Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L97-0001 - ELLINGTON LARRY - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
L97 -0001 NORFOLK CSO SEDIMENT CLEAN -UP 9905 E. MARGINAL WAY S. SHORELINE MAY 12 '97 04 :36PM 12062960516 P.1 /3 Date CI-3 05/12/97 FAX I Number of pages including covet sheet 3 TO: Joanna Spencer FROM: Larry Ellington, SRW /A City of Tukwila Public Senior Real ,Property Works Agent z King County Department _ l of Natural Resources ` ;rx w WLRD - Office of Open 6 m Space Jo o p �v o 506 Second Ave., Suite + ,e cv en tex 708; MIS 7ST w i Seattle, Washington 0 U. 98104 tU o;. g Phone Fax Phone 'i- a REMARKS: ❑ Urgent ® For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please Comment z t-O� am providing the approved HPA for the Norfolk:CSO.Cleanup project. w Please call me if you have questions, and let me know when the Flood Zone Control and �;. Land Altering permits will be ready for pick -up. o Thank you. i o N ,t3 Li W. I- IL o Z o D. 0 H° Z. Phone Fax Phone 431 -3665 CC: RECEIVED '1AY 12 1997 PUBLIC WORKS MAY 12 '97 04 :37PM 12062960516 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL R.C.W. 75.20.100 R.C.W. 75.20.103 May 7, 1997 P.2 /3 ECE[NE MAY 091997 • BEPARTh MrII i h! ise:�e�+iF- �klritr.emen --.h. OFFICE C9F.Pesse4 ( • (applicant should refer to this date in all correspondence) PAGE 1 OF 2 PAGES {LAST NAME King County Metro FIRST 18 CONTACT PHONE(S) (206) •684 -1731 , NUMBER 00- A2355 -02 19 STREET OR RURAL ROUTE ATTN: Larry Ellington 7 0 -- WRIA 8'21 Second Ave., 09.MARI CITY STATE ZIP Seattle WA 98104 Ed 17 OWATE Duwamish River TElliott Bay T 11 Contaminated Sediment Removal 13 UARTER SECTION sECTION 04 TOWNSHIP RANGE(E -W) COUNTY 23N 04E King • TIME LIMITATIONS: 5 THIS PROJECT MAY BEGIN 6 AND MUST BE COMPLETED BY March 15, 1998 June 15, 1997 THIS APPROVAL Is TO BE AVAILABLE ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES AND ITS PROVISIONS FOLLOWED BY THE PERMITTEE AND OPERATOR PERFORMING THE IJORK- SIDE OF APPROVAL WRIA 09.0001 at the top of this The correct Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), -1092. Any comments or directed to the Area . bottom of the HPA. February 7, 1997,'and of Concern (COCs) to fish life. In to fish habitat, it to reduce resuspension technology in lieu -of a dredging combined with pr ,cr • to-. dewa,ter.ing.) . . In addressed when dredge migration. your application subject AHB listed below b working days prior to the i • ECEWED Mg 1 2 1" . TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS SRR IMPORTANT GENERAL. PROVISM_QLREYERSE ADDITIONAL STREAM /WRIA: Duwamish River is also NOTE: The agency logo, address, and phone number Hydraulic Prolect•Approval (HPA) are incorrect. address is: Washington Department of 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501 questions on this specific HPA should be ' Habitat Biologist (AHB) identified at the WDFW has reviewed your plans received on revised plans April 25, 1997. WDFW applauds the effort to remediate Chemicals in waters of the state, and alleviate impacts the interest of minimizing short -term impacts important to include additional measures of contaminants fie.. use Cable -Arm dredge regular clamshell dredge, or hydraulic . ___ temporary containment of .dredge .spoils . addition, alternative methods should be timing has the potential to impact fish 1. This project is approved as illustrated in to the following provisions. 2. The permittee or contractor shall notify the FAX at (360) 902 -2946, or mail at least 7 start of construction activities. • SEPA: DNS, King County, Final - November 1996 REGIONAL HABITAT MANAGER- John Boettner (425) 379 -2306 PATROL - Frame 124 [P3•) , APPLICANT - WILDLIFE - READER - PATROL - HAB. MGR. - WRIA DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Nnti,iA &Gi�~�091.1:0/./ DIRECTOR MAY 12 'S7 04:37PM 12062960516 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES P.3 /3 HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL R.C.W. 75.20.100 R.C.W. 75.20.103 R May 7, 1997 4.2e 3-65e (applicant should refer to this date in ell correspondence) • PAGE ILOF 2 PAGES LAST NAME King County Metro WATERDuwamish River 18 CONTACT PHONE(S) (206) 684-1731 CONTROL NUMBER 00- A2355 -02. E7 WRIA 09.MARI - 3-: W'ol-k -be -low -• the -- ordinary• -hirh water line._ (Q IWL).. sba11 not occur from March15 through June 14 of any year for the protection of ziligratirg" juvenile' salmonlds. 4. Work below the OHWL shall not occur from Jul 1 through October 15 for the protection of adult salmon entering July Duwamish, River. 5. A clamshell dredge shall be used for dredging. Each pass of the clamshell dredge bucket shall be complete. 6. Dredged material shall not be stockpiled below the OHWL. 7. Dredged materials shall be disposed upland, at an approved facility capable of handling contaminated sediment. 8. Dredging shall be conducted to minimize siltation of the Duwamish River and bed. 9. Pilings may be placed for temporary anchorage provided the are not treated and are removed following completion of the project, prior to the expiration of this HPA. 10. Intertidal wetland vascular plants shall not be adversely impacted due to project activities (e.g. barge shall not ground, equipment shall not operate and other activities shall not occur n intertidal wetland i vascular plants). If such vegetation is adversely impacted, it shall be replaced using proven methodology. 11. If a fish kill occurs or fish are observed in distress, the project activity. shall .immediately•cease and WDFW Habitat Program shall be notified immediately. 12. Water quality shall not be degraded'to the detriment of fish life as a result of this project. If.you have any questions or need additional information, please contact John Boettner, Area Habitat Biologist, at (425) 379-2306. LOCATION: Duwamish River, half mile upriver above turning basin. rh(50:97 -1) cc: Ted Muller - WDFW Phil Schneider - WDFW ECEINED . MAY' 1 2 1997 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS REV 10/16/86 2 cc w: 6 00 1 N0: W =' • J H: CO UL. W C►' u..c. CD a, 1..11J 3: Z �.. • w~ w 1) :) C3 • O N. .017 AU • r wz U —. • C) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • (206) 649 -7000 May 6, 1997 Larry Ellington King County Water Pollution Control 821 Second Avenue, M/S 120 Seattle WA 98104 Dear Mr. Ellington: Re: City of Tukwila .Permit # L97 -0001 KING COUNTY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # 1997 -NW -40040 The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to remove 7200 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the Duwamish River off the Norfolk Combined Sewer Outfall., has been filed with this office by the City of Tukwila on April 23, 1997. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21 -day appeal period, May 14, 1997. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to the subject permit. If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, S44'l. Ann E. Kenny, Shorelands Spef1st Shorelands and Water Resources Program AEK: aek SDP.DOC cc: Jack Pace, City of Tukwila MiY RECEIVED MAY 0 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6 -J U. 'U0 N 0: :cnw •w =. J LL ;w�. J; N i d: • z •i_ :1=0: • •. w:w;. • °! o N� w. • H V. 'uiz' • • o7. z • A F F I D A V I T I, 5jLV J A °MUJ L O Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet []Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet []Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice fl Notice of Action Official Notice [Other �1tfi1C OF 0,1101 � 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on -zz 1 . Name of Project] iO*1 -V- Co I T Signature S File Number Lon- 000\ C N-�P •z =1— t‘w • 2 D • 'J.U:.. U O; • U U v� w: w =; • • N LL: LU • wa = 0' 1-w. • • r' Zit. ►-0 Z • O N; • of-' • w W 'H U • • U N, v ' .., r...j• r.1.) ...4 �.�•n w. uwbw 19% i J� ! Department of Conununi .9evelopment �;,•. °��o.: _ 6300 Southcenter Boulevard 1908 Tukwila, WA 98188-2599 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 MR. < Larry. Ellington R.C. WATER POLL. CONTROL SEPA OFFICIAL - ENV PLNG 821 SECOND AVE, MS -120 SEATTLE, WA 98104 R.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ACCOUNTING DIVISION 500 4th AVE - RM 709 SEATTLE, WA 98104 US CORP OF ENGINEERS 4735. EAST MARGINAL WY S SEATTLE, WA 98124 -2255 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Land & Water Conservation PO Box 47047 Olympia, WA 98504 -7047 no. _w° . . u6 o U 0;,. W= w 0: LL a w: Z 1- Oi w w:. V ;O vii o 1•- W: Au U 0; 0 I- • • City of Tukwila m Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 • TO: WASH FISHERIES /WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK, WA 98012 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599 (206) 433 -1800 • WA STATE ATTORNEY GEN ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT PO BOX 40117 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 .41,ZEWEit .t.041 I CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599 (206) 433 -1800 11 4.fitK:d�! n :, d'•;. 1??ic ;.i.t' t G fi :ai i : nr r rn v rs Sfr, p�hn1�4 iG!„ j i : t•. ;�1:'n�c t +,;�,! %`�:�,,�,�r..h �'Y:flr .'i.. , ,. ■ TO: DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SHORELINE PERMIT REVIEW 3190 160th AVE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98008 -5452 • , W' 6 •to W! • W =, • W'a, • • co CJ, • • _``i ~ cWc c D •D Q 0w "Au II, • :H V, Z' • tiu Z. To: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Larry Ellington, King County Water Pollution Control Authority State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division, Shorelands Division, Water Quality King County Assessor, Accounting Division (HB2567 Sec. 1) U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Washington State Department of Natural Resources Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife This letter serves a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approvals. PROJECT BACKGROUND a. Project file number: L97 -0001 Applicant: Larry Ellington, King County Water Pollution Control Authority Property Owner: State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources b. Project Description: Dredging of 7,200 s.f. of contaminated soils in the Duwamish River in the vicinity of the Norfolk Combined Sewer Overflow. The dredged materials will be relocated off -site. Those that exceed state standards will be shipped to an approved landfill in Oregon. Those that do not exceed standards will be used for construction materials. . Project location: Duwamish River, downstream from the South 102nd Street Bridge. d. The permits submitted concurrently with this application: The applicant has applied, via the JARPA Application, for HPA approval, Temporary Exceedence of Water Quality Standards and a Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. e. Environmental threshold determination (if any): A DNS was issued on November 1, 1996 by King County Water Pollution Control Division, acting as lead agency. f. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. g. The decision is appealable to the State Shoreline Hearings Board. The appeal period is for 21 days following filing of the permit with the Department of Ecology. Project materials including the application, staff reports and other studies related to the permit(s) are available for inspection at the Tukwila Dept. of Community, Development; 6300 Southcenter Blvd.; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA . The staff planner is John Jimerson who may be contacted at (206) 431 -3663 for further information. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 w; 6� J0. U Of N •Ww • 'co LL. •w° J • • =o. Z 0 I- H v? • • z OH. z king county water pollution control division black & veatch joint aquatic resource permit application norfolk cso vicinity map 3 Sources: -Photo Copyright 1996 City of Seattle - Bathymetry from David Evans & Assoc. - Property Line from King County Engineering Dept. Map, 1994 -Other data from KCVVPCD LEGEND, Approximate Rockpile Outfall Flow Channels Balhymetry Remediation Area /1,1 Property Line Toe of the slope /1Approximate Mean low 0 NOTES 1. APPROXIMATELY 7,200 cy OF SAND AND SILTY SAND WILL BE DREDGED FROM THE REMEDIAT1ON AREA. THIS AREA WILL BE BACKFILLED. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VARIOUS VERTICAL DATUMS IN SEATTLE (MADISON STREET) 11.35 —MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER = 10.46 - ORDINARY HIGH WATER _ MEAN HIGH WATER 6.10 — NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM - 1929 2.83 — MEAN LOW WATER 0.00 — MEAN LOWER LOW WATER 100' SO' 0 100' 200' CITyROFE1vED PERAnrr r'Cry PER KING COUNTY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION Ri BLACK & VEATCH *PCOIAL PROJECT* CORP. KING COUNTY JOINT AQUATIC RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION NORFOLK CSO PLAN VIEW NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. FIGURE 2 400 —F001 TO: Jack Pace FROM: John Jimerson RE: Shoreline Permit `Norfolk CSO DATE: April 18, 1997 Memorandum z Z• � mow; Project File No. L97 -0001 JV; U O' ;w= • LL; w O: 2 u. ¢. cn = d; z ZO. Goal 1: Preserve or develop shorelines, adjacent uplands and adjacent water areas in a manner 2 �. that assures a balance of shoreline uses with minimal adverse effect on the quality of life, water 10 co and environment, o E-. = w Goal 2: Shoreline dependent development should provide long range benefit to man and his r economic pursuits while assuring compatibility with the environmental and physical goals for ` z:. shoreline areas. C)_; Goal 4: Assure preservation of unique and non - renewable natural resources and assure z conservation of renewable natural resources for the benefit of existing and future generations and the public interest. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to remove 7,200 cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Duwamish River off the Norfolk Combined Sewer Overflow outfall. The contaminated materials will be barged or trucked off site where they will either be used in concrete manufacturing or shipped to a disposal site in Oregon. 2. Goals OF THE SMP: The site is within the jurisdiction of the King County SMP and is consistent with the goals and policies of that SMP. It will not adversely affect land use, economic development, public access, circulation or recreation along the shoreline. The following goals are the most applicable: 3. KING COUNTY SHORELINE REGULATIONS: Following are the relevant regulations as contained in the King County Shoreline Master Program: K.C.C. 25.16.190 Excavation. Dredging and Filling. Excavation, dredging and filling may be permitted in the urban environment, only as part of an approved overall development plan not as an independent activity provided: I. Excavation or dredging below the O.H.W.M. shall be permitted only when necessary for the operation of a water dependent or water related use, or when necessary to mitigate conditions which endanger public safety or fisheries resources. Response: The purpose of the project is to eliminate contaminants that have built up in the aquatic environment for improved public health and fisheries resources •'..K). !... .. .� . •. a,;%,.C1 . ,iya,rii ;Ptii. .-Paaidi ae ik:', iLi^ dvV, r.'MV&Ir'.S� Z-4%"#2 t " ;''rte,11; :ikl J. Disposal of dredged material shall be done only in approved deep water disposal sites or approved contained upland sites. Response: The material will either be used in the manufacture of concrete or shipped to an approved disposal site in Oregon. K. Stockpiling of dredged material in or under water is prohibited. Response: The project description indicates that no stockpiling below the OHWM will occur. A condition to reinforce this regulation is recommenced. M. Dredging shall be timed so that it does not interfere with aquatic life. Response: The Department of Fish and Wildlife will address this with their issuance of Hydraulics Project Approval (HPA). N. The City may impose reasonable conditions on dredging or disposal operations including but not limited to working seasons and provisions of buffer strips, including retention or replacement of existing vegetation, dikes, and settling basins to protect the public safety and shore user's lawful interest from unnecessary impacts. Response: No impacts upon shore user's have been identified. Some staging will occur on the Oxbow shoreline, in which case a condition is recommended to require a plan identifying how the private shoreline trail will be impacted and how those impacts will be mitigated. A Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) was issued on November 1, 1996. King County Water Pollution Control Division was the lead agency, Maureen Welch was the SEPA Responsible Official. 6. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the shoreline permit with the following conditions: 1. No stockpiling of dredged or replacement material shall occur below the Ordinary High Water Mark. 2. Prior to commencing work, a plan for staging of materials and equipment shall be provided to DCD for review and approval. The plan shall identify how shoreline users, including the recreation trail on the Oxbow site, will be impacted and how those impacts will be mitigated. z w. J U` U O'. moo. 'vow: w 1.' u. w O. co .w a: =a,. 1. w, zf-, I- O Z F-: 11J Lu - o wuj O; • Z, o O z MAR 17 '97 01 57PM 12062960516 r--y MI 9'1 -00-02 King County Department of Natural Resources Water and Land Resources Division Office of Open Space 506 Second Avenue, Suite 708 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone (206) 296 -7800 FAX 296 -0516 March 12, 1997 Mr. Phil Fraser Senior Development/Surface Water Engineer Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Norfolk CSO Sediment Cleanup Project Dear Mr. Fraser: 'p .1,20"r Post -it' Fax Note 7671 Gate '3 -11 (peo9ts TEAS KA. t=ron�� Co r , ColDept. Phone n Phone # Fax # tL3 ..• 3‘,65--- Fax N / -os/ RECEgyED MAR. 1 7 1997 " LICWO R ,, At our resent meeting to review the sediment remediation project proposed for the Norfolk CSO area, it was agreed that King County would provide you additional information on the following 4 items: 1) Potential to perform dredging during suns tier dry season. 2) Risks of dewatering dredged sediments on barge, 3) Chemical concentrations in sediments that might be dispersed in water column, 4) Amount of sediment lost to water column during dredging. Each item is discussed below and will hopefully meet your needs. Item 1: You asked whether this dredging work could be performed in summer dur zg low river flow since this might minimize the dispersion of contaminated sediment i fast contacted Phil Schneider, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDI ) who typically issues Hydraulic Project Approvals for this area. Phil was uncertain abou: specific closure dates for this kind of work and directed me to contact John Boettne at WDF who has handled similar projects along the Duwamish River (e.g. Kaiser Upgrade). John indicated there was only a two week window that dredging was allowed during summer. There is no dredging allowed from March 15th to June 154. A two week dredging window is allowed after Junel5th, and then dredging must stop again from July 1st to October 1st. Our project consultant estimates that the dredging'for Norfolk sediment remediation will take at least a month, so we have scheduled the work for the longer dredging window in the winter. z z • . o O; N0: • rnw: w= WO gJ: c12 • h- _: z�` . I--o; • Z LIJ 'Ocn, 0 F- w W; =() — o. uiz' w co • o z 4 MAR 17 '97 01:57PM 120629E0516 P.2/20 Item 2: You expressed concern about plans to dewater sediments on the barge and whether there was a problem created by returning this water to the river. The Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also asked the same question. After receiving more information, they both determined that there is minimal concern for water quality problems. In fact, Ecology has officially approved the proposed dredging and dewatering plan in the Cleanup Action Decision they wrote for the project. The chemicals that are in the sediments to be dredged are tightly bound to the sedic::ent particles and will not release into the water during dredging. The approach to contr•::Iling the loss of chemicals during dewatering is to minimize the loss of sediment particles from the barge. t�pcalilysige� `�' wool` �' beu" sed' isa` �Aat.. d�ck�b 'arge >ttiat;would��liave�?l�` rw � q.€44a { ,.�!! sCi•T� r t 4 '.. i .'r.. ed Iv the exi `'po tslo parttc* ates i ..4. ^,7 }' .�A..r .r ! .,t,•..v.�..�h,SV.F.. •:L M�:u1x.:t...+s.ia��.n , gC This level of treatment is considered effective by both Ecology and U.S. Fish and Wildlife. \7, Our project consultant could not give us a specific volume of water that would be lifted onto the bare with the clamshell. However, they assure us that the actual amount of water going bnto the barge is fairly small because the clamshell bucket will be filled to the top with sediment. As such, there is little room for excess water to be trapped in the top of a full bucket. Item 3. You wanted to know what the chemical levels were in the sediment that would be dredged because these would, have the potential to be dispersed in the water column during dredging. The State has numeric sediment standards for 47 chemicals and lists both a Cleanup Screening Level (CSL), which is the same as the Minimum Cleanup Level (MCUL), and a lower value called the Sediment Quality Standard (SQS). At. the Norfolk site, only 4 chemicals were identified as chemicals of concern because they exceeded either the SQS or CSL and were related to the CSO discharge. Th chard a PCBs ;11 '4Dichlcrokgozeae• Bis(2 Ethylhcxyl)Phthalate wandsi ' ercury: The cleanup boundary for the Norfolk site was expanded substantially beyond the SQS boundary in order to remove PCBs down to a level that this chemical would not lit. detectable in the surrounding sediments. The entire cleanup area is 32,000 square feet iri + ( ut 1 UQ. srds1 ", but only about half of the cleanup area has concentrations above the SQS value of 12 mg/kg OC for PCBs, and far less than half of the site has concentrations above the CSL value of 65 mg/kg OC for PCBs. It is estimated that about 0 "rib c yard or 4% of the total volume of the site has PCB levels above 50 ppm (mg/kg dry wt.), which is the dangerous waste standard. The highest measured PCB value is in one sample and totals 480 ppm. For 1,4- Dichlorobenzene, about half of the site exceeds the SQS value of 3.1 mg/kg OC and only about one quarter of the site exceeds the CSL value of 9.0 mg/kg OC. For Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate, only about one third of the site exceeds the SQS value MAR 17 '97 01:58PM 12062960516 ' P.3/20 (LAET of 1.3 ppm dry wt) and only about one quarter of the site exceeds the CSL value (2LAET of 1.9 ppm dry wt). For mercury, only about one quarter of the site exceeds the SQS value of 0.41 ppm dry wt. and somewhat less of the site exceeds the CSL value of 0.59 ppm dry wt. Item 4: You wanted to know how much sediment is lost into the water column during dredging and could have the potential to move up river with the tide. Our consultant indicated there have been studies on the suspension of sediments during dredging.. Any one of the following 4 actions of a clamshell bucket can cause suspension of sedin..ent: 1) Impact of the bucket on the sediment bed, 2) Bucket closure and removal from th:: sediment bed, 3) Spillage and sediment sloughing during retrieval up through the water column, and 4) Spillage and gravitational leakage from the bucket during hoisting and' Qom, swinging from water to the haul barge (Palermao et al 1990). It has been estimated that �d these bucket actions could suspend up to 1.2% of the total mass of dredged material (Tavolaro 1984). However, for sandy sediments which are typical of the Norfolk site, a large portion of this material will return to the bottom fairly quickly. • The suspended sediment would return to the bottom in three longitudinal settling zones (Sosnowski 1984). The initial mixing zone is typically located within 10 to 30 feet of the point of dredging. This is the zone of highest total suspended sediments (TSS) due to the action of the bucket. However, since the majority of suspended sediments immediately settles back to the bed, it is eventually removed by the continuing dredging operations. The second zone extends downstream and exhibits a rapid gravitational settling of suspended sediment that escape the initial mixing zone. In the final, third zone, the TSS gradually returns to ambient levels under the combined influence of gravity settling and turbulent diffusion. We do not have an exact number for the amount of sediment that will be in this third zone of TSS dispersion. However, due to the high fraction of sand in the Norfolk sediments and the shallow depth of water in the dredge area, it is anticipated that only a relatively small amount of suspended sediment will be transported away from the dredging area. If you require any additional information for issuance of the shoreline permit, please contact me at 296 -7816 or Pat Romberg, Norfolk CSO Cleanup Project Manager, at 684- 1220. Sincere' i Larry E11ir ton, SR/WA Senior Real Property Agent LDE:pr cc: Pat Romberg - King County Water. and Land Resources Division - MS 81 •.v .. • MAR 17 '97 01:58PM 12062960516 n. • P.4/20 References: Tavolaro, I.R. and Mansky, LM. 1984 "Effects of Dredging Operations on Nutrient and Suspended Sediment Concentrations," Northeastern Environmental Science, Vol. 3. No. 3-4, pp 208 ;216. Sosnonski, R.A. 1984. "Sediment Resuspension Due to Dredging and Storms: An Analogous Pair," Proceedings of the Coriference Dredging '84. Nov 14-16, 1984, Clearwater Beach,.FL. ASCE, NY, NY pp 609 - 617. .1- Zi on, .C.) • 0 Z -.MAR 17 '97 01: 58PM 1.206290516 • Sediment Management Standards Cleanup Action Decision: Norfolk CSO December 1996 Prepared by Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office, Toxics Cleanup Program Bellevue, WA . � . zt J Ui coO •W =: y L: ,W O • Q Z �.. 1-- 0', • •, • • ZCC I- 10 I0 H: ;1- ,. •Z o . . Z MAR 17 '97 01:59PM 12062960516 • P.6'20 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Cleanup Action Decision has been prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for cleanup of contaminated sediments at the Norfolk Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) outfall on the Duwamish River in Tukwila (Figure 1). Cleanup is being conducted by the King County Water Pollution Control Division ( KCWPCD,: formerly Metro) on behalf of the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel. Cleanup of • this site represents partial fulfillment of the terms of a 1991 consent decree settling a Natural Resource Damages lawsuit. Contaminated sediments offshore and downstream of the outfall will be dredged fr'm the site. Sediments with PCB levels near or above Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) limits (50 ppm) will be separately dredged and trucked to an approved TSCA lanai ;:l in Arlington, Oregon. Sediments with lower levels of contamination will be taken to a cement plant and recycled. If the volume of sediments exceeds the plant capacity, or the sediments are unsuitable for recycling (e.g., PCBs are more than 20'ppm), they will be disposed of at an approved Subtitle D landfill. Clean sediments will be replaced in the • river to the same elevation as was previously present. This Cleanup Action Decision provides Ecology's determination that the proposed cleanup action meets the requirements of the Sediment Management Standards and other State laws. The Cleanup Action Decision was made available for public comment along with the Cleanup Study Report prepared by KCWPCD and the SEPA checklist. No comments were received, and the Cleanup Action Decision was finalized without substantive changes. =• 1 Ce ••=! 0 O 0 D 0' CO LIJ! H N a: w0.. L Da: y • w _ Z� moo;. off'; z w. O; ✓ ,i O • 17! Z ,MAR 17 '97 02 :00PM 12062960516 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION P.9/20 This section describes the facilities that have been located at the site, sources of contamination, and the regulatory history of the site. Much of the information in this and subsequent,sections is condensed from the Norfolk CSO Sediment Cleanup Study Repo. eport (EBDRP 1996), and the reader is referred to that report for greater detail. 2.1 FACILITIES AND SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION The Norfolk CSO outfall is located on the east bank of the Duwamish River just upstream of the Turning Basin, near the south end of Boeing Field in the City of Tukwila (Fi ;ure 1). Discharge events are controlled by the Norfolk Street Regulator Station, located.. northeast of the outfall (Figure 2). This regulator station receives stormwater from a large drainage basin in South Seattle. Discharges from the CSO periodically occur when large storm events overload the sewer system with stormwater. In addition, there are a few stormwater connections into the pipe leading to the outfall downstream•of the regulator station. These are small, local drainage systems from commercial and light industrial areas near the outfall. The CSO system is operated by KCWPCD (formerly Metro), which has been carrying out an extensive source.control program to remove commercial and industrial stormwater from the sanitary system and to reduce overflow events at selected CSOs, including Norfolk. Due to these programs, overflow events will have declined from 25 in 1990/91 to a projected 4 events once source control improvements are completed in 1997. Source control modeling was conducted as part of the Cleanup Study for this site, and the results of this modeling predict that the source reductions planned will decrease discharges to levels that will not result in recontamination of the sediments. The Norfolk CSC. .s currently regulated by an NPDES permit, and monitoring of the outfall will be cu tducted to confirm source control projections. In addition to CSO- related contaminants, there are high levels of polychlorinated:. biphenyls (PCBs) in sediments offshore of the outfall and downstream of the outfall along the shoreline. These high levels of PCBs are not typical of stormwater or CSO discharges, and may have another, more local historical source. PCB hot spots were found not only near the Norfolk outfall, but downstream along the shoreline, near outfalls that drain a Boeing parking lot. The current land use of the area is light industrial or commercial, and the source of these PCBs is not apparent. Because use of PCBs has been discontinued, it is considered most likely that these levels are due to a historical release from previous industrial use of the shoreline properties. 2 • . - MAR 17 '97 02:01PM 12062960516 P.9'20 TP107Z..3/95 Al Sources: USGS.197% USG &, 1983; Tanner, 1991: Boeing 1994 Figure 2. Norfolk Area Map .•:: G4 .wa.;fi:•rl:.LLd +47c %�4:X1:'?'kv .i5':wl R:arr4.4141Axt` �aidr.3"si%:irsfI?�? �Lk is i2S` 'a(la AVAV '.14a' �1fEF?GAairi:? 141 MAR 17 '97 02 :02PM 120625—'7516 2.2 REGULATORY AND PROJECT HISTORY • P.10'20 In 1991, the Sediment Management Standards (Chapter 173 -204 WAC) were promulgated, including site identification criteria and cleanup standards for contaminated sediments. Also iii 199I, The Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Program Panel (Panel), which is composed of tribes and federal, state, and local agencies, was formed under the , terms of a consent decree. The consent decree settled a Natural ResourcesDamage • lawsuit brought by NOA against the City of Seattle and Metro for alleged damages to . a A natural resources associated with discharges from CSOs and storm drains located in . = i z Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River. Under the consent decree, $24 million was ' 6 D LU provided to conduct sediment cleanup, habitat restoration, and source control in a eas of -J 0 Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River associated with Metro and City of Seattle ou ►falls. (0 0 co w w s: In 1992, a Sediment Remediation Technical Working Group (SRTWG) was established co w; by the Panel to identify and rank candidate sites for cleanup, and to carry out the cleanup w 0, projects selected. Based on preliminary sediment sampling data 24 potential cleanup 2 sites were identified and ranked by the Panel, based on several criteria, including degree w ¢: of contamination, completeness of source control, and public comment (EBDRP 1994a). CO a From these sites, three high- ranking sites were selected for cleanup: Norfolk CSO, f=-. i Duwamish/Diagonal CSO, and the Central Seattle Waterfront. z +—' zI- KCWPCD was selected by the Panel to act as the project manager for the Norfolk 2 n cleanup. In. 1994, the Norfolk Cleanup Study Plan and associated documents were D o; prepared, which detailed sediment sampling needed at the site and the decision process :g D" for using the data to select a cleanup action alternative (EBDRP 1994b -e). Field' w w; investigations were conducted from April 1994 through December 1995, and in 1996, the � c) Cleanup Study Report was completed (EBDRP 1996). This report identifies site u.1-8- - o iii z boundaries and levels of contamination, evaluates several possible cleanup alternatives, and identifies a preferred alternative for cleanup. O �' z Finally, this Cleanup Action Decision has been prepared by Ecology to document that the proposed cleanup method is consistent with the Sediment Management Standards, in accordance with WAC 173 -204 -580. Final design and permitting activities will take place in 1997. The cleanup action is currently scheduled to be completed in early 1 J - MAR 17 '97 02 :02PM 12062960516 • 3.0 REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND TYPE OF CLEANUP I P.11/20 The Sediment Management Standards were promulgated under the authority of the State Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48 RCW and the Model Toxics Control Act, Chapter 70.105D RCW, among others. Ecology may select either of these authorities under which a cleanup may be Conducted, as described in WAC 173 - 204-550; Types of Cleanup and Authority. Because the cleanup is being conducted offshore of a CSO outfall permitted under the NPDES program, Ecology has selected 90.48 RCW, the State Water Pollution Control Act, as the appropriate authority for cleanup of the Norfolk CSO. Because this cleanup is being conducted pursuant to a federal Consent Decree (to .which Ecology is a party), the cleanup does not fall neatly into any of the "types of cleanup" categories defined in WAC 173- 204 - 550(3). Under the consent decree, the Panel is required to conduct sediment cleanup projects with a total value of $12 million ni ar City of Seattle and KCWPCD outfalls. Specific cleanup sites were not identified in tb : . decree, but were developed through the Sediment Technical Remediation Work Group process with full public participation. As the cleanup process proceeded, each of'the project plans and reports was provided by the Panel to Ecology for review and comment to ensure consistency with the Sediment Management Standards. 4.0 CLEANUP STUDY SUMMARY Various plans and reports have been prepared to support the cleanup project. A last of relevant Panel documents and project documents is provided in the bibliography at the end of this Cleanup Action Decision. All project documents can be reviewed in -he public repositories listed in the Public Participation Plan for this site (EBDRP 19 Mc). This section summarizes documents providing information on the nature and ext :.it of contamination at the site, alternatives for cleanup, and the proposed cleanup actie 4.1 SITE INVESTIGATIONS One sediment sample was collected by Metro near the Norfolk CSO in 1990. Metro collect an additional two samples near the outfall in 1992, to provide the Panel with data needed to screen and rank outfalls for potential cleanup. These three samples provided the minimum amount of data needed to conduct an initial evaluation of the site under the Sediment Management Standards. Several chemicals were identified that exceeded State Sediment Quality Standards, including bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,4- dichlorobenzene, PCBs, benzoic acid, and mercury. As noted above, in 1994, the Panel selected the Norfolk CSO as one of the cleanup sites to be funded from the settlement. KCWPCD conducted three subsequent phases of sampling at the site to evaluate the areal extent of contamination near the outfall and the depth of contamination: ' z ~ w' 00 t..N 0 w = w0 gQ N D. I— _,. z� I_- O' z� D D. U O! O iw H U! r wz UU z MAR 17 '97 02:02PM 12062960516 P.12'20 • Phase 1 was conducted in August 1994 to identify preliminary site boundaries. Because the extent of contamination was unknown, sampling stations were placed along three transects parallel to the shoreline. Data from these stations were compared to the Sediment Management Standards chemical criteria to identifyl, a preliminary estimate of the area of contamination. • . • • Phase 11 was conducted in August 1995. Additional surface sediment samples were collected in areas where the site boundaries were uncertain, to refine the areal extent of contamination. Core samples were taken in several locations to identify the depth of contamination and the total volume that would need to be dredged and disposed of. Sediments were tested to determine their suitability for landfill disposal and/o recycling. Finally, a shoreline survey was conducted to assess habitat conditic "ns at the site. • Phase III became necessary when it was determined that PCB contamination extended beyond the immediate area of the Norfolk CSO to areas downstream of the site, offshore of Boeing stormwater outfalls. Additional surface sediment samples were collected by KCWPCD and by Boeing in an attempt to better characterize this area. • As a result of these phased studies, a number of contaminants were identified that exceeded State Sediment Quality Standards, including mercury, PCBs, 1,4- dichlorobenzene, bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate, butylbenzyl phthalate, and several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Of these, it was determined that the mercury, 1,4- dichlorobenzene, and phthalates were clearly related to outfall discharges. Low -level PAH contamination at a single upstream station appeared unrelated to the outfall and was excluded from further consideration. The pattern of PCB contamination suggests more than one historical source of contamination, or a single source that made its way to the river through several d fferent outfalls. Several "hot spot" locations were found with very high concentrations, above TSCA regulatory levels. Because the Panel is limited to addressing contamination near KCWPCD and City outfalls under the Consent Decree, a decision was made to clean up PCB contamination in the vicinity of the outfall, and exclude an unconnected hot spot further down the shoreline on Boeing property. A physical barrier exists along the shoreline, in the form of a wingwall in the intertidal area, that serves as a logical boundary between the two sites (Figure 3). 4.2 CLEANUP LEVELS AND SITE BOUNDARIES The cleanup standard selected for this site is the SQS. The primary purpose of the Panel is to restore natural resources in the vicinity of areas affected by CSOs and stormdrain outfalls, and thus the more stringent cleanup standard•of the SQS is appropriate In addition, the SQS represents the highest level of contamination allowed near.a OSO under the sediment source control program without assigning a Sediment Impact Zone (51Z). 5 z <W, • Jo oO, CO a CO 111: • w =• • LL; w o: ga = d" z mw ` z I: U �. ww U LL H. z. U.C.9-. 0 I- • z cn a) . E Co a) o a a 0 • • 'ZE; o • C.) 0 Figure 2. Norfolk Project Site 11- F- z L.LL ce -j0 00 (/)O COW WI -J E— U) L.L. LLI 0 < w ° Z F- 1- 0 ZI- UJW 0 O D- 0 u 0 rz III 0 Li] O Cf) O I- 'MAR 17 '97 02 :e4PM 1206290516 P.14'20 Since no SIZ has yet been authorized for this outfall, selection of the SQS as the cleanup standard is consistent with the ongoing source control program for this outfall. However, the SQS standards do not address potential human health and ecological risks related to bioaccutnulation of PCBs in sediments. Plans are in place to develop such , standards for larger sites in the Duwamish River. However, these studies are not!yet complete and are beyond the scope and schedule of this relatively small and routine cleanup. Without the results of detailed studies planned to be carried out over the next few years in the Duwamish River, it is not yet appropriate to select a site- specifiq cleanup standard that is protective of the bioaccumulative effects of PCBs. To address these bioaccumulation and human health concerns, the Panel decidedto remediate any additional, accessible sediments that contain detectable levels of P CBs. The Panel and Ecology agree that the benefits of achieving protection of human health and potential harmful effects to migrating juvenile salmonids outweighs the minor . increase in cost of remediating these additional sediments at the Norfolk site. '} The boundaries of the cleanup area are shown on Figure 3. The thickness of this) contaminated sediment layer varies from 1 foot near the edges to 2 feet in the vicinity of the outfall. As discussed above, areas offshore of the Norfolk outfall are included in the site boundaries, as well as downstream areas offshore of Channels 1 and 2 that gay have received contamination from the outfall. Areas further downstream (Channels 3,4, and 5) are not considered part of this site. 4.3 CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED The Cleanup Study Report describes various alternatives for cleaning up contani rated sediments at the site. A wide range of technologies was initially considered and screened for applicability using the following criteria: • Technical effectiveness • Implementability • Cost - effectiveness • Environmental impacts Because this is a relatively small site in a dynamic river environment, a focused feasibility .study was considered more appropriate than a detailed evaluation of a wide rang ° of alternatives. Using the criteria above, a number of technologies were screened out so that more realistic alternatives could be evaluated in detail. The results of the screening are briefly discussed below: • Natural Recovery. Natural recovery can be an alternative if it is determined that , natural processes will, by themselves, result in an area cleaning itself up over time Natural processes that may result in recovery include burial with clean sediments and degradation of organic chemicals. The allowable natural recovery period under the 6 .. "" , Z re .6n U U0: co 0. cow. = CO LL; III 0, g a: D. z= w~ w oif2 CI I-- ,w w; - . wZ H : .0 1 z 'MAR 17 '97 02 :05PM 120629 516 'P.15/20 SMS is no more than 10 years. This option is not considered likely to be effective at the Norfolk site due to low sedimentation rates and the presence of persistent chemicals such as PCBs. This alternative is also not consistent with the mandate of the Panel to clean up contaminated sites and restore natural, resources. Therefore, natural recovery was screened from further consideration. r • • Dredging Technologies. Both mechanical and hydraulic dredging were evaLated for applicability to the site. Mechanical dredging is cost - effective, technical!' feasible, and has few environmental impacts if properly conducted. .This teclfinology was retained for consideration. Hydraulic dredging is also a proven technique. However, large amounts of potentially contaminated water are entrained during dredging, requiring a large dewatering area and possible treatment and disposal of water. Hydraulic dredging was retained for consideration only if permit conditions would allow barges tb be used as a dewatering area, although this approach would greatly increase the time required to complete dredging and dewatering. • Treatment and Disposal. Treatment technologies used for contaminated soils and sediments include incineration, solidification, cementation, soil washing, and bioremediation. Under certain conditions, some of these technologies could also be applied to marine sediments, although high water content and salinity may interfere with treatment success. However, due to'high mobilization costs and the colts of . bench -scale studies, treatment is generally not a cost - effective option for very' small . sites. Therefore, this alternative was screened out for the Norfolk site. Recycling. Certain cement plants in the local Seattle area have been acceptizig contaminated sediments for use as feed stock, assuming that the sediments are tested to ensure that they have appropriate characteristics for this use and are not hi :hly contaminated. Testing of the sediments at Norfolk CSO indicated that the st diments would be suitable for this use (with the exception of sediments containing m ire than 20 ppm PCBs). This alternative was retained for further consideration. • • Capping in Place. Rather than dredging, sediments may be capped in place, or covered with a clean layer of sediment. Sediment to be used as clean cap material is often obtained from navigational dredging projects in clean areas, such as the turning basin in the Duwamish River. Because of the high currents in the river and the shallow water depth near the outfall, there is a high potential for scouring or erosion of a cap placed at this site. For these reasons, this alternative is not considered feasible at this site. • Confined Aquatic Disposal ( CAD). This alternative involves dredging contaminated sediments and consolidating them in a depression underwater, then capping with clean sediments. Through this alternative, widespread surface contamination can be consolidated into a small area and isolated from aquatic Life by a clean sand cap, CAD construction typically requires a relatively flat area with a depression that can be filled or dredged out. Water depths should be less than 200 ft, 7 ti 1-- Z ft 6 - i U o o �w J • LL w O LL • Q. Lo d 1- O Z F... w • w UO o D. • w. � U w - z: • 2 0 1` z ti MAR 17 '97 02:05PM 12062960516 i. P.16'20 but not in intertidal areas where important habitats would be affected. CAD sites cannot be located in areas where they would interfere with navigation and commerce, such as in Harbor Areas or near Port shipping terminals. Due to heavy use of nearshore areas in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River for navigation and co4minerce, and the relatively steep slopes and deep water of the rest of Elliott Bay, appropriate CAD sites would be difficult to find and permit. This alternative was screened out z and was not considered further. i ~ q rew • Nearshore Confined Disposal. Similar to the CAD alternative described above, u � n n sediments are dredged and consolidated within a disposal facility built alongrthe o o shoreline. Contaminated sediments are contained by a clean berm and capped by ' ca 0 cnw clean sediments. The costs to construct such a facility would be much higher than Lu i other alternatives, and are not warranted for such a low volume of material. co LL Nearshore disposal facilities have a variety of challenging liability and permitting 2 O' problems (including conflicts with tribal fisheries) that would significantly delay the g 5. project schedule. This alternative was screened out and not considered further. u. <; 1- w. • Upland Disposal. Under this alternative, contaminated sediments are dredged and z 1 transported to an upland landfill. Various types of landfills are available, depending Z O on the type and degree of contamination of the sediments. Testing of the Norfolk w w sediments indicates that most of the sediments are suitable for disposal in a RCRA n o. Subtitle D Landfill, with the exception of the sediments that exceed TSCA levels. • o o N, These sediments would have to be dredged and transported separately to the, o ~ Hazardous Waste Landfill in Arlington, Oregon. This alternative was retained for i 0. consideration. u. 6. O .. z. Based on the above discussion, feasible alternatives for cleanup at this site inclucie U — W =. dredging and recycling at a nearby cement plant, or dredging and disposal at an upland o 1- landfill. Treatment at a cement plant would destroy most organic contaminants And Z residual contamination will be incorporated into cement. The mineral part of thy: sediments would be reused as part of the cement matrix. Both Ecology and the ?anel have a preference for treatment and recycling material whenever possible. For this reason, the dredging and recycling alternative was selected as the preferred alternative for the Norfolk CSO site. If the volume of sediments exceeds the capacity of the cement plant,'disposal at an upland landfill is retained as a backup alternative. 4.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED CLEANUP ACTION The selected cleanup action is described in detail in the Cleanup Study Report. In summary', the preferred cleanup alternative consists of the following component^: 8 • r • MAR 17 '97 02:06PM 12062960516 P.17/20 • Approximately 300 cubic yards of contaminated sediments with PCB levels geater than TSCA levels will be excavated separately. Confirmational sampling will be conducted to ensure that all materials above 50 ppm have been excavated. These sediments would be transported in a sealed truck to the hazardous waste landfill at Arlington, Oregon. • Approximately 6,900 cubic yards of sediments with detectable levels of PCBs and other contaminants above SQS standards will be excavated using a mechanical dredge. Sediments will be excavated in a step -wise manner to obtain a minimum 1- foot overdredge depth (Figure 4). These sediments will be placed on a barge and dewatered. The barge will be transported to a downstream transfer area aloni the shoreline, where the sediments will be Loaded into trucks for transport. • Sediments will be trucked to a local cement plant for treatment and reuse. If the volume of contaminated sediments exceeds the plant's capacity, remaining sediments will be trucked to a permitted Subtitle D Landfill. • Confirmational sampling will be conducted in the dredged area to ensure that cleanup standards have been met (the monitoring plan is provided in Appendix L of the Cleanup Study Report). • Clean sediments will be obtained and backfilled into the dredged area to replace the original bathymetric contours and provide appropriate habitat for recolonization. 5.0 REGULATORY DETERMINATIONS Based on the cleanup study results described above, and the reports referenced ai ove and in the bibliography, Ecology has made the following determinations, required as 'art of the SMS Cleanup Action Decision: '1 • The selected cleanup alternative will be protective of human health and he environment. All'detected PCB contamination and all other chemicals above SQS levels will be removed from the environment and disposed of safely. • The selected cleanup alternative complies with the Sediment Manageme ;t Standards. A list of other federal, state, and local laws that are applicable i ?. provided in Chapter 6 of the Cleanup Study. Compliance with these laws wi:l be achieved through the Corps of Engineers permitting process and associated state and local permits. -4 ;; WaW Atdn {ZSwtNwt.s 9 rid x': ,- ,}iYiA a6:41,btitA00,% • 'MAR 17 '97 02 :06PM 12062960516, P.18/20 • .r r a cr . to (Mi1IN) pq W u09114113 s ti 0 O 0 m 0 0 m cr• . U m 0 m 0 0 0 ,0 co O V} m ao W E.) OEM i EcoChem Team 4 ytIC:L3if,4Y .')i'Sii'A.' 1 ",;0'tAY:.�AL RVb`N�'di�+Y`sTi..U+ lo41 C zd el, V,IR' , A. 7,N Z rX w: Ji)_ U O;. U) W =. w 0 g J u. co F=— _`. Z� I-01 Z 1— . LIJ D p' U 0 H. ILI w F -, U. .Z: U D` H Z MAR 17 '97 02 :06PM 12062960516 P.19/20 • The selected cleanup alternative will achieve compliance with the specific sediment cleanup standards selected for this site. The selected cleanup standard for the site is the SQS, which is the goal for all cleanups in the State. Bioaccumulative effects of PCBs are also being addressed through an expander removal action. ' , 1 • The Panel has provided opportunities for public participation consistent with SMS and SEPA requirements. The Public Participation Plan for the Norfolk site was reviewed and approved by Ecology under SMS. This plan has been followed throughout the process. All plans and reports have been made available for pudic review and comment, and comments addressed when received. A SEPA check !:st and DNS was included with the Cleanup Study Report for concurrent public review. � w 2 _I 0 CO , °. ' cnw: w it —II- < W 0' • The selected alternative includes appropriate monitoring. Various types of monitoring are included as part of the project. Monitoring immediately after hot spot :xu r emoval will be carried out to ensure that sediments above TSCA levels have teen removed. Monitoring immediately after all dredging activities will be performed to ensure that cleanup Levels have been met. Finally, long -term monitoring of thl site.to z : 21 ensure that recontamination is not occurring due to outfall operation will be O; coordinated with the NPDES Z ut permit program. The monitoring plan is provided as 2 Appendix L of the Cleanup Study Report. °` o N; D. Based on the above findings, the Department of Ecology approves the selected cleanup. ° ~' wuj alternative. v w o' z. W 0 z. 10 •s a r ' � r_ •ca- .:R��� %YEa= :;a'��ss! �i,r?:ihA:ut :a's�z.i:X.i;;.a.4..G':,-. �.Y„�,x';iiu:.i#;: r`.fi,;fadiE 1631+: i!};. tafr�is '7•d1�;'1id..�S:k�;�$3'i. `v y . A n� � S S'+ x s'n, 4 �xcr• -P. • - MAR 17 '97 02:07PM 12062950516 P.20/20 6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY EBDRP. 1994a. Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program Concept Document. Prepared by King County Department of Metropolitan ' Services (now KCWPCD) for the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel, Seattle WA. ..; EBDRP. 1994b. Norfolk Cleanup Study Workplan. Prepared by King County ' Department of Metropolitan Services (now KCWPCD) for the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel, Seattle WA. EBDRP. 1994c. Norfolk Sampling and Analysis Plan, Prepared by King County Department of Metropolitan Services (now KCWPCD) for the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel, Seattle WA, EBDRP. 1994d, Duwamish/Diagonal and Norfolk Health and Safety Plan. Prepared by King County Department of Metropolitan Services (now KCWPCD) for the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel, Seattle WA. EBDRP. 1994e. Norfolk Public Participation Plan. Prepared by King County Department of Metropolitan Services (now KCWPCD) for the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel, Seattle WA. EBDRP. 1995a. Norfolk Sampling and Analysis Plan, Phase II Addendum. Prepared by King County Department of Metropolitan Services (now KCWPCD) for the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel, Seattle WA. EBDRP. 1995b. Norfolk Sampling and Analysis Plan, Phase III Addendum. Pre ?aced by King County Department of Metropolitan Services (now KCWPCD) for the F,1-liott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel, Seattle. WA. EBDRP. 1996. Norfolk CSO Sediment Cleanup Study. Prepared by King County Water Pollution Control Division for the Elliott Bay/Duwamish Restoration Panel, Seattle WA. . • .,. .�.rair.V.,+VL'•t1.7.,R,:".T:ta:=27WliN; ik7i1 .:^,�C.�u�Valsratuazmo,»ro.....�.._.. 11 J King County Office of Open Space Parks Division Parks, Planning, and Resources Department Smith Tower 506 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 296-7800 Room 708 February 14, 1997 Mr. John Jimerson AICP Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila , Washington 98188 Norfolk Sediment Cleanup Affidavit of Installation and Posting of Public Information Signs Dear Mr. Jimerson: Enclosed please find the required affidavit of installation for the Land Use Notice sign for the Norfolk Sediment Cleanup project shoreline permit application. Please contact me at 296-7816 with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Larry lingto Senior Real Property Agent C7J. ge,9 RECEIVED FEB 1 8 1997 D 0 Pivl'i" ✓1� mil. •e�1 "� CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 AFFIDAVIT OF 1NSTALLATI0N AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I t�-K C- 1--x-1 �4 (Print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requles me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on (A-1 4 17 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at K., u. 4j 9f 3; )62- so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to property for application file number T7 'T f —c=c.-5c=1 2.. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /y day mac. :;,161",,, /%11, / ,y �I 'NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington u� . 1,� ' * residing at 4/9c, � r,. �/(.%x� �,: �'� ' ; o;= vl commission expires on 3- '/- "vim kVi , W\ SN��_ ffiant (Applicant W re JU; 0c). o our Lux. J f" W O° g J' u.¢ - d FW.. F- O zI ILI La U W W!. 1— U U N: F O O • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION February 3, 1997 Larry Ellington King County Water Pollution Control Exchange Building, M/S 120 821 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 RE: ,Norfolk CSO Sediment Clean Upf(139740,00111 Dear Mr. Ellington: Your application for the Norfolk CSO Sediment Clean Up project located within the Duwamish River has been found to be complete on February 3, 1997, for the purpose of permit streamlining time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). You can obtain a laminated Notice of Application from DCD to post on the board. It will be available in the will -call box at the DCD Permit Counter. But first, you need to let me know in advance what date you will be posting the sign. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. If you need additional information, feel free to call me at 431 -3663. Sincerely, Joh :Jimerson As •�ciate Planner cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Gary.Schulz, DCD Nick Olivas, Fire Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (2061 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 :-,� „1a?�,. N.T-a i�r.- r.,.a:. t e 4�riit +�N•e �f:ilYtiL �.�J i:F r+,1S�'J� t%ri}:T ,it K Fs� {fit` :tcia�£7�h'fai:•iFlil:V](. dt'n�WfY,�yR412 %'s'a.;).o Gasfil4vti, m.L L:4Sfi vlyJ LS+l. Date: 31- Jan -97 12:26:29 From: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERSC To: JOANNA,PHIL Copies -to: GARY - SCHULZ Subject: NORFOLK CSO NEWS FLASH Message -id: F5E4F 13201000000 Application -name: MHS Joanna and Phil... Larry Ellington left me a voice mail saying he has talked to Ecology today and that the consent decree that they are working under is not pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act. He is doing more research to make sure that is the case. If so, then the project IS subject to a shoreline permit after all. Thus, your comments on completeness of application are still over due. Please get to me ASAP. John JDL t. :CO 11J,••• W o, LL Q: 'F- W _•. or— H;• O. W • W:. �W W LL O. , Date: 30- Jan -97 09:05:23 From: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERS To: GARY- SCHULZ,PHIL,JOANNA,JACK Subject: Norfolk CSO clean up Message -id: 5364F03201000000 Application -name: MHS Gary, Jack, Phil and Joanna - Larry Ellington of King Co. believes the Norfolk CSO clean up is pursuant to Model Toxics Control Act and will provide me with a copy of the consent decree. As such, the project is exempt from the permitting requirements of the SMA, but still subject to the substantive requirements. If you have any shoreline issues they need to comply with, please let me know no later than Feb 5., OTHERWISE I will assume you have concluded the project complies with the substantive requirements of the King County Shoreline Master Program. Gary - I asked Larry Ellington if the dewatering will release contaminants back into the river. He said no, that the PCB's are not soluble and they bind with the sediments. John Uae'�t)Xi:P..C4h1 f:n 41' z wi. n U o:.• • CF cn'wI w = u. o. J; IL Qi =a F-w; z�; ;0 =: • •w w ;LL � z}• • King County Water Pollution Control Division Department of Natural Resources 821 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA 4 ri t 0 J taw v PERMIT CENTER DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) TITLE OF PROPOSAL: Norfolk Sediment Remediation Project DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The King County Water Pollution Control Division proposes to remove contaminated sediments from the Duwamish River off the Norfolk Combined Sewer Overflow outfall. Contaminants include mercury, 1,4- dichlorobenzene, bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate, and PCBs. About 7200 cubic yards of sediment will be mechanically • dredged from the river bottom and disposed of in approved landfills, by incorporation in concrete or by other approved means. This volume includes 2400 cubic yards of contaminated sediments plus some underlying sediments. The dredged sediments will be transported by barge and truck or rail. Following dredging about 7200 cubic yards of clean sediment will be deposited at the site as backfill. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: The proposal is located in the channel of the Duwamish River in the City of Tukwila, a short distance downstream from the South 102nd Street bridge. PROPONENT AND LEAD AGENCY: King County Department of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control Division The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. p There is no comment period for this DNS. ® This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11 -340 (2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 21 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by November 21, 1996: Submit comments to Greg Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Section, 821 Second Ave., MS 120, Seattle, WA 98104 -1598. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Maureen Welch POSITION/TITLE: Acting Manager, King County Water Pollution Control Division ADDRESS: 821 Second Avenue MS 81; Seattle, Washington 98104 DATE November 1 1996 SIGNATURE /-&'m `- e1416, If you have questions about the procedures for SEPA appeals, please contact Wesley Sprague at (206) 684 -1169. This information is available on request in accessible formats for people with disabilities by calling (206) 684 -2084 (voice) or by calling (206) 689 -3413 (TDD). CLEAN WATER — A SOUND INVESTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Norfolk Sediment Remediation Project z = z'. 2. Name of applicant: re 2; King County Department of Natural Resources p N° 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: w =; co King County Department of Natural Resources lu o! Water Pollution Control Division 821 Second Avenue, MS 120 Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 u a, v. . CONTACT: Wesley Sprague F TELEPHONE: (206) 684 -1169. ? t 1- z�: 4. Date checklist prepared: w w, 2 ° November 1, 1996 ° 5. Agency requesting checklist: 'w w King County Department of Natural Resources o. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): `� �,. Dredging and backfilling activity is scheduled to begin in December 1997, and z will be completed in approximately seven weeks. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal.? If yes, explain. Yes, the Norfolk Sediment Remediation Project is part of the Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program. Other sites have also been identified for sediment remediation in the future (see the "Concept Document" referenced below "). King County is involved in combined sewer overflow (CSO) control throughout its wastewater system. Flow reduction was implemented at the Norfolk CSO, which will minimize the potential for recontamination at the project site. Future management of CSO flows will also attempt to minimize recontamination of the site. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Concept Document, Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program, Panel Publication 7 ". 1994 1 .. �. u;: ° viii =io., ix v;.mv`.,i.«..• .:::...: ......_��,. ..v ... -.... .....<.,.. .v. rmtfr,' .A`Sh1GI;'itn'ir4itt;'<AT:W ;,' +kti:g- AF:;n'i3'i{`F.ritq.. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Norfolk CSO Sediment Cleanup Study, Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program ". October 1996. A NEPA Environmental Assessment will be prepared for the project in late 1996. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Z a X t'. III' re 2 •J 0 0 O; No. I ma Ill 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your N proposal, if known. w O The following permits and approvals will be required for the proposed project: g a • City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit = 3 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit I-- _: • Washington State Department of Natural Resources Right of Entry ? Agreement z o • Washington State Department of Ecology Section 401 Water Quality w w. Certification D o: • Washington State Department of Ecology Temporary Exceedance of ;8 c_n Water Quality Standards Approval .0 1--; • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project w w Approval 1- p., • Property Agreement with Boeing for Sediment Remediation within the • ` 0; Duwamish River .ii Z O z Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description). This project is proposed under the Elliott Bay /Duwamish Restoration Program (EBDRP). EBDRP is a cooperative, intergovernmental program established under a consent decree to help restore and replace natural resources injured by pollution in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River. The proposal is to mechanically dredge approximately 2,400 cubic yards of contaminated sediment at the Norfolk Project site. Sediment sampling at the site identified four chemicals in exceedance of the state Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) : mercury, 1,4- dichlorobenzene, bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate, PCBs. Approximately 300 cubic yards of sediment in the project area was identified with PCB concentrations that exceed the federal hazardous materials threshold of 50 mg /Kg (ppm). Sediment will be excavated to the minimum depth necessary to remove the contaminated material, which is estimated to be approximately two feet. To 2 L:r.. w: wr5_;: w' i,:+%;: !7;'.:a;.C��1t,"iiilM,"'a`d`t". �r�'v�t'.^a3i�i« `, Rti!Y5i'SE¢t -,y.� ensure all contaminated material is removed, an additional foot of depth (overdepth) will be taken which increases the total volume of excavated material to approximately 7,200 cubic yards (in an area of about three quarters of an acre). Dredging will be accomplished using a clamshell dredge operated from a floating barge. Dredging equipment may be brought upstream to the site on a barge. If there is not adequate clearance underneath the bridge downstream of the project site for the barge and dredging equipment, dredging equipment will be loaded onto the barge from a staging area. The proposed staging area is a Boeing Company parking lot on the south side of the river. If this area is not available, another, similar site will be used. Several piles will be driven in the river bank to provide a tie -up area for the barge and provide support for the temporary ramp that will placed between the top of the bank and the barge. The crane with clamshell dredge will be driven onto the barge from the staging area. Dredged sediment will be deposited on a second barge for dewatering and transport. Dewatering of the dredged sediment will take place entirely on the barge. A rehandling site downstream of the project site (not yet identified) will be used to transfer the sediment to Tined trucks or containers for transport. Contaminated materials with PCB concentrations exceeding 50 mg /Kg are regulated by the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Sediments with PCB concentrations above this threshold will be disposed of at the TSCA approved hazardous waste landfill in Arlington, Oregon. Sediments with PCB concentrations between 20 and 50 ppm will be disposed of at a fully permitted Subtitle D landfill (a municipal solid waste landfill, which is permitted to accept non - hazardous materials). Non - contaminated material and material with PCB concentrations below 20 ppm will be disposed of at a Subtitle D Landfill, or transported to Holnam Cement Plant where the dredged material will be used to create cement through a rotary kiln process (which is approved for processing these types of materials). After dredging, the site will be backfilled with clean fill material. This fill material will be loaded onto a barge and hauled to the project site where the material will be deposited to the excavated area using a crane with clamshell. The fill material will be clean aquatic sediment if available. If such sediment is not available, clean sediment from an upland site might be utilized. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project site is located just offshore of the Norfolk Combined Sewer Overflow outfall in the Duwamish River, near South 102nd Street in the City of 3 z i •'. w` ce 00: N U) w J F, wO • ¢: • d U.1. Z �. i-0 z- � 0, O 1- w w LL Z Cu co o'' Tukwila (see attached area and site maps). This is approximately 6 miles upstream from the mouth of the river. The site is in Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The project site is located within the channel of the Duwamish River. b. What is the steepest slope on the site? (approximate percent slope)? The site slopes gently towards the center of the river channel, dropping about 8 feet over a 100 foot distance extending offshore. c. What general types of soils are found on the site? (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The sediment is mostly fine sand with some clay and silt. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The river's sediments fluctuate with the movement of the river. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site will be backfilled with approximately 7,200 cubic yards of clean fill material after dredging. The fill material will be loaded onto a barge and hauled to the project site where it will be deposited in the excavated area using a_crane with clamshell. The fill material will be obtained from a clean dredging project such as maintenance dredging if available. If such sediment is not available, clean sediment from an upland site might be utilized. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Dredging activity could cause sediment suspension and dispersion in the river. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed project will not involve creating any impervious surfaces. 4 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Clean sediment will be deposited (backfilled) at the site to replace the dredged contaminated sediment. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile emissions, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During dredging and the transport of dredged and backfill material, emissions will occur from the crane, tugboats, trucks and workers' vehicles. Emissions will consist of fossil fuel combustion by- products and will have a very minor impact on local air quality. No emissions to the air will result from the completed project. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed.measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None are proposed. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, or wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The project site is located within the channel of the Duwamish River, upstream of the dredged Duwamish Shipping Waterway. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The proposed project will involve mechanical dredging within the channel of the Duwamish River. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 5 „Esc,,..W-.,..�.e+no.ir..wr.rtn v�V" t+? x�uh�M r td: r • Approximately 7,200 cubic yards of sediment will be dredged from the project site, an area of approximately three quarters of an acre in size. Approximately 7,200 cubic yards of clean fill material will be utilized to backfill the excavated area to the preexisting elevations. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. The site is in the channel of the Duwamish River. 6). Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Dredging activity could cause sediment suspension and dispersion of a minimal amount of contaminated sediment in the river. The sediment used for backfilling could be considered waste material generated by dredging activities; however it will be uncontaminated. The volume of backfill will be approximately 7,200 cubic yards. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 6 z -z re 2 6D. .J U.O; CO ■ w; W =, LL w o: ga' u. Q. Y.? o 1-w z�' Z O 2 U ,A, O F-; w w Oi u_ O_ ui z. U N' z The project site is located within the channel of the Duwarnish River. Dredged sediment will be placed on flat -top barges to dewater before being transported and loaded into sealed shipping containers. The water from the sediment will drain back to the river. Drain openings on the barge will be covered with hay bales and construction filter fabric to filter out contaminated sediment particulates so they do not drain back into the river. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Dredging will cause some sediments to enter the water column. This could lead to some dispersion of contaminants if the sediments are moved by the river's currents. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff impacts, if any: See discussion of measures proposed to minimize contaminant dispersion under item 7.a.2. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other x other types of vegetation: blackberries b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? No vegetation will be removed or altered during dredging and backfilling. Some vegetation on the south bank of the river may be disturbed if the clamshell crane is driven onto the barge from the staging area. Vegetation that is removed or disturbed will be restored following completion of the project. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the project site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 7 • z a 21 w JU :U o; :CO v) W w z; W o` J' ¢; v' -W z �. �o w ,W w; 1-U 0 ;u .. , l.. Z: UN z • None proposed. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ducks, gulls mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: steelhead. Sediment sampling in the project area indicated the presence of various benthic (sediment - dwelling) organisms which are a food source for salmon. z w WM JU �'Ao. w 0 w= CO Li. w 0l N =. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near w the site. z� o' No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the z 1: w w.. project site. 2 D: C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. o ='. Both adult and juvenile salmon migrate past the site. x v, d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: — o; uiz: . u) The project will be completed during the salmon non -fish run "window" _':. (time period when no major fish runs take place). o Removal of the contaminated sediments will have beneficial long -term impacts on all species that frequent the Duwamish River. Contaminated sediments can have adverse biological effects on aquatic life. Sublethal effects including impaired reproduction, reduced growth and reduced resistance to disease, may occur from exposure to contaminated sediments. Removal of existing sediments may have short -term adverse impacts on benthic organisms. Benthic organisms in these sediments will be destroyed by dredging. Backfilling will restore the site to pre - contamination slopes and pre- contamination habitat characteristics. Benthic organisms should reoccupy the site fairly rapidly after backfilling is complete. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, woodstove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No energy will be used following completion of the project. ';.% ic;>:; St�k.. iYrd.' t'' �wres�EC: 4:{' vwLU> S: �S: r�s�i' tir;cic3'al�L'x; :ri•:.ei:•arSr' 8 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kind of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Dredging activity may result in the dispersion of some contaminated sediments. During dredging and rehandling of sediment, workers could come in contact with contaminants. Contaminated materials with PCB concentrations exceeding 50 mg /Kg are regulated by the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Sediments above this threshold will be disposed of at the TSCA approved hazardous waste landfill in Arlington, Oregon. Sediments with PCB concentrations between 20 and 50 ppm will be disposed of at a fully permitted Subtitle D landfill. Non - contaminated material and material with PCB concentrations below 20 ppm will be disposed of at a Subtitle D Landfill, or transported to Holnam Cement Plant where the dredged material will be used to create cement through a rotary kiln process. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The project itself is a proposed measure to reduce an environmental health hazard. Certain pollutants currently in the sediments at the project site may pose a risk to human health. If the sediments remained at the site, adverse human health effects could occur through bodily contact, ingestion of water or sediment, or the consumption of seafood exposed to particular contaminants. Sediment suspended in the water during dredging may spread contamination if sediments are moved by the river's currents. Dredging methods and timing that will minimize this effect are proposed and the nature of the project environment helps minimize dispersion as well. A clamshell dredge is proposed. This type of dredge minimizes dispersion of sediments. 9 z F- Z w U O :. CO 0 COw LU X: -J w O;. L Q.. i d_ w. z �; �o z F- LU uj O �, :0 H ul • z'. W; U =' o''. z b. Water depth at the site is shallow, ranging from no water coverage at higher locations during low tides up to about 17 feet at the deepest parts of the site during the highest tides. This shallowness will help minimize dispersion of sediments because most clumps of sediment that are put into the water column by the dredge will not be transported far downstream before settling to the bottom. In addition to these factors dredging will occur during the winter w dredging window which coincides with the winter flood season. . �. This dredging window was established for regulatory purposes - ' because during this time of year there is minimal use of the river by O important salmonid species. During this period there is typically Lu high river flow and high turbidity. Consequently whatever sediments are put into suspension by the dredging will not add y u. noticeably to the turbidity already present in the river. In addition, w o the high flow volume at this time of year will quickly dilute the concentration of any contaminants suspended in the water column a. down to very low levels. a, F w. E-0 uj z�- C). C.) -. I 0 - w w. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your o: project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? w N_ o/- z During dredging and rehandling of sediment, workers could come in contact with contaminants. Appropriate health and safety procedures will be implemented to minimize this risk. Sediments will be transported in lined leak -tight dump trucks or rail cars to approved landfills and /or the cement manufacturing facility. Noise The project site is located in an industrial area. Background noise levels in the vicinity of the project site are characteristic of a commercial /industrial area. Predominant sources of noise include automobile and airplane traffic, and noise generated by commercial /industrial activities. The project will not be affected by existing noise levels. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Dredging activity will have short -term impacts on noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project. Dredging equipment will generate noise levels of approximately 75 -85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Dredging will be conducted during normal daytime working hours (7 a.m. to 5 p.m.). 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None proposed. The project site is located in an industrial area where noise generated by project activities will not be very noticeable. 10 .,!.'. isi?: e,..,.::;;:} ".. ic. ••iiac}'i.'sst6lii.4u."::;�cG >, ::b:;t,nt' rut+ bwr,:. ic'' th ;liciti6;Y�?is,�•..��— _�•,�:�W �i(Jyi�:• 8. Land and Shoreline Use ,.Ll iri$ xiiJw "::iu:'tiL.Lf }.§E::ee ^'•b. :dldy '.Sc'nu,.,.W a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is within the channel of the Duwamish River. A Boeing Company facility and parking lot is located north of the project site. To the south, on the opposite side of the river, is another parking lot for the Boeing facility. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. • c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is currently zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center, Heavy (MICH). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation of the site is MICH. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The current shoreline master program designation is Urban. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. j• No. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None.. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 11 :is±iwWLS.;:s�..'rs.Fs- �zL`::i :sh.Y;:;k: r:'•,_ iw z mow` 0 J` CO 11. wO u_< d, . z H O'i z�-, 0 0, ;O 01 wW. I V± ��; o; wz UN Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None proposed. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate • whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennae; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? No structures are proposed. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or blocked? Dredging equipment will be visible from both sides of the river and to boats in the river channel during the project. c. Proposed measures to reducwor control aesthetic impacts, if any: None proposed. 11. Light and Glare. a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light and glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? There will be no light or glare from the finished project. c. What existing off -site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? 12 • .. '0, .: y'.:::u�i�':eit r^ su •'ti3s:an:iG:� "a'i4�. "n�"�;•x`uk inur37s':�a4;� e+e yz,.... w. *.. None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. z HZ 12. Recreation — 2. . designated and informal recreational o ortunities are in the o a. What desig pp � o immediate vicinity? cn w • w s, The Duwamish River is utilized for tribal and recreational fishing at ' N certain times of the year. In addition there is a recreational trail located w o; across the river from the site. 2_; g J.. b.. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational ". �. uses? If so, describe. I d: w. A portion of the river may be unavailable to boat traffic during dredging :? �` activity. . tii o` w us c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, D o including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or 0 co o — applicant, if any: .o E-t Dredging activity will be conducted during the salmon non -fish run -`: "window" (time period when no major fish runs take place), which will — o minimize impacts to tribal and recreational fishing. ,,.,''' Z If the staging area is in the parking lot south of the project site, the o l'; recreational trail will be temporarily impacted when dredging equipment z loaded onto the dredging barge from the south river bank. Disruption of trail use will be very brief and there is ample room for trail users to detour around the staging area. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No historic or cultural resources listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers are known to be on or near the project site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known to exist on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: `>�,5..� ✓:s'r7r `. s' si�c�. x:• ti :sh...r,,.,sa.,..._...�..,x_.�. 13 n ro uxq !7oa' ;:aZ'44AV$27"TiQh771�57, None proposed. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. There is no direct street access to the project site. The closest street is South 104th Street located northeast of the Norfolk outfall. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The dredging equipment will be on a barge and the dredged sediment will be placed on a second barge for transport downstream. Some sediments may be transported by rail car. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. No vehicular trips will be generated by the completed project. If the sediments are transported by truck, approximately 360 one -way truck trips will be generated. Truck trips will originate from a not -yet identified rehandling site near the Duwamish Waterway downstream of the project site. Trucks will follow major arterials and highways to the maximum extent practicable. Truck traffic from the project will be typical of traffic in this highly industrialized area. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None proposed. 14 �,..,.• :.: '^z - .: •.• -�`i �ti tX:. 45r�w�f. StfS"a�t::;i4F'�'atv�;r<i'�::k �•. �-�tr�sath.. z JV co fn Wy W =` H LL+ W o: Y2 a �_.. z� H 0. Z ILI mi. ocry o W W, ,�o z iui co; z 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Not applicable. ' 16. Utilities a. Circle the utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. The project site is located in the channel of the Duwamish River close to King County's Norfolk CSO outfall. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No utilities are proposed for the project. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. m atA4& Signature: Date Submitted: 1" -24 -96 g: \data\worddoc\norfchck.doc 15 :. 140! ci. r' u` �w�+ utim' ci..; siiwi4Li:"'•. 5�.:' J. t�: i,: u, L':t.4C'Ia- :.s'3r_�:.:r.;.,F.a. ,.{....,,✓ • Northwest Auto Wrecking (approx) „ ... oein ... .... ,,.„, .. . ... . 1-5 storm drain ' -- Future trail link to • , • Green River trail Future viewpoint/ typical 3 places TP1072.3/95 R1 Sources: USGS, 1973; USGS, 1983; Tanner, 1991; Boeing 1994 S Boeing Yellow Freight —.terminal (approx) Figure 1. Norfolk Area Map .-w.sen....sonisairtromtkvirwirp7OYMiAVVraiiiffimiimmvoritni. visgmciairimmitraw'54,-;54.PAVRat‘.ailiiiin,WialfP.MitirffIlM7S51,. z re Lu2: 6D' 00: 111: ' CO Lt. w 0 g u_ CO a I— LU Z I— 0 Z uf CI F- uf r= 0: co, — t r Shore 1:: , rye Management Act of 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT File Number: L97 -0001 Status: APPROVED Applied: 01/08/1997 Approved: 04/18/1997 Expiration: 04/18/1999 Pursuant to RCW 90.58. a permit is hereby granted to: LARRY ELLINGTON to undertake the following development: REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT FROM RIVERBANK upon the following property: Address: 9905 EAST MARGINAL WY Si Parcel No: 000340 -0018 Sec /Twn /Rnge: NE 4/23N/4E THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE WITHIN THE AREA OF THE GREEN RIVER AND ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS. WHICH IS A 'SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE AND IS DESIGNATED AS AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. The following master program provisions are applicable to this development: 54, oirh lVttS16' Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the attached`terrms.and conditions. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 an nothing' in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other Federal, :State or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to. this project, but not inconsistent with.the Shoreline Management.ACt (Chapter 90.58 RCW). This permi:t.may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the terms or conditions hereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS' NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL TWENTY -ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173 -14 -090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN TWENTY -ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SLICH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; E\(CEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c). Date: 1S,I041 .P1 teve Lancaster Director, Planning Department Construction or substantial progress toward construction must begin within two years from date of issuance, per WAC 173 -14 -060. . �'r��._ .' �: t7, �.:+ �k; �' �: �; .Ei:;nt.•s:�"�s'c"scae�'i't�;2" tv"„��k:��k»•`.��i»+ CITY OF TUKWILA Address: 9905 EAST MARGINAL WY S Permit No: L97 -0001 Suite: Tenant: NORFOLK CSO SEDIMENT CLEAN -UP Status: APPROVED Type: P -SHORE Applied: 01/08/1997 Parcel # 000340 -0018 Issued: 04/18/1997 * ; t• k• k******** * ***************•k******* ****** k k** k***** k*** k:k•k•k•k•k*•k•k•k k******** Permit Conditions: 1. No stockpiling of dredged or replacement material shall occur below the Ordinary High Water Mark. 2. Prior to commencing work, a plan for staging of materials and equipment shall be provided to DCD for review and approval. The plan shall identify how shoreline users, including the recreation trail on. the Oxbow site will be impacted and how those impacts will be mitigated. .=; ?�.= ,"':•�.,.s.+�- .�..}..,w u.sR.n,.•iriaxewaze5 ='� -"i•Sxrir%a¢v,.svu+rr « r . enm aMWV .M; >v' k4idi "' z mow, ug 00' N 0; rn w: wI _1 �... . w g J u.Q co d Z �...` 0! Z ww D ; oF- :w W` O' - _. 0 f-, z 1 CITY OF TL :WILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (P- SHORE) APPLICATION I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OFPROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: NORFOLK CSO SEDIMENT CLEAN -UP B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREETADDRESS:In Duwamish River near 9905 E. Marginal Way S. ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 000340 -0018 & 042304 -9150 (Boeing) and State owned aquatic lands LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Duwamish River Quarter: NE Section: 4 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: LARRY ELLINGTON, KING COUNTY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION ADDRESS: Exchange Bldg., M/S 120, 821 2nd Ave., Seattle, 98104 PHONE: 684 -1731 SIGNATURE: DATE: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 0oTC o PERMIT CENTER .,..r„ ..;:.s. ,:i�.;,;:, " >= °fa.:l.,�.r ...;t 7. • "li ":L> - =a .•,y;i ti .1:' c 1eS ...i.,.�_�,.,__,�,s.� % 5is. ':1'�_ •...;�'.: �.....,,. .ar,;�Li`yt>`:x'trn+t sS.�r�»:..:a�:'itr�,`iiLJ5c5I L`•' `.�"F,a"+'•a/;'kiSi�i.. FOR STAFF'USE ONLY Planner:.: ,:File Number: 97. n o D ReceiptNumber: Project File #: ? £7 - :o:ooa 0 Application complete (Date: j SEPA File #: O.. Application incomplete (Date: I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OFPROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: NORFOLK CSO SEDIMENT CLEAN -UP B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREETADDRESS:In Duwamish River near 9905 E. Marginal Way S. ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 000340 -0018 & 042304 -9150 (Boeing) and State owned aquatic lands LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Duwamish River Quarter: NE Section: 4 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: LARRY ELLINGTON, KING COUNTY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION ADDRESS: Exchange Bldg., M/S 120, 821 2nd Ave., Seattle, 98104 PHONE: 684 -1731 SIGNATURE: DATE: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 0oTC o PERMIT CENTER .,..r„ ..;:.s. ,:i�.;,;:, " >= °fa.:l.,�.r ...;t 7. • "li ":L> - =a .•,y;i ti .1:' c 1eS ...i.,.�_�,.,__,�,s.� % 5is. ':1'�_ •...;�'.: �.....,,. .ar,;�Li`yt>`:x'trn+t sS.�r�»:..:a�:'itr�,`iiLJ5c5I L`•' `.�"F,a"+'•a/;'kiSi�i.. D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: . I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval), will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at (city), (state), on , 199 (Signature) (Print name) * KING COUNTY WILL SECURE AGREEMENTS WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE BOEING COMPANY TO PERFORM CLEAN —UP ACTIVITIES. Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. ADRVCKLT.DOC 7/3/96 . v' i; f,:•.. ..::(:v,n'{:: },ft,�:�:.L'.�4 -:t ^.:�r�SlN ✓�iE„E. 'k:�i�i�.'l�n +Weil. »f3�.N.ii.Li.';i�:/. 61a4a�4isLriiu� +ln•stv1i5.' >•+4,^a4'�r r ♦�rT�l ��°!'iA}?4 1 R.1..,,mFq� f'ia�Yjhii: lh:'f�F+ KMIw.. itl,14 -o -� .sw' NI.S X.' 7. MEMORANDUM July 2, 1996 TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources Elliot Bay Restoration Panel Fran Sweeney Mary Barrett whil NORFOLK OUTFALL REMEDIATION PROJECT JENNIFER M. BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands KALEEN COTTINGHAM Supervisor Since your remediation project is on State Owned Aquatic Land, the Elliot Bay Restoration Panel must get a right of entry agreement from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This agreement will allow you to dredge contaminated material and conduct future short term post remediation sampling activities. Here are the steps you need to follow in order to get your right of entry agreement. Have the entities that will be conducting the dredging and post remediation sampling fill out the enclosed application._A survey detailing the area where these activities are going to occur is a part of this application. Please pay close attention to the enclosed survey specifications to ensure that your survey is correct. A Plan of Operations discussing how, where and when dredging of contaminated materials will occur, and how, where and when post remediation sampling will occur is also needed. This Plan can be in a form as simple as a letter or memo. Finally copies of all pertaining federal, state and local permits or exemption from these permits need to be provided. Once I get all the information, I can start drafting your agreement. For your convenience I have attached the DNR's Boiler plate right of entry agreement. Everything in bold type are things I can add to the final document. The consideration for your project will be a minimum of $2,000.00. Also an insurance coverage of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 aggregate will need to be obtained. You will have a chance to • review your document before signing it. After the consideration and insurance coverage is received, the DNR will sign the document. If you have any questions about this right of entry process or document I may be reached at (360) 825 -1631. Reference Code: norfolk.mem skBarrett/sps 1 /norfolk.mem SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 28329 SE 448TH ST 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022 -0068 1 FAX: (360) 825 -1672 1 TTY: (360) 825 -6381 1 TEL: (360) 825 -1631 . 18 Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER CO z wl a QQ 2! •J U'. .0 O W icn w o' . • aa,!. Iw 1— O' Z 2D. Cl; .0 w w Wf 'u- p Z‘ . ui z E. CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTY: Manufacturing /Induwtrial Center Light F. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Duwamish River - No Improvements G. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION: • H. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: (Within 1,000 feet in all directions from the development site.) west of river: Boeing parking lot, storage yards east of river: Boeing parking lot, developmental center, storage yard 1. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST & FAIR MARKET VALUE of the proposed development: (Include additional future phases of development contemplated but not included in current proposal.) $1,000,000 J. BRIEF NARRATIVE DESCRIBING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: Remediation of contaminated sediments associated with Norfolk combined sewer overflow as required by consent decree. Excavate approx. 7,200 cubic yards; backfill with clean material. K. PORTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY ALREADY COMPLETED: (If any portion or phase of the proposed activity is already completed on subject site, indicate month and year of completion.) L. PROPOSED STARTING DATE: Dec. 97 ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: Jan 98 (If project will be constructed in stages, indicate dates:) • M. TYPE AND EXTENT OF RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVERBANK (IF ANY) AND PROPOSED RIVERBANK VEGETATION: None. Disturbed riverbank vegetation will be restored N. IF PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS, INDICATE IMPACTED AREA (acres): SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 ;W M'd:1 : LV' "N :'..� • . nor 3 TY.N.M'1kr . uv O. TYPE AND EXTENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS PROPOSED (if any): N/A P. SETBACK OF PROPOSED PARKING/LOADING /STORAGE AREAS AND PROPOSED SCREENING: (setback measured from mean high watermark.) N/A RESIDENTIAL VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY STRUCTURES OVER 35' IN HEIGHT: (In the event that any proposed buildings or structures exceed a height of 35' above average grade, indicate the approximate location of, and number of, residential units, existing and potential, that will have views of the shoreline obstructed by the proposed development.) Q. HEIGHT AND SETBACK OF ALL PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: (height measured from average grade level to the highest point of the structure, or mid -point of pitched roof; setback measured from mean high water mark) N/A . CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE REQUIRED: (If a conditional use is required, state in full that portion of the Master . Program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, if a variance is required, that portion from which the variance is being sought. . R. MEASURES PROPOSED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT IN AND ALONG RIVER: Project will be completed during non -fish run "window ", sediment remediation will have long term benefit; short -term impacts to benthic organism will be mitigated by backfilling to restore habitat characteristics I1. A. TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL SHORELINE OFFICIAL NATURE OF EXISTING SHORELINE: (Describe type of shoreline, such as stream, lake, marsh, flood plain, floodway, delta; type of beach, such as erosion, high bank, low bank or dike; 'type of material, such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, 'riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any.) . B. RESIDENTIAL VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY STRUCTURES OVER 35' IN HEIGHT: (In the event that any proposed buildings or structures exceed a height of 35' above average grade, indicate the approximate location of, and number of, residential units, existing and potential, that will have views of the shoreline obstructed by the proposed development.) C. CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE REQUIRED: (If a conditional use is required, state in full that portion of the Master . Program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, if a variance is required, that portion from which the variance is being sought. . SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 � III. OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT Indicate permits for which you have applied or will apply to the federal government, the State, City of Tukwila and other agencies; include permit application date, whether the permit is pending, approved or denied, and the permit number. ❑ Tukwila Conditional Use Permit ❑ Tukwila Variance Permit ❑ Tukwila SEPA Environmental Checklist SEPA Lead Agency: King County SEPA decision date: 11 / 1 / 96 ❑ Tukwila Design Review in Tukwila Preliminary Plat Approval © Tukwila Flood Control Zone Permit (per Flood Ord. #1462) ❑ Tukwila Storm Drainage Permit (per Ord. 1755) • Tukwila Land Altering Permit (per Ord. 1591) ❑ Archaeological Excavation Permit (WA DCD /Office of Public Archaeology) Section 106 Review (WA DCD /Office of Public ❑ Archaeology) ® Coastal Zone Management Certification (WA Dept. of Ecology) ❑ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) (WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife) Approval to Allow Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards (WA Dept. of Ecology) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination ❑ System (NPDES) Permit (WA Dept. of Ecology) (Nationwide Permit) (WA Dept. of Ecology) ® Aquatic Lease (WA Dept. of Natural Resources) in Section 401 Water Quality Certification Nationwide Permit (WA Dept. of Ecology) ❑ Section 404 or Section 10 Permit (Army Corps of Engineers) PERMIT# ❑ Other. SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 APPLICATION DATE DATE APPROVED btra ' tv-im nm a itnar0?t"F ' +°a.),.Y v'Y&:i vof,' $'E31iki :7 WA4i iCii S :{44..:63" "rr.,.'` g... til:;f 5 IV. IMPACTS ON SHORELINES POUCIES A. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT: (List the Tukwila of King County Master Prograrrysections, goals and/or policies, including page numbers, which apply.) Page 1, Goal 1, Objective 3 Page 3, Goal 2, Objective 1, Policy 6 Page 4, goal 2 (cont), Objective 3, Policy 2 Page 5, goal 2 (cont), Objective 6, policy 1 & 2 Page 9, goal 4 (conservation) Objective 4, Policy 1, 2 & 4 B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES APPLICABLE TO PROJECT: (List the Comprehensive Plan sections, goals and/or policies, including page numbers, which apply.) A. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8; C.3 V. SHORELINES DESIGN POUCIES All projects in the Shoreline Zone must be consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program policies (or King County's Shoreline Master Program if project located north of the 42nd Avenue bridge). In addition, all structures requiring a building permit (except single family development of 4 or fewer Tots) located in the Shoreline Zone must undergo design review with the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (BAR). The BAR's decision is based on design guidelines contained in the Zoning Code (TMC 18.60.050) and the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (see DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION). The SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES and Comprehensive Plan's SHORELINE DESIGN POLICIES are summarized below. Note that more than one category may apply. In some cases, the goal for the use or area is noted to provide context for the design policies. NOTE: a) If your project requires a building permit you must meet additional criteria in DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION. b) If your project requires a variance, you must meet additional criteria in VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION. c) If your project requires a conditional use permit, you must meet additional criteria in CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION. TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES (King County shoreline policies follow) A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT 1. Commercial /industrial development along the shorelines should not favor outside interests at the expense of the local population. 2. Locate commerciaVdevelopment in areas with low potential for recreation or other public uses. 3. Preference should be given to commerciaVindustrial development that will provide an opportunity for a substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline. SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 ;vow Vo413.1.3W ak"�C• ,r4X1. AVMNIVM 03a3A00 ean3 AVMN1VM 0383A03 (M11N1). NOI1VA313 ean3L9 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N m 10 ^f N O m CO Y N 0 N f ,O CO (M11W) NOI1VA313 0 0 CO 0 0 Y 0 N O _ m 0 uD O ^Y 0 0 0 O W J U HORIZONTAL I VERTICAL SCALE 1- cc d ▪ m W m d. did •ICO O t YW V� O Y� IL I • uu. F 0 KC z, CO W W 0 CC W O w Zz O Q o 0 fr Z 0 PERMIT CENTER tr?ijilklL"�`i. ed't?did'x'1f:4 t�kh?:a::'ii414'. 'ze3;'1s;, -1 'iF46;i"r'�� S riiKi1`i543k' irk+,{ i'! A- "'tli4ueitiYti4t..1\ 4.'t3 rm»-'liigzo g • • ccW' • Vp t N� W =' J W p' • LL < •H • Z H.' .Rai Ip N :Z lJJ °- H U, • W ✓ .p~ z m J O C/ 0 aFacc 2 tn Z >w O y F� O CC¢Iwil >Z 53 co cm r5 x� 252 I� U K U ce a � S= 3 as 1 PR 10 1 0 m csi I— 1— OZ w a Z -o xcc r,5 w U z az - O 35 05 w 1- z w t.l z 0 z w 1— 0.00' -MEAN LOWER LOW WATER C N N CO ID ♦ N O (MI1W) NOI1VA313 N f tO EO CO tO N O I 1 I 1 O 30N3d — eano FLLVd " / /\ / (Z) ONllld \ \ v/ AaVaOd1131 \� \/ 0 O - M ~Z w Ea8 Z o ao. w x J .0 W O Q w cc 0w cc 0 Q Z O z w Jz �o E5 /w \ i - Z \ AVM)IVM 03213A00 y 2 o eano e" c I 9 wZ N N X w 0 Z IY w 1- O 0 z lXw o5 I— 0 O w o� 0 0 - ID - N - 8 — co e 0 - N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO tO N 0 CO tO Y N 0 N Y ID CO 1 I I (MIIW) NOLLVA313 O 0 m 5 = W ¢O U N- O') C 03 PERMIT CENTER z 6 .J U; U O? W W CO W0 J' F- W: 1- 0 W W U O co /NI / CU co, z File: •L9-7 ODD I mm Drawing#