
tative pedology. McGraw-Hill Company, New York.
John M. Sanger Associates. 1978. Purchase of development rights
to retain agricultural lands: an economic study. Report to
the Office of Agriculture, King County, Washington. San Fran-
cisco.
Kent (City of). 1980a. Budget.
	. 1980b. Official statement, general obligation
bonds.
King County. 1964. The comprehensive plan for King County,
Washington.
	. 1975. The comprehensive plan for King County,
Washington: supplement.
	. 1977a. King County agricultural protection program:
background and effects of ordinance 3064 designating agricul-
tural lands and districts in King County.
	• 1977b.	Juanita Creek basin plan. 95 pp.
	. 197 9a.	Sewerage general plan.
	. 197 9b.	Sewerage general plan, final environmental
impact statement.
	. 1979c. 1980-1985 capital improvement program,
proposed 1980 capital budget.
	• 1980a. Draft comprehensive community energy manage-
ment plan.
252

-------
1930b. Executive proposed budget.
King County, Dept. of Planning and Community Development. 1971.
The middle plan for Bear Creek.
		•	1977a.	Northshore communities development plan.
	.	1977b.	Transportation goals and policy.
		.	1977c.	Park policy task force report.
		.	197 8a.	Proposed Soos Creek Plateau communities plan.
197 3b. Draft environmental impact statement/ Soos
Creek Plateau communities plan.
	. 197 8c. East Sammamish proposed communities plan,
197 9a. King County supply-demand study, part 1:
capacity of existing zoning.
197 9b. The cost of growth: public costs of alterna-
tive development patterns,
	. 197 9c. King County housing market study.
	. 1979d. Final environmental impact statement, Soos
Creek communities plan.
	. 1979e. Newcastle community plan profile.
1979f. The Black River Marsh: the East Side Green
River water project.
	. 1979g. A river of Green.
	. 1980a. Sensitive areas map folio.
	. 1980b. Tahoma/Raven Heights communities plan profile.
	. 1980c. Soos Creek Plateau communities plan.
King County Growth Management Program. 1979. General develop-
ment guide: discussion paper.
	. 1980. General development guide: draft.
Kirkland (City of). 1980. Budget.
253

-------
Kirkpatrick, L. W. 1967. A preliminary investigation of the
projected effects of urbanization upon the water resources
within the Lake Saramamish watershed. M.S. thesis, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle. 84 pp.
Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 19 80. Valley studies program - land
use study. Seattle.
Lane, Barbara. 1973-1975. Political and economic aspects of
Indian-white culture contact in western Washington in the
mid-19th centure. Unpublished report.
Lee, L. K. 1978. A perspective on cropland availability. U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture agricul. econ. rep. 406. Washington, D.C.
Lestelle, L. 1972. The effects of urbanization on the fish
populations of a small stream. University of Washington,
Seattle. Unpublished manuscript.
Liesch, B. A.( C. E. Price, and K. L. Walters. 1963. Geology
and groundwater resources of northwestern King County, Washing-
ton. Washington State Division of Water Resources water
supply bull. 20.
Lockwood Corporation. 1973. Land treatment of wastewaters.
Luzier, J. E. 1969. Geology and groundwater resources of south-
western King County, Washington. Washington State Division
of Water Resources water supply bull. 28.
McGreevy, R. 1973. Seattle shoreline environment. Washington
Sea Grant Program, City of Seattle.
Mears, R. A., and M. A. Pistrang. 1979. Archaeological consider-
ations related to land development in the Puget Sound region,
Washington. U.S. Geological Survey miscellaneous field study
map MF-1030.
Metro. See Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
Metropolitan Engineers. 197 3. West Point environmental planning
study. Seattle.
	. 1977a. Draft facilities plan for Metro Puget Sound
plants. Seattle.
		. 1977b. Draft facilities plan for Metro West Point
plant.
254

-------
Miller, B. S., et al. 1977. Ecological and disease studies of
fishes near Metro operated sewage treatment plants on Puget
Sound and the Duwamish River. Metro Puget Sound interim studies.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
Miller, J. W. 197 6. The effects of minimum and peak Cedar River
streamflows on fish production and water supply. M.S. thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle.
230 pp.
Monahan, K. 1980. Future of water, sewer worries planning
group. Renton Record-Chronicle, May 2, 198 0.
Moulton, L. L., and B. S. Miller. 1974. Ecological survey of
demersal fishes at Metro's West Point and Alki Point outfalls.
Washington Sea Grant techn. rep. Seattle.
Mullineaux, D. R., H. H. Waldron, and R. Meyer. 1965. Strati-
graphy and chronology of Late Interglacial and Early Vashon
glacial time in the iseattle area, Washington. U.S. Geological
Survey bull. 1194.0.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 1978.
Municipal and regional planning in Washington State. Published
in cooperation with Association of Washington Cities.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 1968. Predesign report:
second-stage construction of comprehensive sewerage plan,
North Lake Sammamish sewerage area.
		. 197 4. Auburn interceptor environmental impact
statement.
	. 1975. Environmental management for the metropolitan
area: a summary of studies and proposals.
	. 1976. An intensive water quality survey of 16
selected lakes in the Lake Washington and Green River basins.
8 8 pp.
	. 1977. Sewage disposal alternatives: a look at the
problem of failing septic tank systems and alternative methods
of sewage disposal for King County, Washington. 208 staff rep,
	. 1978a. Preferred facility plan summary.
		. 1978b. Areawide water quality plan, King County,
Washington, Cedar-Green River basins.
255

-------
	. 1978c. A profile of water quality in the Cedar-
Green River basins: areawide water quality plan for King
County, Washington, Cedar-Green River basins. 20 8 techn.
app. 5.
	. 1978d. Existing management programs for water
quality in the Cedar-Green River basins in King County:
areawide water quality plan for King County, Washington,
Cedar-Green River basins. 208 techn. app. 20.
	. 1978e. A baseline study of the benthic community
in small streams: areawide water quality plan for King County,
Washington, Cedar-Green River basins. 208 techn. app. 12.
197 8f. King County water quality public opinion
survey: areawide water quality plan for King County, Washington,
Cedar-Green River basins. 20 8 techn. app. 20.
	. 1978g. Redmond connection right-of-way study.
	. 1979a. Annual report: Water Quality Division.
	. 1979b. Twenty-year report, 1959-1979.
1979c. Water Quality Monitoring Review Board,
six-month report, October 1978 to March 1979,
1979d. Technical memorandum no. 1 and appendix:
existing wastewater facilities and characteristics: waste-
water management study, Lake Washington/Green River basins.
	. 1979e. Technical memorandum no. 2 and appendix:
study area characteristics: wastewater management study,
Lake Washington/Green River basins.
1979f. Implementation progress report for the
areawide water quality plan: January 19, 1978 to March 31,
1979. 76 pp.
	. 1980a. Technical memorandum no. 3 and appendix:
existing plans, policies, rules, regulations, and agreements:
wastewater management study, Lake Washington/Green River basins,
	. 1980b. Technical memorandum no. 4 and appendix:
alternative wastewater treatment methods and basis for cost
analysis: wastewater management study, Lake Washington/Green
River basins.
	. 1980c. Technical memorandum no. 5 and appendix:
facility planning issues, objectives, and criteria for
screening alternatives: wastewater management study, Lake
Washington/Green River basins.
256

-------
	. 1980d. Technical memorandum no. 6 and appendix:
wastewater projections, infiltration/inflow analysis, and
waste reduction measures: wastewater management study, Lake
Washington/Green River basins.
	. 1980e. Preliminary plan: wastewater management
study, Lake Washington/Green River basins.
	. 1980f. Water Quality Monitoring Review BoarcJ,
six-month report, October 1979 to March 1980.
	. 1980g. Draft wastewater management plan for the
Lake Washington/Green River basins.
	. 1980h. 201 facility plan companion document.
	. 1980i. Draft cost-effectiveness analysis of
sludge disposal alternatives.
	. 1980j. Implementation progress report for the
areawide water quality plan, April 1979-June 1980.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, and King County Conserva-
tion District. 1977. Construction and water quality: a
guide to recommended construction practices for the control
of erosion and sedimentation to improve water quality in
King County, Washington. 208 staff rep.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, and Seattle Water Dept.
1979. Cedar River temperature study.
Myers, K. W. W. 1980. An investigation of the utilization
of four study areas in Yaquina Bay, Oregon, by hatchery
and wild juvenile salmon. Master's Thesis, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Newcomb, R. C. 1952. Groundwater resources of Snohomish County,
Washington. U.S. Geological Survey water supply pap. 1135.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 1980. Treaty fishing
rights and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Olympia.
12 pp.
Olsen, S. J., and W. R. Schell. 1977. Baseline study of trace
heavy metals in biota of Puget Sound. Metro Puget Sound interim
studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. 1970. Comprehensive
study of water and related land resources, Puget Sound and
adjacent waters, appendix 11: fish and wildlife.
257

-------
Penhale, Ed. 198 0a. County's storm water costs mounting.
Renton Record-Chronicle, June 1, 1980.
	. 1980b. Metro 1990: $1.9 billion needed for proposed
transit changes. Renton Record-Chronicle, May 16, 1980.
Pethick, Don. May 8, 1980. Letter to Jeff Bauman. Puget Sound
Council of Governments, Seattle.
Pethick, Don, and J. Billing. January 30, 1980. Memorandum to
Renton 201 study file regarding procedures for disaggregation
of forecasts. Puget Sound Council of Governmenta, Seattle.
Prych, E. A,, et al. 1975. Numerical model of the salt-wedge
reach of the Duwamish River estuary, King County, Washington.
U.S. Geological Survey open-file rep. 7 5-13.
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, and the Puget Sound
Council of Governments. 1978. A plan for attaining/maintaining
national ambient air quality standards in the central Puget
Sound region. 147 pp. + appendices.
Puget Sound Council of Governments. 1974a. Agricultural land
use in the central Puget Sound region. 3rd draft. Seattle.
	. 197 4b. Transportation system plan for the central
Puget Sound region, vol. 3: technical report. Seattle.
	. 1977. Employment and population forecasts for the
central Puget Sound region, 1975-2000. Seattle.
	. 1978a. King subregional plan. Seattle.
	. 197 8b. Countywide growth concept and policies:
the first part of a subregional development plan. Seattle.
1979a. Interim report on transportation plan
update in the central Puget Sound region. Seattle.
1979b. Memorandum from King County subregional
staff to users of the population and employment forecasts
regarding 1990 forecasts of population and employment. Seattle,
January 26, 1979.
	. 1980. Evaluation of proposed air quality offset
regulations.
	. 1979c. Snohomish subregional development plan.
Seattle.
Puget Sound Power and Light. 1979. Annual report.
258

-------
Redmond (City of). 1979. Preliminary	1980 budget.
	. 1980. Budget.
Renton (City of). 1979? Proposed use	of 1980 Federal revenue
sharing and summary of 1980 City of	Renton budget.
	. 198 0. Draft environmental impact statement: Earling-
ton Park.
RIBCO Task Force for Citizen Participation. 197 4. The growth
issue in the Green/Cedar River basins of King County. Seattle.
Riley, R. G., E. A. Crecelius, D. C. Mann, K. H. Abel, B. L.
Thomas, and R. M. Bean. 1980. Quantification of pollutants
in suspended matter and water from Puget Sound. U.S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration techn. memo. ERL MESA-49.
Santos, J. F., and J. D. Stoner. 1972. Physical, chemical, and
biological aspects of the Duwamish River estuary, King County,
Washington, 1963-1967. U.S. Geological Survey water supply
pap. 1873-C. 174 pp.
Sche.M, W. R., et al. 1977. Heavy metals near the West Point
outfall and Tn tEe central basin of Puget Sound. Metro Puget
Sound interim studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
Seattle Chamber of Commerce. 1979a. Demographic profile:
Seattle/King County. Prepared by Research Dept.
. 1979b. Seattle/King County manufacturers directory,
197 9-1980. Prepared by Research Dept.
Seattle Water Dept. 1979. Draft Seattle comprehensive regional
water plan and draft environmental impact statement.
	. 1980. Final Seattle comprehensive regional water
plan and final environmental impact statement.
Shackleford, Charlotte. 1940. Donation land claims. In: O. B.
Sperlin and C. Miles, eds., Building a state - Washington
1889-1939. Vol. 3. Washington State Historical Society,
Tacoma.
Snohomish County Planning Dept. 1977. North Creek area plan,
1977-1995.
Soil Science Society of America. 1970. Glossary of soil science
terms.
259

-------
Spier, Leslie. 1936. Tribal distribution in Washington. Gen.
series anthro. no. 3. American Anthropological Association.
Stober, Q. J., et al. 1977. Toxicity of West Point effluent
to marine incTTcator organisms. Metro Puget Sound interim
studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
STR, Inc. 197 4a. Environmental management for the metropolitan
area, part 3: water quality. Seattle.
	, 197 4b. Environmental management for the metro-
politan area, part 3, appendix a: sewerage analysis and plan.
Seattle.
	. 1974c. Environmental management for the metro-
politan area, part 3, appendix b: water quality analysis.
Seattle.
	. 197 6. Environmental management for the metro-
politan area, part 3, appendix d: small lake handbook. Seattle.
Swanton, J. R. 19 52. The Indian tribes of North America.
Bureau of Am. Enthnology bull. no. 145. Smithsonian Insti-
tution, Washington, D.C.
QS. Army Corps of Engineers. 1974a. Environmental management
for the metropolitan area, part 2, appendix a, vol. 1: Cedar
River basin.
	. 1974b. Environmental management for the metropolitan
area, part 2, appendix b: urban storm drainage simulation
model.
	. 197 4c. Environmental management for the metropolitan
area, part 2, appendix c: stormwater monitoring program.
	. 197 5. Cedar River flood reduction study.
	. 197 6. Snohomish River basin mediated plan reconnais-
sance report.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1976. Annual housing survey: Seattle-
Everett, Washington SMSA.
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1975. Environmental
quality: the sixth annual report of the CEQ. Washington, D.C.
763 pp.
	. 197 6. Untaxing open space: an evaluation of the
effectiveness of differential assessment of farms and open
space. Washington, D.C. 401 pp.
260

-------
	. 1978 . Environmental quality: the ninth annual report
of the CEQ. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1977.
National urban recreation study: Seattle/Everett/Tacoma.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 197 6. Quality criteria
for water. Prepared by Office of Hazardous Materials, Washing-
ton, D.C. 256 pp.
1977a. Draft environmental impact statement for
metropolitan Seattle, vol. 1: regional analysis. Seattle.
1977b. Draft environmental impact statement for
metropolitan Seattle, vol. 2: Richmond Beach, West Point,
Alki, Carkeek Park. Seattle.
	. 1977c. Draft background paper on EPA programs and
environmentally significant agricultural lands.
	. 1978a. EPA policy to protect environmentally signi-
ficant agricultural lands. Washington, D.C.
	. 197 8b. Manual for evaluating secondary impacts of
wastewater treatment facilities. Washington, D.C.
	. 1279a. Final environmental impact statement: Metro
Duwamish 201 facility configuration and Metro CSO control
program. Seattle.
	. 1979b. Draft environmental impact statement: Modesto
wastewater facilities improvements. San Francisco.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Planning aid letter
from R. G. Starkey, Acting Field Supervisor, Ecological
Services to Colonel Leon K. Moraski, District Engineer,
Seattle District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1962a. Geology of the Des Moines quad-
rangle.
	. 1962b. Preliminary geologic map of Seattle and
vicinity.
	. 1979a. Land use and land cover, Seattle, Washington,
197 5. Land use map L-4.
1979b. Land use and land cover, Tacoma, Washington,
197 5. Land use map L-l.
261

-------
U.S. National Archives and Records Service, n.d. Puget Sound
geography. Manuscript no. 1864. Positive copy available
at University of Washington, Seattle.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1947. Soil survey of Snohomish
County, Washington.
	. 1969. Miscellaneous soils interpretations.
	. 1973a. Land capability classification. Agricul.
handb. no. 210.
	. 1973b. Soil survey of the King County area, Washing-
ton.
	. 197 9. Soil survey of the Pierce County area,
Washington.
Walters, K. L., and G. E. Kimmel. 1968. Groundwater occurrence
and stratigraphy of unconsolidated deposits, central Pierce
County, Washington. Washington State Dept. of Water Resources
water supply bull. no. 22. Olympia.
Washington (State of). 1980. State and county population fore-
casts by age and sex, 1980-2000.
Washington Dept. of Ecology. 1978. Guidelines: State Environ-
mental Policy Act. Olympia.
	. 1979. Cedar/Sammamish basin instream resources
protection program including proposed administrative rules,
and supplemental environmental impact statement: final report.
Olympia.
	. 1980. Green-Duwamish River basin instream resources
protection program, including proposed administrative
rules, and supplemental environmental impact statement.
Prepared by Water Resources Policy Development Section.
Olympia.
Washington Dept. of Fisheries. 1977. Washington State sport
catch, 1977,
	. 1978. The 1977 Washington trawl landings by Pacific
Marine Fisheries Council and state bottom fish statistical
areas. Progress rep. no. 76.
	. 197 9. Puget Sound commercial net fishery data report
for 1977. Progress rep. no. 85.
262

-------
Washington Office of Financial Management. 197 9. State of
Washington population trends. Olympia.
Waterman, T. T. 1922. The geographical names by the Indians
of the Pacific Coast. Geographical Rev17 5-194.
Welch, E. B., and W. T. Trial. 1979. Ammonia toxicity affected
by pH and nitrification in the Duwamish River estuary.
Draft report to Brown & Caldwell, Seattle.
Western Washington Agricultural Research and Extension Center.
197 7. Utilization of dewatered sewage sludge on agricultural
land. Metro sludge utilization research rep. Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle.
Williams, R. C. 1968. Water resources of King County, Washing-
ton. U.S. Geological Survey water supply paper. 18 52.
Williams, R. W.. R. M. Laramie, and J. J. Ames. 1975. A catalog
of Washington streams and salmon utilization, vol. 1: Puget
Sound region. Washington State Dept. of Fisheries.
Willingham, et al. 1979. Ammonia:1 American Fisheries
Society, a review of the EPA Red Book: Quality Criteria
for Water.
Wydowski, R. S. 1972. Checklist of fishes occurring in the Lake
Washington drainage. Interim rep. no. 34. Coniferous Forest
Biome, University of Washington, Seattle.
Yake, W. E. 1980. The impact of effluent from the Rentori waste-
water treatment plant on the dissolved oxygen regimen of the
lower Green/Duwamish River. Water and Wastewater Monitoring
Section, Washington Dept. of Ecology, Olympia.
263

-------