The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-13-87 - US SPRINT - FIBEROPTIC CABLE (UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY)U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS LAYING FIBEROPTIC CABLE FOR LONG DISTANCE COMMUNICATION UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY EPIC -13 -87 ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 41ai1 Stop PV- 17 • Olympia. Washington 98504-8711 • ( '0h) 459-60)0 September 4, 1987 Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Re: City of Tukwila Permit #87 -5 -SMP U.S. Sprint Communications Co. - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #590 -14 -7184 The subject shoreline permit was received by this office on September 3, 1987. The review period will not begin until we receive a complete filing of the following material as stated in WAC 173 -14 -090: 1) SEPA compliance. Although your cover letter showed it was enclosed, it was omitted from the package. Please send us the needed material within 30 days from the date of this letter. If we do not hear from you within this time we will return this permit to you. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Karen M. Beatty Shorelands Management Section (206) 459 -6771 cc: U.S. Sprint Communications Co. ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000 L[ AU 20 19871 CITY OF UKWILA PLANNING D PT. August 25, 1987 Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: iVT'hank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the laying of a fiber -optic cable by d S. S rint_CommunJcatons�° Com an -T We reviewed the environ- u.�.® P P . Y . m.en_t.a=l, che.cklistand have the following comments. The proposed project must comply with the goals and standards of the local shoreline master program. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Linda Rankin of the Shorelands Division at (206) 459 -6763. BJR: cc: Linda Rankin Sincerely, Barbara J. itchie Environmental Review Section WAC 197 -11 -970 Description of Proposal DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Laying a fiberoptic cable for long distance communication. Proponent U.S. Sprint Communications Co. Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way with the City of Tukwila Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -13 -87 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. (� There is no comment period for this DNS 10 This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by August 27. 1987 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard T 9 -. 88 12:11110011r Date Z Signature You may apol this determination to the y Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be . required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS ILA 1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (208) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanOusen, Mayor TU BRANDT GUTURMUTH - METRO ADDRESS 821 Second Avenue MS -81 ATTENTION Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING Q Attached Q Under separate cover COPIES DESCRIPTION COMMENTS d M DATE REGARDING LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL August 7, 1987 EPIC -13 -87 and 87 -5 -SMP U.S. SPRINT rnMMINTCATIQNS XVn . . 5)1r/A- THESE ARE TRANSMITTED Q For approval Q For review and comment Q For your use and information Q As requested Q Other SIGNED MOIRA CARR BRADSHAW (LOT /50) TO: BRANDT GUTERMUTH METRO 821 Second Avenue MS -81 Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 TO City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. Washington 98188 (0) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL JIM HAWTHORN ADDRESS METRO, EXCHANGE BUILDING 821 Second Avenue MS -65 SEATTLE, WA 98104 -1598 ATTENTION DATE August 6, 1987 REGARDING EPIC -13 -87 and 87 -5 -SMP U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING El Attached Q Under separate cover COPIES DESCRIPTION Environmental Checklist and Maps. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED Q For approval Q For review and comment Q For your use and information Q As requested Q Other COMMENTS I have also notified Mark Heidecki of G.E. Raleigh Associates. Inc.. Dro.iect contact,and suggested that he contact you regarding any conflicts between utility lines. CITY OF TUKWILA 8200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433-1800 SIGNED MOIRA CARR BRADSHAW (LOT /50) TO: METRO EXCHANGE BUILDING 821 Second Avenue MS -65. Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 Attn: Jim Hawthorn CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( )U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( ) Federal Highway Administration ( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X) WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department ( ) Department of Fisheries ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency ( )Dept. of Social and Health Services "(> Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division -')<)Dept. of Ecology, SEPA Division * ( )Department of Game ( )Office of Attorney General * Send checklist with all determinations KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Dept. of Planning & Community Devel. ( ) Fire District 18 ( ) Boundary Review Board ( ) Health Department ( ) South Central School District ( ) Tukwila Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Washington Natural Gas ( ) Water District 75 ( ) Seattle Water Department ( ) Group W Cable ( ) Kent Planning Department ( ) Tukwila Board of Adjustment ( ) Tukwila Mayor Tukwila City Departments: ( ) - Public Works ( ) - Parks and Recreation ( ) - Police ( ) Fire ( ) - Finance ( ) - Planning /Building ( )Fire District 1 ( )Fire District 24 ( )Building & Land Development Division - SEPA Information Center SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )Highline School District ( )King County Public Library ( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library UTILITIES ( )Puget Sound Power & Light ( )Val -Vue Sewer District ( )Water District 20 ( )Water District 25 )Water District 125 ( Union Pacific Railroad CITY AGENCIES ,, (Renton Planning Department ( Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Council Members: ( )- Edgar Bauch ( )- Marilyn Stoknes ( )- Joe Duffie ( )- Mabel Harris ( )- Charlie Simpson ( )- Jim McKenna ( )- Wendy Morgan OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Council of Government(PSCOG) ( )METRO Environmental Planning Division ( ) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Office /Industrial 10,000 gsf or more ( ) Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce Residential 50 units or more Retail 100,000 gsf or more MEDIA ( ) Daily Journal of Commerce ( ) Renton Record Chronicle ( )Highline Times ( )Seattle Times f , , Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 August 5, 1987 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Application File No: 87- 5 -SMP4 U. S. Sprint Communciations- Company Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Metro staff has reviewed the above referenced propsoal and wish to offer comments regarding probable adverse impacts to its wastewater facilities and water quality program. We note that the proposed development of a fiber optic cable system may conflict with Metro's wastewater facilities within the project area. (Please contact Jim Hawthorn at '84 -1303 n this subject) . / k • 62' 6 Water Quality We recommend that precautions and appropriate mitigation measures should be taken in order to minimize adverse environment impacts on the Green River and its associated wetlands. Additionally, appropriate setbacks from these water bodies may be required. We would like to review specific project locations and site details in order to make detail evaluation of the proposed action. For more information or questions on water quality, please contact Brandt Guternuth at 684 -1219 o �� Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:lag cc: Jim Hawthorn, Metro Brandt Gutermuth, Metro CITY OF TUKWILA CN CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC -13 -87 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: FILE TO: n BLDG ] PLNG P.W. n FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATION COMPANY LOCATION 11912 N.E. 95th St. Suite 372 Vancouver,WA FILE NO. EPIC -13 -87 98662 DATE TRANSMITTED 7/15/87 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7/22/87 STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT 42/410/14'-", jkb12Z1-11 62e/ Oa Li 71,/ me/5 fal DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CN CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC -13 -87 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: Q BLDG n PLNG P.W. n FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATION COMPANY LOCATION 11912 N.E. 95th St. Suite 372 Vancouver,WA FILE N0. EPIC -13 -87 98662 DATE TRANSMITTED 7/15/87 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7/22/87 STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT e-6-7114j DATE G / COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN EPIC -13 -87 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: OBLDG J PLNG' (i P.W. (j FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATION COMPANY LOCATION 11912 N.E..95th St. Suite 372 Vancouver,WA FILE NO. EPIC -13 -87 98662 DATE TRANSMITTED 7/15/87 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7/22/87 STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMME DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CN CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: EPIC -13 -87 FILE TO: n BLDG El PLNG [ P.W. (j FIRE n POLICE ( P & R PROJECT U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATION COMPANY LOCATION 11912 N.E. 95th St. Suite 372 Vancouver,WA FILE NO. EPIC -13 -87 98662 DATE TRANSMITTED 7/15/87 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7/22/87 STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE 7/2- a-7,2 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 . . _ CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL 'PERMIT SYSTEM CN EPIC -13 -87 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: 0 BLDG El PLNG [l P.W. FIRE n POLICE (---1 P & R PROJECT U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATION COMPANY LOCATION 11912 N.E. 95th St. Suite 372 Vancouver,WA FILE NO. EPIC -13 -87 98662 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7/22/87 RESPONSE RECEIVED DATE TRANSMITTED 7/15/87 STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ., ,. ..,.,.... ti t1� "•61 p r I7li 7 `fit .x -- ,.... ,.. -.. -� R3 y 4j3 ' 'd.r i 3° i ' 1 1:7 -13iJ I 4.)1v! ;v1 : :.. , I J. Y IN- R':::..) I-i P''9 D ' ,1 L7 n r + r, • r- .'. T. R r J The drawinixs affixe.-: h r-r,:, :, ,-, 3.1n ',•,•,:, re:i.awazi and accepted) by the 01:::/ :)i i uictkri Fire De.:. A liditi ms, cl: ::1 _':i :n .s Ji rc l3lon7 t.) t.;I•3S ) !1 _: 1/; ., .l3 ::",:it; will void t i: _ ace t..li.:_' . :ni il l . r::y;:;rc. 6 rte .psi!:« n ui i,:vi..: _1 •.::...,''irlds. 1 Fin -1I acceptance is suh c?,,; tt'_I - ..i :•.: .1- ilr,,Jec i,;n ey a represenia ive of ..113 der;..:: <<:"•:el1t DATE:.....— j-y,[3Y: /7/—h/ CITY OF TU \WiLA 573 5i5-4401 DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Ap TACK[ M JUL -8 1987 CITY OF TUJKW1LA ANN".:t°G DEPT. n -No. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: U.S. Sprint Fiber Optic Cable Project 2. Name of applicant: U.S. Sprint Communications Company 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: U.S. Spring Communications Co. 11912 N.E. 95th St., Suite 372 Vancouver, WA 98662 Contact: Mr. Mark Heidecke G.E.'Raleigh Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 25247 Portland, OR 97225 (503) 626 -6656 4. Date checklist prepared: July 8, 1987 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction activities will be completed within one month after issuance of permits. Completion of all construction activities is planned for Fall 1987. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This project is part of a 23,000 -mile nationwide telecommunication network being constructed by U.S. Sprint. Construction of the net- work is scheduled for completion within 2 to 3 years. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been pre- pared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Field surveys, reviews of existing literature, and contacts with government agencies have been conducted to obtain environmental information for the proposed project. Cultural resources specialists performed an assessment of the Washington State alignment and repeater stations for the U.S. Sprint Fiber Optic Cable project. The work was undertaken in consultation with staff of the State Office of Archeology and Historic Preserva- tion (OAHP) as well as representatives of several Indian Tribes. In additon to consultations, the assessment included a search of records on known cultural resources sites, a review of listings in the National Register of Historic Places, and a vehicular reconnaissance 1 • and on -foot survey of the project alignment. The work resulted in a report entitled, "Cultural Resources Survey for the U.S. Sprint Fiber Optic Cable Project, Eugene, Oregon to Seattle, Washington" (Heritage Research Associates, April 1987). This report, which includes an appendix containing confidential site forms and maps, has been filed With OAHP. Addendum reports on surveys of project reroutes also have been prepared and filed at OAHP. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental appro- vals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No applications pending at this time. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. No applications pending at this time. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the pro- posed 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. Section E requires a complete description of the objec- tives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The purpose of this project is to make available a high quality long distance voice and data communication transmission system to the Pacific Northwest. Fiber optics utilizes laser technology and digi- tal transmission. Project construction will utilize plowing, trenching, boring, and bridge attachment. A crawler will be used for direct burial of a 3/4- inch diameter fiber optic cable or a 3/4 inch fiber optic cable encased within a 1 -3/4 inch diameter plowable conduit. A backhoe or trencher will excavate a 1 -foot wide trench for placement of the cable or encasement of the cable in either a 2 -inch diameter PVC con- duit or a 2 -inch diameter PVC conduit encased in 3 -1/2 Bag pea gravel mix or both. The boring process for fiber optic cable placement involves boring machine installation of a 4 -inch diameter Black iron pipe to contain a PVC conduit which encases the 3/4 inch fiber optic cable. The shoreline management area crossings involved within the subject permits will be made by encasing the 3/4 inch fiber optic cable inside a 4 -inch diameter galvanized iron pipe and attaching to existing bridges. Post - construction contours will match in -situ contours. When required by the governing body, extracted materials will be disposed of in an area designated by the governing body. Replacement fill, when required by the governing body, will be of a type and from a source designated and /or approved by the governing body. • 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 application related to this checklist. See Table 1. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? See Table 2. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountain- ous, other. See Table 3. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? See Table 3. 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. Alluvial soil overlayed by crushed rock and dirt (roadbed and railroad bed material). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None of these sites show any history of soil instability. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Small quantities of non - native backfill material may be required to meet applicable construction codes at the approaches to bridges. This non - native fill will be com- pacted and graded to approximate the pre- existing grade. When required by the govern- ing body, extracted materials will be disposed of in an area designated by the governing body. Replacement fill, when required by the governing body, will be of a type and from a source designated and /or approved by the governing body. • f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g- There is a slight chance of construction - related erosion occurring at the Duwamish River crossing (MP 11.8). The cable route lies along a railroad bed with an adjacent shoulder slope of approximately 45 percent. The grade at the other site is relatively flat and therefore not susceptible to erosion. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project con- struction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Construction techniques will be used that minimize the amount of disturbance of the adjacent roadbeds and railroad beds and thus reduce the chance of construction related erosion. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construc- tion and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Project construction will result in short - term, temporary emissions from gas- and diesel - powered construction equipment. Short -term, temporary increases in airborne dust will also occur during project construc- tion. The project will not create emissions or odor once construction has been completed. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Existing off -site sources include automobile and truck traffic on adjacent roadways, train traffic on nearby railroad rights -of -way, and light industries on adjacent properties. These sources will not affect the proposed project during construction or operation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emis- sions or other impacts to air, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, there- fore no mitigation is required. 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, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. See Table 4. 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. Both of the sites are within 200 feet of the surface water bodies described in Table 4, and shown on the attached site plans. 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. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. This proposal will not require any with- drawal or diversion of surface water. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Both of the proposed sites lie within the 100 -year floodplain. However, construction will take place only on elevated roadbeds, railroad beds, and bridges. These locations appear to be above the 100 -year floodplain. 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. The proposal does not involve any discharge of waste materials to surface waters. . Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. There will be no withdrawal of, or discharge to, ground water. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applic- able), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the 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. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Unknown quantities of rainfall and runoff from adjacent roadbeds. No permanent altera- tion of existing collection or disposal methods will occur; no additional collection or disposal facilities will be required. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No waste materials will enter surface or ground waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _ decidious tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass _ pasture _ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, skunk cabbage, others _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, mil - foil, other other types of vegetation See Table 5. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? At both sites there will be small amounts of vegetation removed or altered during construc- tion. This vegetation will generally be grasses and small shrubs from the road or rail- road rights -of -way. It is anticipated that the disturbed areas will revegetate within a short period of time and that no permanent changes in vegetation type and /or quantity will occur. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered plant species in the vicinity of the shore- line management area crossings. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. It is anticipated that natural revegetation of the sites will occur within a short period of time, therefore no mitigation will be required. 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 mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other See Table 6. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered animal species in the vicinity of the shore- line management area crossings, c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Both of the proposed sites are within the migration route of anadromous salmonids. It is likely that migratory waterfowl use the Green and Duwamish Rivers as migration corri- dors. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. Project will not require use of energy or natural resources during opera- tion. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Project will not affect potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. c. What kinds 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. Not applicable. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Existing off -site sources include automobile and truck traffic on adjacent roadways, train traffic on nearby railroad rights -of -way, and light industries on adjacent properties. These sources will not affect the proposed project during construction or operation. 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. Construction equipment will cause short -term, temporary increases in noise levels during cable laying efforts. Project - related increases in noise levels are not expected to be significant relative to existing background noise levels. Noise will be generated during daylight working hours (typically 0700 to 1800 hours). Once construction is completed, the proposed pro- ject will not result in increased noise levels. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. • 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The cable will be placed along existing road- ways and /or suspended from existing bridges at both shoreline management area crossings. Land and shoreline uses in areas immediately adjacent to the shoreline management area crossings are summarized in Table 7. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No evidence of agricultural use of the pro- posed right-of-way since adjacent roads and bridges were constructed. There is no evi- dence of agricultural use on land in the immediate vicinity of the shoreline manage- ment area crossings. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures within the proposed cable route right -of -way at the shoreline management area crossings. Structures in the immediate vicinity are typical of those related to land uses noted in Table 8, and include residences, commercial structures, and industrial structures. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? See Table 8. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Comprehensive Plan designations are the same as those indicated for zoning classifications (above). Evaluation for Agency Use Only g. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? See Table 9. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. See Table 2. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? j• None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displace- ment impacts, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed project will be located entirely within existing rights -of -way, and is con- sidered an allowable use under zoning regula- tions for these areas. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Existing vegetation at some shoreline manage- ment area crossings will be temporarily disturbed, resulting in short -term aesthetic impacts. No long -term alteration of existing aesthetic conditions will occur as a result of this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. 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 or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? None. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Existing sources of light and glare include automobile and truck traffic on adjacent roadways. These sources will not affect construction or operation of the proposed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The shoreline management area crossing at MP 11.8 is located in the vicinity of Foster Golf Course, a designated recreational use. The crossings at MP 11.8 and 12.0 are located immediately north and south, respectively, of Fort Dent,Park. Potential opportunities for informal fishing exist at both water crossings. Opportunities for swimming and boating exist at these loca- tions as well. b. Would the proposed project displace any exist- ing recreational uses? If so, describe. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportun- ities to be provided by the project or appli- cant, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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. Results of the assessment in Ring County indicate that most of the cable route follows a railroad right -of -way where previous dis- turbance has resulted in a very low probabi- lity of intact cultural deposits. No significant sites were considered close enough to the cable route for any mitigation measures including archeological monitoring or cable installation. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, there- fore no mitigation is required. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See Table 10. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Public transit service does not exist directly to the shoreline management area crossings, but is available (via METRO bus lines) at distances ranging from 1.5 to 2 miles away from the crossings. • 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). None. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The proposed project will not require use of water, rail, or air transportation. The proposed shoreline management area cross- ings do not occur in areas used for water transportation. The shoreline management area crossings at MP 11.8 and 12.0 are located approximately 5 miles east of Seattle - Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac), 3.5 miles south of Ring County International Airport (Boeing Field), and 3 miles west of the Renton Municipal Airport. The BNSF Burlington Northern and Union Pacific (former Milwaukee Road) railroad lines are located immediately adjacent to the crossings at MP 11.8 and 12.0. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The completed project will not generate vehi- cular traffic on a daily basis. Occasional traffic may be generated on an infrequent basis in the event of cable repairs or during surveys to verify cable location prior to construction in the area. Evaluation for Agency Use Only g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. 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. None. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. In general, utility services such as power, water, and telephone are available in the immediate vicinity of both shoreline manage- ment area crossings. Service hook -ups have not been extended directly to shoreline management area crossing locations, since they occur along rights -of -way rather than specific parcels of land proposed for devel- opment. 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. None. • • 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. Signature: / 4414 /f Date Submitted: 7!407 Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This infor- mation provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive infor- mation, studies, etc. 1) What are the objectivets) of the proposal? The purpose of the U.S. Sprint Fiber Optic Cable Project is to make available a high - quality long distance voice and data com- munication transmission system to the Pacific Northwest. Fiber optics utilizes laser tech- nology and digital transmission. 2) `chat are the alternative means of accom- plishing these objectives? Alternatives to the proposed project include No Action, routing the cable along alternate existing road /utility rights-of-way, and routing the cable outside of existing road/ utility rights -of -way. 3) Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: If no action were taken, U.S. Sprint would not install its fiber optic cable and ancillary facilities in this area of the Pacific Northwest. While the no- action alternative would preclude environmental impacts associated with project construction, it would prevent U.S. Sprint from completing its telecommunications network. Use of an alternative existing right -of -way such as Interstate 5 is not feasible because the Federal Highway Administration prohibits longitudinal encroachment in the rights-of-way or median strips of federal highways. Use of • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only other existing rights -of -way could be con- sidered by U.S. Sprint, but could add signi- ficantly to environmental impacts and /or costs of project completion. Routing alternatives outside of existing road/ utility rights-of-way were considered imprac- tical. The environmental impacts of such routing would be much greater than those resulting from the use of previously disturbed corridors. Additionally, construction in undisturbed areas would necessitate building or upgrading access. As with the alternative discussed above, an action of this type would add significantly to the environmental impacts and costs of project completion. It was determined that the only practical alternative was to route the proposed cable along existing transportation and utility corridors to minimize environmental effects of project construction. U.S. Sprint's preferred route, which follows existing road, railroad, and utility rights-of-way, accomplishes this objective. 4) Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? The proposed project does not conflict with policies of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict (s) are: No significant impacts are anticipated, there- fore, no mitigation is required. TABLE 1 LOCATION OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSING (MILE POST) JURISDICTION LOCATION ADJACENT STREET Duwamish River (MP 11.8) Green River (MP 12.0) City of Tukwila SE /4, SE /4, Sec. 14 68th Avenue S. T23N, R4E City of Tukwila SW /4, NW /4, Sec. 24 Monster Road T23N, R4E TABLE 2 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATIONS AT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE CROSSING (MILE POST) AREA DESIGNATION Duwamish River (MP 11.8) Green River (MP 12.0) "Special development considerations" (review for shoreline management criteria) "Special development considerations" (review for shoreline management criteria) TABLE 3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF TERRAIN, SLOPE AND SOIL STABILITY AT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSING (MILE POST) TERRAIN SLOPE STREAM STEEPEST BANK SLOPE SLOPE (PERCENT) SOIL INSTABILITY (TYPE) Duwamish River (MP 11.8) Green River (MP 12.0) Flat Flat Moderate Gradual 45 5 None None TABLE 4 CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACE WATER BODIES NEAR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AREA CROSSING LENGTH DRAINAGE (MILE POST) (MILES) (SQ MILES) ESTIMATED MEAN ANNUAL DISCHARGE (CU FT /S) PROJECT CROSSING MAINSTEM LOCATION RIVER1 (RIVER MILE) (RIVER MILE) Duwamish River (MP 11.8) Green River (MP 12.0) 94 94 440 440 1,520 1,520 9.5 -12.0 Puget Sound2 12 Duwamish River (11) 1) This column indicates the larger river to which the shoreline management area river /stream is a tributary, and the river mile at which it enters. 2) The Duwamish River is a mainstream river flowing to Pudget Sound, and is not a tributary to any other river. Source: Washington State Dept. of Fisheries Stream Catalog (1977) USGS Water Resources Data (1984) • • TABLE 5 PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSING DECIDUOUS EVERGREEN WET SOIL WATER OTHER (MILE POST) TREES TREES PLANTS PLANTS VEGETATION Duwamish River Maple Shrubs (MP 11.8) Cottonwood Blackberry Green River Shrubs (MP 12.0) Grass -- Indicates not observed. TABLE 6 ANIMALS KNOWN TO OR LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSING (MILE POST) BIRDS MAMMALS FISH Duwamish River Songbirds Chinook Salmon (MP 11.8) Coho Salmon Chum Salmon Steelhead Trout Green River (MP 12.0) Songbirds -- Indicates not likely to occur. Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Chum Salmon Steelhead Trout TABLE 7 LAND AND SHORELINE USE ADJACENT TO SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSING (MILE POST) ADJACENT LAND AND SHORELINE USE Duwamish River industrial (MP 11.8) Green River (MP 12.0) industrial TABLE 8 ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSING (MILE POST) ZONING CLASSIFICATION Duwamish River M1: light industrial (MP 11.8) Green River (MP 12.0) M1: light industrial • • TABLE 9 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATIONS FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSING (MILE POST) SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION Duwamish River Urban (MP 11.8) Green River Urban (MP 12.0) TABLE 10 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ADJACENT TO SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS FOR U.S. SPRINT ROUTE IN CITY OF TUKWILA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA CROSSINGS (MILE POST) ADJACENT STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Duwamish River 68th Avenue S., S. 143rd Street (MP 11.8) Green River (MP 12.0) Monster Road, 72nd Avenue S. fosur • Gait Cows. —13 Got} Cows. • "5'- •,• j$ js9 •41j •tea sm. of • t• •• II S. jJ j..._ slit j OIL a—,..•...ail..s.ss. 1"=-24cer 'GREEN RIVE 17 (t , < c c • ‹. .r- _ 13 24 SITE PLAN_ c..0.64.1a 11-1 ORT eZIRE PI P1.0e-g 0 IA. $TheL FP eue...lemarr TYP/CA TRI frf CA r MIS,. 3, Ave' owaw, jot! GM. g a. CO M. ea* (N..41.51L t MAm) JUL - 8 19871 crry of, TkiLA pi_mr,...c; DEVIL_ *Au... rowan MAP CI DUWAM1514 rovaR (v. s. SPRINT 1.1111-C POT. I.6 Ti4e 1ma1A1./....10.4 OF A 11.1.61, Freasl OPTIC. GAOLS Gs.crIMM AM AREA Dlas14a.rea AS AN ....MOAN •1././6tOMMI47 social-1nm' PURSUANT To Tx( • KING C,NTY 5140RVIL.N6 M MaPIT PRO4s/e.; APPRO,ileD MAY 1, 0,6. L.11 •Sf t• ol/.4i6ACTURIN6,6141.46 /46 OVAIMY, VACANT MOUttiAI.,ANI WAltemOUSIN6. 1. ALL EILLUIVAN. SELL NI 6■011..L.Z7 gazZATILL,ra 1Ne EEMND/ low L. ^41ff fuLitentp PR./ 1/66 -1-e7 Gaol 4.- US Sprint. A 1 1 -1 -a7 OVICRIPTIO11 LEGEND. atIM .114.1■ KOFCSED FleeK CPrIG 0131-E I-Cr-AMON PUI4M,p1;[,,LNER ItVicA1Ciry 46/ 6.7nN £4e w.PI p1jI COVI•64. 666 / or D (N, ••• /0.4•••• AA.. CANS . ' TYP /CAL TRENCH CAd_L ONLY Jut/. SS•// 1. CM.t.! S 0I Cent,••• On C S- On feel. Side. • 4. 1 TYPICAL E.VCAS!M NT CL 4I POI! ALL TYPICAL T.FNCi DeTA/L SPLIT OL,CT LNCASL'O 23 24-- • RRVISONO fly? LI 1 /,‘"E- 444--zo, PR61Ff'T 714- `= OuNkte tSC N ISIMAINO 1]RRiMY wars /4 • 1, I. 4... ,EOM. TDP 4.P I'16�4y T TM6 2. 1144 t `. Nortal'I', FRSIDR4D W m c7ITE PLAN 404.1' NW' iteuol CABLE IN DNR L 7ePurr LAR L e • �'RJT PK \\ VICINTY P GREEN RIVER (U.S. SPRINT MILE P017— ILO) SUMMARY THE IN1TALLATON OFA DWRIGN FIRER OPTIC CAFLE, EARNED AN AREA DESIGNATED AS AN 'URBAN ENVIRONMENT SNORELINE' PURSUANT TO THE "KING LOONTV 5WORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PR04RAM ;ANSOVED MAY 2, 1178. LAND VGE If WAtRM007I•6 AND STURASf, VACANT AGNATE IAL /COMMERCIAL, MA•WIAGTURI44, AND FS WAGE TREATMENT '.. LILES 'ai -I-87 7.S.R7 4r US Sprint. mil mammon LEGEND I =us Al. •m7 PROP05a? FlEER OPTL' G46 L(XATION ocR 4 41 I M RELAN05 Seg.1A T.1iN. 1.42. W.M., F4N4 muVTY, W(A- =Er*2 «Z Iwow. ID Associated L1 -23 -000 -e�e/j ��'weee 0 =E