Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 72-17 - KING COUNTY / GREEN RIVER WATERSHED - P-6 PUMPING PLANT72-17 p-6 pumping plant green river watershed Enclosures STATE OF WASH I NG T O J DANIEL J. EVENS ffil JOHN it B/ / GOVERNOR DIRECTOR February 2, 1972 Sincerely, JOhn A: Biggs .Director cc: Mr. Levi Kehne, SCS Department of Fisheries Department of Game Department of Social and Health Services Parks and Recreation, Commission Planning and Community Affairs Agency Department of Highways Department of - Natural Resources Mr. James M. Mathison Mr. J. L. DeSpain, P.E. Director, Department of Public Works Room 400, King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: Westside Green River Watershed -P -6 Pumping Plant PL 566, King County Dear Mr. DeSpain: The procedures for processing State review and approval of plans prepared under authority of Public Law 566, as amended, were approved by the Governor on January 20, 1959. This procedure _gives the Department of Ecology a coordinating role in this process and as such the Director has the author- ity to sign the plans indicating State approval. The construction plans for Westside Green River Watershed P -6 Pumping Plant were received and forwarded to the appropriate State agencies for review and approval. Attached are copies of the letters we received from these agencies. As you will notice most of the agencies including this Department have no . adverse comments. The Departments of Fisheries and Game, in their joint letter, make several comments and statements which must be resolved. These comments follow and support the reply they made on the P;-17 'Pumping Plant plans. ' As a matter of policy I will immc.::ately approve and sign the plans as soon as all the requires State agencies approve the plans by so stating in a letter. A meeting is currently being arranged by Mr. James M. Mathison of my staff, with all concerned agencies to resolve the differences on the P -17 Pumping Plant plans. At this same meeting P -6 will be discussed and the differences resolved also. To: James M. Mathison, P.E. Department of Ecology From: State of Washington oartment of Social and Health Servg _ DIVISION. OF HEALTH L MEMORANDUM Kenneth J. Merry, P.E. f; Department of Social & H'alth Services KJM:bgv Sidney. E. Smith, Secretary Department of Social & Health Services Date: Jan. 27, 1972 Subject: WEST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED, P -6 PUMPING PLANT, P.L. 566 - KING. COUNTY We have reviewed the plans you sent to us for the subject project. Since we have. no particular interest in this project we have no comments to make and are returning the plans to you. DANIEL J. EVANS GOVERNOR y •7 1 • k Ill y ...A, , ), f ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • PHONE 753 -6600 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 90504 Department of Ecology St. Martins College • Olympia, Washington 98504 January 14, 1972 Attention: James M. Mathison, P.E. Planning and Program Development RE: P -6 Pumping Plant on the.West Side Green River Project. WRIA -09 THOR C. TOLLEFSON DIRECTOR Gentlemen: We have reviewed the plans for the P -6 Pumping Plant of the West Side Green River Project. The joint response of the Departments of Game`and Fisheries follows. . Originally both the East and West Side Projects were'at least partially agriculturally oriented. The project reviews were based upon this consideration and were submitted as early as 1964. A complete shift from agriculture to in- dustry and related development now appears to be the purpose or goal of this project. This :shift in plans has .serious implications to wildlife beyond those discussed early in the project planning. Little opportunity seems available to conserve marsh habitat for the 44,500 ducks, 500 geese and 15,000+ coot which use the • project area in an average year. Further, it appears that the piecemeal approach alluded to above calls for a reappraisal of plans and a more detailed outline of procedures and facilities.. Serious consideration should also be given to submission of an Environmental Impact Statement as required by the.NEPA of 1969. . Without specific information detailing proposed construction periods, spill amounts and distribution, canal areas and depths, etc., it is not possible to evaluate adequately and make recommendations for the consequential components of the total project. Specifically, the fish and wildlife field reconnaissance report of 1965, to which these departments subscribed, suggested the following: 1. Gates at all outlet structures be designed so that access is provided for anadromous fishes when pumps are not operating. 3 ' Department of Ecology( �r January 14, 1972 2. All pumps be screened to prevent damage to fishes. Screen mesh size should be'.1 /4" or less and approach velocity not be more than one foot per second. 3. Design of gate and screens be approved by Washington Departments of Fisheries and Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4. Project construction be planned to minimize damage to fish and upland game habitat. 5. Project sponsors plant 100 acres of cereal grains annually for waterfowl feeding in scattered plots throughout the two watersheds. 6. Work plans provide the cooperation with conservation agencies in maintaining plots for existing wetland habitat where possible along the drainage ways. i 7. Capital and operation and maintenance costs for mitigation measures recommended, as project costs, be treated in the same manner as other. project costs and allocated among the beneficial purposes of the pro - ject. We recognize that P -6 has a minor service area, but does not appear to meet criteria established in the 1965 report. For example: 1. Pump screens•appear to be lacking. '2. Past experience has shown that flap gates do not satisfy fish passage requirements whenptimping plants are in continuous operation. If continuous pumping is going to be usual pro- cedure with the non- laddescd east and west side pumping plants, obviously some other method rather than flap gates is going to be necessary to assure fish passage. To repeat, we recommend that we be provided with more specific information regarding scheduling of the various components of the watershed work plan and whether the re- commendations of the fish and wildlife' report of 1965 are being incorporated into this workplan. If this report is no longer viable, we suggest that the impact of this pro- ject on 'wildlife be reevaluated. .Very truly yours, Thor C. Tollefs 1, DEPARTMENT OF SHERIES Carl N. Crouse, Director DEPARTMENT OF GAME HIGHWAY COMMISSION / DEPARFI\ NF or HIGHWAYS Highway Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 753 -6000 Mr. H. Maurice Ahlquist Assistant Director for Water Resources Washington State. Department of Ecology 335 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Attention: Mr. J M. Mathison, P.E. Planning and Program Division Dear Sir: GHA JHC:nb cc: Bogart i,i&,Y r:h.Ia•■■■• w.,II,I •/,Ills 11,ICrill1 tt'.lhh vrrrr/I.t January 11, 1972 Westside Green River Watershed P -6 Pumping Plant We have reviewed the plans transmitted by your submittal dated December 17, 1971, and find that there will.be.no conflict with existing or proposed facilities. The proposal is acceptable to this office. Very truly yours, G. H. ANDREWS Director of Highways John N. Rupp I.I IIIIJ 7\('.1711 S.rrrttl,r Iipul. sane JOHN H. COOPER dway.Development.Engineer •1?anivi /. Evans - ';ovrrnnr • (.;.11. Andr(rws - 1)lrlrct(r A 1 l P,,s 1 r flrmm�rl,Mr torrni' Cowl • Nr/t: rr ' • • James M. Mathison, P.E. • Planning and Program Development Department of Ecology St. Martins College Olympia, Washington 0war. Mr. Mathison: MVG:ls STATE OF WASHINGTON . ' Defraittmeat � � W ��~w�m~ew� "r*~~'*~ cc: . Lloyd Gilmore Orlo W. Kreuter Don Hopkins Tom Anderson ' BOX 16m QLYMPoA, WASHINGTON 98501 January 6, 1972 FF COOPERATION Watershed Protection and flood Prevention P.L. 566-West Side Green River Reference is made to your letter of December 17, in which you enclosed a set of construction plans for the West Side Green River Watershed P-6 Pumping Plant, P.L. 566-King County. In our Department's role as a cooperator with the U.S. Forest Service in providing technical assistance and advice on water- shed projects under Public Law 566, we have reviewed the de- tailed plans and have no opposition or objections. - . ` Thank you for keeping us informed. Very truly yours,•. 'BERT L. COLE _ � Commissioner of`Publl � Lands ^ ^~ ` /~ H.. V. Grell ATsistanC 8upe visor Forest Land Management Division CwmMMa,ppow BERT COLE. DON LEE FRwSEm ;TStircTrxr. • DANIEL J. EVANS T d ; GOVERUOR COMMISSIONERS: MRS. ELEANOR BERGER JEFF D. DOMASKIN THOMAS C. GARRETT RALPH E. M ACKEY JAMES G. MCCURDY JAMES W. WHITTAKER WILFRED WOODS CHARLES H. ODEGAARD, DIRECTOR Mr. James M. Mathison, P.E. Planning and Program Development Department of Ecology . St. Martins College Olympia, Washington 98504 Dear Mr. Mathison: West Side Green River Watershed P -6 Pumping Plant, P.L. 566 - King County . The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has . reviewed the above -noted project and does not wish to make any comment nor offer any objection to the proposed construction at this time. WAB:ijh PART S & RECREATION COMMISSION THURSTON AIRDUSTRIAL CENTER P. O. BOX 1128 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 1 WASHINGTON STATE January 5, 1972 Sincerely, William A. Bush, Chief Research and Planning PHONE 753 -5755 DANIEL J: EVANS GOVERNOR January 5, 1972 Mr. James M. Mathison Planning and Program Development Department of Ecology St. Martin's College Olympia, Washington 98504 Dear Mr. Mathison: Sincerely yours, David W. Stevens, Administrator Community Services DWS:ib STATE OF WASHINGTON Ofce of the Governor , PLANNING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AGENCY OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON 98504 .4 v va b cr rr% v Z z C . -A f tr _. c 1 n tit -o Cl } West Side Green River Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Project While the total water supply in Washington is large, the distribution of tills supply is irregular and varies both geographically and seasonally. The western portion of the state is blessed with approximately 65% of he total amount of potentially available water, however, it is important that we use this natural blessing wisely. Conservation of our natural resources is an important aspect of planning for future growth. Water management under the concept of flood control is a major feature of this planning. We are strongly in support of this project which deals with preserving environmental . quality of our state. We are returning to you under separate cover, the plans for the proposed project. The confidential nature of the plans has been respected. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this proposal. DR. RICHARD H. SLAVIN DIRECTOR