Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-SA-2 - SEGALE BUSINESS PARK - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)SEGALE BUSINESS PARK EIS EPIGSA -2 Frank Todd, Mayor ITY of TUKWILA 14475 • 59TH AVENUE SOUTH I UOVILA, WASHINGTON 98067 '9 No%e mber 1973 Segale Business Park • P.O. Box 88924 Tukwila, Washington 98188. RE: Final Impact Statement Gentlemen: "PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Final Environmental Impact Statement fileci with this office the afternoon of 2 November 1973, has been reviewed by the appropriate city officials and this fetter shall constitute formal acceptance of that statement in accord- ance with the following stipulations. That section of the Statement dealing with projected air pollution is inadequate for the project as a thole. How- ever, this concern can be evaluated individually as each development within the overall project is known and proposed. Thus, a complete analysis and evaluation of project6d impact on ambient air quality will -be required with each application for a building permit. • Storm drainage, as you are aware, will be a significant problem in the very near future. A study completed for the City by Philip Botch, Engineers, indicates that the existing storm drainage facilities will reach maximum capacity after development of only twenty -six (26) acres of the remaining undeveloped land south of Minkler Houle.* • vard. This office strongly Urges serious contemplation of those alternatives stated in the Final Statement as . well as any other innovative considerations,'to alleviate the.up- coming problem. ..ti Be also advised of the very recent adoption by the State Department of Ecology, of 'Compleg Source "regulations and their related policies. This action will require a • Segale Business Park permit be obtained, from the State, for any project which will generate more than two- hundred automobiles daily. Further information regarding this matter can be obtained from this office as soon as we receive the necessary information from the State agency. Architectural review of all proposed structures within.: the overall project has been determined to be appropriate due to the close proximity of the project to the Green River and the lack of private restrictive covenants running with the land. This process is authorized, and the procedures are outlined, within Chapter 18.98..0.80 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. This office must, in all conscientiousness, once again state our concern for public access to the Green River. The river is a natural resource and should be accessible to the public for their utilization .of the recreational opportunities inherent in the very existence of the rivers• In conjunction, an adequate aesthetic quality should be preserved along the river, which does not detract from it's natural beauty and usefulness. Those conditions regarding ambient air quality, storm drainage and architectural review mast be adhered to throughout implementation of the proposed development. The Final Statement, together with the conditions con- tained herein, shall become a supplement to any permit applications regarding any . part of the .overall development and shall be used as an informational source in .the :decision - making process by the City. ayor:Todd: John Richards, Bldg Off Pres, CityCounoil Chmn, : Ping ••Comm . PSAPCA'' Sincerely, Steven M. Hall Acting: Planning Director th 2 • ,zazi Nor PUBLIC WORKS !DEPARTMENT 8230 E3outhc®nt ®r Boulevard , Tukwil a, Washington 22®37 telephone C208 3 242 - 2177 October 5, 1973 Segale Business Park P. 0. Box 88924 Tukwila, Washington 98188 he Attention: Mr. Bruce Solly EC Re: Storm and Sanitary Sewer Permit Draft Environmental Impact Statement a EDear Bruce: U0 As per the letter to Segale Business Park dated September 27, 1973 il and the included quote of Mr. Wayne Parker, City Attorney: IN "I think Mr. Segalle should be made aware of the fact that action 65 on his Environmental Impact Statement may require a change in his diplans and may necessitate an order stopping his work at any time." uo Mr. Segale acknowledged said statement accompanied by a letter dated October 1, 1973 which includes the following statement: "This stipulation will only be in force until such time as our il environmental impact statement, submitted on August 7, is accepted and approved as final -- which Mr. Moss expects to be approximately 0' October 8, 1973." CI 612 In light of the comments received from the Puget Sound Governmental a Conference, Department of Social and Health Services, U. S. Corps of Engineers, Department of Fisheries, Department of Game and the Puget CO Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, the final impact statement can- not be approved by the City until such time as your firm responds satisfactorily to these questions posed by other agencies. E• Also, in accordance with said agreement, if your final Environmental V2 Impact Statement is not complete, no Building Permits will be issued and the existing permit for storm sewer, sanitary sewers and roads will be revoked. Please note the following portion of the Tukwila Municipal Code relating to Environmental Impact Statements: 2 Segale Business Park Page '' ; 2 Mr. Bruce Solly 18.98.010 When required. The planning coordinator shall require the preparation of an environmental impact statement in the case of every proposed action determined by him to be an action that will significantly affect the quality of the environment. The following . actions require a determination of environmental significance on the basis of an impact assessment summary by the applicant. When such actions are major and significantly affect the quality of the environ- ment, they require the preparation of an environmental impact state- ment: (a) Actions taken by the City which result in permits, licenses, leases and other entitlements for use for projects and activities undertaken by private persons and governmental bodies, including shore line management permits, grading permits, building permits, sewer and water permits, conditional use permits, variances, rezones and plats; . I believe at this point in time, it would be wise for the City and'your firm to meet and discuss these items. If you will notify me of.,your intentional. such ameeting will be arranged. Sincerely yours, Steven M. Hall, P.E. Public Works Director SMH /ma cc: Mayor Todd Mario Segale Del Moss John Richards September 24, 1973 Puget Sound Gave; nc en,...; Conference PSGC File No. 2/244/73 Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Subject: Segale Business Park, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Moss: Please find enclosed preliminary staff comments concerning the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As you know, these comments are subject to review and approval by the Environmental Policy Advisory Committee on September 28 and by the full Conference on October 11. Formally adopted review comments will be forwarded at that time. . Very truly yours, /.41/"%i G - Keith W. Dearborn, Director Environmental Planning KWD: DK:bjp Enclosure . /, • • • Puget Sound Goverrime ;1ti., Confere;-;ce REVIEW AND REFERRAL COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Jurisdiction: Project Title: Applicant: Funding': Cost: Agency: PSGC File No. 2/244/73 1 City of Tukwila Draft Environmental Impact Statement City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Federal N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Review of proposals and permitqDproval for the development of Segale Business Park in the City of Tukwila. • Site involves approximately 100 acres. State Local. 1 (,1j1 Subject-TO Review Other. Total LOCAL COMMENTS Comments have been solicited from approximately 22 agencies for review and comment. COMMITTEE COMMENTS It is noted that this Impact Statement is: almost an exact duplication of the Draft Environ- mental impact Statement for Andover Industrial Park prepared by Wilsey and Ham. The two statement differ -only in that the detailed site.specific information relevant • to Anodver Park has been - eliminated and replaced by- sketchy information - on the Segale site. This results in an extensive description of the Green -River Valley and the generalized impacts of industrialization. It does not .provide enough detailed information to determine the environmental impact of Segale Business Park. It is suggested that an independent Impact Statement dealing specifically with the proposed • development at Segale Business Park be prepared. The statement as presented for review would seem to be iri violation of. the Tukwila City Ordinance that it 'was prepared pursuant to. Section_ 3(11), Tukwila City Ordinance . .(continued). T I-IEREBY CERTIFY that at its meeting, held on Sound Governmental Conference concurred in this REVIEW AND MI TEE MEMORANDUM and incorporated it into the minutes of DATE' the Puget REFERRAL COM •• tha t meeting. Mart basic. Exectuve 'Directo• \� �t,l.y' ciiiti i�CI i1 ill L(Jl.iti i C�% 14't�.uVit .•..._,... COMMITTEE COMMENTS PSGC rile. No. 2/244/73 Paget 759 .... "In either this section or the other relevant sections of the statement, the major studies, reports, and other documents used in the preparation of the statement should be cited." The Andover Industrial Park Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Wilsey and Ham from which the Segale 'statement was copied, is never referenced in the document. WAYNE R. PARKER ATTORNEY AT LAW PUOET SOUND NATIONAL SANK BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 3207 MIDWAY, WASHINGTON 98031 August 22, 1973 TR. 8 -4431 Mr. Richard B. Hansen Senior Planner City of Tukwila Tukwila, Washington TR. 8.2631 Re: Segale Business Park - Environmental Impact Statement -Dear Mr. Hansen: This will acknowledge your letter of August 21, 1973. After going through your letter and reviewing RCW 43.21C, I see no reason why the City should not accept the Environmental Impact Statement submitted on behalf of Segale Business Park. As long as the statement meets the requirements of the law, I do not think the City should worry about who prepared it or whether or not some of the statements contained therein are similar to other environmental statements. Under RCW43.21C.030 the environmental impact statement is to be made available to the public and as time goes on we can expect that all environ- mental statements will make use of statements previously filed by other developers in the same area. There appears to be no proprietary interest in the Environmental Impact Statement in that it is not copyrighted and is by law to be made available to the public. The practice of reproducing work previously done by other persons is a common practice among cities adopting ordinances patterned .after ordinances from other municipalities. This does not guarantee that the City will not be made a party to a legal action in the event someone is aggrieved by the fact that . his work has been used without compensation for the benefit of someone else. However, the City would also be subject to a lawsuit if it were to refuse to accept the tendered statement. Mr. Richard B. Hansen August 22, 1973 Any problem over breach of professional ethics should not be a concern of the City, since there has certainly been no breach of ethics committed by anyone acting on behalf of the City of Tukwila. Very truly yours, WRP:bb W R. PARKER��.�- Frank Todd, Mayor CITY op TUK V0LA. 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH , UKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 :September, 1973 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Segale Business Park ATTN: Mr. Bruce Solly P.O. Box 88924 Tukwila, Washington 9818.8 RE: Draft: Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Solly: This office has received. numerous comments regarding the ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the City of Tukwila to support administrative.actions in relation to the implementation of the proposed project, to be known as Segale Business Park. Copies of all letters received in regard to the Draft State - ment are enclosed for your perusal and guidance in prepara- tion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. While all of the comments included in the attached letters require due consideration in the preparation of the Final Statement, the following comments, extracted from the attached letters, must be heeded in the preparation of the Final Statement so that it may qualify as an adequate assessment and discussion of the environmental issues related• to the proposed project, as required by the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971... ....P.S.G.-C. has suggested that an independent Impact Statement be prepared dealing specif- ically with the proposed development at Segale Business Park. This comment is made in light of the fact your . statement differs from that statement prepared for Andover Industrial Park by Wilsey & Ham only in that the detailed specific site information relevant toAndover Park has been eliminated'. and replaced by sketchy information on the Segale site. This results in an extensive . description' of the Green: River ,Valley and • ' '. Mr. Bruce Solly, Page 2 ,the general impacts of industrialization. It does not, however, provide'enough de- tailed information to determine' the environ.► mental impact of the proposed development. (Enclosure #1, letter, P.S.G.C.., dated 24 September 1973.) However, if sufficient discussion of the remaining deficiencies are presented in the Final Statement, the , requirement of an impartial and :sufficient impact statement. will be met.,. 2. Concern has been expressed as to the'ability of the existing sewer and water systems to 'handle projected increased usages. The projected increased usages and the ability of the existing systems to handle those increased usages'should be discussed in the' final statement. (Enclosure #2, letter, Department of Social and Health Services, dated 5 September 1973.) 3... Effects on water quality is a concern of several agencies. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers suggests the impacts of an increased storm water run -off into the Green River be clearly stated and include discussion of the detrimental effects. One of these effects will be consequential to the addition of storm water at a higher temperature. (Enclosure #3, letter, Corps of Engineers, dated 19 September 1973.) The draft statement places the responsibility of water pollution control measures on the Soil Conservation Service in the form of the P -17 pumping plant. The P' -17 project has not, as yet, received approval for implementation and thus, cannot be relied upon to protect water quality. Since this responsibility is actually that of the developer,'the final statement should include detailed discussion of water pollution control measures as well as alternatives. (Enclosure #3, letter, Corps of Engineers, dated 19 September 1973; Enclosure #4, letter, Department of Fisheries, dated 19 September 1973; Enclosure• #5, letter, Department'of,Game, dated 20 September 1973.) Mr. Bruce Solly Page 3 The draft statement indicates a necessity to . raise the river levees without discussion of • the environmental effect on.the aquatic life • of. the Green River. (Enclosure #5, letter, Department of Game,.dated.20 September 1973.)' 6. The project description fails to indicate types of industry to be located on the proposed site. This is an important.factor in deter-. mining the environmental impact of the proposed project... The final statement should include this description and /or any alternatives. (Enclosure #5, letter, Department of Game, dated 20 September 1973.) 7. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has expressed concern over the impact on air quality. They suggest more detailed dis- cussion of this matter. Also, a description as to types of industry to be located at the proposed project site will enable a determination of the atmospheric impact. These discussions should be included in the final statement. (Enclosure #6, letter,. PSAPCA, dated 18 September 1973.) 8. The land use alternatives section of the draft statement includes a brief discussion: on agriculture. This alternative is eliminated due to loss of wildlife in relation to the agricultural use. This'is an erroneous statement and should not be used as a basis for eliminating the agricultural alternative. In addition, the discussion of the agricultural alternative should in- clude the positive benefits as well as the negative. (Enclosure #5, letter, Department of Game, dated 20 September 1973.) 9. There is no indication of the width of green belt or vegetative cover to be dedicated for erosion control measures. (Enclosure #4, letter, Department of Fisheries, dated 19 September 1973.) 10. The Department of Fisheries expressed deep concern regarding public access to the River. The proposed project site includes nearly . • • Mr. Bruce Sally Pcage 4 one mile of river shoreline and the draft statement indicates no consideration of the public recreational uses, either passive or active. The final statement should include a detailed discussion of this.matter. (Enclo- sure./.4, letter, Department of Fisheries, dated 19 September 1973). 11. The final statement should include a discussion regarding the comment from the Department of Fisheries, paragraph. #4.. (Enclosure #4, letter, Department of Fisheries, dated 19 September 1973.) The inclusion of the detailed information and discussions indicated above and in the attached letters should sub stantially increase the adequacy. of the final Environmental Impact Statement in regard to the criteria outlined in City of Tukwila Ordinance #759 as well as the State Environ- mental Policy Act of ' L971. As you are aware, the City of Tukwila cannot make any administrative'decisions in relation to the.proposed project until the Environmental Impact Statement is completed..` If you require any assistance whatever with regard to.this matter, do not hesitate to contact this office. GC /lt Sincerely, • ary //Crutchfield Playlning .Techni4n.• Enclosures: 1. Letter, P.S.G.C., 24 Sept. 1973 2. Letter, Dept. of Social & Health Services, 5 Sept. 3. Letter,.Corps of Engineers, 19 September 1973 4. Letter, Dept. of Fisheries, 19 September 1973 5. Letter, Dept. of Game, 20 September 1973 6. Letter, Puget Sound Air Pollution' Control Agency, • 18 September 1973 cc: Mayor Frank Todd Steve Hall, Dir Pub Wks John Richards Bldg Off Pres, City Council Chrn, Ping' Comm Wayne Parker, City Attorney Dept. of Ecology SAG 1973 Grand Central on the Park • :io. Mai11 r Wu5i Puget Sound Governmental Conference , PSGC File No. 2/244/73 September 24, 1973 Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Subject: Segale Business Park, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Moss: Please find enclosed preliminary staff comments concerning the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As you know, these comments are subject to review and approval by the Environmental Policy Advisory Committee on September 28 and by the full Conference on October 11. Formally adopted review comments will be forwarded at that time. Very truly yours, Keith W. Dearborn, Director Environmental Planning KWD:DK:bjp Enclosure 0 Puget Sound Governmental Conference REVIEW AND REFERRAL COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Jurisdiction: Project Title: Applicant: Funding: Cost: Agency: City of Tukwila TPSGC File No. 2/244/73 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Federal • State N/A ELIE Subject To Review Local . Other Total PROJECT DESCRIPTION Review of proposals and permitgproval for the development of Segale Business Park in the City of Tukwila. Site involves approximately 100 acres. LOCAL COMMENTS Comments have been solicited from approximately 22 agencies for review and comment. COMMITTEE COMMENTS • It is noted that this Impact Statement is almost an exact duplication of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement for Andover Industrial Park prepared by Wilsey and I -Iam. The two statement differ only in that the detailed site specific information relevant to Anodver Park has been eliminated and replaced by sketchy information _ on the Segale site. This results in an extensive description of the Green River Valley and the generalized impacts of industrialization. It does not provide enough detailed information to determine the environmental impact of Segale Business Park. It is suggested that an independent Impact Statement dealing specifically with the proposed development at Segale Business Park be prepared. The statement as presented for review would seem to be in violation of the Tukwila City Ordinance that it was prepared pursuant to. Section 3(h), Tukwila City Ordinance (continued) I HEREBY CERTIFY that at its meeting, held on , the Puget Sound Governmental Conference concurred in this REVIEW AND REFERRAL COM- MITTEE MEM,ORANDUM MEMORANDUM and incorporated it into the minutes of that meeting. DATE-; • PsCCC:. Porm R-4 • Mart 1Cask, Exectuve- Director Review and Referrer • COMMITTEE COMMENTS Page2 PSGC File No. 2/244/73 759 .... "In either this section or the other relevant sections of the statement, the major studies, reports, and other documents used in the preparation of the statement should be cited." The Andover Industrial Park Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Wilsey and Ham from which the Segale statement was copied, Is never referenced in the document. DANIEL J. EVANS GOVERNOR Delbert F. Moss Planning Department City of Tukwila 14475 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: • e PARTWiE Ti C: Sci 'AL s;�'d►s st NV'tSM1 SECRETARY HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION P. 0. BOX 1788, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 JOHN A. BEARE. M.D. ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY September 5, 1973 Mail Stop 4 -1 Re: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DEVELOPMENT OF SEGALE BUSINESS PARK We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement of the Segale Business Park and find that, in general, the report deals adequately with items of concern to this agency. We suggest, however, that the impact of the business park on existing public sewerage and water supply systems and the ability of these systems to handle the projected increased usages be evaluated in the final draft. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS CARL SAGERSER, R.S. Administrative Consultant CS:blm expend]. Wo Ids Fair Spoko„o,U A Mqy- OcL197q rti�CL Z NPSEN -PL -ER i)ZP1,6 CAF SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS • 1819 ALASKAN WAY SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila Planning Department 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: 19. SEP 1973'' ' `'''' Thin replies to your letter or 20 August 1973 requesting our views end c o wontu on the draft unv:Lcunm nta1.. Impact uttrttgi ut for the development, .oe Lite Ungalo ] uiinotni rack. Wu have the i:'olluwing couuaunL'ti - regarding this proposal: a. In the section "Summary of Environmental Impacts ", paragraph d tends to understate the impacts of an increased storm water runoff into the Green River system. Suggest that this paragraph be revised to more clearly state the detrimental effects which this runoff will have. b. Page 32, second paragraph also applies to comment a above. c. Page 32, third paragraph - The addition of storm water at'a higher temperature will have a detrimental effect on the Green River and should be stated as such. d. On page 32, the sixth paragraph states that the incorporation of measures to prevent a decrease in water quality will be left to the Soil Conservation Service. However, this should be the responsibility of the developer. Thank you for the . opportunity to review and comment on this statement. Sincerely yours, FRED H. WEBER ASST. CHIEF, .ENGINEERING DIVISTON r _• G 1.ri7 14- DANIEL J. EVANS ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • PHONE 753-8800 THOR C. TOLLEFSON GOVERNOR OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504. DIRECTOR September 19, 1973 • Mr. Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington. 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: Your letter of August 20 requests our review of a draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Segale Business Park proposed for the City of Tukwila. Our comments are as follows: 1. Although you indicate that the bank of the Green River would not be disturbed, you do not indicate the proposed width of the green belt or vegetative cover to be dedicated as an erosion control measure. 2. On page 16 the scientific name for starry flounder should be listed . as Platichthys stellatus. • 3. Plans for the pumping plant and weir system (SCS West Side Green River Watershed P -17 project), proposed by the Soil Conservation Service, must be reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Fisheries and the Washington Department of Game. 4. References are made on pages 6, 33, 37, and 38 to the Interim Regional Development Plan and the policy - making role of the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC). We understand that the role of the PSGC is primarily advisory in nature, and therefore we anticipated some discussion of the land- and water -use policies of RIBCO, King County's Environmental Policy. Act Ordinance, and other local policy- making agencies. For example, the following statement is made on page 37: "....extensive conversion of farmland is con- trary to evolving regional goals ". On page 38 a statement is made that "the commitment of the subject area to its present use has been made after receiving full approval....". For clarifica- tion, we suggest that the agencies giving this "full approval" should be listed. 5. We also suggest that the alternatives for other uses of this 100 - acre tract be explored in greater depth. Because of the proximity of the Green River and the location of this tract within the flood -. plain, we are concerned over the potential impact of unrestricted land use that appears inherent in this proposal. Because of the Mr. Delbert F. Moss September 19, 1973 Page 2 popularity of the Green River and its stream banks to fishermen, boaters, hikers, and other recreationalists, some statement should be made as .to whether or not public access will be permitted along the river frontage, about one mile in length. In brief, more dis- cussion of consistency with local planning and policy - making agencies seems germane. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment upon this Statement. Sincerely, Thor C. Tollefson Director cc: Mr. Edward B. Sand - Dept. of Community & Environmental Development D. L. Lundblad - Dept. of Ecology E. S. Dziedzic - Dept. of Game • Director / Carl N. Crouse Assistant Directors / Ralph W:•.Larson Ronald N. Andrews Arthur S. Coffin, Yakima, Chairman James R. Agen, LaConner Elmer G. Gerken, Quincy Claude Bekins, Seattle Glenn Galbraith, iVellpinit Frank L. Cassidy, Jr., Vancouver D7 ' 1.A.R.T M 1\7"1' ®P G-. 6 M 600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504 September 20, 1973 Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila .. Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Moss: Your environmental impact statement - Tukwila Segale Business Park - was reviewed by our Seattle region office and Olympia staff; our comments follow. Your description of the Proposed Action was very extensive, though you failed to conclusively establish the type of industry which will locate at Tukwila Segale Business Park site. On figure A -1 an Associated Sand and Gravel plant is indicated; past history has shown this type of plant as almost incompatible with aquatic life. The type of industry chosen for the Segale Park site will be a determining factor of project impact. Therefore, a clear description of proposed industry and /or alternatives should be included in your project description. Our primary concern with this project's Environmental Impact is pro- tection of Green River water quality and fishery resources. You have indicated that this project will "...markedly increase surface run -off coefficients ", "...divert more water into the Green River System ", "... increase peak flows of surface run - off ", and that "there will be an adverse effect on water quality from siltation which originates from washing of exposed earthen work areas (pages 28 and 32). You have also recognized that "any direct discharge of.... pollutants... will influence water quality... and aquatic life" and ". accelerated surface run -off markedly increases the temperature of the receiving body... and Green River is near thermal capacity" (pages 29 and.32). We agree with your assessment and are concerned as the pollution potential which you outline constitutes a serious threat to Green River. resources. Because of this, we recommend that all possible measures be taken to minimize these adverse effects. You have suggested a few partial solutions, i.e. the SCS West Side Green River P -17 proposed pumping plant and the use of skimmers and other pollutant control : facilities these, and you. have suggested that measures itt Mr. Moss' September 20, 1973 be taken to prevent silt from leaving earthen construction areas (pages 28 and 37).. However, at this time there is no firm assurance that the P -17 project pumping plant will be built and we were unable to find an account of your suggested alternative solutions if it is not. Also, though you did suggest that measures be taken to prevent further siltation, you did not define those measures nor did you state that they would be enacted. To assure that all avenues are explored to mimimize adverse effects on Green River, we recommend that you organize a section "Modifications to Proposed Project" to define pollution control measures and alternatives which will protect Green River resources. In addition, you stated that increased flows "will necessitate raising the river levees" (page 29), but the effect of this action on the Green River fishery was not outlined, nor were alternatives suggested. We cannot overstate the increased adverse effects which raising levees will have on the Green River fishery. An account of this impact should be included, specifying the quantity and types of fish this action would effect. Your statement, (page 31) implying that migratory birds and mammals "will be displaced to other locations" is false. These animals will not survive as alternate habitat areas are at carrying capacity and unable to support additional numbers of wildlife. The scope of lost wildlife resources should be fully explored and accurately reported. You have a similar problem in your dismissal of agriculture from Green River Valley (page 34). What evidence do you have that farming could be "...more feasibly accomplished in other areas..."? The erosion of prime agricultural lands by urbanization and other development is a serious national problem. The so- called "other areas" are difficult to find -- if they exist at all. We do not agree with your conclusions about impacts on wildlife that would occur with choice of the "agriculture alternative" (page 36). A study of the history of farming in Green River would clearly reveal that wildlife prospered with agriculture - and it has declined disasterously as "higher and better" use . has encroached along the Green, Please correct this erroneous justification for eliminating the agriculture alternative. In fact, your EIS should document the positive benefits of this alternative to many aspects of . human and natural environments. We are sure the information is readily available and should be included for, objective analysis by. all ;concerned. • Mr. Moss • • -3. September 20, 1973 We ask that comments we have made be considered in preparation of your final draft and decisions which must be made regarding the future of this Important area Thank you for sending us your draft. Sincerely, ESDljb cc: Chitwood Agencies . • • • THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME (C. • Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief Environmental Management Division • • SERVING: KING COUNTY 410 West Harrison St. Seattle, 98119 (206) 344 -7330 ((dti11UJ .fie Al 410 West Harrison Street, Seattle, Washington 98119 (206) 344.7330 September. 18, 1973' Mr. Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 7230 South Center Blvd. Tukwila, Wa 98067 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Segale Business Park ' KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 • Bainbridge Island, Dial 344 -7330 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Hess Building Tacoma, 98402 (206) 383 -5851 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 703 Medical - Dental Bldg. Everett, 98201 ' (206) 259-0288 Dear Mr. Moss: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the Segale Business Park submitted with your letter of August 20, 1973. While this statement follows the form specified by the State Environmental Policy Act, it was not possible to determine from reading it whether or not there would be any significant air quality impact due to motor vehicles. An estimate of the number, type, and distribution of daily vehicle trips to and from the area would be helpful in this respect. It would also be a starting point for making estimates of future ambient air concentrations. We have concluded from the summary sheet in the statement titled, "c. Atmospheric Impact" that there will be no stationary industrial air pollution sources established, since there is no reference to such sources. If this conclusion is not correct, then the impact from such a source or sources should be given an adequate discussion. Please contact us if you have any questions. Very truly yours ARD /JRP:km BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHAIRMAN: Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County; Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County; loran 0. Spellman, King County Executive; A. R. D:mmkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer VICE CHAIRMAN: Robert C. Anderson, Mayor Everett; N. Richard Foregren, Commissioner Snohomish County; Glenn K. Jeretad, Mayor Bremerton; Gordon N. Johnston, Mayor Tacoma; Harvey S. Poll, Member at Large; Wee Uhlman, Mayor Seattle; A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution, Controll Officer.. • Frank Todd, Mayor CITY of TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 28 August 1973' Segale Business Park ATTN: Mr. Bruce Solly P.O. Box 88924 Tukwila, Washington '98188 Dear Mr. Solly: PLANNING DEPARTMENT This office is in the process of reviewing your application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the proposed Segale Business Park. During our review, we have been waiting to receive the Affidavit of Publication as required in the application instructions. As this item is 'an important part of the basic application, we request it be supplied to this office so that it may be included with the rest of the application. Moreover, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 requires the publication of a notice informing the general public of an application for a Shoreline Permit. The local juris- diction must hold the application for at least thirty (30) days from the last date of publication of the notice. This is to allow for review and any comments from the general public. As pointed out, the Affidavit of Publication is an impor- tant part of the application and this office trusts you will supply,.it at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, _Garrutchfiel Pla ing Techni GC /lt cc: Mayor Todd • Frank Todd, Mayor CITY or UKW L 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 21 August 1973 Wayne Parker, City Attorney City of Tukwila Tukwila, Washington 98067 PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the development of Segale Business Park. Dear Mr. Parker: The Tukwila Planning Department has reviewed the draft. Environmental Impact Statement for the development of the Segale Business Park as submitted by Mario Segale to the City on 8 August 1973. The preparation of the draft statement is not credited to any firm or indiv- idual, and the technical information presented in the report is not footnoted, and the firm or individual who gathered the information is not acknowledged anywhere in the report. We are very concerned, in that our review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement revealed that it was almost a direct verbatim copy of a previous Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the City which was prepared by Wilsey & Ham, Inc. of Renton. Many of the pages were not even retyped, but were actual xerox copies of pages from the Wilsey & Ham report, only the page numbers being different. Therefore, we are concerned that both the City (or it's officers) and Mr. Segale may be liable to suit by Wilsey & Ham, Inc. if the City accepts the statement as drafted. Enclosed please find a copy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the development of the Segale Business Park and a copy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for completion of development of Andover Industrial Park and Andover East as prepared by Wilsey & Ham, Inc. of Renton. Please note that Page 9 of the Segale report corresponds with Page 14 of the Wilsey & Ham report, Page 10. corresponds with Page 15, Page 13 • • Wayne Parker, City Attorney Page 2 to Page 19, Page 17 to Page 23, Page 18 to Page 24, Page 21 to Page 27, Page 22 to Page 28, Page 24 to Page 30, Page 25 to Page 31, Page 26 to Page 33, Page 27 to Page 32, Page 33 to Page 39, Page 35 to Page 41, and that Appendix A (including the tables) is the same as Appendix A (including the tables) in the Wilsey & Ham report. Would you please supply this department with a written legal opinion as to the City's position on this matter? If the City accepts this draft Environmental Impact Statement as our report, knowing that the firm who pre- pared the statement did little more than reproduce work that had been done at considerable expense by another engineering firm, are we then party to any legal action which might result? There is also a question of pro- fessional ethics involved which may involve the Society of Professional Engineers, and State Board of Registration. If you have any questions or require any additional information please contact this office at 242 -2177. Yours very truly, Richard B. Hansen Senior Planner RBH /lt Encl: as cc: Mayor Todd • Frank Todd, Mayor O 9TY ® Vr -rux.vviiLA 14475 • 59TH AVENUE SOUTH . TUKWI,I.A, WASHINGTON 98067 • • • 17. August 1973 Frank Todd, Mayor 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington .. 98067 Dear Mayor Todd: PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Tukwila Planning Department has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the development of the Segale Business Park as submitted by Mario Segale to the City on 8 August 1973. The preparation of the draft statement is not credited to any firm or individ- ual, and the technical information presented in the report is not footnoted, and the firm or individual who gathered the information is not acknowledged anywhere in the report. We are very concerned, in that our review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement revealed that it was almost a direct verbatim copy of a previous Environmental Impact Statement, submitted to the City which was prepared by Wilsey & Ham, Incor potated of Renton. Many of the pages were not even retyped, but, were actual xerox.copies of pages from the Wilsey & Ham report, only the page numbers being different.. Therefore, we are concerned that both the. City and Mr. Segale may be liable to suit by Wilsey & Ham, Incorporated if the City accepts the statement as drafted. . There are further reasons why the Impact Statement for the development of Segale Business Park is considered unacceptable by the Planning Staff. The original state- ment prepared by Wilsey & Ham, Incorporated was for development to take place within Andover Industrial Park, and under the constraints of the Protective Cov- enants applying to Andover Industrial Park and the Mayor Todd L. Page 2, constraints as provided by the City of Tukwila C -M zoning ordinance. Both the Protective Covenants for Andover Industrial Park and the C -M zoning restrictions • are intended to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of industrial development. Neither of these protective provisions apply to the Segale property. There are no protective covenants and no ordinance requirements which provide for setbacks, building .coverage, truck loading areas, exterior architectural design, landscaping, site improvements, and driveway and off -site improvements which apply to the •subject property. . Under the existing M -2 zoning classification the uses allowed on the subject property include animal refuses, asphalt mixing plants, auto wrecking yards, creosote treatment, iron or steel foundries', junk yards, coal or petroleum products storage yards, railroad freight or truck terminals, metal reducing, rock crushing, salvage yards, tar distillation, waste materials processing, and similar uses with very little control or restriction upon their operation. Approval of this Environmental Impact Statement as submitted with no legal restrictive or protective covenants applying to the property would be like signing a "blank check" to development that could possibly be a liability rather than an asset to the City of Tukwila. We.are not suggesting that Mr. Segale does not intend to develop a high quality business park; however, without the legal documents which apply protections and restrictions to the subject property, the City has no insurance that a high quality develop- ment will be a reality. In the absence of development restrictions or protective covenants, the environmental impact of the proposed development cannot be adequately assessed by this department; and therefore the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the development of Segale Business Park is judged to be an inadequate assessment of the potential environmental impact. There is also involved in the development of this pro- perty approximately one mile of river frontage to which little attention has been paid. The purpose of the State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 is to enhance the State's waterways and improve the possibilities for public access to the shorelines. The proposed develop- ment does not appear to have addressed this aspect of the project. Other developers of industrial property in Tukwila have cooperated with the City in their efforts to create a riverfront.trail system and it seems also to be appropriate in this case. . • Mayor Todd . Page 2 Therefore, since Chapter 43.23C.RCW, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 places the responsibility for Environmental Impact Statements upon the local jurisdiction, it is our recommendation that this draft Environmental Impact Statement be returned to the developer for the reasons that it was inappropriately prepared and an inadequate assessment of the potential: environmental impacts of the proposed development. Yours very truly,. Ofi, Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator SEG ALE BUS /NESS PARK August 21, 1973 Mr. Del Moss, Planning Co- ordinator City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: This is documentation as you requested in connection with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for development of Segale Business Park: 1. Working drawings submitted for Building Permits will include landscape plans including plans for adding trees along the bank of the Green River. 2. Ownership of Segale Business Park including the building projects to be developed will be retained by Segale Business Park. Control of design of improvements and of use of the property will be in the hands of Segale Business Park rather than outside . developers or individual firms. 3. Segale Business Park is aware of Public Safety Requirements as relating to design of improvements and access by Public Safety Vehicles. 4. Because of past abuses by fishermen and others, public access along the Green River Dike can not be granted at this time. 5. It is the intention of Segale Business Park to develop its property in a manner that will allow rail service to be available to land lying adjacant to the Southwest corner of the park. 6. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Segale Business Park. Information sources and the document itself has been approved by Segale Business Pa.rlParks legal council. P.O. BOX 88924 • TELEPHONE: (206) 226 -3202 • TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 Mr. Del Moss, Planning Co- ordinator August 21, 1973 Page 2 We presume the above statements satisfactorily answer the Planning Departments questions and that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for development of Segale Business Park and other documents will be progressed. BWS:jaz cerely, ALE BUSINESS ruco W. SolYyfl Manager • PUaLUC ViCOR KG OEPART M NT 62 311 ; outhcontor Ell®ulevard TulcwIlo, W8 3hcn , t ®n 3E3067 � telephone C 20 3 243-3177 October 5, 1973 Segale Business Park P. 0. Box 8892.1 Tukwila, Washington 98188 El Attention: Mr. Bruce Solly EC Re: Storm and Sanitary Sewer Permit Draft Environmental Impact Statement EL EDear Bruce: VO As per the letter to Segale Business Park dated September 27, 1973 and the included quote of Mr. Wayne Parker, City Attorney: V9 "I think Mr. Segalle should be made aware of the fact that action ED on his Environmental Impact Statement may require a change in his 6kplans and may necessitate an order stopping his work at any time." lig Mr. Segale acknowledged said statement accompanied by a letter dated QOctober 1, 1973 which includes the following statement: "This stipulation will only be in force until such time as our • environmental impact statement, submitted on August 7, is accepted (53 and approved as final -- which Mr. Moss expects to be approximately [(- October 8, 1973." VI Ng In light of the comments received from the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, Department of Social and Health Services, U. S. Corps of Engineers, Department of Fisheries, Department of Game and the Puget (53 Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, . the final impact statement can • not be approved by the City until such time as your firm responds can— .1, satisfactorily to these questions posed by other agencies. E EZ Also, in accordance with said agreement, if your final Environmental Impact Statement is not complete, no Building Permits will be issued VI and the existing permit for storm sewer, sanitary sewers and roads will be revoked. Please note the following portion of the Tukwila Municipal Code relating to Environmental Impact Statements: ■ Segale Business Park Mr. Bruce Solly Page 2 18.98.010 When required. The planning coordinator shall require the preparation of an environmental impact statement in the case of every proposed action determined by him to be an action that will significantly affect the quality of the environment. The following . actions require a determination of environmental significance on the basis of an impact assessment summary by the applicant. When such actions are major and significantly affect the quality of the environ- ment, they require the preparation of an environmental impact state- ment: (a) Actions taken by the City which result in permits, licenses, leases and other entitlements for use for projects and activities undertaken by private persons and governmental bodies, including shore- line management permits, grading permits, building permits, sewer and water permits, conditional use permits, variances, rezones and plats; I believe at this point in time, it would be wise for the City and your firm to meet and discuss these items. If you will notify me of your intentions, such ameeting will be arranged. Sincerely yours, ()NI Steven M. Hall, P.E. Public Works Director SMH /ma cc: Mayor Todd Mario Segale Del Moss John Richards • • MANSON SENNETT & ASSOCIATES T H E 1 4 1 1 F O U R T H A\/ E N U E B U I L D I N G SEATTLE 9 8 1 0 1 MA 2-1616 Mr. Del Moss Planning Director Tukwila City Hall Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Moss: July 18, 1973 Re: Segale Business Park The following is submitted by Segale Business Park as its Environmental Assessment Statement for development of property located in Tukwila, Washington. Segale Business Park proposes to build a distribution warehouse facility, consisting of a one- story, dock height, tilt -up, concrete building with parking spaces for 1:1000 and related site improvements and landscaping, on the property in Tukwila, Washington, shown in red on the enclosed Exhibit A. The building will be owned by Segale Business Park and will have an area of 74,160 sq. ft. The building has been leased to a firm that will use it for distribution purposes. Segale Business Park, also, proposes to build a distribution warehouse fa- cility, of similar construction, with parking spaces for 1:1000 and related site improvements and landscaping on the property in Tukwila, shown in green on the enclosed Exhibit A. This building will, also, be owned by Segale Business Park and will have an area of 48,400 sq. ft. The building has been leased to two firms that will use it for distribution purposes, the remaining portion of the building is expected to be leased soon. The project is currently in the preliminary design phase, with construction contemplated to begin in the late summer of 1973. Segale Business Park acknowledges the requirement to submit an Environmen- tal Impact Statement and to submit final working drawings and specifications to the City Building Department for review and approval, prior to construc- tion. The Environmental Statement is submitted herewith, and it is antici- pated that the plans and specifications will be available for review within, approximately, three weeks. The building sites are currently vacant land that is a fairly level area gradually varying from elevation 22 on the West to elevation 28 on the East. Mr. Del Moss • • -2- July 18, 1973 Utilities will be available to the sites including gas and electricity, telephone, water, sewer and storm. All utility supplies are available in sufficient quantity, so that the proposed building will not jeopardize quantities and services available to adjacent owners. The buildings' exterior will both be pre -cast concrete with exposed aggre- gate and paint. All utilities will be underground. The site will be pro- fessionally landscaped, paying particular attention to site grading and plant materials. Surface water will be carried off the property into estab- lished storm drains by means of an on -site, sub - surface drainage system, with sufficient catch basins, footing drains and tight lines to carry surface water from roof areas of the building and paved parking surfaces. The finished floor elevation will be approximately 26 feet; the roof elevation will be approximately 54 feet. As required by Ordinance No. 759, City of Tukwila, the following statements are made in response to the Impact Assessment Summary. (a) The overall, cumulative impact of the action proposed and of further actions contemplated; No further actions are presently contemplated by Segale Business Park Com- pany in the City of Tukwila, on these sites. These sites will be fully developed with this action. The overall impact of this action will be to construct one building in which warehouse and distribution activity will take place, no potentially signi- ficant air, water or noise pollution will occur. Travel on Southcenter Boulevard will be increased by approximately 110 automobiles per day. (b) The importance of the action in terms of precedent for action in much larger cases or for other similar actions individually limited, but cumulately significant: The design and construction of the building and site improvements on this site will be to continue the construction of Andover Park West Street in terms of its potential consequences for other development along Andover Park West. Through proper design and landscaping approach Segale Business Park will continue, or exceed, the precedent already set by other development in this area. (c) The potential conflicts of the action with recognized national, state, regional or local plans or policies: There are no known policies with which this action could conflict. (d) The likelihood that the environmental impact of the action will be highly controversial among reasonably well informed persons: Mr. Del Moss -3- July 18, 1973 Segale Business Park does not believe that the construction of this build- ing will create an environmental impact which is likely to be controversial, because no zoning, variance, "'Conditional Use Permit is required. (e) The possibility of alternatives to the action that would have less adverse environmental impact. The least environmental impact on the site would be to leave it in its present state. Segale Business Park's clients seek a property which will be conveniently located to freeways and public transit routes. An examination of the geog- raphy of the county revealed that the Segale area was the most suitable to the client's purposes. Segale Business Park does not know of any alternatives to this action which would result in both the construction of this building and a development with less environmental impact than this one has. We have already mentioned the attention to landscaping on the property, the provision of underground utilities, the absence of industrial pollution to be emitted from this building and attention to quality and architectural design. If we may answer further questions, do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly ours, MAN, 1 ETT & TS:bb A. Scon SEGALE & 1 5 E 0 5S P4A UTILITIES LAYOUT Y9Mnal • 11+0•∎∎ AN Ass�3.nt. .11.s,7 RN, 2Orf �••r- - ...��.�n ;.4, , No. •1418 -0 ; Form F. 1 DEPARTM ENT JF ECOLOGY Northwest Washington Regional Office 15345 NE :- 6th Redmond, Washington 98052 FLOOD CONTROL ZONE APPLICATION NO Dated 7/31/.73 (l) *APPLICATION is hereby made by Mario A. Segal e (Individual, corporation, etc.) • Box 88924, Tukwila, Wash. 98.18 construct of or permit to and (Postoffice address) (Construct,.,reconstruct, modify). a Business and Industrial Park . (Nature of wucks. Bridge, dike, road, revetment Segale Business Park ...(Name of SENW (4) located inGL3, 2,6 , .Section 35 (r4Y2 NW!:,, etc.) Southeast corner of S. .180th St. and • Southeehter Parkway, Tukwila" (Location with reference to nearest town Or well known locality) •. (5) all or portion of which will be located upon the banks or in. and over the channel - or. over and•across the (2) and maintain . (3) to be known as thereafter operate logging works, gravel pits. etc.). works, structures or improvements) Township... 23 North; Range (E') (W).W.M.. flood plain of Green River (Narne of stream or body of water) (Name of stream or body of cater) • in State • Flood. Control Zone No a tributary o 'Puget Sound • 0) :This permit is • sought in perpetuity (In perpetuity; or, if temporary, state number of years) (7), Definite location and plan of the proposed' works, structures or improvements are shown. on attached sheets numbered 1 to :.., inclusive,' which are parts of this application.. (8) Construction. will commence - Late : surluner. 1973 and will he completed .aPProx• :. 5 years (Date) (Date) (9) Remarks: See figure A -1', Legal-Description •a.ttached.- • SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS Plans Examined and Reported by Field Examination and Report by Mario A. 'Segale (Applicant). PERMIT Application Returned fcr Alteration • Recommended by Issued Name. Date FIGURE A -1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Government Lot 5, together with portions of Government Lot 2 and Government Lot 6, and of the Southeast quarter of the North- west quarter and of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, All in Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point 505.54 feet East and 313.17 feet North of the Southwest corner of the said Government Lot 6; Thence North 66 °31'59" West 1.61E feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along the Easterly margin of Southcenter Parkway, North 25 °01'32" East 1125.70 feet; Thence North 19 °03'26" East 854.95 feet; Thence North 09 °47'14" East 28.18 feet; Thence North 59 °25'27" East 74.11+ feet; Thence North 88 °02'37" Eas't..103.76 feet; Thence South 87 °50'09" East 424.89 feet; Thence North 02 °09'51" East 371.77 feet; Thence along the Southerly margin of South 180th Street, South 87°50'09" 7 50'09" East 1184.71 feet; Thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 336.00 feet and a central angle of 17 °43'09 ", an arc distance of 103.91 feet to the West bank • of the Green River; Thence Southerly and Westerly along the bank ofthe said Green River to a point which lies South 66 °31'59" East to.the TRUE POINT'OF BEGINNING; Thence North 66 °31'59" West 329.55 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.. •• . . •.:. .: ,. • ' 1 ------- 1 . niorE APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF fl,OILOINO SITES 22 SEGALE 8US1TiESS PARK UTILITIES LAYOUT ii61,0171.51- /1.508.013 • Frank Todd, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 26 November 1973 Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88924 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Gentlemen: PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated a Transportation Control Plan subsequent to the National Air Quality Act. This Plan went into effect on 12 November 1973; however, the Parking Management portion of the plan is retroactive to 15 August 1973. City of Tukwila Building Permit #327, issued on 2 November 1973, is subject to the provisions of the above - referenced portion of the Transportation Control Plan. Please contact this office to initiate the proper procedures to comply with this new requirement. Sincerely, ary /Crufchf iel Planning Technician GC /lt • • sa•GA Lia 8US®I\IESS 1=0.AFii,< Mr. Steven M. Hall, P.E. Public Works Director City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 October 1, 1973 RE: Segale Business Park Storm, Sewer, Sanitary Sewers and Roadways Dear Mr. Hall: Enclosed please find the signed copy of your letter, dated September 27, together with our check number 1061 in the amount of $45.00 for permit fees as outlined. Our acceptance of the details outlined are subject to our understanding on the following point. With regard to the recommended stipulation by the City Attorney: "I think Mr. Segalle should be made aware of the fact that action on his environmental impact statement may require a change in his plans and may necessitate an order stopping his work at any time. If he is willing to proceed under these circumstances and is willing to sign an agreement holding the City harmless from any loss or delay in the project I think permission to proceed can be granted." This stipulation will only be in force until such time as our environmental impact state- ment, submitted on August 7, is accepted and approved as final - -which Mr. Moss expects to be approximately October 8, 1973. MAS :klk Enclosures CITY OF TUKWIL APPROVED OCT 1 1972 NOT per Very truly yours, -SEGALE BUSINESS PARK M. A. Segale P.O. BOX 88924 ■ TELEPHONE: (206) 226.3202 ® TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 Grano Cen.rai on the Paris • i'irst and ad So. Main w Sea Zie, shin6ioil 96104 * 206/ . Puget Sound Governmental Conference PSGC File No. 2/244/73 September 24, 1973 Delbert F. Moss, Planning 'Coordinator City of Tukwila 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Subject: Segale Business Park, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Moss: Please find enclosed preliminary staff comments concerning the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As you know, these comments are subject to review and approval by the Environmental Policy Advisory Committee on September 28 and by the full Conference on October 11. Formally adopted review comments will be forwarded at that time. Very truly yours, / zer/4, Keith W. Dearborn, Director Environmental Planning KWD:DK:bjp Enclosure •, Puget Sound Governmental Con,ere ece REVIEW AND REFERRAL COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM PROJECT IDENTIFICATION • FCC File No. 2/244/73 Jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project Tide: Draft Environmental Impact Statement City of Tukwila. Applicant: City of Tukwila Subject To Review Funding: Federal State Local . Other. Total Cost: Agency: N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Review of proposals and permitgproval for the development of Segale Business Park in the City of Tukwila. Site involves approximately 100 acres. LOCAL COMMENTS Comments have been solicited from approximately 22 agencies for review and comment. COMMITTEE COMMENTS It is noted that this Impact Statement is almost an exact duplication of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement for Andover Industrial Park prepared by Wilsey and I -Iam. The two statement differ only in that the detailed site specific information relevant to Anodver Park has been eliminated and replaced by sketchy information _ on the Segale site. This results in an extensive description of the Green River Valley and the generalized impacts of industrialization. It does not provide enough detailed information to determine the environmental impact of Segale Business Park. It is suggested that an independent Impact Statement dealing specifically with the proposed development at Segale Business Park be prepared. The statement as presented for review would seem to be in violation of the Tukwila City Ordinance that it was prepared pursuant to. Section 3(h), Tukwila City Ordinance (continued) I IIEREBY CERTIFY that at its meeting, held on , the Puget Sound Governmental Conference concurred in this REVIEW AND REFERRAL COM- MITTEE MEM9RANDUM and incorporated it into the minutes of that meeting. DATE PSGC Form R -4 • Mart Ka k, Exectuve Director • Review and Referral Committee Memorandum COMMITTEE COMMENTS Page 2 PSGC File No. 2/244/73 759 .... "In either this section or the other relevant sections of the statement, the major studies, reports, and other documents used in the preparation of the statement should be cited. " The Andover Industrial Park Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Wilsey and Ham from which the Segale statement was copied, .is never referenced in the document. • Director / Carl N. Crouse Assistant Directors / Ralph Wr•Larson Ronald N. Andrews Arthur S. Collin, Yakima, Chairman James R. Agen, LaConner . Elmer G. Gerken, Quincy Claude Bekins, Seattle Glenn Galbraith, Wellpinit Frank L. Cassidy, Jr., Vancouver 3DM 13AR.T1V13M1 T OP G.P M 600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504 September 20, 1973 Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Moss: Your environmental impact statement - Tukwila Segale Business Park - was reviewed by our Seattle region office and Olympia staff; our comments follow. Your description of the Proposed Action was very extensive, though you failed to conclusively establish the type of industry which will locate at Tukwila Segale Business Park site. On figure A -1 an Associated Sand and Gravel plant is indicated; past history has shown this type of plant as almost incompatible with aquatic life. The type of industry chosen for the Segale Park site will be a determining factor of project impact. Therefore, a clear description of proposed industry and /or alternatives should be included in your project description. Our primary concern with this project's Environmental Impact is pro- tection of Green River water quality and fishery resources. You have indicated that this project will "...markedly increase surface run -off coefficients ", "...divert more water into the Green River System ", "... increase peak flows of surface run - off ", and that "there will be an adverse effect on water quality from siltation which originates from washing of exposed earthen work areas" (pages 28 and 32). You have also recognized that "any direct discharge of ... pollutants... will influence water quality... and aquatic life" and "... accelerated surface run -off markedly increases the temperature of the receiving body... and Green River is near thermal capacity" (pages 29 and 32). We agree with your assessment and are concerned as the pollution potential which you outline constitutes a serious threat to Green River resources. Because of this, we recommend that all possible measures be taken to minimize these adverse effects. You have suggested a few partial solutions, i.e. the SCS West Side Green River P -17 proposed pumping plant and the use of skimmers and other pollutant control facilities these, and you have suggested that measures Mr. Moss -2- September 20, 1973 be taken to prevent silt from leaving earthen construction areas (pages 28 and 37). However, at this time there is no firm assurance that the P -17 project pumping plant will be built and we were unable to find an account of your suggested alternative solutions if it is not. Also, though you did suggest that measures be taken to prevent further siltation, you did not define those measures nor did you state that they would be enacted.. To assure that all avenues are explored to mimimize adverse effects on Green River, we recommend that you organize a section "Modifications to Proposed Project" to define pollution control measures and alternatives which will protect Green River resources. In addition, you stated that increased flows "will necessitate raising the river levees" (page 29), but the effect of this action on the Green River fishery was not outlined, nor were alternatives suggested. We cannot overstate the increased adverse effects which raising levees will have on the Green River fishery. An account of this impact should be included, specifying the quantity and types of fish this action would effect. Your statement, (page 31) implying that migratory birds and mammals "will be displaced to other locations" is false. These animals will not survive as alternate habitat areas are at carrying capacity and unable to support additional numbers of wildlife. The scope of lost wildlife resources should be fully explored and accurately reported. You have a similar problem in your dismissal of agriculture from Green River Valley (page 34). What evidence do you have that farming could be "..,more feasibly accomplished in other areas.,. "? The erosion of prime agricultural lands by urbanization and other development is a serious national problem. The so- called "other areas" are difficult to find -- if they exist at all. We do not agree with your. conclusions about impacts on wildlife that would occur with choice of the "agriculture alternative" (page 36). A study of the history of farming in Green River would clearly reveal that wildlife prospered with agriculture - and it has declined disasterously as "higher and better" use has encroached along the Green. Please correct this erroneous justification for eliminating the agriculture alternative. In fact, your EIS should document the positive benefits of this alternative to many aspects of human and natural environments. We are sure the information is readily available and should be included for objective analysis by all concerned. , Mr. Moss -3- September 20, 1973 We ask that comments we have made be considered in preparation of your final draft and decisions which must be made regarding the future of this important area,., Thank you for sending us your draft. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Eugene S. Dziedzic', Asst. Chief Environmental Management Division ES D: j b cc: Chitwood Agencies LIC1 :.r )a ., • C • • .,,,,_;,.,.,•. -' -may Ct l i �:i`F • DANIEL J. EVANS ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Y PHONE 753-8600 THO C. TOLLEFSON GOVERNOR OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 DIRECTOR September 19, 1973 Mr. Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila. 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: Your letter of August 20 requests our review of a draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Segale;Business Park proposed for the City of Tukwila. Our comments are as follows: 1. Although you indicate that the bank of the Green River would not be disturbed, you do not indicate the proposed width of the green belt or vegetative cover to be dedicated as an erosion control measure. 2. On page 16 the•scientific name for starry flounder should be listed as Platichthys stellatus. 3. Plans for the pumping plant and weir system (SCS West Side Green River Watershed P -17 project), proposed by the Soil Conservation Service, must be reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Fisheries and the Washington Department of Game. 4. References are made On. pages 6, 33, 37, and 38 to the Interim (.1. Regional Development Plan and the policy - making role of the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC). We understand that the role of the PSGC is primarily advisory in nature, and therefore we anticipated some discussion of the land- and water -use policies of RIBCO, King County's Environmental Policy Act Ordinance, and other local policy- making agencies. For example, the following statement is made on page 37: "....extensive conversion of farmland is con - trary to evolving regional goals ". On page 38 a statement is made that "the commitment of the subject area to its present use has been made after receiving full approval.... ". For clarifica- tion, we suggest that the agencies giving this "full approval" should be listed. 5. We also suggest that the alternatives for other uses'of this 100 - acre tract be explored in greater depth. Because of the proximity of the Green River and the location of this tract within the flood .plain, we are concerned over the potential impact of unrestricted land use that appears inherent in this proposal. Because,of the Mr. Delbert F. Moss September 19, 1973 Page 2 popularity of the Green River and its stream banks to fishermen, boaters, hikers, and other recreationalists, some statement should be made as to whether or not public access will be' permitted along the river frontage, about one'mile in length. In brief, more,dis- cussion of consistency with'local planning and policy - making agencies seems germane. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment upon this Statement. Sincerely, 1�. C, Thor C. Tollefson Director cc: Mr. Edward B. Sand - Dept. of Community & Environmental Development D. L. Lundblad - Dept. of Ecology' E.. S. Dziedzic - Dept. of Game h,r 1? 5 (CD C Grano Central on the Park • First and So. Main • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206/464 -7090 Puget Sound Governmenta!_Conference TO: Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 SUBJECT: Project Notification Review Applicant: Water District No. 75 PSGC File No: 185/73 Date: May 16, 1973. Project: Water Transmission Mains /Segale Business Park This project has been submitted to the Puget Sound Governmental Conference as the Metropolitan Clearinghouse Agency for review under the "A -95 Review" process. Since this project may affect your agency, your comments on this project are re- . quested to assist the PSGC in its review. Please make your comments on this form (attach additional sheets if necessary). If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact Mr. Brian A. Beam at the following phone number: 464 -6928. Comments should be returned by: May 31, _1973 Comments are also being requested from: Check One: This agency has no comments on this particular. project. This project is consistent with or contributed to the fulfillment of local comprehensive plans, goals, or. objectives. (Specify below). The project raises issues concerning incompatibility with local plans or intergovernmental problems and a meeting with the applicant is requested. (Specify below). This project is generally consistent with local plans, but qualifying com- ments are necessary. (Specify below). Signature Agency PSGC Form R-3 Title Return this form to t :he PSGC STATE OF WASHINGTON FEDERAL GRANT. REVIEW , • NOTICE OF INTENT • CLEARINGHOUSE .Planning and Community Affairs Agency Insurance Building Olympia, Wash. 98504 Pu an L Gd o vernmental ntrrandueral on the Park Bldg lst. Ave. S. S. Main St. Seattle, Wa. - 98104 GRANT APPLICATIONS ' . (A -95 Review) CLEARINGHOUSE ID. . , ,,. 185/73 STATE APPLICATION.IDENI UFIER 1 78 ,; :. ,, , -, . :,:t CARD ,TYPE. 9' 10 -14 01 APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE 12 -71 . Water Transmission Mains /Segale Business Park 02 APPLICANT AGENCY 12 -4: , t.,., . , Water District No. 75, King •County. DIVISION 46-79., :. ,.. 03 APPLICANT ADDRESS (Street) 12 -45. 19863 - 28th• Ave. South ' '" ' '' 'I. CITY 46 -60 Seattle', COUNTY 61 -75 King ZIP CODE 76 -80 98188. 04 CONTACT PERSON 12 -45 Henry B. Lyle, President of the Board • AREA 46 -48 206 PHONE 49 -55 Ta 4 -0375 LET. 56 -59 N/A 05 12 -71 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - NATURE: PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES (Use 5 lines if needed) LLne1 Construction of Water supply and transmission mains to 06 12 -71 Line provide water service to_ _1l0 acre business park.. 07 12-71 ,...1f,',,•., '.. ,_,. .. ... .::.. • ... .4. :'. Line 3 . 08 08 12 -71 J LINE 4 )! % ' j ± l . : . , ! ) ( 7 r .. 09 12 -71 ! .r ,... J ... 1' . - Line S 10 DISTRICT CLEARINGHOUSE 12 -71 Puget Sound Governmental Conference 11. PROJECT LOCATION, CITY 12 -45 Tukwila and unincorporated area PROJECT LOCATION, COUNTY 46-79 King i 12 FEDERAL FUNDS MATCHING FUNDS OTHER ..- FUNDS 44 -51 % TOTAL F1fcos 52 -60 GRANT 12-19 OTHER 20 -27 STATE 28 -35 LOCAL 36 -43 .e $107,000 $107,000 �� '' $214',000 13 TYPE OF OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS 12 -45 ** TYPE OF OTHER NON- FEDERAL FUNDS 46-79 •• 14 FEDERAL PROGRAM T1TLE 12 -71 , . CATALOGUE MO. 15 FEDERAL AGENCY NAME 12 -45 ' FEDERAL SUB - AGENCY 46 -79. ?.. 1 l.: TYPE 07 APPLICANT: (Check (X) the 'Ingle most applicable box) INTER- SCHOOL SPECIAL COMMUNITY .. SPONSORED STATE STATE COUNTY CITY DISTRICT DISTRICT ACTION - ;" ' ORGANIZATION OTHER jJ 12 El 13 0 14 En 15. III 16 IOU 17 • MI 18 19 D 20 • TYPE OF ACTION (Check (X) as any boxes as NEW CONTINUATION SUPPLEMENT GRANT GRANT GRANT . : 21 [] 22 MS 23 apply to this action) INCREASE DECREASE . DURATION DURATION I 24 CO 25 . ' CANCELLATION . .. r t.` :''` I • 26 r `:, INCREASE DECREASE !r1 .` DOLLARS DOLLARS Q 27 SW 28 1.7 IS STATE PLAN REQUIRED? YES NO III 29 i7 30 IS REGIONAL PLAN , REQUIRED? YES NNO�—Oyy MO 31 1p.1 32 18 THERE A i COMPREHEENSIVE '. ' ' PLAN? ' • CITY ' . COUNTY L-..1 33 34 ENVIRONMI?RAL ,. IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED Y,.'..; YES NO 135 16 HAS FEDERAL ,•.tA ... FUNDING AGENCY ,, . P6EN NOTIFIED? ' ' YES NO - Q 37 - 33 DAS STATE FUNDING AGEACY DEEM NOTIFIED? "' _', YES NO CM 39 - 40 HAVE STATE AND DISTRICT IS HOUSING RELOCATION NECESSARY?. • 11 WATER ANEA,18 INVOLVED, INDICATE ., . CLEARING HOUSES BEF3F NOTIFIED? SHORE- : 110E- , YES NO YES ' NO RIVER Wm , WAD LAND •.. OTHER ® 41 Sin 42 8111 43 44 Q 45 O 46 Q 47 �: i l 49 ESTIMATED DATE Of SUBMISSION FINAL APPLICATION 18 Ma 1973 PROJECT DATES (Est. Begin /Est. Lndinll) August, 1973 /December, 1973 ANTICIPATLON FOR FUTURE FUNDING • .,,, .- . 20 011U]t ACI:NCI:-;S ON CIIT DEPANTNENIS IYINTACTM?U (Attach agents, If uny Seattle Water Department, City of Tukwila 21 DESCRIBE NOW THIS PROPOSAL FITS WITHIN REGIONAL PLANS (silo epectfl.c reference to state, local 6 regional plan which support or cunfltct with this project) The proposed project lies within the service area of the District indicated in its Comerehensive Plans of 1965 and 1971 FORM' PC1tA -CH -1 Disregard all numbers except those on the left hand column of the form. Please complete the form carefully since a lack of information could result itr a processing delay of your application. If additional space is needed, attach a memorandum keyed to the appropriate question number. When you have completed the form, please submit six (6) copies, along with six (6) copies of any additional data, such as maps which may be necessary for complete understanding of the project to the District Clearinghouse (see • the Waahington State PNR Procedures Manual for aid) and 'to' the Planning and Community Affairs Agency, Office of the Governor, 100 Insurance Bldg., Olympia,` Washington 98504, Community Services Division. APPLICATION IDENTIFIER and CARU'I'YI'I'.. ~✓Leave hl,dnk (for- Clearinghouse Line 01. PROJECT TITLE: A brief descriptive name of the ptojectY Include prnjer:t-Iocallon where pr.ss.,l.hle. • Example: "Evergreen City Municipal. Park Site Acquisition ". : ! ) "; i ,•2tr`a! Line 02. APPLICANT AGENCY: County, City; Town or other unit of'government.authorized •to make application. DIVISION: When applicable, the sub- agency of the applicant responsible for. administering the project,_ .Public Works Department, fire Department, Library,; etc. " "'i '! Line 03. APPLICANT ADDRESS:. STREET, CITY, ZIP CODE.' Line 04. CONTACT PERSON: The person representing the applicant who may be contacted if:further ,information is necessary. ; Lines 05-09. `PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A brief narrative description of'the natureurpoue and beneficiaries of the. - project. List the major work elements to be undertaken. ' • Line 11. PROJECT LOCATION - CITY and COUNTY: Name of the city and county in which the project is to be located. (If the project involves acquisition of land or capital construction attach map; if outside the incorpor- ated limits of a city or town, attach information and map showing the location by range,,section and i township.) Line 12. FUNDS: Round off funds to the nearest whole dollar....'.. - SOURCES: ' '' , +..-.- A. GRANT - federal grant funds to be requested "' .... B. OTHER - types of federal funds other than grant funds, (e.g., loan, advance,etc.) C. STATE - any funds to be requested from the State ; D. LOCAL - all funds to be provided by the applicant E. OTHER = ,e.g., donations, all funds to be used in the project except A, B, C b D above F. TOTAL - total project coat (total of A, B, C, D & E above) Line 13. TYPE OF OT Eii F. ztAL FUNDS: Explain what the other federal funds ** are and what.other non - federal funds►• are. (e.g. contributed service, cash, etc.) Line 14. FEDERAL PROGRAM TITLE: Program title and catalog number as listed in the latest 0.M.B.'catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. (If unavailable, secure number from the District or State Clearinghouse.) Line 15. FEDERAL AGENCY NAME AND FEDERAL SUB- AGENCY: As listed in the OMB catalog, e.g., Department of Agriculture,FHA Line 17. TYPE OF APPLICANT: Check (x) the single moot npplirnhl' block. Only ono should be chocked. TYPE OF ACTION: Check (x) no many blacks nn npply to thin nctlnn. Al. ir•nnt one must he chocked. IS STATE FLAN REQUIRED? TS REGIONAL PLAN REQUIRED? IS THERE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? Check •pproprier.e blocks. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Dues—this project require the aubeisslon of an env`ironmen'tal impact - statement? - Submit a summary statement as to any environmental impact due to the project with the intent notice. HAS FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCY BEEN NOTIFIED? HAS STATE FUNDING AGENCY BEEN NOTIFIED? HAVE STATE AND DISTRICT CLEARINGHOUSES BEEN NOTIFIED? Check appropriate block for each question. IS HOUSING RELOCATION NECESSARY? Check appropriate block. If "yes ", provide information detailing extent of relocation necessary and method of accomplishment. IF WATER AREA IS INVOLVED, INDICATE: Check'as many blocks as are applicable to this action. If tidelands • or shorelands are involved, attach a memorandum describing the exact location -of the shorelands as range, section and township and give the length of the tidelands or shorelands involved in chains.or feet. • Line 18. ESTIMATED DATE OF SUBMISSION OF FINAL APPLICATION: Provide the specific date onawhich the.final application is intended to be subraitted:n • PROJECT DATES: Provide the specific beginning and ending dates for'the proposed project activity. Line 19. ANTICIPATED FUTURE FUNDING: . Provide an estimate as to the extent and source of funding for the proposed activity beyond that covered in this proposal. Line 20. OTHER AGENCIES OR CITY DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: Provide a list of all agencies, groups or- individuals formally notified of the proposed activity. Provide a copy.of any written comments received up to the time of sub- mission of this form. Line 21. DESCRIBE HOW THIS PROPOSAL FITS WITHIN REGIONAL PLANS: Provide a specific statement which identifies the State, Regional and Local'plans which affect the proposed activity. Also,;provide a-statement -as to the specific relationship of the proposed activity to the plans identified. DESCRIPTION w w • • Water District,No. 75, King County Project Synopsis ,Water Supply; Mains /Segale Business Park The proposed project includes the installation of 8800 lineal feet of 12" and 16" water mains. These mains will provide the basic supply re- quired to serve the Segale Business Park, lo- cated immediately south of the Andover Industrial Park. These mains will also increase the avail- able supply to the Southcenter and Andover Park areas. The Segale Business Park itself forms an industrial /commercial /retail center with a potential employment of over 500 people. A major obstacle to the development of this property under an intensified use is the avail- ability of water. The area lies at the south end of Tukwila's supply which is limited by a long supply main from Seattle's facility. Water District No. 75 has adequate main and storage capacity, but existing mains must be extended some 3000 feet through difficult terrain to reach the development, much less benefit it with any interior mains. A commercial /industrial park development is not feasible without the availability of an adequate water supply for domestic consumption.' and fire protection purposes. Segale Business Park is expected to develop over 2,000,000 square feet of floor space for firms for dis- tribution office, retail, and manufacturing uses. The site is presently zoned for these uses and will be served by both the Milwaukee • and Union Pacific Railroads. With over two (2) million square feet of floor space expected, total employment would be in excess of 500 employees. PLANNING CONSTRUCT ION • Water District No. 75, King County Project Synopsis Page 2 The proposed mains are a part of the District's Comprehensive Plan. The City of Tukwila does service the Andover Park area north of the proposed business park. Under an agreement between the two municipali- ties, the District will provide a connection to the City's system on South 180th. Street. This interite between the two systems will increase available fire flow to the City's Andover Park as well as providing fire protection to the entire complex. Coordination has been maintained between the City and its Engineer and Fire Chief and the District and its Superintendent and Engineer. Required permits can be obtained from the King County Engineer's Office and the Washington State Department of Highways within 45 days. These permits would be for construction along public rights -of -way. No ap- preciable environmental impact is expected inasmuch as the majority of construction is along public or projected private roadways. The project could go to bid within three months of approval. Construction employment, insofar as main installation is concerned, should peak immediately. Permanent employment would begin within one year. It is expected that building construction on a site of this size will be substantial. As buildings are completed, construction manpower will be replaced by permanent employees housed by the new structures. In effect, substantial manpower involvement will continue from the initial stages of construction through site and building completion and ultimate tenancy. Site development is expected to be phased over the next year. SUMMARY SHEET ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION n TITLE: Water Transmission Mains /Segale Business Park OF THIS REPORT: Negative Declaration GRANT/LOAN PROGRAM: Water District No. 75, King County 19863 - 29th. Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98188 Economic Assistance Authority / Washington State Department of Commerce and Economic Development TYPE OF PROPOSED ACTION: The proposed project includes installation of approximately 8800 lineal feet of 12" and 16" water mains. These mains will provide the necessary basic supply to serve the Segale Business Park, located immediately south of Andover Industrial Park in Tukwila, Washington. The park will contain industrial, commer- cial and retail developments. Mains will be constructed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the District and the applicable standards of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Ecology. The map attached indicates the location of the Park and the proposed mains. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The District currently serves the general area in which the proposed facilities are to be located. Mains will be placed underground, principally within existing and proposed roadways. Restoration of affected areas will be a part of any contract. There will be no appreciable visible effect. The area to be served lies immediately south of existing manu- facturing and commercially zoned land. The developer has stated that he will comply with applicable governmental re- quirements including Shoreline management and environmental impact regulations. With the exception of a small portion of County road, the property affected by this project is under one ownership. The area of development is level and includes the existing Rainier Asphalt Plant in the southern portion of the property. Commercial warehousing and retail outlets lie immediately to the north. Availability of an adequate water supply will enable freer and hopefully, more attractive development of the property. • • SUMMARY SHEET Page 2 The only forms of pollution, if they may be so termed are: construction noise (not excessive), and some temporary visual effects (ground will be restored insofar as possible to its original condition.) SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES: The land is already zoned for higher commercial and industrial uses. The developer has indicated his intent to develop the property. The District has from the City of Tukwila a request for assistance in providing peak demand and storage capability. Without such supplemental service from Water District No. 75, it is not likely that the City has the capability of meeting the total demands of this development. The area within the District and the City of Tukwila is transitional, however. Any present action regarding service does not preclude future service by the City of Tukwila. An area or regional approach is a part of the proposed project. Without the cooperation and consideration in such an approach, each utility must pro- vide adequate service with separate systems resulting in higher costs and less efficient service. The availability of adequate water will enable better and more attractive development of the property. The alternative ap- pears to be a much less efficient water system for ultimate development of the area. REVIEW PERIOD: Copies of this summary statement are being sent to the agencies noted below. Inasmuch as this construction project will cause minimal environmental impact, the length of the review period will be left to the discretion of the Authority. RECIPIENTS OF THE DOCUMENT: Copies are being forwarded to the Puget Sound Governmental Conference and the State of Washington Planning and Community Affairs Agency with the A -95 review. Additional copies are being sent to the Economic Assistance Authority for distribu- tion as it deems appropriate. I I1—ri 1 I I I III( n • PHILIP M. BOTCH _. CONSULTING ENGINEER Seattle, Washington =- COPYRIGHT NORTHWEST MAPPING SERVICE, SEATTLE 71614 Normandy Park; -0 Sv3 ?i AY; ac =� �ATTUU] Lake. • . A )mini slrotion l Off ce tj) Map Scale 0 1000 2000 3000 FEET r I 0 .25 .30 MILES L LEGEND District Service Proposed Annexation Proposed 12" & '16" Mains Des Moines 5000 1.00 SERVICE AREA Water District No. 75, King County, Wash. Binger an Pond AIR QUALITY The Segale.Business'Park is located at the.north. end-. of the Green River Valley which extends from Tukwila to a point south of Sumner. Wind patterns reflect the north =- south orientation of. the `:. valley. the. time the wind directions Seventy - seven percent of are from north' .and. south- (16% calm) . Southerly winds _are- most predominant. See figure 1, wind rose, .in the vicinity of the Andover industrial: Park. The greatest potentital for.'.stagnation -of th.e 'atmnosphere:`_ would occur in late fall and: winter. Earlty morni..ng: hours .are worse in a valley when. strong inversions prevent mi_xinq. Traffic to and from the proposed primarily in :the:..late morning:.. an Business Park would occur d .even ir�g hours which would patterns not be during the worst conditions of .inve:r_sion An emissions inventory. of the valley shows -no s.iignifi- cant point sources. There is ment within one and one -half . miles.. Of the site Southcenter, Longacres Racetrack, Andover Industrial Park, SeaTac Airport, residential_ areas of Tukwiia and. Kent, Boeing Space Center, Western Electric and Benaroya Industrial Park.. Two types of .impacts -upon air quality: are expected....as a result of the development :of this project. They are: 1. Short Term - increased concentrations of suspended partic- ulates during site preparation and excavation phases of con -. struction as.. well_ as emissions. from. gasoline or.. desiel powered construction equipment. 2. Long Term .- increased _pollutant_ concentrations_ along access roads and increased _poLlutant_concentrationLin ..the immediate vicinity'. of.. the buildings_due_ta the number-_of.- vehicles collecting in a small area. The Proposed ._buildings._in_ the :.Business- _Park_wir.1Y be heated- by electricity, _.thereby el imi nazi ng .potential-_emislions from burning organic fuels.. Since. construction- is. scheduled._ to . begin during the winter months, the frequency . of precipitation. should_ minimize- the amounts Of suspended. particulates_ released. from the_ .site .° _ . Emissions from construction_ equipment. powered- by internal_ combustion- engines from. projects.. of -this magnitude would- not be expected - to be significant .. in. relationship_.to the overall. air quality within the valley. To estivate impacts ..on air . quality from transportation sources,, an increase -. in.. vehicle volume _must be related to :the time of day in which it occurs . There are two reasons for this. kind of relation. }. First;. the potential_. for__ air .pollution. based. on meteorological_ conditions .is_usually greatest during the early morning; and. secondly, various building uses will generate a specific number of vehicle trips during .specific periods of the day. See figure 2. • The commercia 1 '-related - activities carried on - within the proposed buildings are expected to generate a -total of 2,200 vehicle trips per day. See table 1. Three types of calculations were.. performed. to estimate the magnitude and significance of the proposed projects. 1. Area concentration of.CO.using:parking lots.as • complex.source. • 2. • Impact _of nearby arterials on CO concentrations in the vicinity, of:.the buildings. 3... Concentrations .of_CO voles along the. Major arterial. The . basis. .for_ area._ source_.caIculations ..were equations ,.. presented . by Hanna (1971). Impacts from. roadways ,were~ estimated by _ using the State of: California Line Source Modex:.. Al) : calcu- lations assume. Class- F . atmospheric stabil qty concdi ti.ons and wind speed of one. meter/second., Step by step procedures_ all. assumptions . are shown in Appendix 1. The impact of 'constructing .122 .. parking spaces . a_n. conjunct ,on with these buildings. would be. negligible.; Carbon_monoxide con- centration for the eight. hour. period: from_ two , o ¢clock P 0 4 ten o'clock P .M.,, peak _hours for to' average approximately 1.mg /m3 •concentrations. retail .stores,. are expected' over the - existing - *ambient. • See Table.2,.:National Pr.imary.and Secondary: Ambient Air Quality Standards.. for comparison:_ Theoretical. calculations to estimate. the change in concentrations of CO. as a result of the additional traffic vo.Lume expected showed an increase of 0 _,1,. mg. /m3 -. •. This change would •probably- not be measurable under average conditions... With federal emission controls.on vehicles, the .above - values are expected. to .decrease by approximately 15` annually. Area Source. Assumptions:. 1. There.will_be an additional_2,200__vehicle trips generated as a.result.of this project.. 2.i That_ 6 0 % I _ of _.these:: trips will._ occur_. during•, the hours.. from two o'clock P..M.. to..:.ten _o'clock P.M. ..See figure 3. That.. each... vehicle.._wiil..travel:. 0.,.S-.milesat..an average speed of 20 .mph. when ..approaching the park:i:.ng .Lot, .:Locating A. parking space and then.. leaving by .the most._.direct .route a 4. .That. the area of..ampact - would inciude:.the parking lot. and the adjacent buildings:.__ This area_.to._be. defined as _a box approximately .2,000,feet.square. 5. .That Class .F .stability condition.s_wouid..r_epr_esen.t. "worst case`.' . The . wind...speed is 1 m /sic. The area source model. proposed_by. Hanna. (1971)__.can be: repre- sented by.the equation. X.= CQ where: X = pollutant .concentration.. _in grams per_._cubic meter. C = a constant which . is._ a...function_.of ..the atmospheric. stability and grid size Q.= source strength in grams per square meter...per second. APPENDIX I AIR. QUALITY. CALCULATIONS U = wind speed in meters per second. The total mass of CO emitted equals: q /m; 1230 VEH /8 hr. x 0.5 mi x 56 VEH = 34440 cs /° -hr. The source emission rate Q would be: . --- 34440g x 1 * x *'i hr': = 3.2x10 6 g/sec-m 2 8 hr 371600m Solving for X: 3600 sec - X = 238.6 x 3.2 x 10 6 g/sec-m2 1 m/sec • • X = .77 mg/m3 The concentration of CO for the eight hour period fromtwo . .• - • • o'clock P.M. to ten o'clock P.M., assuming worst case conditiorise--- • 3 would be less than 1 mg/m II. Influence of Local Arterials on Air .Quality in. the Vicinity-. _ of the Project. Assumptions: 1.. That the.worstcaSe_hourly.volume.is_approximately . _ equal to 10% of the average daily traffic. 2. That the buildings_are_located 1,500 feet downwind from the roadway. 3. The averagespeed is 35 mph. 4. That South 180th. is the only source with a. potential_ significant effect.. Its ADT is 3,500 VEH. • • •., • • • • • - 5. That "worst case" .Class .F. Stability conditions exist. The wind speed_is 1 meter/sec. The California Line .Source.. Model can be shown by.the.equation: C = 1.06Q K,U SIN 0 where: C = concentration of pollutant in grams per_cubic meter . Q = emission source in grams per:meter per second U.= wind speed in meters per secod K = emperical constant angle of.the.wind..with respect to. highway alignment 1.06 - emperical factor relating.height.of.the mechanical mixing cell.. to _concentration To compute. Q. the'following_equa.tion is used:. Q.= 1.73. x 107x. VPH. x ' emission factor `7. Note: 1.73x10.. _.. is . a constant to ' convert. (VPH) (g /mi) per meter per second. Solving: Q = 1.73x10 -7 555 VPH x.33.6 -g /m Q = .033 g/m -sec., The CO concentration 1,5.00 feet downwind C = .35 Q* K.J. • C .2 mg /m3. >. III. Estimate of CO. Concentration at _100 .feet _ from. the Valley Highway as.a Result of.increased:_.Traffic Volumes.. Assumptions: 1. _ 1, 3', . 5 as in previous case. 2. Wind intersects roadway.at_an angle. Using California. Line.. Source Model C = 1.06Q N. K,J. SIN 0 ' as before: Q= 1.73x10 -7 x 1443 VPH x 33.6 g /mi Q = .008 g/m sec. * From Appendix A to Volume IV Air Quality Manual a Method of Analyzing and Reporting Highway Impact On Air Quality. Solving: C = 1.6 x .088 g/m -sec 4.24 x i 3 C = 3.0 mg /m References 1. U.S. Environmental.. Protection .Agency _ `:Compilation.. of Air Pollutant Emission Factors'.'., :April .197.3.,. Second Edition. 2.• State of California, Division_.of..Highways._ "Air. Quality Manual, . A.. Method. for _Analyzing_ and.. Reporting.. Highway Impact • on Air Quality. CA- HWY.- MR6570825- 6- .72 -14.,. July 1972. . . 3. Holyworth., G.C. :,. . "Mixing: Heights, ..Wincl._Speecl.and..Potential for Urban Air Pollution._.Througho.nt..the_ .Contiguous United: States" U S _ : EnvironmentaLProtec.tion Agency:, _January 1972. 4. • Hanna, .S..R... ` "A_ Simple..Method_of.. Calculating. Dispersion from _Urban_ Area... Sources!' ... Journal_of ..Air ,.Pollution Control. Association. 21, 774, 1971. 9.3 NCI NE 4.5 _ 1.6 16.1. LIGHT AND VARIABLE STATION LCC TION- INCLUSIVE C4TES- SSW 17.5 s 21.4 5.7 HOUR AVERAGE SURFACE WINOS PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 227 ANDOVER PARK E, TUKWILA ALL MONTHS 1972 1.1 -. 4.0- 7-0- 11.0- 17.0- OVER 3.9 6.9 10.9 16.9 71.9 71.9 KNOTS FIGURE • S p p p Im kwaY r ou p a 12700 13200 .o....r, _ " '""°'ate x• Valley I:ighway u -408T uq-noS 23400 47°0 : Srib• �t�ssiliim :�evrxx�tc�yt.':,;�t'a�R' 9 . __._.__ .._RFTAIL_S.TORF.S_A_-SSOCIATED TRAFFIC — HOURLY FLUCTUATIONS 4000 3000 0 • 0 . 0 0 0 0 .0 • • Q V 0 0. 0 0 0 0 • • 0 + {i=NTERING EXITING 9 am 10am 11am : 12noon 10m 2pm 3pm 4pm vpm 6pm : . 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm source: JOHN. GRAHAM AND COMPANY (1965 ) FIGURE TABLE I. TRIP GENERATION Building Use .Pay and Save Warehouse - Retail Project 73 Warehouse - Retail Office Square Feet- Source: John. Graham. & Company (1973) 70 70,452 22,990. 22,990 - Maximum Trips Generated TABLE IX. NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Source: Federal Register, Volume 36, Number 84, 1971 Primary Secondary • Hydrocarbons 160 micrograms per cubic meter, 3 -hour concentration (6 to 9 A.M.), not to be exceeded more than once per year Same as primary Carbon Monoxide 10 milligrams per cubic rneter, 8 -hour 40 milligrams per cubic meter, maximum concentration, not to be exceeded more 1 -hour concentration, not . to be than one per year exceeded more than once per year Oxides of Nitrogen 100 micrograms per cubic meter, annual arithmetic mean Same as primary Particulates 60 micrograms per cubic meter, annual . geometric mean 100 micrograms per cubic meter, maximum 24 -hour concentration, not to be exceeded more than once per year Source: Federal Register, Volume 36, Number 84, 1971 CITY OF TUKWILA Draft. Environmental Impact tatement for development of SEGALE BUSINESS PARK. Pursuant Of Tukwila Ordinance _759 Date CITY OF TUKWILA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TUKWILA', KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pursuant to: WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1971 Chapter 43.21C.RCW CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Ordinance No. 759 FRANK TODD Mayor By DELBERT F. MOSS Planning Coordinator SUMMARY SHEET Nature of this report: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sponsor: City of Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98067 Delbert F. Moss - Planning Coordinator Type of Proposed Action: Administrative decisions by the City in review of proposals and permit approval, for, the development of Segale Business Park. Official Title of Proposed Action and Summa of the Proposed Action: a. Official Action - Permits to be granted: 1) Shoreline Management Permit in the case of significant improvements within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the West bank of the Green River.. 2) Building Permits including the applicable Utility Permits. b. Other Official Action - Review: 1) Review of State Department of Ecology Flood 'Zone Permits by Public Works Director. 2) Review of storm drainage system discharge by Public Works Director.. c. Summary of the Proposed Action 1) Purpose - to undertake all official action necessary in accordance with City Ordinances. 2) Location - Segale Business Park, Tukwila, Washington as indicated on the location map marked "Figure A -1 ". 3) Size - Approximately 100 acres. Summary of Environmental Impacts: Development resulting from the proposed action will not have a significant environmental impact if sound engineering, hydraulic and ecologic principles are adhered to: 1.07011101/ cacao a.p SOUTHCENTER INDUS•TIRIAL PARK v . , .•0•11•1.. COES MILTON i .11•. • on m Mt". • jloro. �cou.,. CO �� 1AR 1C100 N,I..c 001•11., • AP- IIICnIC •1.100 tool .a : � 4.1. 0..00[11 ,1 { CO .1 ! , • • 001,00 I. 1 . 1 O [O i ~ IC:..�.II > 1011•0 CO 040. 10 NC i Ii 7000,01. . .l • ..•G• . , r 0114. _ .. .,- W. ., 1)IOyI .1.11 . ,.."I . N rA(rO.1.G won., • CO 0 c0 4C ,101111 ANDOVER PARR ( -\.,, .o . 4c I o •C10106 . SON INC. All PAK ♦001,11 IT•P1 PAIN *MCI INC •1010 WEST 4N0OVER PARK WEST •cn0 .boil. ■•00180.,. 0 C P1111.10 CO. ..1•111•0041 OsrI OUT PARK A tzOn I ICI 1, •1 x.,1•1 ICI•1[1,1 1«10•0• T. I C.I110nn. •1•••10 SOUTHCENTER AREA TUK.WILA, WASHINGTON PA Ali M97 -f. 1,T. a+*!!■!: NC111G 000 *0 ■ a�AM'4C T'Y •ni': `-S.`I,. ;z:� T1,-; ,... .. 0•.11 100/40 •.0 —.1:1 0.. -•■•■■■•• a. Topographic /Geologic Impact - The earthwork operation is consistent with sound soils engineering practice. The average elevation of the site will not be signi- ficantly changed. b. Biological Impact - The major biological impact in this area occurred sometime ago when the decision was made to establish the commercial /industrial complex at Southcenter. Covering remaining grasslands is not a significant factor since the site is and has been disked to keep grassland and other foliage at a minimum. No cover exists for migratory birds or other wildlife populations except along the bank of the Green River which will not be disturbed. c. Atmospheric Impact - A temporary increase in suspended particulates concentrations will occur with earthwork and other construction operations. Increased traffic flows resulting from expanded commercial /industrial .activities will increase the concentrations of all common air pollutants and will increase noise levels. d. Surface Drainage /River System Impact - Increased.impervious surfaces will increase storm runoff quantities, contributing only in small part to the overall drainage problems associated with the Green River System. Water quality will be influenced by particulate matter and hydrocarbons washed from paved surfaces by storm runoff. e. Change in Human Use - The extension of the adjoining commercial /industrial development that will result from the proposed action represents no change in the predominant human use other than to expand it onto land that has long been dormant. IIRecipients of the Document (Reviewers): Puget Sound Governmental Conference Puget Sound Air Pollution,Control Agency U. S. Coast Guard District Seattle District Corps of Engineers U. S. Army Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Program Policy U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service State of Washington Department of Game State of Washington Department of Ecology State of Washington Parks and Recreation Commission State of Washington Department of Natural Resources State of Washington Planning and Community Affairs Agency State of Washington Department of Highways Federal Highway Administration Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U. S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Health and Science Affairs U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare U. S. Office of Economic Opportunity State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services State of Washington Department of Commerce and Economic Development State of Washington Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management DATE STATEMENT MAILED: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DEVELOPMENT OF SEGALE BUSINESS PARK A. The Proposed Action 1. Type of Action The City of Tukwila.will perform administrative action in the review of proposals and the granting of permits, for the completion of allowable development at Segale Business Park hereinafter referred to as,the subject area. All review and permit procedures are prescribed by Tukwila City Ordinances and have been codified within the Tukwila Municipal Code. This Environmental Impact Statement is intended to describe the anticipated effects upon environmental quality resulting from the development as allowed by the applicable sections of the Tukwila Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 2. Justification for the Proposed Action The proposed action is the lawful implementation of previously determined City of Tukwila policies as embodied within official plans, ordinances and resolutions. 3. Location (Refer to Location Map, Figure A -1) The subject area lies wholly within the Tukwila City Limits and portions Government lot 2, 5, and 6. Subject area is bordered on North by South 180th Street, West by Southcenter Parkway and on the East by Green River and on the South by the Green River and approximately the Tukwila corporate limit. 4+. Historical Background a. Land Use The subject area lies within the northern Green River Valley. Farming began in the Nineteenth Century with dairying as the predominant land use in the valley. Truck farming was also carred on, but high water table and poor drainage minimized this use. Much of the land in .and about the river valley remained as undeveloped marshland up to the relatively recent rap-ld industrial growth. - 1 - This industrial growth was stimulated by a number of factors, but one of the most important is the proximity of transportation systems which have historically been routed through the Green River Valley. Geography sets severe constraints on where transportation routes can be built in the Puget Sound Region. Seattle responded to the early predominance of Tacoma as the major railroad terminus on Puget Sound with the building on the Seattle & Spokane Railroad Line which later became part of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad's main line up through the Duwamish, and the lower Green and Maple Valleys. Eventually, other railroads, i.e. the Northern Pacific, Union Pacific, and Great Northern, followed nearly parallel routes. These railroads were supplemented by a system of highways constructed in the first quarter of this century. The move toward industrial development in the valley began early in the 1950's. Planners for the Port of Seattle suggested an ambitious scheme to turn the Duwamish and Green River Valleys into a large industrial complex complete with.a shipping canal to service the area. Tukwila citizens countered this proposal by incorporating large land'areas into the City and imposing their own industrial zoning on the land. This zoning in the valley, plus high increases in residential and commercial development on the adjacent hillsides, and the subsequent building of the freeway system (again to some extent dictated by geographic and topographic features) all contributed to the present rush of industrial and commercial development that is not expected to abate for several more years. b. Flood Control Prior to 1900 the White River, and its . tributaries, the Green and Black rivers, flowed northward through, and frequently across, the valley floor. The Black River was the outlet for Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and the Cedar River Basin. In 1906 the White River changed course during a flood and was thereafter permanently diverted into the Stuck and Puyallup rivers. Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 resulted in the lowering of Lake Washington, permitting the Cedar River to be turned north into the lake and shutting off flow through the Black River. With flow through the valley thus drastically reduced, use of the valley floor for farming became more feasible. Farm owners, individually and by districts, constructed low dikes along the Green River, which, while not effective against major winter floods, did permit the land to be worked earlier in the spring and later in the fall. In 1962 Howard A. Hanson Dam was constructed about 30 miles upriver from Auburn. The Eagle Gorge site was the best available for storage and was utilized to its maximum practicable capacity. Major floodflows were reduced to the maximum capacity of the river channel with its existing dikes, less than 12,000 second -feet at Auburn. By way of comparison, a natural flow of 24,000 second -feet occurred in 1933. During the 1960's, the Soil Conservation Service, in conjunction with the Green River Flood Control Zone District (administered by King County), completed planning for a valley drainage system comprised of land treatment measures selected to preserve favorable hydrologic conditions on the uplands, and a network of channels and large capacity pumping plants. During storm periods interior valley drainage will be pumped into the Green River at several locations. The main pumping plant at the mouth of the Black River, was completed in 1972. In the near future, as the drainage discharge from this and other pumping plants adds to the controlled flood release from Hanson Dam, the existing river channel capacity could be exceeded during extreme flood conditions with simultaneous abnormal valley storm runoff. This was recognized in the Soil Conservation report on the drainage system. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress to initiate a flood control study of the Green - Duwamish River in 1960. In 1966, with the cooperation of King County, the study was revised to include investigation of the possibility of reducing flows as controlled by Hanson Dam and increasing channel capacity from Auburn to the Duwamish turning basin to accommodate increased flows resulting from the SCS Project. Study funding terminated in 1968, but resumed in July 1970. The Corps has investigated alternative flood control measures and integration of these with enhanced opportunity for recreation. Further action awaits on a King County investigation of the potential influence of flood control implementation upon land use patterns in the valley. c. Commercial /Industrial Development During the mid 1950's a group of investors, among them Allied Stores, the Union Pacific Railroad, and others, began to see the advantage of the expansion of Tukwila's jurisdiction to the Green River Flood Plain. They began to purchase many individually owned parcels that they recognized as being potentially suitable for commercial /industrial development.. Tukwila City policy at that time was sympathetic to these efforts, and cooperation between City Government and the investors led to the joint planning of a shopping center and surrounding industrial park complex. The Development Master Plan for Southcenter and Andover Park was completed in 1958 and subsequently approved by the City. Groundbreaking for the General Electric Company's building on July 25, 1961, initiated construction of the first industry in the first such industrial development in the valley. Completion of the Howard A. Hanson Dam at this same time and later initiation of the SCS Drainage Project further accommodated industrialization of the valley. Public Participation The proposed action, being the administrative review of development projects within the subject area, may require - public meetings under certain existing City of Tukwila ordinances. Each such public hearing is publicized in advance as prescribed by Law. Since the subject area is contiguous to the Green River, a Shoreline Permit will have to be issued for any development adjacent to the river. The proposed action implements adopted City Policies as embodied primarily in Council Resolutions, the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the Municiple Code. Each of these has been subjected to public review during the normal course of adoption. Tukwila is unique for cities in the region in hearing where full advantage is taken to express views. Generally, local newspaper coverage of these hearings is extensive. Public participation has been an important part of the decision making and policy adoption by other agencies having jurisdiction for planning and implementation of policies influencing development in the Green River Valley. As an example, the.Corps of Engineers has conducted a. series of public hearings in conjunction with their investigations of alternative flood control measures for the Green - Duwamish River described above. 6. Proposed Method of Financing and Financial Sponsors The proposed action, as a series of administrative decisions, requires no special funding outside of that'normally required to support City Governmental Administrative Processes. All commercial/industrial development within the subject area will be financed from independent sources outside of the City. Relationship with Existing Laws, Policies, Plans a. City Laws: City Ordinances prescribe that the following permits be issued and the following review procedures be undertaken with regard to any proposed land development: (1) Permits: a) Shoreline Management Permit in the case of significant improvements within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the West bank of the Green River. b) Building Permits including the applicable Utility Permits. (2) Reviews: a) Review of State Department of Ecology Flood Zone Permits by Public Works Director. b) Review of storm drainage` system discharge by Public Works Director. b. Other Laws: State Law (RCW 86.16) establishes flood control zones throughout the State. One such zone governs the Green River flood plain and development projects within this zone must be issued a Flood Zone Permit by the State Department of Ecology. The King County Department of Public Works, Division of Hydraulics has traditionally reviewed applications for Flood Zone Permits in King County on behalf of the Department of Ecology. c. Policies and Plans: The development which will occur will be consistent with local and regional laws. The City of Tukwila has clearly assumed the ultimate completion'of Segale Business Park as a keystone of its future economic and land use planning.. This policy dates back to the time when the subject area was annexed to the City of Tukwila. Previous to that date it was a part of an unincorporated area adjoining the boundaries of the City of Tukwila. In order to increase it's economic base; the City of Tukwila annexed the subject area into the City in a M -2 zoning classification. c. Policies and Plans: Continued The development within the subject area is also consistent with current regional plans. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference has confirmed that the subject area lies within the area proposed for industrial development by the conference's Interim Regional Development Plan (IRDP). The following exerpts from the IRDP show clearly the conference's adopted policy to encourage future regional development within existing and committed regional centers, located near regional transportation routes and where utilities and public improvements already exist. Regional benefits of this policy include preserving regional open -space resources, eliminating unnecessary expenditures for public facilities. and improvements, and reducing the amount of time spent in home to work commuting trips: "New employment activities will locate in the committed employment center of the central cities and nearby suburbs. New outlying employment centers will not be committed during the interim period ". "The central major city in each of the four counties will remain as the dominant business center. Beyond. these four central cities, smaller existing or committed major business centers are spaced at three -to -four mile intervals along the existing or committed regional transportation system. These centers are surrounded by urban clusters of intensive employment and housing...." Land Use Policies (a) Establish an ecologically based planning system. (b) Conserve critical natural processes and resources. (c) Focus development in existing utility and service areas. (d) Encourage identifiable, self - sufficient communities. 8. Actions /Decisions Remaining for Irnplementation The proposed action will result in incremental completion of the development within the subject area. Import of material from other areas is generally needed except for building pads, inasmuch as the average site elevation of the subject area is approximately elevation 22. Grading of the area will be to elevation 22 which is the normal elevation for the street and railroad system in this area. The drainage systems which will be connected to storm lines conform to a master plan prepared by the City of Tukwila, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Green River Flood Control Zone District based upon ultimate development of the area as industrial sites. Historically, warehouse buildings that will be developed on the property will cover roughly 50% of each site. Office buildings historically cover much less of each site perhaps in the order of 30 %. Retail buildings developed in the area will also cover much less land than the distribution or manufacturing buildings because of the higher parking requirements. All of these uses are consistent with the City's M -2 zoning classification, and no anticipated use of this site will exceed the zoning classification. B. Existing Conditions 1. Natural Setting a. Area Directly involved (Subject Area) The area involved and primarily influenced by • land development that will result as a consequence of the proposed action is the 100 acres, which is partially developed at the present time. Secondary influence and involvement will occur with respect to the total Southcenter Commercial- Industrial Complex, the Green- Duwamish River, Interstate Freeways 5 and 405, the West Valley Highway, Southcenter Parkway, the Milwaukee Road and Union Pacific Railroads and other elements of the Tukwila Industrial area physical environment, land use patterns, and infrasturcture. b. Geomorphology and Topography Segale Business Park is situated on a mature flood plain south of the historic concluence of the Green and Black Rivers which, prior to alternation by man, joined to become the Duwamish River. ' Locally the broad flat - floored valley is delimited by the.Tukwila and Riverton Heights uplands on the north and west as well as the Renton and Ken&Highlands area on the east. Relief on the flood plain in the subject area proper approximates five feet (between elevations + 15 and + 20). Area. relief is 400 -600 feet. Historically the Green River changed its meander pattern within natural fluvial hydrologic bounds. Aerial photographs and maps reveal old point -bar sand deposits, natural levees, meanders, and oxbow lakes (cut -off meanders) in the now largely artificially regraded flood plain. Besides extensive and ongoing filling for industrial development, the natural topography has been altered by construction of levees to supplement the natural river levees for flood control purposes and to confine the river to a specific channel location. Highway cut and fill and railroad embankments are additional alterations. c. Geology (1) Quaternary Geologic History Several periods of glaciation of the Puget lowland produced a complex stratigraphic record. The northern part of the North American continent was covered at least four times in the Pleistocene Epoch by great ice sheets which ultimately reached all the way to Olympia, covering all the hills of the Puget Lowland and the San Juan Islands and lying high against the flanks of the Olympics and the Cascades. This happened at least three and probably four times, although the record of the older glacial events has been obscured greatly by the most recent glaciation. Consequently, knowledge of the early glacial history of the Lowland is poor. The effects of glaciation on the Puget Lowland were so great that a pre - glacial reconstruction of the topography is quite difficult. It is assumed that the basic distribution of major landforms was as it is today with the Cascades and Olympic. Mountains separated by a broad valley not unlike, perhaps, the present Willamette Valley. Drainage was to the north and then west to the ocean via the Strait of Juan de Fuca. As the ice wall moved south across the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands, the drainage of the Puget Lowland was probably affected very little. An entirely different situation prevailed, however, as soon as the advancing glacier reached the northeast front of the Olympics. At that time, the wall of ice effectively dammed the entire lowland, for little drainage could escape past the ice to reach the ocean. The result, inevitably, was the formation of a lake. The abundant clay - stone cropping out on the canyon walls along the lower Green River drainage has its origin as soft clay in this lake bottom. Eventually, this lake filled the entire lowland between the ice wall, the mountains, and the divide between the Puget Sound and Chehalis River drainage basins. •This lake received runoff from the mountains and meltwater from the Puget Lobe. The silt, sand, and gravel sediments exposed in the valley walls along the lower Green River were transported from the Cascades by the glacier and reworked by meltwater streams as the ice advanced and retreated during the last and next to last glaciations. The resulting stratigraphic record is a series of alternating beds of lake clay, outwash detritus, and till (material deposited directly by the glacier). Gravels capping the surrounding hill- tops are the outwash gravel which was later locally re- worked by post - glacial streams. 9 Differential erosion has locally produced a markedly irregular ground surface. The surface was carved out of lake sediments, plus the varied sediments derived from older glacial and interglacial periods, plus preglacial bedrock. Glacial erosion deepened pre- existing river valleys. This produced the Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish basins and deepened Puget Sound off Seattle to as great a depth as 1,000 feet below present sea level. Where the ground was not markedly excavated by the overriding ice, it was shaped. In both the Seattle area and elsewhere in the Puget Lowland, many of the elongate hills parallel to the general direction of ice move- ment (which was for the most part approximately north - south) owe their form to glacial shaping. As the Vashon Ice Sheet melted and receded in late Pleistocene time, the Green River again was able to flow northwesterly into the Puget Sound drainage. The drainage developed a mature flood plain with small youthful tributaries draining the uplands. Some of these smaller watercourses probably began as meltwater streams from the receding ice. Drainage from the ice - sculptured highlands was sluggish and vegetation thrived as evidenced by peat bogs and the relatively low relief topography on the plateaus. The local creeks then began to cut vertically and the present watersheds were defined. These local tributaries subsequently cut over 400 feet through the glacial outwash and till, as well as the underlying pre - Vashon (probably Salmon Springs) drift complex. As post Pleisto- cene sea level continued to rise, the tendency to cut vertically was lessened because the Green/ Duwamish River was aggrading (filling) its valley due to the lessened gradient brought on by sea level rise. (2) Environmental Geology - Soils and Fill Original surface soils where exposed in the subject area are typically the Puyallup silt loam of the Puget Series. This soil occurs principally in the Green River Valley and is associated closely with the Puyallup very fine sandy loam and fine sandy loam. It is developed on a very thick valley fill of recent alluvium. The upper 12-14 inches of the soil is a slightly acid gray -brown friable silt loam. The upper 30 inches of the subsoi '. is very slightly acid to neutral and is gener;illy a light or medium - 10 - grayish brown silt loam interbedded with very fine silt loam. Rust brown mottling is common throughout. Borings indicate that the upper natural soils in the subject area consist generally of strata of sandy silt and silty fine sand. d. Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology Existing biological conditions of the subject area have been field inventoried and analysed. In addition, the results of a game survey from.the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation. Service for the West Green River Watershed in the vicinity of the P -17 Drainage Channel Project are mentioned. (1) Terrestrial Botany Predominant botanical species of the subject area are listed in the Table, Fig. B -1. An inventory of the subject area is summarized as follows: The major biological impact in this area occurred sometime ago when the decision was made to establish the commercial /industrial complex at Southcenter. Covering remaining grasslands is not a significant factor since • the site is and has been. disked to keep grass - land and other foliage at4,a minimum. No cover exists for migratory birds or other wildlife populations except along the bank of the Green River which will not be disturbed. (2) Terrestrial Wildlife The subject area lies within the West Green River Watershed, which is part of the Pacific migratory fowl flyway. A general 'census of waterfowl and other wildlife in the. watershed area was conducted on 17 different dates between November. 20, 1973 and February 1, 1973. During this period 230 waterfowl, 3 quail, more than a dozen rabbits and 2 pair of weasels were observed. Waterfowl counts are listed in the table, Fig. B -2. These counts were made twice a week. An average of 14 birds per day was counted. With respect to mammals observed in all areas, positive evidence of the presence of moles, meadow mice, and rabbits only was found. Further time for observation and trapping would very likely disclose the presence of whitefooted mice, muskrats, at least. FIGURE B -1 PREDOMINANT BOTANICAL SPECIES River bank & Dike Road FAMILY GUNUS- SPEC_I_ES Rosaceae Gramineae Equisetaceae Cruciferae Compositae Leguminosae Gramineae Compositae Equisetaceae Salicaceae Rubus procerus Agrostis tenuis Agropyron repens Equisetum hyemale Brassica campestris Capsella bursa Anthemis cotula Cirsium arvense Hypochaeris radicata Other Land Trifolium hybridum Agropyron repens Agrostis tenuis Lolium perenne Cirsium arvense Anthemis cotula Equisetum hyemale Populus trichocar a Populus nigra hort.) COMMON NAME Himalayan Blackberry Bentgrass Quackgrass Horsetail Mustard Shepards Purse Mayweed Thistle Cats Ear Clover Quackgrass Bentgrass Ryegrass Thistle Mayweed Horsetail Cottonwood Lombardy Popular FIGURE B -2 WATERFOWL COUNTS - WEST GREEN RIVER WATERSHED 17 observation dates between Nov. 20, 1972 and Feb. 1, 1973 Ducks (Dabblers) Genus Species Common Name Total Counts Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 52 Mareca americana American Widgeon 10 Spatula clypeata Shoveler 12 Anas acuta. Pintail 64 Ducks (Divers) Aythya affinis Scaup 17 Bucephala albeola Bufflehead 12 Unidentified 35 Miscellaneous Fulica americana Coot 28 230 (14 Av. Per Day) Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service - 3.3 (3) Aquatic Wildlife The Green- Duwamish River supports significant runs of fishes. Although there is some natural spawning in the river, the majority of these fishes are released as fry or fingerlings from the Washington State,Department of Fisheries Hatchery located on Soos Creek, a tributary of the river. The pricipal species are Chinook, Coho and Chum salmon, as well as Steelhead trout. Fish species inhabiting the river in the vicinity of Segale Business Park are listed in the table, Fig. B -4. FIGURE B -4 FISH SPECIES OF THE GREEN RIVER VICINITY OF SEGALE BUSINESS PARK COMMON NAME GENUS SPECIES Chinook Salmon ' Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta Cutthroat Trout Salmo clarki Steelhead Trout Salmo gairdneri Dolly Varden Trout Salvelinus malma Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Longnose Dace Rhinichtays cataractae Speckled Dace Rhinichthys oculus Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Starry Flounder Prosopium stellatus (juveniles) e. Atmospheric Conditions (1) .Weather and Climate (a) Rainfall The average rainfall for the project area is 36 inches. Yearly extremes are 24 and 55 inches. On a long -term average there are 151 days per year with over 0.01 inches of precipi- tation; 93 days with more than 0.1 inch; 18 days in excess of 0.5 inch; and 4 days with over 1.0 inches a day. Average yearly snowfall is 8 inches. (b). Temperatures Monthly temperature ranges are summarized in the tables below. Generally temperatures vary from an all -time high of 100° F. in August to a record low of 3° F. in January. Temperature Ranges in the subject area -- (Boeing Field /Renton Airport) Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Mean 31 42 45 51 57 62 67 66 60 53 44 40 52 (+ extremes) +7 +8 +9 +10 +11. +11 +11 +11 +11 +9 +8 +7 +10 Highest 69 70 76 85 90 99 99 100 92 82 69 67 100 Lowest 3 4 16 30 30 37 44 43 33 24 8 11 3 Extremes represent the average maximum and average minimum Probability of a freezing temperature after the given date (spring) and before the given date (fall) : Temp. Probability Spring Probability - Fall ( °F) 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 32 Mar Mar Apr Apr May 15 27 9 23 4 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% Oct Oct Nov Nov Nov 10 21 2 15 25 28 Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Oct Nov Nov Nov Nov 5 23 9 23 4 26 5 17 2 16 24 - Jan Feb Feb Mar Nov Dec - - - 18 9 25 9 20 5 17 _ Entries below give percent of time wind blows from given direction at given speed. Wind speeds between 0 - 3 mph occur 35% of the time from all directions. Directions 4 -15 16 -31 MPH MPH N 7% 0 NE 4% 0 E 4% 0 SE 15% 0 S 14% 0 SW 8% 2% W 2% 0 NW 8% 0 (2) Air Pollution Sulfur trioxide averages 6 - 7,ugm /cm2 /day (Micrograms per square centimeter per day) compared to a Seattle area average of 4.3 ugm /cm2 /day. Suspended particulates average 70 - 80 ugm /m3 (micrograms per cubic meter of air) as contrasted to Seattle area average of 52.7,ugm /m3. Clean country air is 40,ugm /m3 and 80,ugm /m3 is typical of city air. There are no gross point sources of air pollution in the immediate vicinity. The major source in the immediate area is probably from auto traffic on Interstate highways I -5 and I -405 and local traffic, especially in the Southcenter parking areas. The major source for the general area is the South Seattle industrial area. Air pollution from this source would be significant when the wind was from the NW Quadrant which occurs 17% of the time. With the wind from the south and southwest the Tacoma Industrial air pollution is measurable. (3) Noise Typical traffic noise as measured by standard methods is listed below: Heavy traffic at 50 ft.: 80 -85 db. Heavy traffic at 100 ft.: 77 -82 db. Light traffic at 100 ft.: 45 -50 db. The maximum allowable traffic noise in the State of Washington is 85 db. at 100 ft. Doubling the amount of traffic past a given point increases the noise level by 3 db. f. Lakes, Streams, Marine Water and Groundwater (1) Surface Drainage The historic. drainage pattern of the valley is one of a mature flood plain whose width is 6- l0.times the width of the meander belt. Numerous cut -offs, oxbow lakes, and point -bar deposits characterize the area. Drainage was canalized locally by agricultural requirements to reduce flooding and remained regionally in essentially a non - man - altered state until the _completion of the Howard A. Hanson Dam iii 1962. This upstream metering of the Green River and additional engineered drainage improvements has substantially altered the natural drainage pattern and controlled the hydrology. The Green River now approximates 300 -500 c.f.s. low water mean summer time flow and flood flows are controlled to a maximum of less than 12,000 second feet measured at Auburn. External drainage systems have been built to conform to a Master Plan prepared by the City of Tukwila, the Soil Conservation Service and the Green River Flood Control Zone District. The internal drainage system as shown on Figure A -2 is in accordance with that anticipated at the time the master plan was prepared. The existing collecting pond near the southeast limits of Andover Industrial Park was constructed by Puget Western, Inc. in 1964 to test the feasibility of developing industrial property on the valley floor through use of a combination of some filling together with a system of storm drain pumping stations, as compared to the previously followed practice of filling land up to the height of the river dikes. The property upon which the pond is situated has been recently acquired by King County & the City of Tukwila. Part of the pond will be incorporated into the P -17 Storm Drainage Collection & Discharge System which is part of the SCS Public Law 566 West Side Green River Watershed Work Plan. (2) Water Quality Summer represents the most critical biological, physical and chemical stress period in most temperate streams. This is the case with the Green River in the vicinity of the Segale Business Park, where the summer time high river temperatures and low flows (average typically between 300 and 500 cfs) result in physiological stress on aquatic organisms. This specific area is rated by the Washington State Department of Ecology as being class A waters, however in their 1969 Information Bulletin on Intrastate Waters, the lower Green River meets only the temperature and pH requirements of class A waters. The data in Appendix A, Water Quality Tables 1 Through 4, were taken from sampling conducted at the Kent 212th Street Bridge upstream from the subject area and at the Renton Junction Bridge below the subject area, during a one month period in the summer of 1972. Sampling at two locations gives a dynamic perspective of existing water quality impact as well as some impression of the river's ability to handle the existing pollution load. Temperature in Class A waters should not exceed 21 °C whereas the stretch of the Green River under study had a upper limit of 20 °C, a minimum temperature of 13.5 -14 °C and an average temperature of 17.5 °C.. The relative stability of this water massis reflected in the small standard deviation values of 1.2 and 1.4 °C. However a temperature increase of 0.8 °C is recorded between the two sample stations and this means that the river is near.its. thermal capacity. The average dissolved oxygen values exceed the class A standards (8.0 milligrams /liter) for both stations. The upstream station was 0.66 mg /1 higher, of which 0.2 mg /1 might be accounted for in the solubility differential due to the temperature range involved. This still leaves an average depression of 0.4 mg /1 resulting as water passes through this stretch of the river. This is reasonable evidence to support the premise that this stretch of river is loaded slightly beyond its natural biological oxygen demand (BOD) tolerance. While the BOD (listed as variable #7) in Appendix A, Tables 1 & 2, does not .seem unreasonably high (1.92 and 2.3 mg /1) the standard deviation near the equivalent of 1/2 the average values suggests a problem may exist. The 24 hour data plot in Appendix A, Figures 1, 2 & 3 collected during the same time period (see Fig. 3) documents the drastic BOD load fluctuations which apparently exist on both a diurnal and daily basis. The Kjeldal (total) nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen levels are all relatively low and the one sample taken from the City /County pond during February 1973 had a total,nitrogen value of 0.796 milligram per liter which would be within one standard deviation based on existing data of the average values above and below its discharge site. The total phosphate, hydrolizable phosphate and the biologically most available orthophosphate are all reasonably low, as is the one sample from the City /County pond which had a hydrolizable phosphate value of 0.147 mg /l. This would indi- cate the system is not presently receiving unusually high nutrient loading and might tolerate additional such loading. However, if this pond is allowed to stabilize or accumulate much organic detritus with adequate light conditions, substantial algal blooms might be anticipated. The plots in figures 2 and 3 of stations 4 and 5 respectively show the blue -green nuisance algae are not the predominate species during summer months but their substantial numbers indicate that this part of the river has adequate nutrients and water conditions to readily become a problem area; any standing pond with similar water composition would, in time, emit an odor and take on an unpleasant appearance from the natural die -off of these algae. The relatively high chlorophyll A levels (variable 8 in Appendix A, Tables 3 & 4) of 5.0 and 4.3 mg /m2 is relatively high for a river system indicating that the river is both biologically viable and .sufficiently enriched. The metals copper and lead, Appendix A, Table 5, are not in significant concentrations to be of biological concern although lead concentrations might increase to significant levels with the increased runoff rate from paved vehicular areas. The zinc reported in mg /1 x 10 -1 are detection limits and the mercury which is reported in ug /1 is also well below tolerance limits. Total and fecal coliform do not meet class A waters or even class C waters. This is in part the influence of livestock as well as human activity throughout the lower Green River. - 21 2. Human Use, Development or Values The Tukwila Planning Department has surveyed the 8 square mile planning area surrounding the subject area and has summarized generalized human use and development as the following: a. Residential (8 square miles surrounding the area) 1) Single Family Dwelling 3,484 Average Household Size 2.3) 2) Two Family Dwellings 2 3) Three or Four Family Dwellings 3 4) Five to Eight Family Dwellings 0 5) Nine or More Family Dwellings 59 6) Hotels, Motels and Tourist Homes 3 7) Mobile Homes 0 b. Commercial 1) Wholesale and Distributors 34 2) Retail a. Southcenter 108 1. Shopping Population (daily) - 28,600 2. Shopping Population (peak) - 92,000 3. 1971 Total Shopping Population - 11,500,000 b. Other than Southcenter 10 c. Industrial 1) Mining 2 2) Construction 2 3) Manufacturing a. Southcenter 7 b. Other than Southcenter 24 d. Agricultural 1) Dairy Farm (5 Acre) 2) Mixed Crops (7 Acre, 36 Acre, 3 Acre) • • e. Recreational 1) Minor Parks (Less than 5 Acres) a. Picnic Tables b. 2 Tennis Courts 2) Golf Courses 1 3) Tukwila Community Club 1 4) Race Tracks (Longacres) 1 5) Numerous Fishing Sites Along the River 4 f. Transportation 1) Railroads (BNSF Burlington Northern, Union Pacific, Milwaukee) 3 a. Passenger b. Freight 2> Taxi Cab Services 3 105 and I -5 Intersections a. Cars to Southcenter daily average) - 13,000 .b. Cars to Southcenter (peak daily average) - 40,000 4) Truck Transportation - 2,500 daily . a. Terminals b. Freeway Accesses 5 River Transportation 6 Employees (Southcenter) - '7,500 7 Cars (Southcenter) - 5,013,600 yearly) • g. Education 2 1 Elementary 4 Jr. High 3) Sr. High 1 h. Religion 1) Churches 10 The Tukwila Industrial Council participated in a survey of the existing Andover Industrial Park conducted during February 1973, and 75% of the firms surveyed responded and the results are shown tabulated on the tables, Figures B -5, B -6 and B -7. The most recent tabulation of statistics for Andover Park prior to the issuance of this survey, occurred in 1970 at which time the following totals were recorded: Employees = 1,134 Building Area = 996 ;843 Sq. Ft. Employees: Building Area = 1/880 sq. ft. Employees: Site Area = 17 Employees /Acre During the period 1968 to 1970, a greater number of, service type firms moved into the Industrial Park, raising the employees -to -site area ratio to 19:1 which is probably more nearly the current and expected future condition. This would indicate that the remaining 85 undeveloped acres have an employment potential of 1620 jobs. ■ ; FIGURE B - 5 DISTRIBUTION FIRMS FIRM NAME DATE OF LAND AREA BLDG AREA AREA OF PRESENT TRUCKS TRUCKS EMPL. VISITOR BUS. LUNCH OCCUPANCY ACRES SQ.- FT. DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DELIVERY AUTOS AUTOS AUTO AUTOS Ayerest Laboratories Sept 65 3.5 Western 4 male 8 2 6 2 2 3 U.S.A. 3 female Chicago Pneumatic July 66 .9 8,500 Western 14 male 3 5 8 3 Tool Company U.S.A. 3 female. Emerson Northwest 1.3 26,000 3 1 5 10 Firestone Tire and Nov 67 4.9 79,000 Western 20 male 10 2 20 .4 10 Rubber Company U.S.A. 5 female General Electric Co. Mar 62 8.3 116,000 Western 125 male 10 to 20 107 165 20 25 U.S.A. 41 female 40 from W. W. Grainger, Inc. Apr 69 1.18 12,000 Western 8 male 10 6 45 0 1 U.S.A. Joslyn Mfg. & Supply May 64 1.10 18,500 Western 4 male 5 to 0 4 5 1 2 Co. - Northern Region U.S.A. 1 female 6 from Kirsch Company Mar 67 9 15,400 Western 5 male 5 1 10 10 0 U.S.A. 5 female Lang Distributors Inc. Feb 69 1.1 18,500 Western 18 male 8 7 11 5 4 2 U.S.A. Mazda Motors of America 1.1 49,309 39 male 4 2 45 6 4 25 N.W. Inc. 10 female 3 N Company 5 86,000 28 male 15 4 40 6 35 0 12 female - 24 - FIGURE B - 5 DISTRIBUTION FIRMS PAGE 2 FIRM NAME DATE OF OCCUPANCY LAND AREA BLDG AREA AREA OF PRESENT TRUCKS TRUCKS EMPL. VISITOR BUS. LUNCH ACRES SQ. FT. DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DELIVERY AUTOS AUTOS AUTO AUTOS Norton Co., Coated Aug 66 Abrasive - Tape Division Ohio Medical Products Ap 72 Div. of Airco Inc. Palmer Supply Peterson Industries Inc. Jan 72 Pitney Bowes Oct 72 Rome Cable - Div. of May 69 Cyprus Mines Corp. Snap on Tools Corp. Summer 67 Treck Photographic Inc. Oct 67 West Coast Machinery Co. Dec. 67 Div. of Columbia Cascade Corp. & West Coast Machine Tool Sales of Wash. Inc. 2 40,000 Western 5 male 11 1 10 6 0 8 U.S.A. 2 female .47 20,645 Greater 7 male 15 Sea. & Tac. 4.5 95,000 43 male 28 female 1.6 U.S. & 5 male Canada 12 female 3 to 5 from 1.2 9,000 W. Wash & 65 male 1 Alaska 15 female 1.2 27,000 Western 7 male - 12 U.S.A. 3 female .8 9,600 Western 9 male U.S.A. 7 female 2 26,000 .7 TOTAL 37.45 656,454 Western U.S.A. U.S.A. & Canada 33 male 12 female 7 male 2 female 2 8 2 3. 0 60 14 l0 20 0 9 2 4 3 2 57 10 60 10 5 6 2 5 14 5 1 5 38 80 8 19 9 15 8 5 lO to 7 12 from 6 607 203 86 472 401 177 144 FIGURE B - 6 SERVICE FIRMS FIRM NAME DATE OF LAND AREA BLDG AREA AREA OF PRESENT TRUCKS TRUCKS EMP. VISITOR BUS. LUNCH OCCUPANCY ACRES SQ. FT. DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DELIVERY AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS Aeronautical Radio, Inc. Feb. 72 Bendix Corp., West Coast June 69 Aerospace Support Div. (phasing out) 2 6,100 Western 18 male 0 U.S.A. 1 female 1.1 10,607 World General Electric Co. June 66 1 15,000 Western 115 male U.S.A. 20 female Ingersoll Rand Co. May 69 1.1 12,540 Western 11 male U.S.A. 2 female Peoples Nat. Bank Feb 68 .8 Wash. 2 male of Washington State 6 female South CentElr May 73 2.1 10,600 35 male Professional Plaza 110 female State Farm Mutual Auto Mar 70 .5 6,143 Southern 31 male Insurance Company King Co. 18 female Tempo 20 Sept 68 .5 5,200 25 male 7 female TOTAL 7.21 66,190 401 0 0. 0 3 0 16 1 2 1 0 7 4 2 50 10 27. 5 6 3 8 6o 3 8 100 550 35 70 26 20 16 20 0 28 0 2 30 10 261 647 91 14o FIGURE B - 7 . MANUFACTURING FIRMS FIRM All Pak Container Inc. May 70 1.6 AMCI, Inc. Dec 67 1.4 DATE OF LAND AREA BLDG. AREA AREA OF OCCURPANCY ACRES SQ. FT. DISTRIBUTION PRESENT TRUCKS TRUCKS EMP. VISITOR BUS. LUNCH EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DELIVERY AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS Davidson Products Co. March 63 1.1 140,000 Wash. and Oregon 30,000 Boeing 18,000 Western U.S. World Northwest Envelope Co. Feb 69 4.1 70,000 Tri -Way Industries Inc. May 71 .92 TOTALS 9.12 158,000 U.S.A 40 males 12 3 females 12 male 12 female 44 male 4 female 60 male 75 female 24 male 1 female 275 4 11 1 to 2 from. 4 to 2 from 36 4 38 8 5 10 5 20 1 46 85 -20 4 1 19 209 22 11 5 10 114 25 4 63 C. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 1. Changes in Natural Characteristics (1) Development resulting from the proposed action will not have dramatic environmental impact if sound engineering, hydraulic and ecologic principles are adhered to. a. Topographic /Geologic Impact The earthwork operation is consistent with sound soils engineering practice. The average elevation of .the site will not be significantly changed. b. Impact on Terrestrial & Aquatic Biology The major biological impact in this area occurred sometime ago when the decision was made to establish the commercial /industrial complex at Southcenter. Covering remaining grasslands is not a significant factor since the site is and has been disked to keep grassland and other foliage at a minimum. No cover exists for migratory birds or other wildlife populations except along the bank of the Green River which will not be disturbed. c. Atmospheric Impact A temporary increase in suspended particulates concentrations will occur with earth -work and other . construction operations. Increased traffic flows resulting from expanded commercial /industrial activities will increase the concentrations of all common air pollutants and will increase noise levels. d. Impact on Surface Drainage and the River System Expanded commercial /industrial development resulting from the proposed action will markedly increase surface water runoff coefficients and thereby divert more water into the Green River system. More paved surfaces will increase peak flows of surface runoff. Within the Tukwila Comprehensive Drainage Plan area, all storm runoff will be directed to the County /City pond and a temporary pumping system. The increase in peak flows will reinforce the need for the proposed pumping plant which is part of the SCS West Side Green River Watershed P -17 project. Most of the cost for installation of the new pump facility will be borne by the SCS Project. Increased volumes of water both, flowing directly to the Green River and being pumped into it by the existing and proposed pumping plants, will necessitate raising the river levees. The subject area; however, will contribute only a fraction of the total volume of water. which must be accommodated by higher levees. It is only a small portion of the total land area drained by the P -17 System. For purposes of comparison, the P -17 Plant is expected to pump water at a capacity of 225 cfs. The present P -1, Black River Plant, by contrast, is designed to pump at 2,91 +5 cfs. Raising of the levees may be the subject of recommend- ations by the Corps of Engineers resulting from -their current study. Land acquisition for the SCS Project and for any levee improvement project resulting from the Corps study will be the responsibility of Tukwila and other local jurisdictions. Levee maintenance is now and will continue to be the responsibility of King County Division of Hydraulics. There will be an impact on surface water quality as runoff picks up the particulate matter deposited by aerial fallout and surface spills of hydrocarbons and other potential water pollutants. Any direct discharge of these pollutants to the river as now occurs through the existing gravity systems will influence water quality in the river and will have a corresponding influence on the aquatic wildlife. There will be no changes in the river bottom and channel configuration. 2. Changes in Hunan Use • Land use patterns established by the Southcenter Commercial/ Industrial Complex dominate the immediate vicinity of the subject area. The continuation of commercial /industrial development that will result from the proposed action represents no change in this dominant human use other than to expand it onto land that has long lain dormant. This dormant land has resulted from the preclusion of former farming uses -by commercial /industrial expansion. Previous policy decisions by the Tukwila City Government initiated this change of use. These policies.assign greater value to industrial expansion than the former agricultural uses and they were implemented directly by granting industrial zoning classifications to the area. Indirect policy implementation was achieved by the higher assessed evaluations on the land which resulted from these zoning changes, thus making farming less profitable. The proposed action re- enforces the pattern of human use in the subject area begun in previous years. It will stimulate construction of new industries and businesses. This will lead to more employment, increased tax base, and some increase in the City's population. D. Any Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects (ii) The following discussion of adverse effects and possible mitigating measures relates directly to an expanded discussion of the above described environmental impacts resulting from . the proposed action. 1. Geological Effects Where the filling abuts. the Green. River, filling of the grade adjacent to the dike could precipitate lateral surface soil movement and possible damage to the dike. However; because the earthwork operation along the dike will involve removal of fill, a reverse effect will occur having a favorable effect on the dike. 2. Biological Effects The above noted displacement of terrestrial, botanical and wildlife species will be an unavoidable adverse environmental effect. Migratory birds which pause in the remaining ecologically least- disturbed parts of the subject area will be displaced to other locations, as will mammals observed to exist in the area. There,is no known technique for retaining wildlife in an intensively developed area. The Soil Conservation Service suggest, however, that some songbirds will use ornamental plantings to be installed by the developers for nesting areas and food. Atmospheric Effects Increases in noise and air 'pollution will be unavoidable .effects of commercial /industrial expansion in the subject area. Examination of the total commercial /industrial complex at Southcenter together with the adjacent interstate freeway systems, however, reveals that this increase will be experienced in the vicinity. If the City wishes to, reduce noise impact, there are two basic strategies which could be utilized: • a. Screening by vegetation. In particular, tall trees and brushes planted close to building walls will absorb and disperse sound and prevent the walls . from acting.as sounding boards. b. Make traffic move at low speeds, but not so slaw as to necessitate changing tears (approximately 25 mph). Keep traffic moving and minimize stops. The second measure would aid in diminishing air pollution from traffic as well. 4. Surface Drainage The influence of expanded commercial /industrial development on storm water quantity and quality has been discussed under C.1.d. Impact on Surface Drainage and the River System, above. The_ following additional comments are with regard to adverse effects on water quality. Water quality will be influenced by pollutants in storm runoff from the developed areas which can have some influence on the river system.. It is advisable, therefore, that skimmers and other pollutant control facilities be designed in the P -17 pumping plant to prevent severe contamination of the Green River. City flap gate outlets from the gravity systems may also need to be revised. In addition, accelerated surface runoff markedly increases the temperature of the receiving body. As noted above, the Green River is near thermal capacity, so the discharge from the storage pond should be considered a pollutant if it increases the river temperature. Relative discharge to river volumes make this adverse effect unlikely. Hydrocarbons entering the drainage system, in whatever amount, will float on the storage pond's surface. A discharge below the lowest anticipated pond water surface or a skimmer (inverted wier) is proposed. The wier system proposed by SCS to keep the anadromous fish out of the pond should also be designed to keep pond fish out of the river. Incorporation of any of these measures in the P -17 System will be the decision of SCS engineers designing the system and reporting on its impact. Within active construction sites, there will be an adverse effect on water quality from siltation which originates from the washing of exposed earthwork areas. This will occur if measures are not taken to prevent silt from leaving these disturbed areas. E. Alternatives to the Proposed Action (iii) 1. Alternative Projects or Programs Alternatives to the proposed action would have to begin with alternatives to Tukwila City Policies which the proposed action serves to implement. City policy decisions dealing with the subject area have, for some time, favored commercial /industrial development over other land uses including former agricultural uses. City policy makers and the citizens they represent, have valued the benefits of a higher tax base and increased employment opportunities above other considerations relating to the subject area. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, the regional policy- making agency, acknowledges the Southcenter commercial /industrial complex as being a viable land use in this location, partly due to its already being long ago committed as an employment center and partly due to its relationship to regional transportation systems. Alternatives to the proposed action, therefore, must begin with alternatives to adopted policies at the local and regional level. These alternatives could conceivably be three in number: ... Do not approve further land development within the subject area (the traditional "do- nothing" alternative). ... Revert the undeveloped and partially filled portions of the subject area to agricultural use. ... Direct the undeveloped portions into other than commercial /industrial uses. a. Comparability of costs and accomplishments of alternative actions and non action. 1) A "do- nothing" alternative could result in costs to both the private and public sectors in the form of lost investment and tax revenues for each, respectively. Lost tax revenues would at least be partially offset by a reduction in the need for services provided by the City and other taxing agencies. The taxes which would continue to be levied on the unuseable property would be burdensome to the owners who would have no means available to earn a return on the land in order to offset these taxes. Other costs would be associated with the lack of efficiency resulting from the lack of continuity and order between developed, partially developed 2 and undeveloped portions of the subject area. Loss of the subject area as an available commercial /industrial land resource would very possibly shift the burden of demand for this resource to another part of the region which may be governed by lower development standards, and /or which may not serve this land use as efficiently in terms of access to transportation, etc. and /or which may result in even greater environmental impact than will result from the proposed action. Accomplishments of a "do- nothing" alternative would be the preservation of undeveloped or partially developed portions of the subject area for future alternative uses. No alternative uses would at this time seem viable as will be discussed below; consequently the land, would remain unused in the short term resulting in maintaining the status quo of present commercial /industrial activity. Reverting the land to agriculture could only occur on a subsidized basis - high costs of rehabilitation, costs of farm production on the scale possible at this location and tax assessments on the land would probably not be offset by the return from farm products, providing there is a sufficient market for such products in the first place. SCS reports that loss of market organization is already a problem. One producer of lettuce last year plowed his crop under because he could not market it. Accomplishments of this alternative would be the preservation of agricultural use on soils suitable for this activity. This land use is currently being zoned and assessed out of existence in the Green River Valley. If preservation of agricultural use in the Green River Valley evolves as a true regional policy, it could be more feasibly accomplished in other areas not already disrupted by extensive alterations to the land and not already covered with conflicting land uses as is the case within the subject area. 3) The third alternative of directing the remaining undeveloped or partially developed portions of the subject area to other than commercial /industrial uses is perhaps the most feasible of the three alternatives discussed. It remains contrary, however, to established market trends and would require a shift in political and economic policies to stimulate such a change. Some of the other land uses that could occur are residential subdivisions, parks and recreation facilities, and institutional uses such as hos- pitals, government centers, schools, housing, etc. As with agriculture, residential uses would have to be subsidized in some manner because the high costs of land development in the subject area pre- cludes a favorable economic return on any but the most intensive uses. The demand for parks and institutional uses is such that it can be as easily met "at other, less costly sites. An example is King County's recent purchase of a forty -nine acre park site, one mile to the north of the subject area. The site is undeveloped farm land purchased for $15,000 to $20,000 per acre. Partially developed land, within the subject area, which is served by established arterials and utilities systems would cost proportionately more. Accomplishments of the alternative would be to shift from the commercial /industrial uses at this location which has served as a precedent for the entire Green River Valley, to other forms of development. Though these uses would possibly be less intensive in nature, they would still require land development measures similar to those resulting from the proposed action. b. Summary of environmental impact for the alternative actions. 1) A "do- nothing" alternative would result in a net increase in the biomass of the subject area as the dormant land begins to naturally reseed to a denser plant cover, thereby establishing more favorable wildlife habitats. Storm runoff would be reduced by an increased capacity for infiltration, absorption and evapotranspiration as the plant mass was established; paved surfaces resulting from the proposed action would not occur. Water quality would remain as it is or improve depending upon the amount of off site water which is absorbed by the undeveloped land, rather than allowed to enter the river. Air quality would be improved by the respiratory processes of the increased plant mass. Physical site characteristics would remain the same. 35 - 2) Agriculture would result in an alteration to the existing condition of the site by the removal of fill material and cultivation of the land. An increase in vegetation mass would occur in terms of 'crops or pasture grasses. There. would be, however, a disruption of existing wildlife habitats with land cultivation. Water quality would be influenced by an increase in nutrients from fertilizers and livestock washed into the drainage system. 3) The third alternative would, i.n all.instances (except use of the subject area as parks) result in environmental impact similar to that described for the proposed action. Any substantial land development would have to be initiated with a continuation of the present earthwork program. The environmental. impacts: Disruption of biological systems, increases in air and water pollution levels, increases in storm runoff and increases in noise and traffic congestion would all occur, but to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the nature of the alternative land uses undertaken. F. Relationship Between Local Short -Term Environmental Uses and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity 1. Time Involved.in Proposed Short -Term Uses Short -term uses for the subject area ,will constitute a transition time only in which all of the land within the subject area will be converted to commercial, industrial and business uses. 2. Potentials for Long -Term Productivity of Involved Resources Potentials for long -term productivity of involved, non- renewable resources largely involve the land area itself. a. Choices of Use Available Development resulting from the proposed action will preclude the land being used for agricultural purposes, except if market condit :ions determine that the need for land for commercial /industrial uses in this area is not critical. This may be the case farther South in the Green River Valley, but is not likely at this location. b. Potential Long -Term or Future Economic Productivity Future economic productivity will largely depend on the industrial growth trends in the central Puget Sound Region: Industry will continue to be largely. distributive and service oriented with some manufacturing. - 36 - 3. Preclusion or Enhancement of Long Term Potentials Long term potentials for continuation of commercial/ industrial activity are enhanced by the fact that this complex has evolved from a planning process which has been on -going for fifteen years. a. Optional Future'Uses Precluded or Enhanced Change to other future uses will only occur if unanticipated political and economic policies of the region alter the present market oriented growth dynamics of the area. Changes in technology could have other effects as yet unknown. b. Degree of Preclusion or Enhancement Present municipal and regional policy is directed toward enhancing current development activities while at the' same time undertaking continuous study and revision of development goals. G. Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments with The Proposed Action (v) 1. Commitments The proposed action will result in the commitment of the subject area to commercial and industrial land uses, which, in turn, will commit financial resources, construction materials and labor'to achieving such use. This will, in turn, result in some preclusion of optional future land uses and loss of the intrinsic resource of fertile soil. a. Nature & Relative Permanence of Commitments The commitment resulting from the proposed action is permanent relative to todays's standards and will be long -term, probably fifty years or more. b.. Stability of Resources Involved Abundant land area within the Green River Valley has been zoned for industrial use, but extensive conversion of farmland is contrary to evolving regional goals. Regional policies,' however, do allow for the commitment of the subject area to this conversion since it is so, advantaged with regard . to access to transportation systems vital to this use. c. Percentage of.Resource to be Permanently Committed Nearly one - hundred percent of the remaining undeveloped or partially developed land within the subject area will be committed to commercial /industrial use. 2. Reasons for Irreversibility and Irretrievability The commitment of the subject area to its present use has been made after undertaking comprehensive planning for this use and receiving full approval for doing so. Reversing this commitment would be contrary to present policies of the governing jurisdictions involved. a. Potential for Diminishing Permanence of Commitments Potential for diminishing permanence of commitments is unknown at this time. b. Reasons for Not Employing Diminishing Measures It is not within the capability of the City of Tukwila to determine or alter.regional goals and policies. APPENDIX A WATER QUALITY DATA TABLE 1 6TATION 4 RENTON JUNCTI9N v_ALA3,.c._ -.. -- - ---.-- NUT1BER.. - -. .. -_ AVE.kAGE S DEV 1 AT.ION' lAX I'1UM . J Ly1MJ. �MEDJAN RAN-jE TE.1 . 30 170657 10.264 20.000- 15.000 1/.800 5.0L0 05 30 80188 00339 8• 9Q ' 7.480 b0210 10410 30 7.385 00104- 70600 7.140 /0380 0.460 400369 3.226 44.200 31.200 41.100 13.000 29 40.369 3.226 44.200 • 31.200 41.100 3,3.000 AN. < - -- •- - - -2 9 bIGAR3 A 45Vi 30 128.667 21.103 175.300 78.000 1,-y•500 37.0 C 833 18 1.922 0.919 4.200 0,410 1•/65 .3. /0 . 30 30.630 20443 14.000 1.300 3o30O 12,730 27 0+447 00374 2.20Q 0,130 0.350 2.020 30 0.075 • 0,403 0.590 0.020 0.1)50 0,570 13 0.016 0.014 0.060 0.010 0.010 0000 - Na•N _30 0.364 00094 0.500 0.210 00383 0.390 ' T5T P34 - 13 0.126 ' 04029 01190 • 0.080 0.120 0.110 '■ K4 NIT No0 N. EwN NYO P34 3Q____- .0•- 49 • 0(056 0039Q 0.090 • U.130 0.300 oti.o 15-Etin .09060 • . 0E260 :h+7060 067f0.■-0 . OT 02too 06060 06160 9E060 tET60 Et 06960 02E6o 047t60 OTC6n 0t060 0 TT-0. 1206n 6-TT•o 9Tp.0 N.EAN 0t060 (Ta • 0 02060 :70060 2t060 EI Nft?,GN 06-T00 *E06U— . 5-3000 62 4LIN 0/26 t 00t60 • Oast 9E260 P2+760 12 II! rN 004768T 00476P 00960 000661 .24rtt4E 7t5iE OF cise4n1 0926E .068c c+7262_ 02+760 0826+7 00q•ptr 000621 . 0006/Et g 6 6 0 • 2tc0ET. 60E62 2t Opkott oF, age 009621 00T6RE 00T662 . 00L6t6r 6E06E g220LE 62 v sevole • o09621 00T6Rp. On-6-62 70/6147. ' 6ETIE 222.61E 2 N7V 1Q1 . • ocgoo OLE•r. 00t6L 0090L OTT•0 02E / -OE 0+7E62 ggeocr -09EI 1 ,;:. 00/66 ':OTS60 00c•S flOccrt 3Ns:Yi.; fsiVT-074w . 00'4,t 000602 14TWINJW • .:90474T p:447q6zt 0F NATIVTicla S lnv811-V 3.,;01i7; 1S2T2 NAI1VLS dWI A -� VA I TABLE 3 STATION 4 RENTON JUNCTION A Y e .R.f1 a E _.. iL.E. V..i. A.L.Lf.N___ _..._. __ _. IAX.I y i.M J ti eRT ,49 P. 30 0.110 09057 0.330 . 0.060 CpPP=R 29 0.U20 0.015 LEA,:, 2 00100 •'041000 29 t[09 ._.0• 006~ 41ERQJR1 2 0.200 0o000 O I AN RAN3E 0.100 . 0.270 0.1n_ 0_sC1 0.100 U.020 Qs0 Q 0.100 0•100 0.000 0.031. 0.002 0.:108 f'.029 0.200 0.200, 0.200 0.000 • ._T_ .0 =.i-I E 3D 39954.000 69Sb8 o 125 215000. QOQ 1+00. OLD_ ___ _414 •000 _2.146_00 . _QUO FECA;. C4 _LCri <3 A .0 . 4.30 ? . • 24,145 9.810 29 763.379 2304.716 12000.000 15.000 1i00000 11985.000 30172,z 8.90 • t • ::'rt ! :1 ! r..';.;. . :.j . . ' .• ,1 .„,,,, . ,,,,, '' 1 nu 111°11,Iii , ...,f ' ' 4 I 1 ' " ;I!, liTt 4, ,,, 1 - N - - T 1- + - r • - mr ,, . ; • ,, t, il, 4.1...1 1;;; ,:ivity, -1,._ I..; II 111;1 il .t, • , • ;;''''1.; „.1., +.1 I 1. r',11:1,,, ,,„ ;;; ,s; 'III,: 1:., 1,-,-; L'-i•::„.• ,iit •L tr.".•:- I, :11, il.:114 ti , ki •.,•14.; r tri-r, t• r :: ii. ‘1, • -, ' 41 4 - ,-4• •,• 11'- -4-- --;- , L i_i_. 1 1 -tr. , •: ; - i r ' , • "i; , . •• . , .., „I. ,s.:• 't:-'-' ... ;4:1:4 '": .1' -,: , 111 ' ' .,. .: ... • ., . . : :' , ,. :t."--"•'- .--. in , - ,. .... -,-• ,,,, . ' l't --• .. • .. 4. • 44 I 1 IIII UNIIIIMIN rt1 , 1 0,;., ITITLIT AT.; 'J-4,4-I ; , 't " -11_,,_„11-` _ • . i., ,,,,', oi i i,i 1,,T, 1111111 1,,,,,,,111 .111 - , ' , li,r II,.1 q ...4.0,, 1•1 1, 1F I' . . fi g gg it 1 II 111111 a 1 - I •g III g y, 4,11,4. ''' a "T" ii,1 , " ' .1, it I . ,, .. ;I 1 f‘ 1 ! ri . 4+ ;1 , tj ' ,-r-. t 1_,_ ,_ • ,; ,..,,,.,,„,,,,,, •••r• . 1414ifit :!':fl,!,11 • 1 ; it 1- 1 1 1 T 1 'iLi 1 III ' , ,, ,! Ft 1- ,• , 91 ._ L. L. t.'1 ; • , , ,1 , _H___i_.1___IJ: , .i.'..1___ __ •••:-.1 • H 4- 1-- r, , ; 1 i:..,...1;.; i: .14; '. ••• ; ... . . •.;; ,;• •• " - 4 '''. ; - : . ! • . i 1 ari , i 1 I ,-, co. ..•!i■ r ' ;:•14t •1 '. 41°,4141 • 1111 ' T j 41 ' tr : • . i I 1 I;' ',A: II , -t• ,• t !-,-;•:-'-' ' •' ,..,.•:;41,ii.-. 7 ' ".."-'1.: . -1 • ;141-4-4 1 i • • --;-, --; - -..- !,!-ITITI1- '" .-r .1 . . . 4.1 :,, ':.: '.... i:. ".. '.... - .: I"; . ;. I. ,: : .• . •, f 4 •1 ._ • „ !-I•--. • ; - 4,44-44,4:11 4,1,..-4-,-41-1 114:}-1 „i 1,1. -ITT -4 i " , , •-• I 1,1 1111 11 1 t , ti-, , ';', ,.. , I ; , - ''II, • 11 01 1 T1,, ;1, "Hilt I, 11 ,,I glil ' :It r 11/1" . - -- .- _ --L. . I . . 1- - - ,-4 - .:: .,,, ' il I. 1,, ..'' , ,. „,,,,,.,,,,,, n ,, .: , , II; ,,..! ' i.4 ,2 l'' 4143 1 111 1 ;*)! 1,11 "144; i , 4,44 ,...,.• ■ I , 1 .1; , 1;111+, ‘,1, , , , Itt it ; , t I :. 444-, , - • t ir 1 1; • - I 1 ; r44 , 1 1 1, r • , . jr I lit' ilr. t; Ifil ii - • il, t.11 ,, „ ;R.•,.., ; •'-71H 4,,4"-.4 ; :1,,',, 4, 11„ II .4 ,t. ;141-4-11-1 , ,,,•itid-d-, , , 4 rk . 1_1 • : , • - *t • 1; I-1-• i. •I 1-11,i:17_77; -,_14-. ' I---- ' -I-4! rr •••; j 1;,,t;...Jr: l' •,i," rl. l'• ,„ .. . ...t; .. rr•r ,1T1- pa+-1-} ._ I- ;}r}41;14,44- ti •d•• ti;rt;1-14-7 .:.•...„. T•4,4_,,i •,,-,..., .„.. ,, /-4,-r - - r.' ' t• 1r, ; . 1. . t1-1, ,.. i_. 1-, IN ilk _ • 4 - , , !Ii., . • ,, , .. .q. I,' 1 , .1; , rjl,',IL, 1 ,, . ;, ,..,;,.i;!•,,,,„..; , • • , :I! 171 :" 'I' iv 4- 1 .31 4. ,i ,,i_i_i .. !, , I; ii.i I II■1 I i. it L li, j ' ' • H,I I-, , r. i . r i • t-- 1.1 ,...4 1.-; ! ; I. ;.'; 'J.: . !. 1- -1.-• 1 -: ;,.1 : .., 1,1. .4 II . , !: ; 1;1; ,,i • :,;•: •',:i...,..._••-•-•'- -',-;:; ,.. !: ss "s• ,...i.• T; • ... , . -i• - • : • :.1,•'1, , ; t Li -1-1 -ht "1 ..1 I. - ' 1‘ , l'i , ' '.: •' 1 iiir ' i ,„441.1..ftwIti 144;tyti1;;;14,'',± 6 ii,t,11-1- T.. Ili ±.-itH t1-1-*'- - '- A It 4 1;:i ill; 4 rti. 31, : ; f ;I 1 .u.t. t f,, 1 -1 ' ' „ , .• , , , ' .4111' 11 r..,y, :! •;" 111' ;I ,t! • ' lill.. !••• ','; , • Li t ' , 1 , , . i,114 I lit 1 ' , ' I- L,.1-.1 11. -T. i•-• , ., il '1' . ' ! ;Ill ' , 1, ;4: ' t 1:111: 1 ', ,;1,44.,,..1.„__;1;11,4,;,..,.•,, .1 ,... 1 I 4itti•-• , 1 ;• 11-11 - - -i-1...--t ', j____,; .1._,..., . HI 1 ; -; 1 '1 4-4--; t-i i -H ' I. I.. 4.. 1 • ( . i - ' ' 1 1 • , :..„1...,„4.....7....,.;..„ • ••• - • i . , .1. ' .!1•.,. ;i: ••, i•.; ,;,- 4-4,.r.- . i' , .., ., 1,, I; . "I' "" L ;',: .. ,. .. . -..; .... I.; . --:;r-; :I!• ''. : . . __ :1: I-. ; . ....;:_. _._ .. • .... . • ••• . + H. . . - • - • . ....:.. . ,,,, ••• I • ..,.... , • '-; • I - • ' _ .. • 't;LL.1.--'°••ti ',-1.-;4 4 1il- ,',,,tifi ;it2iLi::,•;:7:2T:i',. .. • ',4-•"!.., r'jqt :11,„44;;-414-4 ,,ti,i •;II;q: 1.L....,44_4: ,,,-;71;;F 4[1_, ■irii. ,77;11-- .),„_,,4 P-1, r-4-, .._ il 1/ I' 0-- i-- ..2. 1 ,; 1 I 4...- r, I, -I) - ...*- t ; ' .. '411 41' - A i,', ,11 ,Av ,111,1 4 .d.. ri411.11- ! 4 • . ji it 1 I it, i• ; Fr " 4 ,'• 1114 ; L, li. / 4 , It:, .1.1 f ' - I I 111 II ' ';• , . ,.-F-.. • 1 , Li I _ 1- I _ . iIIi, 1 ,,,;,....• ' .: lh r, • • itli ; I: • ; ; , ''''.' .,:::;:l' 4.044 l. :;•:'.11 : if. • /ft-T ,•;i:11',' t-: •ti:. i'...0 'td;r11` '4 1- ti-r , g II 1;i1 ,11, l't 11,1 , 1, • lip 1 ' 1.1 It . i}4 ', li 1 ■1 .1,1 • I ,1 I ' I j 1 I I [ •P41.-1.. li f.',1•, 41114 'r•11;11/i11111'.1, lf:/ • T Tii „,.....1. -in , '111if •' •' 44-4-I-till .1: • 1.1 +.ii t..• -Tr::: "Tr' : 111•11.1,1'. ..1t.•I.t:-, , 1.; tli ",I,,;', :1,14L:,1111 '. '2!!'11,IJITII,i4i''l •-, -1.1!! 'LI,' 1111 fr.71 I t;44r .444-4, '•■'.11 , • , 'ii.".: , .,1-:' I 1'1 ". ft II, 11,,q,t .4. it.. , -,..1: ' 11-iiii: ira 14111.0, r 1,1 1 1.,-, ''I."11 "1T111,', 4:1t1III ;•-i , 11,1.11 :r• ./ • !Ili II14jH !r,;":11 VI r. :1111 , :,w,:,i,tt ::44:4;., it 1 1: ill ' _ Aki_ • 1 4 i • 4 1-1 I ' Ai 1 . -.- • 4 t , I . IL, • , -• I I 1. I. t U i 4-I -r II '- - v I " - - . Ili .i. }- 111" mill • MI - 4 Ir. - _ . .. 4__ I - tl ' MS I• r I , I 4 - giii•ii I .111 7 ' . .. i • W 1 414•It• ,iii., 1111111 'I' 111: 41',111;111 I; 'hi II It, 4 1 . 4, ,r, it ; it , N ' II 1 ;I ...1 't,i Ii ;.irf 1,1 1g I ; !. ti il ip 4 4+ i. •t t I '' 1 4 ! i I 11 .11, ft{ 111111 i,.,, 4, 41 III , . Jo 111 . 'IL II i'l r,iii., 4 :I '!i• li Li .1 ,;1-; - , . i 1 . i i 1 1 1 , t • II --'• , . i 1 i 4.- Li. 1 t; i 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 i -.144. 114'1, ;1111;•;■ 4! 1!..:',111,. il I '• 1 P11..! tir- T ; it ri , , 1 I.:: . il 7 1 „ 1:,-t...,', 1 •,, . i! I 1 I I ' I ; 1 I 11 ,; '41)11 11.• 11°441' I 1 T 111 t.1.1 .4.r.,:,..i ' ' ' • A. i.:' .' : 1:••., 1- -1"-L1-7-',- .".::, :':; , ' ,1 I- 1:::::::-: •••• '1' .. r.111::.7":„:::-.I.F.L• ;,- i i I sill:14.4:41114 I I • 44. 1 -0,*i., ir,-., 1;1 ' : '' '; :; 1911111-i1 •„,,,,,i,• ;1111 •...,,,,,,,i „ .:, .. '.11,.41, '. ;';;;i1!" 11 ...'; it: "1":1' ';111 1,ii4;.: II, 44.191 . 11.! .t - ; , .:i! !",',1'•'•',1 ;1,' ;;;1.4:.111 1111;'7-1 ::•r;4." )411f ,,,,11. ,•ffl, 11••t•t. I:I''', i ;111i:1 il :1 ,i 11 41,11, .,, : F; '1-■• •;:;,'; '1 1111,i,1 I I : I 1.1 ; 1; ; 1.11. Il 1111 1 14111,111 I l; trail ... :WI . f ,.,:_„_. ,I• .1.,r. i It :I -• ;, it I ,. „1 • ;.' I !•; ; r;rrt-ttr'• m :1, • -.4. ..; • ;•; ' ' I i [lit 11. ; ; ;11 Ili ,, 1..I .r• 1- .J4- 11) . , I , id I 1: , -r• •.. 1 IiIi I 1 I 1 I PI , 1 1 I . t , li I 1 '1-4--1.-1-3--"4.-i- ,..4 i . ; 1 3 • .-1 • 1 '' i ; ■ L ' ' 1'1:1 14,, • 1,4. : ; ' I-4 I , .■ I I ..1 !IL:: , , • 1 1 ! 1 I 1 1.1111 -,-,-, I , ; t II I I, '1' I 1 • • ' ! 1 i 1 . I . . ; . .,11,......_ 1 • ' ; r .1 f: •-• , 1- .4_0'14- . i „ . r; 1 I I., • • ' I i • ' , .. , ;- i ! 4 • ' , • ' 1 1 1, , •' 4 " .4- -.---- I ; ; ; • i ' ' I /, . ' ' I ' " ' ‘,„,• • .. I.; i -,• : 1 , , . ' '• .,. , .. • 1 .. „ • : : ill ;414, ••, .4-.:. ; • :*4-' :::: •I : ... .... „....,,.., H ••• .....,..-• •"• • •• 1::• ...'.' ' , -* ' -I• -• - • " •••••-••••••• , 1 .„..: 1.... •• .,••■• .: :1'.1''. _ ..... . : ..,... ,,...1-...ii.... ci-,-; -. V.-H.. - •:'44i,... -.. :.!' ...,1... •• 1,-1. 1. ; • : ' i • • I ' .,... „1... . , , .,,. ' ;,-; .. " I '.. "1"- • . " . ' • . 1 ,_ . - -I" g . - - di • q - _ --,;,,i -4- ' I I , :1 7 ' :i. 11 ll 4 I: II.; „ i I i 4 1 ! 1 i i 1 1- , - ' • "1.-t': . . "' r- - * - t - i, -1,,' -.. I'll iv - II• ,;II • 1,',4 • 11,1 1,1,,` •:. 11; 1 .c I 1;1.. !,li I. 11 I, t-i 't • !I; ,. .I :1. •1 11,1 I I [I ; , ! 1 ' 1 i , , !, II " ' I 1 j ....:44,1„ ,•.: • • • , ,•,,,, •: Ii;1 .0111111 Ill';iii!t I -1".! ';•,,;;', • ::lini , - , • ;. ii , ,•,.• ,4„;, , ,,,,„ ' .H.I.J. • . it ; . 4 I. tlf. . ; 1 . 1 . 1. !it" i . ' ' • -,- .1 --- i 4 •1-- i - - ■111%.',. - !)..,:ii - r,1 ill ,,,,,, I..' I ' CI "1 ' I „ i i 11,1 :-, i 1! li, •• . ' E. 11- 11 4-, t 4 .;,, 1; 1 i,11- til it ', q II , , i I 1 ! i 1 ,4 ;$4. . , 1,!•-.F - ••-i-t`• 1111 •,. ,1 d.... ,,,,-.11 ;tr.! ?' '7.11" . " i I !..jyt H..; ' : I 1,1" i I -1.•,• •;•;,,,t, „..1,-,,,, ''' ' - ''. - li , ' ; A i ii... ,--,, ; " 1 11,1 1.; ' I I._ , I '1" • ..,:....• _ii..,..,•4_:.41.;1:_ I ",-:+;! 1 I.1 t.n0 r ri:- imogn Ili , ,, i 1 1 4 4 [ [ • . 1 ,'• ' 'lift , ,. . . ,, 1 111-1 ', i i•i . -4-44 1 i 1111111511M1HI ' j 1 , ; I k I . 1 111 ' -_-_,, , ..i-ii,- 1-,-1-1-, ----.-•,-- • • : • • *t-'" t - - N .. : • N i if' u 1 :j: ; ii I I II I III ! ! 4 t i 1 .1 i - ;I 1 I I - -.. I III : ihi 1 I ' '', . . l l+ I • ,-,-.. . ..i• - - • •-;.- I-- - .- •, ...„'...., i • I - i iisq , 1 1 . . III i , 1 i I . :, i 11 1 - ' •-, • •,t-...,'.;:....:;;;;:j. ..f:r ' r 1 1.1 - I 1 1!1-'.1!"r'l. , , ' '4'''''-ttl'I' - - gil-t-H . - ••• • " :'•• l l• ; ;-:.• I i 1 r nn 1 . i ii j j 1 iljli'''.1 l lui 11,,I . , . ., ;,. ip, . , 1 ' ,. l „,,iiiT 1 rl-, ; 11 r ri, , , iL ; ; ; .., . ; -4.! • !;i, . . 1 1 I I ill , k I „ , , 1 - , 4 4 , i. - . _ r - 1 ,. , , , , , , , ,•ir . ,4+4....4- • • • ,....i..: .. -rt",--:.-1 . . .1-41:',!r7•71114.r I II. _ _ r - :sr ' r i ' 1 . i I I A Alit i i . 1 4 . I ; i4,41i,j -•'.. . . . i-1,!,:-:-LI++-1,- 1 - i'.' . . 1-4.-,--.•,--H• • •,i „• • • • • •;,.,!.. ••.! -I..: 4 4 4 , 4..,1191 i itill " -I ' -- : --- •••64,;. • • • TABLE 5 . 1•l1',`L.11r `; ) ) OP mg/1 SOUItC)' CITY /COUNTY COLLECTING POND • SAMPLE D1'r 73 -2 -06 :Stimpie "0 1 Cd �r .. i ►aa Cr Cu 1'li. • Pb • Zn llcg Ca Mg . Q -0() 0,.0 'O l 40,c+. /0+ /. 0'0 -.:._ i i . . . i . . - CITY OF TUKWILA Environmental Impact Statement for development of SEGALE BUSINESS PARK Pursuant to City Of Tukwila Ordinance 759 Date CITY OF TUKWILA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pursuant to: WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1971 Chapter 43.21C.RCW CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Ordinance No. 759 FRANK TODD Mayor By DELBERT F. MOSS Planning Coordinator aow..a cut• 1y 0 4 1 0 N W• • 1 ••[•••,•I S••LMi .i ••• ' 1fNIA.CA•.•11•.• ,..e,CQ , ....) l \• l • Jj]�K,• 1 ST •a0 •l.n•a WIC n CO \nc• • •••••• _• w ,•a100 ! «r• 1 i' 1 , •NDOVRR • an, a (ASV • •,t•,I • 1 • • •••••• •••1Mt•O• •1•t •••Ol' . mow• 1.••,10 1 w••\•, 0.V r- PARR wit T 11•••,-' 1.1.11 t4 LU f. P ARK W IA SOUTHCENTER AREA TUKWILA, WASHINGTON I" 1• 4 - ! spgis TE • •••.1• 1 • OCOALC FSLI51NC 5 PARK =r MATCR JFTC +: PLA.TT MANSON BENNETT ANO ASSOCIATES -- U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service State of Washington Department of Game State of Washington Department of Ecology State of Washington Parks and Recreation Commission State of Washington Department of Natural Resources State of Washington Planning and Community Affairs Agency State of Washington Department of Highways Federal Highway Administration Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U. S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Health . and Science Affairs U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare U. S. Office of Economic Opportunity State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services State of Washington Department of Commerce and Economic Development State of Washington Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management . ENYZRONNENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT •DEVELOP ;TENT OF SEGALE BUSINESS PARK • . The Proposed Action ]..• Type of Action • • • The City of Tukwila, wi;ll...perform administrative- action... • 3n the review of proposals• and the granting . of pezmits -„.- - • - for the completion of •allowable development .at. . • Seg.-ale Business Park hereinafter referred to _:as ;;the - - • subject area. All review •and permit .procedUr. es 'are .. prescribed by Tukwila City. Ordinances- and have been ce;c1 fled • within the Tukwila r %zai.cipa1 Code.. • - - ': This Environmental . impact Statement. :is describe the anticipated :effects upon • -ice • - •�= intended to***:-:. • .- eiava ro�',rrential. dual �i t - resulting. from the development as allowed' by t1�.e applicabi.G - sec tions of. the Tukwila Comprehensive' Zon?_*zg: Ordi:xiance. • • 2:':. .iustification for the Proposed : • The proposed action is the laWful imp1ementati.on. -of previously determiried . City of Tukwila •policies as embodied within official plans, ordinances and :r eSe utiOns. Location • (Refer to Location Map, Figure A-1) - - within. the � ukwi.Za • Csty • - - Txie subject area lies. wholly • . .• Limits and portions Government lot- 2, 5,. and. 6. - Subject area is•bordered on North by South 180th Street, West by Sou-thcenter Parkway and on the East by Green River and on the South by the Green River and . approximately the Tukwila corporate limit. 4. Historical Background a. .Land Use • The subject area lies within the northern Green River Valley. Farming began in the Nineteenth Century • with dairying as the predominant land use in the valley. Truck farming was also carred on, but high water table and poor drainage mininniz.ed this use. 1uch . of the lased in and about the river valley- remained n s i:nclev eloped marshland up to the relatively recent rAni d industrial r:rowth. a. Topograhic /Geologic Impact - The earthwork operation is consistent with sound soils engineering practice. The average elevation of the site will not be signi- ficantly changed. b. Biological Impact - The major biological impact in this area occurred sometime ago when the decision was made to establish the commercial /industrial complex at Southcenter'. Covering remaining grass1ands. is not a significant factor since the site is and has been disked to keep grassland and other foilage at a minimum. No cover exists for migratory birds or other wildlife populations except along the bank of the Green River which will not be disturbed. c. Atmospheric Impact - A temporary increase in suspended. particulates concentrations will occur with earthwork and otherr construction operations. Increased traffic flows resulting from expanded commercial /industrial activities will increase the concentrations of all common air pollutants and will increase noise levels. d. Surface.Dra;inage /River System Impact -- Increased impervious surface will increase storm runoff quantities, contributing only . in small part to the overall drainage problems associated with the Green River System. .Water quality will be influenced by particulate matter and hydrocarbons washed from paved, surfaces by storm runoff. In addition, accumulated surface runoff markedly increases the temperature of the receiving body which can have a_ detrimental effect on the :Green River. Control of the discharge, through an approved storm drainage system can reduce this impact.. e. Change in Human Use - The extension of the.adjoining commercial /industrial development that ..will 'result from the proposed action represents no change in the predominant human use other than to expand it onto land that has long been dormant. This industrial.. growth .was.stimulated..by..a.number of factors,. but one.of.the most important:.:is the - proximity of transportation systems which have historically been routed through the Green River Valley. Geography sets' severe constraints on where. transportation routes can be built in the Puget.Sound Region.. Seattle responded to the early predominance of..Tacoma as the major railroad terminus.on Puget.Sound with the building on the Seattle & Spokane Railroad Line which later became part.of the. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pacific Railroad's main line up. through the Duwamish, and the lower Green.and Maple Valleys. Eventually, other railroads, i.e. the Northern Pacific, Union Pacific, and Great Northern,. followed.nearly parallel routes. These railroads.were supplemented by a system of highways constructed in the'first quarter of this century. The move toward industrial development in the valley • began early-in the 1950's. Planners for the Port. of Seattle suggested.an ambitious scheme to -turn the Duwamish and Green River Valleys into a large industrial complex complete with.a shipping canal to service. the area. - ..Tukwila citizens..counter_ed this . proposal. by incorporating.large.land areas into the City and imposing their own industrial zoning on the land. .This zoning in the valley; plus high increases in residential and commercial.development on the adjacent hillsides, and the'subsequent building of the freeway system (again to some extent dictated. by geographic and topographic features, all contributed to the present rush of industrial and commercial development that is not expected to abate for several more years. Source: City of Tukwila Planning Department, Draft •Environmental Impact Statement for Andover Industrial Park, Andover East (hereafter EIS - Andover). b. Flood Control Prior to 1900 the White River, and its tributaries, the Green and Black rivers, flowed northward through, and frequently across, the valley floor. The Black River was the outlet for Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and the Cedar River Basin. In. 1966 the White River changed course during a flood and was thereafter permanently diverted into the Stuck and Puyallup rivers. Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 resulted in the lowering of Lake Washington, permitting the Cedar River to be turned north into the lake and shutting off flow through the Black River. -2- With flow through the valley ..thus drastically r.educed., use of the valley floor for farming became more feasible. Farm owners., individually and by.districts, constructed low dikes along the -Green River, which, while not effective against major winter floods, did permit the land to be worked earlier in the spring and later in the fall. In 1962 Howard A.. Hanson Dam was constructed about 30 miles upriver from Auburn. The Eagle Gorge site was the best available'for storage and was utilized to its maximum practicable capacity. Major floodflows.were reduced to the maximum capacity of'the river channel with its existing dikes, less than 12,000 second -feet • at Auburn. By way of comparison,_a natural flow of • . 24,000 second-feet occurred in 1933. During the 1960's, the Soil Conservation Service, in conjunction with the Green River Flood Control Zone' District (administered by King County), completed planning for a. valley drainage system comprised. of • e land treatment measures selected to preserve favorable hydrologic conditions on the uplands, and a network of channels and large capacity pupping plants. During . storm periods interior valley. drainage will be pumped. into. the Green River at.several locations. The main pumping plant at the mouth of the Black River, was completed in 1972. In the near future, as the drainage discharge from this and other pumping plants adds to the controlled flood release from Hanson Dam, the existing river channel capacity could be exceeded during extreme flood conditions with simultaneous abnormal valley• storm runoff. This was recognized in. the Soil Conservation report on the drainage system. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized by ConGress to initiate a flood control study of the Green- Duwamish River in 1960. In 1966, with the cooperation. of King County, the study was revised'to •include investigation of the possibility of reducing •fiows. as controlled by Hanson Dam and increasing • channel capacity from Auburn to the Duwamish turning basin to accommodate increased flows resulting from the SCS Project. Study funding terminated in 1963, but resumed in July 1970. The Corps has investigated alternative flood control measures and•a.ntegration of these _with enhanced opportunity for recreation. Further action awaits on a King County investigation of the potential influence of flood control implementation upon land use patterns in the valley. Source: U.S..Army Corps of Engineers Food Control ;Study Green- Duwamish RivPrs; EIS - Andover Par c. Commercial /Industrial Development During the mid 1950's a group of investors, among them Allied Stores, the Union Pacific Railroad, and others, began to see the advantage of the expansion of Tukwila's jurisdiction to the Green River. Flood Plain. They began to purchase many individually owned parcels that they recognized as being potentially suitable for commercial /industrial development. Tukwila City policy at that time was sympathetic to these efforts, and cooperation between City Government and the investors led to the joint planning of a shopping center and surrounding industrial park complex. The Development Master Plan for Southcenter. and Andover Park was completed in 1958 and subsequently approved by the City. Groundbreaking for the General Electric Company's building on July 25, 1961, initiated construction of the first industry in the first such industrial development in the valley. Completion of the Howard A. Hanson Dam at this same time and later initiation of the SCS Drainage Project further accommodated industrialization of the _valley. Source: EIS - Andover. Park Public Participation The proposed. action, being the admi.nistrati.ve .rc view •development .projects within the subject area,..may require' . public meetings under certain existing C:Lty of Tukwila ordinances. Each such.public hearing is publicized in - advance as prescribed by Law. Since the subject area is contiguous to the Green River, a Shoreline Permit will have to. be issued for any development adjacent to the river. • The proposed action implements adopted City Policies as. embodied primarily in Council Resolutions, the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the Municiple Code.. Each of these has been subjected to public review during the normal.course of adoption. Tukwila is unique for cities in the region in hearing where full advantage is taken to express views. Generally, local newspaper coverage of these Hearings is extensive. Public participation has been an important part of the decision making and policy adoption by•other agencies having jurisdiction for planning and implementation of policies influencing development in the Green River Valley. As an example, the Corps of Engineers iias conducted a series of public hearings in conjunction with their investigations of alternative flood control measures for the Green- Luwantish River described above. 6. Proposed Method of Financing and Financial Sponsors The proposed action, as a series "of administrative decisions, requires no special funding outside of that normally required to support City Governmental Administrative Processes. All commercial /industrial development within the subject area will be financed from independent sources outside of the City.° Relationship with Existing Laws, Policies, Plans a. City Laws: City Ordinances'prescribe that the following permits be issued and the following.review procedures be undertaken with regard to any proposed land development: (1) Permits: a) Shoreline Management Permit in the case of significant improvements within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the West bank of the Green River. Building Permits including the applicable Utility Permits. (2) Reviews: a)- Review of State Department of Ecology Flood Zone Permits by Public Works Director. b) Review of storm drainage'system discharge by Public Works Director. b. Other Laws: State Law (RCW 86.16) establishes flood control zones throughout the State. One such zone governs the Green River flood plain and development projects within this zone must be issued a Flood Zone Permit by the State Department of Ecology. The King County Department of Public Works, Division of Hydraulics has traditionally reviewed applications for Flood Zone Permits in King County on behalf of the Department of Ecology. c. Policies and Plans: The development which will occur will be consistent with local and regional laws. The City of Tukwila has clearly assumed the ultimate completion of Segale Business Park as a keystone of its future economic and land use planning. This policy dates back to the time when the subject area was annexed to the City 'of Tukwila. Previous to that date it was a part of an unincorporated area adjoining the boundaries of the City of Tukwila. In order to increase it's economic base, the City of Tukwila annexed the subject area.into the City in a M -2 zoning classification. 5 c. Policies and Plans: Continued • The development within the subject area is also consistent with current regional plans. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference has confirmed that the subject area lies within the area proposed for industrial development by the conference's Interim Regional' Development Plan (IRDP). The following exerpts from the IRDP show clearly the conference's adopted policy to encourage future regional development within existing and committed regional centers, located near regional transportation routes and where utilities and public improvements already exist. Regional benefits of this policy include preserving regional open -space resources, eliminating unnecessary expenditures for public facilities and improvements, . and reducing the amount of time spent in home to work commuting trips:.. "New employment activities will locate in the committed employment center of the central cities and nearby suburbs.. New outlying'employment_centers will not be committed during the interim period ".. "The central major city in each-of the four counties will remain as the dominant business center. Beyond these'_E'our- - central cities, smaller existing or committed major business centers are spaced at three -to -four mile intervals. •along the existing or committed r.egional transportation system,.. These centers are surrounded by urban clusters of intensive employment and housing...." Land Use Policies (a) •Establish an ecologically based' planning system. (b) Conserve critical natural processes and resources. (c) Focus development in existing utility and service areas. ( d ) Encourage identifiable, se1..f- sufficient communities. Source: PIS Fndover Park The first phase development of the Business Park will consist of two buildings for retail, office and warehouse use.. See figure A -2. Future buildings similar to those buildings contained in first plans, will be developed when the need arises. 8. Actions /Decision; Remaining for Implementation The proposed action will result in incremental.completion of the development within the subject area. Import of material from other areas is generally needed except for building pads, inasmuch as the average site elevation of the subject area is approximately elevation 22. Grading of the area will be to elevation 22. which is the normal elevation for the street and railroad system in this area. The drainage systems which_will.be.connected to storm lines conform to a master_plan.prepared.by the City of .Tukwila, the Soil Conservation Service,.and the Green River Flood. Control Zone District.based.upon ultimate development of the.area as industrial sites. Historically, warehouse buildings that_ will. be developed on the property will. cover roughly 500 of each site. Office buildings historically cover much less of each . site perhaps. in the order of 30 %.. Retail buildings.... developed in the. area will also cover.much less land than the distribution or manufacturing buildings because of the higher parking requirements.. All of these uses are consistent with the City's M -2 zoning classification, and no anticipated use of this site will exceed the zoning classification. A copy of the M -2 zoning classi- fication is attached. . Existing Conditions t 1. Natural Setting (Source: ETS P.rdover Par]q' a. Area Directly involved (Subject Area) The area involved and primarily influenced by land development that will result as a consequence of the proposed action is the 100 acres, which is partially developed at the present time. Secondary influence and involvement will occur with respect to the total Southcenter Commercial-Industrial Complex, the Green - Duwamish River, Interstate' Freeways 5 and 405, the West Valley Highway, Southcenter Parkway, the Milwaukee Road and Union Pacific Railroads and other elements of the Tukwila Industrial area physical environment, land use patterns, .. and infrasturcture. .. b. .Geomorphology and Topography Segale Business Park is situated on a mature flood plain south of the historic concluence of the Green and Black Rivers which, prior to alternation by mans joined to the Duwamish River. Locally the broad flat - floored valley is delimited by the Tukwila and. Riverton Heights uplands on the north and west as well as the Renton and Kent Highlands ''area on, the east. Relief on the flood plain in the subject area proper approximates five feet (between elevations + 15 and 20). Area relief is /100 -600 feet. Historically the Green River changed its meander pattern within natural fluvial hydrologic bounds.. Aerial photographs and maps reveal old point -bar sand deposits, natural levees, meanders, and oxbow lakes (cut -off .meanders) in the now largely artificially regraded flood plain. Besides extensive and ongoing filling for industrial development, the natural topography has been altered by construction of levees to supplement the natural river levees for flood control purposes and to confine the .raver to a specific channel location. Highway cut and fill and railroad embankments are additional alterations. c. Geology, (1) Quaternary Geologic history Several periods of glaciation of the Puget louiand produced n complex strati{ raphie record. The northern part of the North American continent was covered at least four times in the Pleistocene Epoch by great ice sheets which ultimately reached all the way to Olympia, covering all the hills of the Puget Lowland and the San Juan Islands and lying high against the flanks of the Olympics and the Cascades. This happened at least three and probably four times, although the record of the older glacial events.has been obscured greatly by the most recent glaciation. Consequently, knowledge of the early glacial history of the Lowland is poor. The effects of glaciation on the Puget Lowland were so great that a pre - glacial reconstruction of the topography is quite difficult. It is assumed that the basic distribution of major landforms was as it is today with the Cascades and Olympic Mountains separated by a broad valley not unlike, perhaps,, the present Willamette Valley. Drainage was.to the north and then west to the ocean via the Strait of Juan de Fuca. As the ice wall moved south across the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands, the drainage of the Puget Lowland was probably affected very little. An entirely different situation prevailed, however, as soon as the advancing glacier reached the northeast front of the Olympics. At that time, the wall of ice effectively dammed the entire lowland, for little drainage could escape past the ice to reach the ocean. The result, inevitably, was the formation of a lake. The abundant clay - stone cropping out on the canyon walls along the lower Green River drainage has its origin as soft clay in this lake bottom. Eventually, this lake filled the entire lowland between the ice wall, the mountains, and the divide between the Puget Sound and Chehalis River drainage basins. This lake received runoff from the mountains and meltwater from the Puget Lobe. The silt, sand, and gravel sediments exposed in the valley walls along the lower Green River were transported from the Cascades by the glacier and reworked by meltwater streams as the ice advanced and retreated during the last and next to last glaciations. The resulting stratigraphic record is a series of alternating beds of lake clay, outwash detritus, and till (material deposited directly by the glacier). Gravels capping the surrounding hill- tops are the outwash gravel which was later locally re- worked by post- glacial streams. Differential erosion has locally produced a markedly irregular ground surface. The surface was carved out of lake sediments, plus the varied sediments derived from older glacial and interglacial periods, plus preglacial bedrock. Glacial erosion deepened pre- existing river valleys. This produced the Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish basins and deepened Puget Sound off Seattle to as great a depth as 1,000 feet below present sea level. Where the ground was not markedly excavated by the overriding ice, it was shaped. In both the Seattle area and elsewhere in the Puget Lowland, many of the elongate hills parallel to the general direction of ice move- ment (which was for the most part approximately north - south) owe their form to glacial shaping. As the Vashon Ice Sheet melted and receded in late Pleistocene time, the Green River again was able to flow northwesterly into the Puget Sound drainage. The drainage developed a mature flood plain with small youthful tributaries draining the uplands. Some.of - these smaller watercourses probably began as meltwater streams from the receding ice. Drainage from the ice - sculptured highlands was sluggish and vegetation thrived as evidenced by peat bogs and the relatively low relief topography on the plateaus.. The local creeks then began to cut vertically and the present watersheds were defined. These local tributaries subsequently cut over 400 feet through the glacial outwash and till, as well as the underlying pre - Vashon (probably Salmon Springs) drift complex. As post Pleisto- cene sea level continued to rise, the tendency to cut . vertically was lessened because the Green/ Duwamish River was aggrading (filling) its valley due to the lessened gradient brought on by sea level rise. (2) Environmental Geology - Soils and Fill Original surface soils where exposed in the subject area are typically the Puyallup silt loam of the Puget Series. This soil occurs principally in the Green River Valley and is associated closely with the Puyallup very fine sandy loam and fine sandy loam. It is developed on a very thick valley fill of recent alluvium. The upper 12 -14 inches cif the soil is a slightly acid gray -brown friable silt loam. The upper 30 inches of the subsoil is very slightly acid to neutral and is generally a light or medium - 10 - grayish brown silt loam interbedded with very fine silt loam. Rust brown mottling is common throughout. Borings indicate that the upper natural soils in the subject area consist generally of strata of sandy silt and silty fine sand. d. Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology Existing biological conditions of the subject area have been field inventoried and analysed. In addition, . the results of a game survey from the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service for the West Green River Watershed in the vicinity of the P -17 Drainage Channel Project are mentioned. (1) Terrestrial Botany Predominant botanical species of the subject area are listed in the Table, Fig. B -1. An inventory of the subject area is summarized as follows: The major biological impact in this area -occurred sometime ago when the decision was made to establish the commercial /industrial complex at Southcenter. Covering remaining grasslands is not a significant factor since the-site is and has been disked to keep grass- land and other foliage at a minimum. No cover exists for migratory birds or other wildlife ,populations except along the bank of the Green River which will not be disturbed. (2) Terrestrial Wildlife The subject area lies within the West Green River Watershed, which is part of the Pacific migratory fowl flyway. A general census of waterfowl and other wildlife in the watershed area was conducted on. 17 different dates between November 20, 1973 and February 1, 1973. During this period 230 waterfowl, 3 quail, more than a dozen rabbits and 2 pair of weasels were observed. Waterfowl counts are listed in the table, Fig. B -2. These counts were made twice a week. An average of 14 birds per day was counted. With respect to mammals observed in all areas, positive evidence of the presence of moles, meadow mice, and rabbits only was found. Further time for observation and trapping would very likely disclose the presence of whitefooted mice, muskrats, at least. FIGURE B -1 PREDOMINANT BOTANICAL SPECIES River bank & Dike Road FAMILY GUNUS - SPECIES COMMON NAME Rosaceae Gramineae Equisetaceae Cruciferae Compositae Leguminosae Gramineae Compositae Equisetaceae Salicaceae Rubus procerus Agrostis tenuis Agropyron repens Equisetum hyemale Brassica campestris Capsella bursa Anthemis cotula . Cirsium arvense Hypochaeris radicata Other Land Trifolium hybridum Agropyron repens Agrostis tenuis Lolium perenne Cirsium arvense ' Anthemis cotula Equisetum,hyemale Populus trichocarpa �Popul_us nigra (hort.) Himalayan Blackberry Bentgrass Quackgrass Horsetail Mustard Shepards Purse Mayweed Thistle Cats Ear Clover Quackgrass Bentgrass Ryegras.s Thistle Mayweed Horsetail Cottonwood Lombardy Popular FIGURE B -2 WATERFOWL COUNTS - WEST GREEN RIVER WATERSHED 17 observation dates between Nov. 20, 1972 and Feb. 1, 1973 Ducks (Dabblers) Genus Species Common Name Total Counts Anas Mareca Spatula Anas Ducks . (Divers) Ay thy a Bucephala. Unidentified. Miscellaneous Fulica platyrhynchos amer_icana clypeata acuta affinis albeola americana Mallard American Widgeon Shoveler Pintail Scaup Bufflehead Coot 52 10 12 . 64 17 .12 35 28. 230 (14 Av. 1'er Day) Source:. U. S. Department-of.'Agriculture, Soil Conservation'Servicc; Andover Par FIGURE B -3 BIRD SIGHTINGS - SUBJECT AREA GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Aythya valisneria Canvasback Duck Fulica •.americana American Coot Larus .glaucescens Glaucous Gull Corvus brachyrhynchos Common Crow Melospiza melodia . Song Sparrow Phasianus colchicus Ring Necked Pheasant Anas cyanoptera • Teal Turdus migratorius Robin Lophortyx californica California Quail -14- (3) Aquatic Wildlife The Green- Duwamish River supports significant runs of fishes. Although there is some natural spawning in the river, the majority of these fishes are released as fry or fingerlings from the Washington State Department of Fisheries Hatchery located on Soos Creek, a tributary of the river. The pricipal species are Chinook, Coho and Chum salmon, as well as Steelhead trout. Fish species inhabiting the river in the vicinity of Segale Business Park are listed in the table, Fig.' B -4. FIGURE B -4 FISH SPECIES OF TIIE GREEN RIVER VICINITY OF SEGALE BUSINESS PARK COMMON • NAME GENUS SPECIES Chinook. Salmon Coho Salmon. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha •Oncorhynchus .kisutch _Chum .Salmon Oncorhynchus . keta Cutthroat Trout - Salmo clarki .Steelhead Trout . Salmo m° pairdneri Salvel inns mal�n a • Dollar ..Varden Trout . .. l t asper Sculpin: Cotus us r. • .Threes.pine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Rhinichta s cataractae Longnose Dace � �' Speckled Dace Mountain Whitefish Starry Flounder (juveniles) Rhinichthys oculus williamsoni Platichthys stellatus • Source: .EIS - Andover. Park Entries below give percent of time wind blows from given direction at given speed. Wind speeds between 0 - 3 mph occur 35% of the time from all directions. Directions 4 -15 16 -31 MPH MPH' N 7% 0 NE • 4% 0 E 4% 0 SE 15% 0 S 14% 0 SW 8% 2% W 2% 0 NW 8% 0 (2) Air Pollution Sulfur trioxide averages 6 - 7,ugm /cm2 /day (Micrograms per square centimeter per day) compared to a Seattle area average of 4.3 ,ugm/cm2/day. Suspended particulates average 70 - 80 ugm /m3 (micrograms per cubic meter of air) as contrasted to Seattle area average of 52.7,ugm /m3. Clean country air is 40 ,ugm/m3 and 80,ugm /m3 is typical of city air. There are no gross point sources of air pollution in the immediate vicinity. The major source in the immediate area is probably from auto traffic on Interstate highways I -5 and I -405 and local traffic, especially in the Southcenter parking areas. The major source for the general area is the South Seattle industrial area. Air pollution from this source would be significant when the wind was from the NW Quadrant which occurs 17% of the time. With the wind from the south and southwest the Tacoma Industrial air pollution is measurable. (3) Noise Typical traffic noise as measured by standard methods is listed below: Heavy traffic at 50 ft.: 80 -85 db. Heavy traffic at 100 ft.: 77 -82 db. Light traffic at 100 ft.: 45 -50 db. The maximum allowable traffic noise in the State of Washington is 85 db. at 100 ft. Doubling the amount of traffic past a given point increases the noise level by 3 db. f. Lakes, Streams, Marine Water and Groundwater (1) Surface Drainage The historic drainage pattern of the valley is one of a mature flood plain whose width is 6 -10 times the width of the meander belt. Numerous cut -offs, oxbow lakes, and point -bar deposits characterize the area. Drainage was canalized locally by agricultural requirements to reduce flooding and remained regionally in essentially a non -man- altered state until the completion of the Howard A. Hanson Dam in 1962. This upstream metering of the Green River and additional engineered drainage improvements has substantially altered the natural drainage pattern and controlled the hydrology. The Green River now approximates 300 -500 c.f.s. low water mean summer time flow and flood flows are controlled to a maximum of less than 12,000 second feet measured at Auburn. External drainage systems have been built to conform to a Master Plan prepared by the City of Tukwila, the Soil Conservation Service and the Green River Flood Control Zone District. The internal drainage system as shown on Figure A -2 is in accordance with that anticipated at the time the master plan was prepared. The existing collecting pond near the southeast limits of Andover Industrial Park was constructed by Puget Western, Inc. in 1964 to test the feasibility of developing industrial property on the valley floor through use of a combination of some filling together with a system of storm drain pumping stations, as compared to the previously followed practice of filling land up to the height of the river dikes. The property upon which the pond is situated has been recently acquired by Icing County & the City of Tukwila. Part of the pond will be incorporated into the P -17 Storm Drainage Collection & Discharge System which is part of the SCS Public Law 566 West Side Green River Watershed Work Plan. (2) Water Quality Summer represents the most critical biological, physical and chemical stress period in most temperate streams. This is the case with the Green River in the vicinity of the Segale Business Park, where the summer time high river temperatures and low flows (average typically :-tween 300 and 500 cfs) result in physiological stress on aquatic organisms. This specific area is rated by the Washington State Department of Ecology as being class A waters, however in their 1969 Information Bulletin on Intrastate Waters, the lower Green River meets only the temperature and pH requirements of class A waters. The data in Appendix A, Water Quality Tables 1 Through 4, were taken from sampling conducted At the Kent 212th Street Bridge upstream from the subject area and at the Renton Junction Bridge below the subject area, during a one month period in the summer of 1972. Sampling at two locations gives a dynamic perspective of existing water quality impact as well as some impression of the river's ability to handle . the existing pollution load. Temperature in Class A waters should not exceed 21 °C whereas the stretch of the Green River under study had a upper limit of 20 °C, a minimum temperature of 13.5-14 C and an average temperature of 17.5 °C. The relative stability of this water massis reflected in the small standard deviation values of 1.2 and 1.4 °C. However a temperature increase of 0.8 °C is recorded between the two sample stations and this means that the river is near its thermal capacity. The average dissolved oxygen values exceed the class A standards (8.0 milligrams /liter) for both stations. The upstream station was 0.66 mg /1 higher, of which 0.2 mg /1 might be accounted for in the solubility differential due to the temperature range involved. This still leaves an average depression of 0.4 mg/1 resulting as water passes through this stretch of the river. This is reasonable evidence to support the premise that this stretch of river is loaded slightly beyond its natural biological oxygen demand (BOD) tolerance. While the BOD (listed as variable #7) in Appendix A, Tables 1 & 2, does not seem unreasonably high (1.92 and 2.3 mg /1) the standard deviation near the equivalent of 1/2 the average values suggests a problem may exist. The 24 hour data plot in Appendix A, Figures 1, 2 & 3 collected during the same time period (see Fig.. 3) documents the drastic BOD load fluctuations which apparently exist on both a diurnal and daily basis. The Kjeldal (total) nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen levels are all relatively low and the one sample taken from the City /County pond during February 1973 had a total nitrogen value of 0.796 milligram per liter which would be within one standard deviation based on existing data of the average values above and below its discharge site. The total phosphate, hydrolizable phosphate and the biologically most available orthophosphate are all reasonably low, as is the one sample from the City /County pond which had a hydrolizable phosphate value of 0.147 mg /1. This would indi- cate the system is not presently receiving unusually high nutrient loading and might tolerate additional such loading. However, if this pond is allowed to stabilize or accumulate much organic detritus with adequate light conditions, substantial algal blooms might be anticipated. The plots in figures 2 and 3 of stations 4 and 5-respectively show the blue -green nuisance algae are not the predominate species during summer months but their substantial numbers indicate that this part of the river has adequate nutrients and water conditions to readily become a problem area; any standing pond with similar water composition would, in time, emit an odor and take on an unpleasant appearance from the natural die -off of these algae. The relatively high chlorophyll A levels (variable 8 in Appendix A, Tables 3 & 4) of 5.0 and 4.3 mg /m2 is relatively high for a river system indicating that the river is both biologically viable and sufficiently enriched. The metals copper and lead, Appendix A, Table 5, are not in significant concentrations to be of biological concern although lead concentrations might increase to significant levels with the increased runoff rate from paved vehicular areas. The zinc reported in mg /1 x 10 -1 are detection limits and the mercury which is reported in ug /1 is also well below tolerance limits. Total and fecal coliform do not meet class A waters or even class C waters. This is in part the influence of livestock as well as human activity throughout the lower Green River. 2. Human Use, Development or Values The Tukwila Planning Department has surveyed the 8 square mile planning area surrounding the subject area and has summarized generalized human use and development as the following: a. Residential (8 square miles surrounding the area) 1) Single Family Dwelling 3,484 Average Household Size 2.3) 2) Two Family Dwellings 2 3) Three or Four Family Dwellings 3 4) Five to Eight Family Dwellings 0 5) Nine or More Family Dwellings 59 6) Hotels, Motels and Tourist Homes 3 7) Mobile Homes 0 b. Commercial 1) Wholesale and Distributors 34 2) Retail a. Southcenter 108 1. Shopping Population (daily) 28,600 2. Shopping Population (peak) - 92,000 3. 1971 Total Shopping Population - 11,500,000 b. Other than Southcenter 10 c. Industrial 1) Mining 2 2) Construction 2 3) Manufacturing a. Southcenter 7 b. Other than Southcenter 24 d. Agricultural 1) Dairy Farm (5 Acre) 1, 2) Mixed Crops (7 Acre, 36 Acre, 3 Acre) . 3 e. Recreational 1) Minor Parks (Less than 5 Acres) 4 a. Picnic Tables b. 2 Tennis Courts 2) Golf Courses 1 3) Tukwila Community Club 1 4) Race Tracks (Longacres) 1 5) Numerous Fishing Sites Along the River - 22 - f. Transportation 1) Railroads (Burlington Northern, Union Pacific, Milwaukee) 3 a. Passenger b. Freight _ 2) 3 Taxi Cab Services 105 and 1 -5 Intersections a. Cars to Southcenter daily average) - 13,000 b. Cars to Southcenter (peak daily average 4) Truck Transportation - 2,500 daily a. Terminals b. Freeway Accesses _ 5 River Transportation 6 Employees (Southcenter) - 7,500 7 1 Cars (Southcenter) - 5,013,600 yearly) Education 1 Elementary: • • • •: . • . • . • • . k J 2 Jr. High 1 3 Sr.. High . .. • a .. J. h.. Religion °.1) Churches . . • .. . . . • .10 The Tukwila Industrial Council participated in a. survey of the existing Andover Industrial Park conducted during February 1973, and 75% of the firm s surveyed responded and the results are shown tabulated on the .tables,. Figures B-5, B-6 and B -7.. The most recent tabulation of statistics for Andover Park prior to the issuance of this survey, occurred in 1970 at which time the following totals were recorded: Employees = 1,134 Building Area = 996,843 Sq. Ft. Employees: Building Area = 1/880 sq. ft.. Employees: Site Area = 17 Employees /Acre During the period 1968 to 1970, a greater number of service type firms moved into the Industrial Park, raising the employees -to -site area ratio to 1.9 :1 which is probably more nearly the current and expected future condition. This would indicate that the remaining 85 undeveloped acres have an employment potential of1900 jobs. r . -23- - - - '- - - - -. FIGURE B - 5 DISTRIBUTION FIRMS FIRM NAME DATE OF LAND AREA BLDG AREA AREA OF PRESENT TRUCKS TRUCKS EMPL. VISITOR BUS. LUNCH OCCUPANCY ACRES SQ. FT. DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DELIVERY AUTOS AUTOS AUTO AUTOS Ayerest Laboratories Sept 65 3.5 Western 4 male 8 2 6 2 2 3 U.S.A. 3 female Chicago Pneumatic July 66 .9 8,500 Western 14 male 3 5 8 3 3 5 Tool Company U.S.A. 3 female Emerson Northwest 1.3 26,000 3 1 5 10 2 3 Firestone Tire and Nov 67 4.9 79,000 Western 20 male 10 2 20 4 10 2 Rubber Company U.S.A. 5 female General Electric Co. Mar 62 8.3 116,000 Western 125 male 10 to 20 107 165 20 25 U.S.A. 41 female 40 from W. W. Grainger, Inc. Apr 69 1.18 12,000 Western 8 male 10 6 45 0 1 U.S.A. Joslyn Mfg. & Supply May 64 1.10 18,500 Western 4 male 5 to 0 4 5 1 2 Co. - Northern Region U.S.A. 1 female 6 from Kirsch Company Mar 67 .9 15,400 Western 5 male 5 1 10 10 0 1 U.S.A. 5 female Lang Distributors Inc. Feb 69 1.1 18,500 Western 18 male 8 7 11 5 4 2 U.S.A. Mazda Motors of America 1.1 49,309 39 male 4 2 45 6 4 25 N.W. Inc. 10 female 3 M Company 5 86,000 28 male 15 4 40 6 35 0 12 female FIGURE B - 5 DISTRIBUTION FIRMS PAGE 2 FIRM NAME DATE OF LAND AREA BLDG AREA AREA OF PRESENT TRUCKS TRUCKS EMPL. VISITOR BUS. LUNCH OCCUPANCY ACRES SQ. FT. DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DELIVERY AUTOS AUTOS AUTO AUTOS Norton Co., Coated Aug 66 2 40,000 Western 5 male 11 1 10 6 0 8 Abrasive - Tape Division U.S.A. 2 female Ohio Medical Products Ap 72 .47 20,645 Greater 7 male 15 2 8 2 3 0 Div. of Airco Inc. Sea. & Tac. Palmer Supply 4.5 95,000 43 male 60 14 10 20 28 female Peterson Industries Inc. Jan 72 1.6 ,U.S. & 5 male 3 to 0 9 2 4 3 Canada 12 female 5 from Pitney Bowes Oct 72 1.2 9,000 W. Wash & 65 male 1 2 57 10 60 10 Alaska 15 female Rome Cable - Div. of May 69 1.2 27,000 Western 7 male 12 1 5 6 2 5 Cyprus Mines Corp. U.S.A. 3 female Snap on Tools Corp. Summer .8 9,600 Western 9 male 11 11 14 5 1 5 67 U.S.A. 7 female Treck Photographic inc. Oct 67 2 26,000 Western 33 male 10 to 7 38 80 8 19 U.S.A. 12 female 12 from West Coast Machinery Co. Dec. 67 .7 U.S.A. & 7 male 6 8 9 15 8. 5 Div. of Columbia Cascade Canada 2 female Corp. & West Coast Machine Tool Sales of Wash. Inc. TOTAL 37.45 656,454 607 203 86 472 401 177 144 FIGURE B - 6 SERVICE FIRMS FIRM NAME DATE OF LAND AREA BLDG AREA AREA OF PRESENT TRUCKS TRUCKS EMP. VISITOR BUS. LUNCH OCCUPANCY ACRES SQ. FT. DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DELIVERY AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS Aeronautical Radio, Inc. Feb. 72 2 6,100 Western 18 male 0 0 16 1 2 1 U.S.A. 1 female Bendix Corp., West Coast June 69 1.1 10,607 World 0 0 7 4 0 3 Aerospace Support Div. (phasing out) General Electric Co. June 66 1 15,000 Western 115 male 0 2 50 10 27 5 U.S.A. 20 female Ingersoll Rand Co. May 69 1.1 12,540 Western 11 male 3 1 26 2 6 3 ,U.S.A. 2 female Peoples Nat. Bank .Feb 68 .8 Wash. 2 male 0 0 8 6o 3 8 of Washington State 6 female South ^_enter May 73 2.1 10,600 35 male 0 6 100 550 ' 35 70 Professional Plaza 110 female State Farm Mutual Auto Mar 70 .5 6,143 Southern 31 male 0 1 26 20 16 20 Insurance Company King Co. 18 female Tempo 20 Sept 68 .5 .5,200 25 male 0 0 28 0 2 30 7 female TOTAL 7.21 66,190 401 3 10 261 647 91 140 FIGURE B - 7 MANUFACTURING FIRMS • FIRM OCCURPANCY ACRES SQ. FT. DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DELIVERY AUTOS- AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS DATE OF LAND AREA BLDG. AREA AREA OF PRESENT TRUCKS TRUCKS EMP. VISITOR BUS. LUNCH All Pak Container Inc. May 70 1.6 40,000 Wash. and 40 males 12 4 38 8 5 10 Oregon 3 females AMCI, Inc. Dec 67 1.4 30,000 Boeing 12 male 12 female 4 5 20 5 1 10 Davidson Products Co. March 63 1.1 18,000 Western 44 male 11 1 46 1 2 14 U.S. 4 female World Northwest Envelope Co. Feb 69 4.1 70,000 60 male 1 to 3 85 4 2 25 75 female 2 from Tri -Way Industries Inc. May 71. .92 U.S.A 24 male 4 to 6 20 4 1 4 1 female 2 from TOTALS 9.12 158,000 275 36 19 209 22 . 11' 63 C. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action (i) 1. Changes in Natural Characteristics Development resulting from the proposed action will not have dramatic environmental impact if sound engineering, hydraulic and ecologic principles are adhered to. a. Topographic /Geologic Impact . The earthwork operation is consistent with sound soils engineering practice. The average elevation of the site will not be significantly changed. b. Impact on Terrestrial & Aquatic Biology The major biological impact in this area occurred sometime ago when the decision was made to establish the commercial /industrial complex at Southcenter. Covering remaining grasslands is not a significant factor since the site is and has been disked to keep grassland and other foliage at a minimum. No cover exists for migratory birds or other wildlife populations except along the bank of the Green River which will ' not be disturbed. c. Atmospheric Impact A temporary increase in suspended particulates concentrations will occur with earth -work and other construction operations. Increased traffic flows resulting from expanded commercial /industrial activities will increase the concentrations of all common air pollutants and will increase noise levels. d. Impact on Surface Drainage and the River System Expanded commercial /industrial development resulting from the proposed action will markedly increase surface water runoff coefficients and thereby divert more water into the Green River system. More paved surfaces will increase peak flows of surface runoff. Within the Tukwila Comprehensive Drainage Plan area, all storm runoff will be directed to the County /City pond and a temporary pumping system. The increase in peak flows will reinforce the need for the proposed pumping plant which is part of the SCS West Side Green River Watershed P -17 project. Most of the cost for installation of the new pump facility will be borne by the SCS Project. Increased volumes of water both flowing directly to . the Green River and being pumped into it by the existing and proposed pumping plants, will necessitate raising the river levees. The subject area; however, will contribute only a fraction of the total volume of water which must be accommodated by higher levees. It is only a small portion of the total land area drained by the P -17 System. For purposes of comparison, the P -17 Plant is expected to pump water at a capacity - of 225 cfs. The present P -1, Black River Plant, by contrast, is designed to pump at 2,9+5 cfs. (A ere will be an impact on surface water quality as :runoff picks up the particulate matter deposited by 'aerial fallout and surface spills of hydrocarbons and other potential water pollutants.' Any direct discharge of these pollutants to the river as now occurs through the existing gravity systems will influence water quality in the river and will have a corresponding influence on the aquatic wildlife. There will be no changes in the river bottom an channel configuration. 2. Changes in Human Use Land use patterns established by. the Southcenter Commercial/ Industrial Complex: dominate the immediate vicinity of the subject area. The continuation of commercial/Industrial development that will result From the proposed action represents no change in this dominant human use otheer than to expand it onto land that has long lain dormant. This dormant land has resulted from the preclusion of former farming uses by commercial /industrial expansion. Previous policy decisions by the Tukwila City Government initiated this change of use. These policies assign greater value to industrial expansion than the former agricultural uses and they were implemented directly by granting industrial zoning classifications to the arca. Indirect . policy implementation was achieved by the )nigher assessed evaluations on the land which resul'i;ed from these zoning changes, thus making farming less profitable. J The proposed action re- enforces the pattern of human use in the subject area begun in previous years. It will stimulate construction of new industries and businesses. This will lead to more employment, increased tax base, and some increase in the City's population. D. Any Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects (ii) The following discussion of adverse effects and possible mitigating measures relates directly to an expanded discussion of the above described environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action. 1. Geological Effects Where the filling abuts the Green River, filling of the grade adjacent to the dike could precipitate lateral surface soil movement and possible damage to the dike. However; because the earthwork operation along the dike will involve removal of fill, a reverse effect will occur having a favorable effect on the dike. 2. Biological Effects The above noted displacement of terrestrial, botanical and wildlife species will be an unavoidable adverse environmental effect. Migratory birds which pause in the remaining ecologically least-disturbed parts of the subject area will be displaced to other locations, as will mammals observed to exist in the area. There is no known technique for retaining wildlife in an intensively developed area. The Soil Conservation Service suggest, however, that some songbirds will use ornamental plantings to be installed by the developers for nesting areas and food. Atmospheric Effects Increases in noise and air pollution will be unavoidable effects of commercial/industrial expansion in the subject area. Examination of the total commercial /industrial complex at Southcenter together with the adjacent interstate freeway systems, however, reveals that this increase will be experienced in the vicinity. If the City wishes to reduce noise impact, there are two basic strategies which could be utilized: a. Screening by vegetation. In particular, tall trees and brushes planted close to building walls will absorb and disperse sound and prevent the walls from acting as sounding boards. b. Make traffic move at low speeds, but not so slow as to necessitate changing rears (approximately 25 mph). Keep traffic moving and minimize stops. The second measure would aid in diminishing air pollution from traffic as well. 4. Surface Drainage The influence of expanded.; commercial /industrial development on storm water quantity and quality has.been.discussed under C.1.d. Impact on Surface Drainage and the River System, above. The following additional comments are with regard to adverse effects on water quality. Water quality will be influenced by pollutants in storm runoff from the developed areas which can have some influence on the river system. It is advisable, therefore, that skimmers and other pollutantcontrol..facilities be . designed in the P-17. pumping plant to prevent severe contamination of the Green River. City flap gate-outlets from the gravity systems may also need to be revised. In addition, accelerated surface runoff markedly increases the temperature of the receiving body.: This increase in temperature will have additional effect on the Green River. As noted above, the Green River.is near thermal capacity, so the discharge from the storage pond should be considered a pollutant if it increases the river. temperature.: Relative discharge to river volumes make this adverse effect unlikely. Hydrocarbons entering.the.drainage system, in whatever amount, will float on the storage pond's surface.. A discharge below the lowest anticipated pond water surface or a skimmer (inverted water) is proposed. The wier system proposed by SCS to keep the anadromous fish out of the pond should also be designed to keep pond fish out of the river. Incorporation of any of these measures in 'the P -17 system will be the decision of SCS engineers designing .. the system and reporting on its impact. The developer of Segale Business Park, however, has agreed to encourage SCS to so design the system to ncorporate. these measures and to incorporate those measures in any system utilized in the site. Within active construction sites, there will be an adverse effect on water quality from siltation which originates from the washing or exposed earthwork. areas. This will occur if measures are not taken to prevent silt from leaving these disturbed areas. E. Alternatives to the Proposed. Action (iii) 1. Alternative Projects or Programs Alternatives to the proposed action would have to begin with alternatives to Tukwila City Policies which the proposed action serves to implement. City policy decisions dealing with the subject area have, for some time, favored commercial /industrial development over other land uses including former agricultural uses. City policy makers and the citizens they represent, have valued the benefits of a higher tax base and increased employment opportunities above other considerations relating to the subject area. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, the regional policy- making agency, acknowledges the Southcenter commercial /industrial complex as being a viable land use in this location, partly due to its already being long ago committed as an employment center and partly due to its relationship to regional transportation systems. Alternatives to the proposed action, therefore, must begin with alternatives to adopted policies at the local and regional level. These alternatives could conceivably be three in number: ... Do not approve further land development within the subject area (the traditional "do- nothing" alternative). ... Revert the undeveloped and partially filled portions of the subject area to agricultural use. ... Direct the undeveloped portions into other than commercial /industrial uses. a. Comparability of costs and accomplishments of alternative actions and non action. 1) A "do- nothing" alternative could result in costs to both the private and public sectors in the form of lost investment and tax revenues for each, respectively. Lost tax revenues would at least be partially offset by a reduction in the need for services provided by the City and other taxing agencies. The taxes which would continue to be levied on the unuseable property would be burdensome to the owners who would have no means available to earn a return on the land in order to offset these taxes. Other costs would be associated with the lack of efficiency resulting from the lack of continuity and order between developed, partially developed and undeveloped portions of the subject area. Loss of the subject area as an available commercial /industrial land resource would very possibly shift the burden of demand for this resource to another part of the region which may be governed by lower development standards, and /or which may not serve this land use as efficiently in terms of access to transportation, etc. and /or which may result in even greater environmental impact than will result from the proposed action. Accomplishments of a "do- nothing" alternative would be the preservation of undeveloped or partially developed portions of the subject area for future alternative uses. No alternative uses would at this time seem viable'as will be discussed below; consequently the land would remain unused in the short term resulting in maintaining the status quo of present commercial /industrial activity. 2) Reverting the land to agriculture could only occur on a subsidized basis —high costs of rehabilitation, costs of farm production on the scale possible at this location and tax assessments on the land would probably not be offset by the return from farm products, providing there is a sufficient market for such products in the first place. SCS reports that loss of market organization is already a problem. One producer of lettuce last year -,plowed his crop under because he could not market it. Accomplishments of this alternative would be the preservation of agricultural use on soils suitable for this activity. This land use is currently being zoned and assessed out of existence in the Green River Valley. If preservation of agricultural use in the Green River Valley evolves as a true regional policy, it could be more feasibly accomplished in other areas not already disrupted by extensive alterations to the land and not already covered with conflicting land uses as is the case within the subject area. 3) The third alternative of directing the remaining undeveloped or partially developed portions of the subject area to other than commercial /industrial uses is perhaps the most feasible of the three alternatives discussed. It remains contrary, however, to established market trends and would require a shift in political and economic policies to stimulate such a change. Some of the other land uses that could occur are residential subdivisions, parks and recreation facilities, and institutional uses such as hos- pitals, government centers, schools, housing, etc. As with agriculture, residential uses would have to be subsidized in some manner because the high costs of land development in the subject area pre - cludes a favorable economic return on any but the most intensive uses. The demand for parks and institutional uses is such that it can be as easily met at other, less costly sites. An example is King County's recent purchase of a forty -nine acre park site, one mile to the north of the subject area. The site is undeveloped farm land purchased for $15,000 to $20,000 per acre. Partially developed land, within the subject area, which is served by established arterials and utilities systems would cost proportionately more. Accomplishments of the alternative would be to shift from the commercial /industrial uses at this location which has served as a precedent for the entire Green River Valley, to other forms of development. Though these uses would possibly be less intensive in nature, they would still require land development measures similar to those resulting from the proposed action. b. Summary of environmental impact for the alternative actions. 1) A "do- nothing" alternative would result in a net increase in the biomass of the subject area as the dormant land begins to naturally reseed to a denser plant cover, thereby establishing more favorable wildlife habitats. Storm runoff would be reduced by an increased capacity for infiltration, absorption and evapotranspiration as the plant mass was established; paved surfaces resulting from the proposed action would not occur. Water quality would remain as it is or improve depending upon the amount of off site water which is absorbed by the undeveloped land, rather than allowed to enter the river. Air quality would be improved by the respiratory processes of the increased plant mass. Physical site characteristics would remain the same. 2) Agriculture would result in an alteration.to the existing condition of the site by the removal.of fill material and cultivation. of the.land.....An increase in vegetation mass. would occur. in :.terms. of crops. or pasture grasses. Water.quality would be influenced by an .increase in nutrients from fertilizers and livestock into the drainage system. 3) The third alternative would, in all instances (except use of the subject area. as parks) result in environmental impact similar to that described for the proposed action. Any •substantial land development would have to be initiated with a continuation of the present earthwork, . program. The environmental impacts: Disruption of biological systems, increases in air.and water pollution levels, increases in storm runoff and increases in noise and traffic congestion would all occur, but to a greater. or lesser degree depending upon the nature of the . alternative land uses undertaken. . Relationship Between Local Short -Term Environmental Uses and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Lon- Term Productivity 1. Time Involved in Proposed Short -Term Uses Short -term uses for the subject area will constitute a transition time only in which all of the land within. the subject area will be converted to commercials - industrial and business uses. 2. Potentials for Long -Term Productivity of involved Resources .Potentials for long -term productivity of involved, non- renewable resources largely involve the land area itself.. a. Choices of Use Available Development resulting from the proposed action will- preclude the land being used for agricultural purposes, except if market conditions determine that the need for land for commercial /industrial uses in this area is not critical. This may be the case farther South in the Green River Valley, but is not likely at this location. b. Potential Long -Term or Future Economic Productivity Futttre economic productivity will largely depend on the industrial growth trends in the central Puget Sound Region. Industry will continue to be a.argely distribut:i.ve and service oriented w :i.tlt some manitfrtt tug i.nU. 3. Preclusion or Enhancement of Long Term Potentials Long term potentials for continuation of commercial/ industrial activity are enhanced by the fact that this complex has evolved from a planning process which has been on -going for fifteen years. a. Optional Future Uses Precluded or. Enhanced Change to other future uses will only occur if unanticipated political and economic policies of the region alter the present market oriented growth dynamics of the area. Changes in technology could have other effects as yet unknown. b. Degree of Preclusion or Enhancement Present municipal and regional policy is directed toward enhancing current development activities while at the same time undertaking continuous study and revision of development goals. G. Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments with The Proposed Action v 1. Commitments The proposed action will result in the commitment of the subject area to commercial and industrial land uses, which, in turn, will commit financial resources, construction materials and labor to achieving such use. This will, in turn, result in some preclusion of optional future land uses and loss of the intrinsic resource of fertile soil.. a. Nature & Relative Permanence of Commitments The commitment resulting from the proposed action is permanent relative to todays's standards and will be long -term, probably fifty years or more. b. Stability of Resources Involved Abundant land area within the Green River Valley has been zoned for industrial use, but extensive conversion of farmland is contrary to evolving regional goals. Regional policies, however, do allow for the commitment of the subject area to this conversion since it is so advantaged with regard to access to transportation systems vital to this use. c. Percentage of Resource to be Permanently Committed Nearly one - hundred percent of the remaining undeveloped or partially developed land within the subject area will be committed to commercial /industrial use. 2. Reasons for Irreversibility and Irretrievability The commitment of the subject area to its present use has been made after undertaking comprehensive planning for this use and receiving full approval for doing so. Reversing this commitment would be contrary to present policies of the governing jurisdictions involved. a. Potential for Diminishing Permanence of Commitments Potential for diminishing permanence of commitments is unknown at this time. b. Reasons for Not Employing Diminishing Measures It is not within the capability of the City of Tukwila to determine or alter regional goals and policies. H. Public Comment As a result of the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to some 21 agencies, six letters were received commenting on the. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Those letters are reproduced in this Final Environmental Impact State- ment. Following the reproduction of these letters, comments on each letter are. contained. The Final Environmental Impact Statement has also cited the sources for the information contained in the Draft. Environ_: meital Impact. Statement. In addition, where corrections were deemed necessary to.the Draft Environmental.Tmpact Statement, they were included in. this Final Statement: In addition; a new section has been added..to the Environmental. Impact Statement in response to comments from the Puget-Sound Air.Pollution-Control Agency. That new section is on air quality. -39- • LIIb11U L••rr.r...... r••• r pr.. •• t vr.•r . .. Puget Sound Gov.er n„sent,: Conference September 24, 1973 PSGC File No. 2/244/73 Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City. of Tukwila 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Subject: Segale Business Park, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Moss: • Please find enclosed preliminary staff comments concerning the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As you know, these comments are subject to review and approval by the Environmental Policy Advisory Committee on September 28 and by the full Conference on October 11. Formally adopted review comments will be forwarded at that time. Very truly yours, Keith W. Dearborn, Director Environmental Planning KWD: DK:bjp Enclosure 1•t11••t•tt: 1. • .A.. C .. Puget Sound Govemme;1;.t. ton ere.,:.e REVIEW AND REFERRAL COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Jurisdiction: Project Title: Applicant: Funding: Cost: Agency: PSGC File No. 2/244/73 City of Tukwila Draft Environmental Impact Statement City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Federal N/A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Review of proposals and per-mitpproval for the development of Segale Business Park in the City of Tukwila. 'Site involves approximately 100-acres. State Local 1' 1 � ejj ri ►\[] � i '.1l il „.., La ;. Subject To Review . Other • Total LOCAL COMMENTS • Comments have been solicited from approximately 22 agencies for review and comment. COMMITTEE COMMENTS . It is. noted that this Impact Statement is almost an. exact duplication of the Draft Environ- mental impact Statement for Andover Industrial Park prepared by Wilsey and Ham. The two statement differ-only in that the detailed site specific information relevant. to Anodver Park has been elimiriated.and replaced by sketchy information . • on the Segale site. This results in an extensive description of .the Green River Valley and the generalized impacts of industrialization. It does not provide enough detailed information to determine the environmental impact of Segale Business Park. It is suggested that an independent Impact Statement dealing specifically with the proposed development at Segale Business Park be prepared. • • •The statement as presented for review would seem to be in violation of the Tukwila City Ordinance that it was prepared pursuant to. Section 3(h), Tukwila City Ordinance (continued) HEREBY CERTIFY that fit its meeting, held on Sound Governmental Conference concurred in this REVIEW AND MITTEE MEM RANDUNI and incorporated it into minutes of -41- r\ ► rl'111 , the Puget REFERRAL COM- tha t meeting. • ♦ \L ..�y iaii� i liclear ui Col.- • • .;.‘cc l \'i�.�uVi t..•�.....1� COMMITTEE COMMENTS PSGC File No. 2/244/73 Puget 759.... "In either this section or the other relevant sections of the statement, . the major studies, reports, and other documents used in the preparation of the statement should be cited." The Andover Industrial Park Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Wilsey and Ham from which the Segale statement was copied, .is never referenced in the document. INIEL J. EVANS GOVERNOR t'loiid•s F&r d. On page 32,-the sixth paragraph states that the incorporation f measures to prevent a decrease in water quality will be left to the Soil Conservation Service. However, this should be the responsibility of the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this statement. Sincerely yours, FRED H. WESE ASST. CI IICt', ENGlNr CRING DIVISt."x,V -44 L J. EVANS ROOM 113, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION ©UILOING • PHONE 753 -6600 THOR C. TOLLEFSONN� DIRECTOR i s,. _ '?•__ %% r VERNOR OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON 98304 Septetber 19, 1973 Mr. Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: Your letter of August 20 requests our review of a'draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Segale Business Park proposed for the City of Tukwila. Our comments are as follows: , 1. Although you indicate that the bank of the Green River would not be disturbed, you do not indicate the proposed width of the green belt or vegetative cover to be dedicated as an erosion control measure. 2. On page 16 the scientific name for starry flounder should be listed v as Platichthys stellatus. 3. Plans for the pumping plant and weir system (SCS West Side Green .Biver_Watsrahed P -17 project), proposed by the Soil Conservation Service, must Se reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Fisheries and the Washington Department of Game. 4. References are made on pages 6, 33, 37, and 38 to the Interim Regional 'Development Plan and the policy -- making role of the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC). We understand that the role of the PSGC is primarily advisory in nature, and therefore we anticipated some discussion of the land - and water -use policies of RIBCO, King County's Environmental Policy Act Ordinance, and other local policy - making agencies. For example, the following statement is made on page 37: "....extensive conversion of farmland is con - trary to evolving regional goals". On page 38 a statement is made that "the commitment of the subject area to its present use has been made after receiving full approval.... ". For clarifica- tion, we suggest that the agencies giving this "full approval" should be listed. • 5. We also suggest that the alternatives fl,- :,::her uses of this 100 -. acre tract be explored in greater depth. Because of the proximity of the Green River and the location of this tract within the flood- plain, we are concerned over the potential impact of unrestricted land use that appears inherent in this proposal. Because of the -45 Mr. Delbert F. Moss September 19, 1973 Page 2 popularity of the Green River and its stream banks to fishermen, boaters, hikers, and other recreationalists, some statement should be made as to whether or not public access will be permitted along the river frontage, about one mile in length. In brief, more dis- cussion of consistency with local planning and policy - making agencies seems germane. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment upon this Statement. Sincerely, 744.1 C. 7eee Thor C. Tollefson Director cc: Mr. Edward B. Sand - Dept. of Community Environmental Development D. L. Lundblad - Dept. of Ecology E.S. Dziedzic - Dept. of Game C,. Director / Carl N. Crouse Assistant Directors / Ralph 117. •Larson Ronald N. Andrews Arthur S. (:.fin, Valium. Chairman )sins K. • nca. l.rt:,,rns r Elmer G. Gcrkcn, Quincy .Claude lichi,tt, Seattle Glenn Galhrritb, tVe!lpinit . Frank L Cassidy. Jr., Vancoarer 600 North Capitol lVay / Olympia, Washington 93504 Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila Tukwila, Washington September 20, 1973 Dear [qtr. Moss Your environmental impact statement - Tukwila Segale Business Park -- was reviewed by our Seattle region office and Olympia staff; our. comments follow. Your description of the Proposed Action was very extensive, though you failed to conclusively establish the type of industry which will locate at .Tukwila Segale Business Park site. On figure A -1 an Associated Sand and Gravel plant is indicated; past history has shown this type of plant as almost incompatible with aquatic life. The type of industry chosen for the Segale Park site will be a determining factor of project impact. Therefore, a clear description of proposed industry and /or alternatives should be included in your project description. Our primary concern with this project's' Environmental Impact is pro- tection of Green River water quality and fishery resources. You have indicated that this project will "...markedly increase surface run -off coefficients "...divert more water into the Green River System ", "... increase peak flows of surface run - off ", and -that "there will be an adverse effect on water quality from siltation which originates from washing of exposed earthen work areas" (pages 28 and 32). You have also recognized. that "any direct discharge of ... pollutants... • will influence water quality... and aquatic life" and ".:. accelerated surface run -off markedly increases the temperature of the receiving body... and Green River is near thermal capacity" (pages 29 and 32). We agree with your assessment and are concerned as the pollution potential which you outline constitutes a serious threat to Green River resources. Because of this, we recommend that all possible'measures be taken to minimize these adverse effects. You have suggested a few partial solutions, i.e. the SCS West Side Green River P -17 proposed pumping plant and the use of skimmers and other pollutant control facilities these, and you have suggested that measures Mr. Moss -48_ ..' -3- September 20, 1973 We ask that comments we have made be considered in preparation of your final draft and decisions which must be made regarding the future of this important area :.. Thank you for sending us your draft. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst.. Chief Environmental Management Division -49- SERVING: ING COUNTY 0 West Harrison St. Seattle. 99119 405) 344-7330 TSAP COUNTY .aI Operator for Toll Free Number Z•n.th 8385 .nbridge Island, at 344-7330 PIEPCE COUNTY 2:3 Hess Bj,lding oma. 99102 05) 393.5351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 03 ?'edical•Dental Bldg. • ett, 91201 051 259.0238 141A8D OF OIRF.CTORS 1lRMAN; Gene (obe. Commisroner K.tsap County; Patr :14 J. Ga.Iagen,. Co.nmisa,oner Pierce County; _C 410 West Harrison Street, Seattle, Washington 98119 (206) 3447330 • it "t +f )Vp: I 1 :4 +iC.:i Mr. Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 7230 South Center Blvd. Tukwila, Wa . 98067 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Segale_Business Park Dear Mr. Moss: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the Segale Business Park submitted with your letter of August 20, 1973. While this statement follows the form specified by the State Environmental Policy Act, it was not possible to determine from reading it whether or not there would be any significant air quality impact due to motor vehicles. An estimate of the number, type, and distribution of daily vehicle trips to and from the area would be helpful in this respect. It would also be a starting point for making estimates of future ambient air concentrations. We have concluded from the summary sheet in the statement titled, "c,; Atmospheric Impact" that there will be no stationary industrial air pollution sources established, since there is no reference to such sources. If this conclusion is not correct, then the impact from such a source or sources should be given an adequate discussion. September 18, 1973 Statement - Please contact us if you have any questions. Very. truly yours A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer ARD /JRP:kn -50- VICE CHAIRMAN: Robert C. Anderson, Mayor .Everett; N. Richard Foriiiren, Commissioner Snonom.eh Ca4ht1: Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton; Gorn3n N. Johnston. Manor Tacoma: Il3rvey 9. Pall. Memb +r at 13.E I. Comments To Letters From Agencies. 1. Letter from Department of Social and Health Services, dated September 5, 1973. The City of Tukwila Public Works Department, in a letter dated October 26, 1973, has stated that the sewer plan for the city includes the Segale Business Park area and the lines in existance are sized accordingly with adequate capacity. In addition, the sewer plan for the Business Park has been approved by Metro. Adequate water is available to serve the subject develop -. ment according to Water District No. 75, King County. Source: Letter dated October 29, 1973 from Water District No. 75, King County, to M. A. Segale, Inc. 2. Letter from Department of the Army,. Seattle District Corps of Engineers, dated September 19, 1973.. The comments contained in this letter have been incor- porated into the Statement, see pages 31 -32. 3. Letter from Department of Fisheries, dated September 19, 1973. An easement has been granted along the bank of the Green River to King County for erosion control. This easement along the. Green River is approximately 30 feet wide. The King - County Department of Public Works, Hydraulics Division, has deemed this easement and erosion control bank adequate. The easement from the west slope of the dike will be landscaped in connection with the development of the industrial park. The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan suggests that the subject property be part of the industrial area of the region. The City of Tukwila zoning ordinance provides that the subject property is zoned M -2. See Appendix 2 for provisions of this zoning category. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. The King County Department of Public Works, Hydraulics Division, has also indicated that the proposed construction is compatible with 'the State Flood Control Regulations and the West Side Green River Water Shed Project. See letter attached to the Department of Ecology from William B. Gillespie, King County Department of Public Works, dated September 24, 1973. -52- Public access to the Green River has been provided along the entire length of the James Christensen Road. See Figure A -1. No direct public access to the river will be provided in con- nection with the construction proposed for this site. According to the King County Department of Public Works, the Division of Hydraulics has indicated that the proposed erosion control measures are adequate for the uses proposed. 4. Letter from Department of Game, dated September 20, 1973. The proposed action is the development of a Business Park consistent with surrounding uses and in conformance with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. The first building constructed will be primarily used as a warehouse and contains approximately 74,160 square feet. Similar buildings will be developed in the Business Park in the future consistent with the Tukwila Zoning Code. All possible measures will be undertaken to minimize adverse effects from the development of this property on the Green River. In the event S.C.S. West.Side Green River P -17 proposed pumping plant is not developed, use will be made of the present existing system at that site. The City of Tukwila has received a report from Phillip Botch, consulting engineer. This report indicates that the present pond and pumping station plant will be adequate to handle the develop- ment of approximately 25 acres south of Minkler Blvd. There are approximately 150 acres of undeveloped property including the Segale Business Park in this area. Therefore, while present facilities are adequate to handle the anticipated sewage flow from the proposed development, the facilities will not be adequate to handle additional developments in the future. There are several solutions to this problem. First,., an addi- tional storm sewer line could be constructed from this area to the present ponding area.. Another alternative would be the construction of a new ponding area and pumping station south of Minkler Blvd. As of the date of this report, there has been no determination as to which alternative, if any, will be adopted by the property owners and the City. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement did indicate that..- increased flows would necessitate raising the river levees. According to. the King County Department of Public Worksi Hydraulics -54-- Division, the river levees along . the subject property will not need to be raised. The statement therefore, in the Draft Impact Statement has been corrected in this Statement. Levees along other parts of the river would not have to be raised as a result of the construction at this site. Actions in connection with other developments may cause ..the necessity of.raising those levees. It would be inappropriate, however, to discuss that probability since the predictability-of raising . those levees is not possible at this time, nor is adequate information available to properly evaluate it. More importantly, however, those actions that might necessitate the raising of the levees_wilI be handled . in separate Environmental. Impact Statements on the particular projects involved. The letter. indicates. that migratory birds and mammals can not be displaced to other locations. _The'subject site does not. contain extensive mammals..or migratory birds.. The industrial - development adjacent to.the - subject property.has displaced most of this .wildlife. long before the proposed action. was undertaken. The letter also indicates'that this property is prime agricultural land. This.property.is not agricultural land at the present time due to the urbanization that has occurred around it. A review of the aerial maps and policies of Puget Sound Governmental Conference, City of Tuk5.7i1a, and other municipalities would indicate that this area is part of the industrial complex. Agricultural lands to the east of the Green River and in the Snoqualmie Valley are more susceptible to remaining agricultural in nature. -55- It is true that erosion of prime agricultural land by urban- ization and other developments is a serious national problem and not simply a local problem as the letter points out.. King County has undertaken studies of this matter and has proposed amendments to its Comprehensive Plan for controlling agricultural land. We have corrected the Impact Statement to delete any reference to the fact that the agricultural alternative would be det- rimental to existing wildlife habitats. By converting the property to agricultural uses wildlife-habitat of course.,,: would exist-in the area 5 . Letter from Puget Sound Air Pollution. Control- Agency, dated September 18, 1973. In response to,this. letter a new section on air quality has been prepared which is attached hereto. 6. Letter from Puget Sound Governmental Conference dated September 24, 1973. There are no comments contained in this letter except the conclusion that an independent Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. The Final Environmental Impact Statement has been reviewed and revised in accordance with this comment. How- ever it should be pointed out that factual material used in Environmental Impact Statements are of public record and, if applicable, may be used in other Environmental Impact Statements. -56- AIR QUALITY The Segale Business Park is located at the north end' of the Green River Valley which extends from Tukwila to a point south of Sumner. Wind patterns reflect the =north -- south orientation of the_valley. Seventy -seven percent_of the time the wind directions : are' from north:.and. south (16 calm) . Southerly winds _are. most predominant. See figure. 1, wind rose in the vicinity of the Andover Industrial Park. The greatest- potentital for-.stagnation-of the .atmosph.ere would occur- in • late fall and..trinter..= Early morning hours are .'_, worse in a valley when strong inversions prevent mixing. Traffic to and from the proposed Business Park would occur primarily in the late morning and evening hours which would not be. during the worst conditions. of inversion patterns. An emissions inventory of the valley shows no signifi --7 cant point sources. There is, however, substantial develop ment within one and one -half miles of the site, including Southcenter, Longacres Racetrack, Andover Industrial Park, SeaTac Airport, residential_ areas of. Tukwila. and .Y.ent, Boeing Space Center:, Western- Electric .and :Benaroya Industrial Park. • Two types of .impacts upon air quality are expected.as a result of the development of this project. They are: 1. Short Term - increased concentrations of suspended partic- ulates during site preparation and excavation phases of con- • struction as.. well. as emissions...from. gasoline or . desiel powered construction equipment. 2. 'Long Term.- increased ..pollutant. concentrations. along access - and increased .poflut.an±_concentrationLin ..the immediate vicinity. of.. the buildings_due_to. the number_of..vehicles , • in a small area. The proposed .buildings._in- the:.Business _Park.,wi].1 be heated by electricity, ..thereby .e7 fir; naf i rg .potential._emi.ssions from burning organic fuels:. • • • Since. construction-is. scheduled_to . begin during the winter • months, the . frequency. .of. precipitation .should_ minimize. the.- amount-4. of. suspended..particulates_ released. -from the..site.:. Trnissions - • from construction. equipment. powered. by internal..-combust.ion� engines from projects . of. this 'magnitude would not - be expected . to be significant..in. re3 ationshin_.to the over ii1 air quality within the valley. • To estimate impacts :on air.cuaiity from transportation _ sources,,' an increase.- in_ vehicle : volume .must .be related • to - he _ time of day • in which. it. oc.curs . ..There are two reasons kor this kind 'of relation. . First;. the potential. for_ air .po1]_ution. based on meteorological_ conditions .is .usually ' greatest. during_ the early morning; and. secondly, various building uses will generate a specific number of vehicle trips during .specific periods of the day. See figure 2. • - The commercial '-related . activities carried on. within, the - proposed buildings are .expected to.generate a•total of -2,200 vehicle trips per day. See table 1. • -58-- • • • Three types of calculations were.. performed to estimate the • magnitude and significance of the proposed projects. • _� • 1. Area concentration of.CO using.parking lot; as complex source. • 2: Impact _of / nearby arterials '. on. CO .concentrations - in. . the vicinity • of. the buildings. • :•.3. • concentrations '- of_CO. resulting- :.:Eroin .increased: traffic: '-- • volume along the.. major arterial.-:: -. - _ The. basis:. for_ area_ source _ calculations- -were eatians - .� presented . by `Hanna (1971) - . impacts :.frozrt roadways Tere estima-teci ` by ,'using the State of: Californian• Line Sourcej. X odei... All 'ca1cu . . :,. . . - lations • assume. Class -••F . atmospheric. _stability- conditions and . a,.wind 'speed: of- one meter /-second.; Step by -step. procedures. a a.: _ oms � are 'shown in The impact of ..'constructing 122 parking space.. 5XL `con jiinct Loaf . - with: these :buildings . would be negligible.: Carbon._mcirio:rj,de con- centration for the eight. hour. period: from_ two o *clock: P.M:. o • ten o' -clock P . M. ,, peak _ hours for.'retail _ stores,. are expected-'.- • to .average approximately 1. mg /m3 over the -existing- .- ambient - concentrations. See Table _ 2 , .National Primary -_ and Secondary •.� Ambient Air Quality Standards.. for comparison. - Theoretical_ . calculations to estimate. the change in concentrations of CO as a result of the additional traffic volux�ie expected showed - assuznpti - Appendix 1. an increase of 0.1,: mg ./m. .. This charge would probabl_y�' not be measurable under average conditions.. • • .With federal emission controls on vehicles, the above • values are expected to decrease by approximately 15 .annuall :r. -59- APPENDIX I AIR. QUALITY. CALCULATIONS I Area Source Assumptions: 1. There will. be an additional 2, 200_.vehicle tri generated as a result.of this project. 2. •That.60%L_ of .these::trips will..occur..durirng_.the hours • from two o'clock P.M:. to....ten _o'clock P.M. .See figure 3 3 . • . That.. each__ vehicle__ will ..travel_ 0...5,miles _at_ an average speed of 20 mph- when.approaching the parking lot,_locating a. • parking space and then.. leaving by.the most_direct route.. 4. .That. the . area of.._i.mpact_ would include. the parking lot. and .the. adjacent :buildings.__ This area_to.be. defined as a 'box approximately: 2,000. feet. square. 5. .That Class .F .stability conditions would _represent. "worst case ". The.wind...speed_is 1 m /sec. The area source model. proposecl_by Hanna. (1911 )__.ca.n he repre- sented by . the equation X.= U where: X = pollutant.concentration..in grams per_cubic meter. C = a constant which. is.. a...function.. of ..the atmospheric . stability and grid size Q = source strength in grams per square meter_ per second. U = wind speed in meters per second. The total mass of CO emitted equals: q /mi 1230 VEH /8 hr. x 0.5 mi x 56VEH = 34440 g /a.hr. The source emission rate Q.would be: 34440q x ' 1 ' x '. ' ' '1' h'r' = 3.2x106 g /sec -m2 8 hr 371600m` 3600 sec Solving for X: X•= 238.6 x 3.2.x 10 -6'.'g /sec -m2 . 1. m /sec X = .77 mg /m3 The concentration of CO. for the eight hour period from two o'clock P.M. to ten o'clock P.M., assuming worst case: conditions t.- would be less than .1 mg /m3... II. Influence of .Local Arterials. on Air. Quality. in. the Vicinity-_ of the Project. Assumptions: 1. That the. worst .. case hourly volume. is approximately equal to 10%.. of .. the average . daily traffic. 2. That the buildings_are located 1,500 _. feet.. downwind from the roadway.. 3. The average_speed is 35 mph. 4. That South .18 0th_ .i s .the only source with a . potentia3_ significant effect.. Its ADT is 3,500 VEH. _ 5. That "worst case" .Class..F. Stability conditions exist. The wind speed _is 1 meter /sec. The California Line .Source. Model can. be . shown._by .the. equation: C = 1'.06Q K,U SIN 0 . where: C = concentration of pollutant in grams per.cubic meter Q = emission source in grams per Meter per second U = wind speed in meters per secoc K = emperical constant c! = angle of the wind with respect to highway alignment 1.06 - emperical factor relating.height .of .the mechanical mixing.. cell.. to .concentration To compute .Q the following_eguation is used: • Q = 1.73 x 10-7x VPH.x emission factor _7 Note: 1.73x10..1 is . a constant to convert. (VPH) (g /mi) to grams per meter per second. Solving: Q = 1.73x10 -7 555 VPH x 33.6 g/m Q.= .033 g /m- sec... The CO concentration 1,500 feet downwind would be. C = .35 Q* K.J • 3 C .2'mg /m III . Estimate of . CO. concentration at _10.0 .feet. from the. Valley Highway as a Result.of.Increased_Traffic Volumes, Assumptions 1. 1, 3, .5 as in previous case. • 2. Wind intersects roadway.at.an angle. of 22.5° Using California. Line. Source. Model C = 1.06Q . `;. K,J SIN O,' as before :. Q = 1.73x10-7 x 1443 VPH x 33.6 g /ini Q = .008 g/m sec. * From Appendix A to Volume IV.Air Quality Manual a Method cf Analyzing and Reporting Highway Impact. On Air Quality. C = 1.6 x .0S8 g/m -sec 4.24 x 1 C = 3.0 mg /m 3 -63- References 1. U.S. Environmental_ Protection .Agency _ ".Compilation_ of Air. Pollutant Emission Factors ".,..April .1973., Second Edition. • 2. State of California, Division_.of _.Highways_ "Air. Quality Manual,. A Method _ for _Analyzing_ and_. Reporting . Highway Impact - - on Air Quality." CA- HtiTY.- MR6570825- 6- .72 -14.,. July 1972. 3 . Holyworth., G . C ... "Mixing _ Heights:; _Wind_ Speed .and. Potential . for Urban Air Pollution ...Throughaut..the..Contiguous United. States" U.S.. EnvironmentaL.2rotectio.n _Agency, _.January 1972. 4. Hanna, .S..R... "A. Simple.Method_bf_Calculating Dispersion from _Urban _ Area. Sources!'_... Journal_of _Air Pollution Control Association. 21, '774, .1971. NNW 9.3 N 9.3 NNE .4 ENE ESE !ON t.c�ar!ON- `IUS I vE c;i r S- HOUR AVERAGE. SURFACE WINDS PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE PUGET SOUND :\ I R POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 227 ANDOVER PARK E, TUKWILA ALL MONTHS 1972 -65- 1.1- 4.0- T.0- 11.0- 17.0- V..* 1.9 6., 10.9 10.9 11.9 t1.9 KNOTS FIGI'F.E 1 E •. 0.5 0 r• .�• � Sep:• a.. .it• {i'tVi ��'�'. • nter .....•��"`' ov`ttt • S000 VIy. 12700 0 0 v • 13200 ct t'D . . 23400 . N . V• :M�Ya�++"'w`v«`'~gswyadro.,«�.. X4 7n Q . Valley Nighway J• 4000 0: 3000 0 Q= L1.1 W 2000 J U RETAIL... STORES ....ASSOCTITED._TRAFFIC .7 40PRT4 J 0 0 0 0 • • 0 • 0 • 0 . • 0 0 1000 • • • 4,07 Stip. itr 0 vi► 0 • • • G 0 ENTERING • EXITING gam 10am 11am ' 12noon 1 pm. 2prr 3pm ' ;4pm 5pm ..: 6pm 7Pm 8pm. :.:TIME OF DAY 9pm 10pm 11pm 00 source: JOHN GRAHAM AND COMPANY (1965 ) FIGURE 3... • Building Pay and Save. • Project 73 TABLE I TRIP GENERATION . Use Warehouse- Retail 70,452 1,550. • Maximum Square Feet Trips Generated Warehouse - Retail., 22,990 506' -. Office • 22,990 143 TOTAL . - - 'Z199. per dz Source: John Graham &.Company (1973) TABLE IX. NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Source: Federal Register, Volume 36, Number 84, 1871 • Primary Secondary ' Hydrocarbons 160 micrograms per cubic meter, 3 -hour concentration (6 to 9 A.M.), not to be exceeded rnore than once per year Same as primary • Carbon Monoxide 10 milligrams per cubic meter, 8 -hour 40 milligrams per cubic meter, maximum concentration, not to be exceeded more 1 -hour concentration, not to be than one per year exceeded more than once per year ' Oxides of Nitrogen 100 micrograms per cubic meter, annual arithmetic mean . Same as primary Particulates 60 micrograms per cubic meter, annual geometric mean :. 100 micrograms per cubic meter, maximum 24 -hour concentration, not to " be exceeded more than once per year Source: Federal Register, Volume 36, Number 84, 1871 • APPENDIX A WATER QUALITY DATA TABLE 1 . STATION'4 RENTON JUNCTION ,. , ■iUrABER AV.E.f<AG S DEVI ATIONL MAXI1UM ____MIN.VIJ.!1_ MEDI.AN _ RAN3F. TEMP ' 30 17.657 10264 20.00p, 15.000 ii.scru ---5900 05 30 8.188 0.339. 8.890 • 7.480 . a.210 1.410 PH 30 7.385 . 01104: • 7.600- 7,140 i..80 0.460 29 40.469 3.226 44•200 31.200 41.100 13.000 8ICA-13 A 29 40.369 3.226 . 44.200 31.200 41.100 C5ND 30 128.667 21,1103 176.00u 78.000 1c9.300 B5D TURBI2 •<..) 18 10922 0.919 4.200 0.410 10/6 30 3.630 2.448 14.000 1.300 3.300 12.70U 7 . 0.447 0.374 2.20u 0.180 U•SbU N.HO 30 0.075 0.103 J- 0.020 0,J50 0.b70 13 0.016 0.014 0.060 0.010 0.010 0.00 NO3-.N 30 Q.364 _gtl_094 0.5U °gel() _0.390 TOT P34 13 0.126 0.029 0.190 0,080 . 0.120 0.110 HYD P 30 _ 0429 0.130 _ 0rt•0 090°0 0E2'0 0,080 040'60 OF bbd OAH ont•o 02100 060'0 06100 9E0'0 4,t'0 Et 4,Gd ICI t TIMM TABLE 3 STATION 4 RENTON JUNCTLeV VAR1A3LL -.4.ER AV.PkkaE_____S_OEVIATION IAXI1jr1. ALNIM-IM _____ _1LUIAN . RA.LUE ORTr45 P 30 0.110 0.057 • 0.330 0.060 0.100 . 0.270 COPP7R ' 29 0.020 -0,015 0.07Q_ 0 _c_.0. . ' 0.020 0.0_60 LEAD 2 0.100 -0.000 • 0.100 -. 0.100 0.100 0.000 ZINC -___Z009 -0.006 ' ' . 0.031- 0,002 U.008 0.029 MER:JRY 2 0.200 ' 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000 Cf.z..i-LF FECA_ - 4 39959.000 69858.125 e15000.000 400.030 1_e_..1■000 _214600.Di0 29 763,279 2304.716. 12000.000 15.000 1'40.000 119d5.000 CHL5'R3 A A.300 - 2.145 9.810 otala 3•770 •r: .,... • �.... r....... :. : 1 I i • .1 , Sy sx. :■ -.. r J 1.r " JJ� l.. .. i ..t•-•;•11.'.-,, `. � • ;;yt♦� k :.'0. :, • ' .:1•'c:k a i f- .ir ..� . . {I Iw .,r�..t :. . . :4!. . yam ' -0: r : _4:, I J ii A: r �1' r rr: ' .;!-.-.i • ._.t i x• -1: ! t „; i... is ..;;•. j r t is l.lt T4' -171 • ...L11.- �_.:......� -i- .. r. \ t �� `liar } 1rj..f :.: ■ r T_� ..-....'t. \b�• �:�... ri' a� - -*• f "' {r r4 ' ter; 1 ti2r'.i r r `. 1 i 1; lrl . ,u 1,. , 1 ..:.r r . I . i + :Itr. 1 • ..14....:.;.; . (1 0 IL,-; 1. 1 * :1 ' "Mt11.t+‘: • r"iIII,WIriii'f' .:,:c.,r, 0.1t 11•11111' 1 ,11 i'II411 - 7-,1p4 ...;;',:.' I ; f 111 11 III .., I i lit 1111 il i' ' I.. •0 " ..11..r1;:!•1•14 fliip t I 1 l'' ff I f n tit t#1 11 lil * '• 14 1 11. I i 1 14:11 , : 4., i•-4.._-_ 1 1. '-r -r . 4 1 ' - f L. - I t . -1 - -41'111 _. ''7",1'",:i ' :%.1,f.•',.. .......,•1,;.; N.:II,: 111111. '"' li4 .i ,Il ill If . .1 • 111 11 I ' 'i" 1. 1,:, 11 i I 141 i 1 1 . 7 ; ‘, ..;! 11 / 1 '‘. ' - ,.01.. ,11-111: ""11, 1,1.1' " !Of '.1,1' ' - 1,,• '11/ '11 it 11 'i, ,, ' 1 rt 4, ' ;H [FL 1 111 ' 1 i ; I 1 ., I - ' .. i ll - • L._ . .,.. . 1 t , .i. .i -, ' ' i. ,; .1_ .._..:1 _ ,11;'• . - ,........ „:, ,..,!..;!! ;V1'1111 ' 1 , *t., i 1.• . ' 1 ii.1 ; • ,, 1 ,• rt, , ,, I ;111 ' , 'it ; tif ' " . r ; fr I ' 1 itil , - 1 . • 1 I 1 4 1 1 .ti i , 1 t . 11111111':' 1 r , 1 ....,... ,„,-. .. .... ...,,I!.., ;,/,'.1•.• ,,;•111;11,.14,7. 4;1. '1•1:1 !, 0... I 11P' II' •ol 1 ..1, , of .1, .. 1'1 I •;,•, 1,... ..... ., . ..1,.. „.,..,,. ,. •.., .!•;• .41;11; Ii-■."1,-'4-t!fti in! , iri , 1'1 ill I ,i': • 'III ..;, 1.1: f • • ,, .„... ..,..,, .-.1; ".'li1111" •!i,•1,• i4 ',II .. , i ;II: i ' 1 'HI. l'1'," 4 ,L, ..,,..„.!_... lti ' I I 1 , : ' • . .. ....._ , . , • - : , i . . ... • • ; • 11 • : • . 111111'1 H t , ,-, • 4 t (4-"--""1"-7-1.— 1 17 • • • t , ; --•' . ,.. , . ,., ... 4 ...,.... ' ! f .11 ' 0 ' - I : . 4, 1 I ' t 1 1 I.., • t-r. +.4-...1----r- •I• •„. -..; ...,.j., „,.. ,J.,:.,,;,., .'; / • "". • :• .. ''' ''''" /...1: -., 1- . - • „, • .. ..... ,...!..... .... •• ; -1,••••• -. ti- ., •''' ' " '"'' ..,. , . -; • ' ' ! . "'CI .1 • i" -//- '1 •1 - . •■•i 'I ■ 11' , 1- .,1! f ',I il 41 . t 1 , 4,..., I --' , . ' 11110111111 111 IIIM I i I 1M ill II t . 11 I II 1 1 L.' I 1 1 . 11 jill - _ . ' 1 „,. ,111 , Ill! . - I ITt,H,L. ,„ ' It "it, t iti.1 ,, „ , i, ; ; ; ; „I'l, 11! • , ti. , .• 11! , ,,, • ., , I , . f 1 i, :•T'' ',; ,,, ;.,.1111;; i'41..,!idi, 1+4 'In 4 ',I ,1 11.1,1. it, ,,,.1 44,4;1'i:1.1,1,i r„ ;•-• 1 '' 11 11,, J ill i ii, --1.-11-.' 111.i.of., 1, ' ,: .1,1 ' t hit. .,, ',,Ii.;i iiii,i tit,, th•li ,„.,i ; ' , . : t '1 i 1-• ! • . I ' '1•1 , , 4 1 ,...i - --'-t-f-f iiii..i.i-t-1.-1--H.H;.,. • • t-- i .. I .• • ' ' , , 1 i . „ : i-1,-i , .,,-;::: . . -I ' 4_, 4 .• 7 '''''' ' ,. . ,„ „..,..„.. .:-.1....... ,,.......,:,, ..,.. ,...- ;; . • • 1. ' , 1 ...,.....,... I. ,---.,..-- ,. .t. ••• . ' .. I • , • • •: ... ...Ili, . 11. 1.1...1. ti .itirtilT 11111!.1 lt.11 '1111,r ',IftP.. 1 11 •,1 , i I 1 1 1 i 1 "ii ' 1111 • 1 III II -•1111iP - ••. . ' in • 1 iii ifil i I It a 1 I N T I i , i I. I • 4 t. I 11 i; re':..11:)1; .1 t, si • t. i iii 111 1 ' 1 . 1 Elk! , . „,,1, 1,- t 1 iiii,11,;; .I. - 4 I,' q1' i ,, , It -, ;lift! " ..,-, it.. iri I f - , r, 4rf 41_ tl. I-, ,t-i-- _ _111 - - - — ,' . f ...1..-1.41.■: ., ,... ....!,,„. ,, ..,1• .. " , .;..., .,i• . .....1... •-• 1 - • , -., 1 •,011,1 . r, , ”171. 11:11 ,I.„,!, ligli 114,;', , •.,,,.:,, lh III rt,' 'I: , 1 1 ,. , , 1 ti I hi i " 1 ., 1 1, i ;II I ' I ! I '1 F44 I I 1 ' '11-. - t I .••_,__,..,..••,•,..,._ 1 t: f t - - -1-....1 - --I 1 --:ir 1 4_4. I, .4: ••1■ '—'''''' , 1 4' I ..-, • i los - -- 1 -- ii.,,, " ilw,,,„. ,i 'i , .11 I i ,1,1 1 ilt 1,0, , ! , if 1 : . f ,,,,,., „,,,..,... , • 41: 0 ''` "1:;11:. ..;, 0 , '''.1111t,l'i,:,,".1 , r .11-11 , in ....11 111 A , 1 I ,,,„ I 1 I 1 „, ii! .„ i.,1 . 1, , '4. ... , 1 , • 1 i.4,,,..... ,. 111.1 , .,, ,,.., 1 111.1i' 1 ••,.. Run .., ‘'. Lti ti...._1, I. , ,,,, 1 ri , .1. .',* ,, ,4 ----1-474- . 4 • 71, r• 1 r7-7-117.-. .1,,, 01-,-cm, 1-4-i, 4 -4'17: : 1. ,. /.111 III ',if ',2;+"4,-;-: ,14,f-r-, ., i I. .1 1..i. ; •"!--""- .. ..,--,.... t 1 ) , • ! , , • ._ *1 -1',1 ', . _.......e.......:;... 1 -i . • _,_,•,...._, L.....„ ,,-. • ...... ..i•,. ,.... r: ....• 1 ...! _....... . • - i....... .. .I....... - '' • -:;•.1 • • _...._,_ • .,.::::,........ .1 .. ___,....•-,.... .... .. • , ) - - i ... ::- ..!:4,: , ....j___. • ,,mt,,r: !IL '1411[,TT , ,II. th. , - - ..r_ ,.. . 1:;.h... 1 , r • 1 1,,,:, i.1! ,•• ,i.• 44 ',. , ,',1'. ; ,..1 ,,,, .,,,; 14, , LI Li," 4, ; ._, i tit `41■1t11 i ,,iiiiili,ii::,i.i . ., ..L•y,,i4i, '.111 ,4, 1 dl I: -11,-;„ 4 i I iffl,j h— I ,,,. ' ftit I ., 4 • , In ... .. I . t±-rttrf t, rd 6 ,i It 1 .1,.!1.14- 11,4 t -1' . • . i. 11 . 1. V 'I ' .. 4,1 , , . 1,1, • . '1,1 , II rir , 1 -..ti;;; ' TtP,, h. ; !IL I 011 4 .,, r LI L1,1. 1, :iii . -t t- . • . 44, 1 1 q q I IBS- , 1.1-1 T' , •ili ' 'T'q,,ii 111 i ji,i .1 - 11 I T 1-1 tr.!1 I II li rim iiih i 11111. It1,1; ' i 11' It; tit. 141., ,.N. , i Nri, 1 •..,,:„.. ;.III; II ,v.; :I n-1 ,. • 17, 4 -....../ ...I 7 . ....:.): ....1.... t 1-1-''...._._.f..... •.....:Lf:--: --; , - T! : • ,,• ,, . rill t " ::-.,;: 7,1 ,-:,-: :,.11 r, •,.:: i'; 1 1 1 .. 1 illl 1 II ,_ Erni 111 IL :ti !I ! ', 1 . li LI', 1 . 1 / 111,1, • ilriut • i 1 ', I 1 i, ' Ill ll III 11 1111111 : I ,f •r- HO ' 111111 ,..,, lit ltH 41 fl 111:411 :' ;;Ir. ' ' ' ._IILLI_:. ,.....;:4•4_ ''. .• ir,-- .. •: -- , --- ..1. 1 lin I t I : H. Fr.', ii1.4 . ;ill Ity..,II:rirt1Ri,i..r.. „!.- !V.! f 7,N7'• 1, ' , 4 . 4 t , , 4,, f 1 , „ . iir I il - . is Iv , ,t 11,, , JI)7, /41114 ,,i i !, t 1 i ,,, , 1.1 11). i . JP • „.. J.1 i ,,. h 1.1 ..!. : 1 • i ',', _... - _r . lt,„, ; i ..,. !I: ,,,r, d: ...1-L1 fi i-1-'1." 1.- .' :11' - ;' '" ' ''"1.. "': Li I ;; , . • 1 : rl I II , .• .: ----It; ,tril ,li,td , 1 -: . li , t...(i..,....ri'l: igi. .,.,f..1,17, ,, 7 1 r7..7.-71, .4,1! ,L, 1 1-..ii,ir i;11 , , , uht,, ,,Lii.,, dp lip. 1, 1,,,ii 1 ut,i 1 1 II t4 •,-H. ultALL4 - -}-4-- I 1... , ,.:._,•Iiiiri...i...1.,:"„ ....tut, ,1 T4 ' ,i 4...T.. . . _ :.. .. _ _ , li, 411•It ,111.,1 ;.,Th ,• LI bil ,..i T, ,i.11. 11.0,11-1 .1 il 1 ,jh , ,.. .---17 • ,i, II; iN! - — ., • ;I, ,:.,.„ ,.,.. :.:;; ,..,, -- . "1 '"' • ' d'i . • ..,,, it • ,. .. ...., , ,..., , .... 4.1- r-.4-1-1_ f ,_;... .. .;...4•.,..1.•-,•, • ,, : I t t LE,,p, .1-IITI,„,,,!•;,,, 1 , Ill 1 1,1 ' 1 1 1 I III 1 11 t t I I 1 t ti- 4 4 - -I' • 1 • • t • 1 1 11; ' '1,1 4 41! 1 111111,1 : Tr, r :1:111P• 4 .1 . . . .,1 7 7. , , • 1 . 1 ! !1• , ,o'l• .., ., . •• . 1.4 • • , H111111111 i 1" I III . ill 1 , H 11111111111U i ill 1 it. , ,,L.1 l lb ! 1 , ll 1 1 14 1 11 ,1 n ni - -T . .1.4....1, t • ' ' !Ill i , t - II '. ' „mu — titrri , , I I . 1, . .',,,... i il.f. ' Ili," , ' !. 1 1 VI 1 1 i , , Li I • . , , . . •• • • ! !It I IMINtill I 1 • I 111111111111 • ',', 1; i ittr,,,, •• ..L.,,...... • .•., • ........ ..., „ „. 1 111 1 1 1 1 I Ian 1 1 • •4 , Ara , , I , , I r. 1 III' ' 1717 i 1 ii.,,, " B,11 1 "T1 .., , A .7.i41-. 1 : . f f n ni 1 11 11 i i B 11 . 1 7i. . 11 . . , , . I 1 . • . • • - ' .•. • • .1717,,1 : • I • . r 4 ' 1 .41; L Ltrl . .1,.1 ! !.ii. • . ,, , , - -r:',"1.' ! •, - r • • r' . i , ir; ft- 1 , I i ' d ill!! i ,, .1 I I i if 7 7r'---. , 4 ,a I , ! i.• , , : :iii . ! ii 4 i i 44, 1 1 q q I IBS- , , . , •ili ' r i t - tr.!1 I .1 1,.. , • 1, I ,.. .1. ...,...;_ ,.,-• --1.• •• --`,;.....: _ 1... . + . ..,i,.. t t. . 1 r.,. , , ilt, 1 i 4.,..+...4._.•;•H_••,,.:.•...,..!:, , ';" "- . . T i , • • I 1 1 •,i l 1 1 It 1 1 I .. 1 1 k I i k r- 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 + 1 4 ,f I 1 I ri: - 1111,Iit' 1 Itr r 1. II i - 1 1 ,i • , 4 . 4 44*. 1 I., , ; 1 , „ . . , _ • 1 II B Mil• ' Br l ' " '-• , , , '11414+ i :. : i I 4— 4 --.4-7,7 • 40 (r) f1 , N 10 / AI '" 0) (1) r. to IA -4 „ Lir ,,, + + • ;.,1i. ■ Ili; • ••:; : , , :11ii • . I • 1, ; • • i i i f. . .. _ _ . .:,. . .t., - -Tit 1 II ' 1,i177.,17.. „ ' . „4 i • ill i • i iiI..; t ti t t-i 11 -I • • .;‘,.....r...::11i:,..44,•.P71....1..1••,1.17. . pH , , I. 1 1 i I , , I ■ ' ' ': ■ I ' I ' j I •r`;', I .1 I I I -f__,-* ' ' ":// 1 I ' . i t .. -$7/.. . I 1-4:1113i 0 0; 7 7.7t / /I! " ";:iI1.1.! 1 7TE"...7.4,44.71... . 1. . • t t ;11 f 1:+f4. r r'.' I I it- 1 1-771-1-fr 1 • TI-.• $ •.' 1 1 1 t', 1 l' / 1114,'I 4 1'4.411'141' t i .'41 ' • 1 1 . ..iiil . i hi ; ;,,ii , ,,,,,,,. d iti , di I I hi. f,• , i II 1 1111 • I 1 1 I I 1 . 1 ) ) lik I N II 0 0 I i1 1 l- • . an , ,.t , I 4 4 i i4 i i .I't•''s"tirltiti I Ili i it l • I , . • t ,:-...1•1:.:.!..-.-.• '..... . r - „, ' i C1- ' • m • 1 Mi • • r. . i l la t . iii I .,l.J ; „ • r i i 1 1 ' ,t' i r i . ii10 i m ! 1 ,'ir! • r ..2.,4 t.• . , s i t U4iM m ' 1 11 A d.Ii4 1• 1 i,,tlt , i 111 1 I . 1 , .;It1 ; r. .,', . h1.1;. 1 I - _. ,i- - - - . I1 1 I ' i . , 1 L i •..:,-- 7..._ ,• - .! ,-• " 1 t t I I I u U h i _11• , .1 1 1I 011 f , , ,i • • , i 1 !. ; ; i thm iii,:;i: 1 ,,,,....•. , LtiL'ailiillii i lid H r Ifill I HA-4_4--.pi , - - - - H ,„ in T 0 I T 1 11..1“1 1 1 I 10111 -"t: - • 1 1- . 1 --/ / . ./$ / !nr i 1—• • .• • , . !rit't Ltti . 1 . , • t•.. .. , .. .. , 1 , . ; .•r.,.:-.. - !rt • ...:,11-. „„Ir ionownam:, . .r.,,„_,_.. Uniiiiiiiiii lit t ii It■ " ti _.,. I, '11Ilr', „,, ., p.i„. '....!.•:.. tt. . t : . / „...i......7-• -. •- : • t•-• !-- • - •-•••• .. i-4, t::--,-:-.-t7r-rt ',... 1 '114111 su-- ” a14141-: •1.,:-1-4 .1-;-.•-,---- .- 4.- -14:: -4,-;-'1**-''''':',^•'"'' - g ituNIMIL: . r' 1 ; - u 1 !ikon nil , , ,+---11. ., , .H. .41. • : : . : 1 , , • -.... • - '' 4' ''4t . . •, 1311 ., • . - • . i i 4 i 7i...74i1717 7111; 7 4 071'7 1 I 111141111741 7' 11 , - 11 •••14,,,-::•..4. i,....-1- ••, 4 . , • • . : ,•,— . : ....;__ . 4., 4 ,_!.., ..::_ ••..., , 1,14,•-“.- •-i--t - • -I : ". . .1 1.1•• -. 1111/7'. 7 AI 4 ' S I [ I 4 ' .' iq 1 ,•:: i .1 _Figinill ,,,i• :-1„t. • - 1' t; 4 ,.;!;;;7:.i,, ••,ft p 7, , I , , LT: I .. :, . -.I.,... :1,14._ ... !, -• • I 4 4... i 1. t-';-1- •-t* - ''• ""•-■ lel" I 71 1 Nunn :;14 '4 1 '1111. u i N11 1 ,. ; t, r,11, ',1:!1:.'" • ' Li --i ' I 1.; : • -I --,..:.• . ; 111 10 • .,.• ,:,. . . II i i .1,1:,54.i' . . 14.,_, 1. , ..1•_,•_1•.-• . ..••• ,,-1......, •• , „ i • III "I 111, 11 ' 4 1' 711;17,11 i17.,. I 711''il It] • '7 17..II 1.; ; ';_7 . 71 ,I.1 ',. I., :1'.,,H......,4; illIl tltrf f' . , .,-.:t. 1 ,i-t ,,,f.. . 1 • • , , ,-1. , .... .. i . .: .1 MI i rIII I'., :...,iiii!ii!l-ii, ,.,i • f-; ; t : "-- • 1 . I 1 'Tli i I 1 i 1: q : ,...„ :,.,.: „,1..4; ti:• t•t4 t. 114 . 1 ' 1 • ...i 4..., 0 1 I 11 94 !II. ••,,, , ,,,, .,1. ;,,JJ . • _i_•._• • 1-. , i. _1 . . . ,,, .. . tl I , Hi in.11 ; ;II 1;' AI_ •1 IT , : :: Ty; !I.; ..,,,,, ti iqii_T:4_ •-, 7 I-44.7. I i 1. I i .- • 1 •• t I Old it ItIl // t fti !III /Ill; , I ' 'Ir./It...7T ■ , . . 1 ! . ;,' . :,.. A.:,...--.1 .• 1......, . 11/. is 1 Illiti,; .-1 if If ..„olls - ' 1 I I 0 , "I ',I'4,,, ' 0 I., .. ;1'1'. l*:1- T • - . . . _ , • e„...„._. _ _ ..,:t4.L.,.........._....... , ,, , t, , -,-. .,. '11 17t-t-*. , .1.4:1-1 1- .1' t• .•. '.i.._ f ... . i :' IP 1 Tr 1011,i1,1 i rill .}i 1 I 11 lo limr I v i,, ,„„iti,..,,., „,.,.:1 t.4 , 1*. . . -1-!'• ' ' ••:. II.' ...„!.......: 1 h I I, it i IT - , ,••i•ii, .:..1;•,.,i,,,, ,1„ ! ,ii • , 1 i . , ! , • .1.1i, .-6,.......: ..... •• •,••.• , 4,•,,, . • .„,•ti ..,1,.! •• • 4 •• . 4 ••• • ., - •••• ; ,- ••• •••• ,... ,." .; • I 111E111 1 ' I ' Ill B 1 1 ., i. t . !...., .„;i,ii•-,1,-!-,i-H 4-i-F-, i--i 7; -.!+. • i ; I; I„ I i,•,/- ..t!ii..:1/;1•III! /11IIII•' iii i--1 -• 1 -11.:" / "tt,•,- ,... ' / • • • . '411 • •,.Nii it i• , i 1"[.. I i r. i ti:I., : I, II:Tf:.,1 litip •.!■111 i. 1 if i , I-. -; i .r.. . ..,, .•.: . ; • i - i; , ini 4 . :I ,11.',:t:'. .C.111.1; i . ■ . i .: 1 --i -- ;I• .34 ...- - •• • 1- • --- , •41-': 1:...•-..:4 ...,_.1.._. ' 1101 II' il I ob,"111 i; '' •1 r ....,1!. \r,i:l.....;;....;...:.. L.. : ..._ . .; . .. i : ... . :Ill i ,', . • I .rri- 1 141 1 - - :I! '''' •''', '''F, •••• •:" r-- . • • • " ' ' - 1.• ------• ., : !,:• •.:,: „, io; .,,,,,+„, •, . • • • : , • • • • .; • - - • - 1 • .:. • . . _ -1;•;”.!,, ,I.1 I I b 4, cl ' i il 11. ::' : :',ii• !;, ;1,,, . " I • . • . *, • • I ,III. - I.......... • - • • • 0 il ill 1 ! , 11 , r F ..:1ttIli■ Itl :,:, n 111 I 111 ..1 . 1 . • ,,, ' • ' - l'' ; '0:'!: ".1'... '' '''' ,. ' t;' • . ' ; ', 7 . - I.: 1 ,1 thtII 'if ,.'llt' N I ..1, ,.. .. 1, 41 , 1 i'lf! .. t!,f t :1 -!. ; ! ' . • ! '"1!:.: i.-1-•;,... . , II. ,1 . 11. il I-. ! ;- "',,- , [I , ,!'di t .. - , - . . ... .., tit ilfi {1. f t f 4 rti.-.. •-•-• ri;tis, .T'..j•••:1•• • r. --••s., All 1 111/ ri" !I' --ti fi 1 ' i'9 Ifill!! ICJ frill lii 1111 iii ', Iti'll, 1 Itti:' •JP 1 ' (i 4 1-".itl, . . ' i 1- ' . .!.. " -1.... 1-:-..! • , - ,i'i, ,:. :. 1 ,,I,,,i. i i...•!,),..,11.,, II: r ..: :+.,..!..,.1 .1. i rli-.:: ,.. ::- .'::.. :'i :. -!'• ',... -. : .,:i ,•.:Ifli JH : i 1 11 t! 1 • ',!..1, ;:,.,.,•1.•:, wi IF 1 •1 il !it r I' I ".1- .1:: i:—.1 : : , . • !•I -1-:• 1" •1••• , . ,, , : .:44.1444..{ i.:4., • • ;--v-t--,-;-- 74-1.-t• 1-"-- "-1.-"" ---1- i,'. " .' Cr'7.•:, 1'1 -', • ... I • 1 , 7? II] i: I t T. 1 ,, 4 , 4 • • • , Ili .,,:.. •:..11 ! 1 1 I . „.._, I,: :•.,::! , :: ., . ,,I.,. , , , . .. '1..• - I n.", . ,. , It:. ' ,.,,:ii..11:iiit:i i.1,..t.1...,1 ,t!, ,, it t , 1 .. • ,. I . ,11.,.:... .1 ... : . ., ., .. : .. • .. 1 r, i„„,,,,.„,.,•,:.„,..,,„.,:..,„,.,,,,..,........„..,..... ,.. , .1 L..• - .,-, .-.,:,„•,„,,,, , a . . i .•,:i:,1.11yi,:,. L , ...,i 4..4 4. .; ,.. ...,___. _._. ,.,... ..,... : .... ....... . ITtitc1-4, r7t:! it •', ' , II --t/ -ill ?!11 ti, H1 iii, ,.0..; .4:.,,iiir J1: .; ! i, .... . . , I .: •• i • 1 •••••• • • 1.•ffit !:',,,■i; :41r i i ,,,, 1 ., . _ !;:. MI " i ',, (1•.; . ,,:: ;,...;11'.i,. ..:.,i,,, . : . ; ',....e. : ...,......!.; ...1.. .. •,.... • ,., ,,,;;;,,,, it, ! 1 I i I'll i -11,,, i 11' ' •1'" •tt• ... • ,. • - 1 I -1— -,t•• . • : . •■• rt• t :11 11 :I:j I11 I I 1:, : '!.111' . .1•11t1!"'1/ ;1' '. 1( 11 I It ' .41 r"17' '.' ;if; i . " 1'. ...I 1: '' • 3 I • - : ...i•-• iiiil- : f711-117111I Illit ii If I. : 1.• ;; I . t; il - -- ! :!!! ! ,!!. I .1 'In.7;i i Il I Ii i / I t ...• - 7 - 14 ;III 7 "III II 71 I.', '....• ;I.! II. ,I,7. 71 I I! j ! , IN.N v... : ; ..1::::,...1. • .. ..,- !! . i ! ' •••• 111,11'. I I:. I i,. I. 44,1 i ii , ...... , , , . . _ _ !!„,ii 1 i 1 it • •• Hi •4Il -11••i • . --)- - ---- -.,.- . . 0" '1- I:, :41,...1! I .1 i• 4, ••,1,4,1 rilifi• 11,1.14 -1-1-1-•-4-4-1> 1 •• .4'4 '''' -........... TV 'hr.' "i iiii . "0 ;1 ' ' ' , n 1,7'4' i .ir T - 1 111111 t I. III! '117;t1i1 111,..,it ,...1 i - .. III • II if i 1 i 1 I II ' III I I . ' 7'. ;'11,1r. 7 ' i it',1 ., 7.'t Iii. ,i. HI, Ii. t i i 1....„..., . . . ....!.,.,..... h• . : 1111, 1 ill 1 1:1 1 1 - - - 111,11,• 1. ;1 11141;11;1v .1111f 11t;;; 1 L.1_1_,...! — ,. . ''' ' ill ;rii 1 „1 II, 1 ; , 1 11 1 1 11 11. i ..4 ..... __ .di, 1 ,, ,., . ... .... : •11- I r ;11 Il 1 ' ti!, ti 1 ...1 . i I ._._........ _ 4.. ., • • i .ti ,i,t!., - . 411 . . ri liall,,,,, ,,, , ; : . .„ • • • • TABLE .5 14ET11LS REPORT ing/]. SOUHC): CITY/COUNTY COLLECTING POND • SAMPLF DATr 73-2-06 • . .. sample O. Cd Cr Cu Ili Pb Zn / Ilg Ca Mg 0,01 0od 10, / 00 . . _ ... ............................ , •