Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-3-MISC - SEPA REFERRALS - STATE OF WASHINGTON (1982)SEPA REFERRALS STATE OF WASHINGTON EPIC- 3 -VIISC JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON • DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4350 -150th Ave. N.E. • Redmond, Washington 98052 • (206) 885-1900 May 28, 1982 Mr. Brad Collins, Director Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: DONALD W. MOOS Director HUME .JUN 2 1982 C' € r TUKWILA P._ €ANING DEPT. Metro - Renton Treatment Plant Expansion Program This project appears to fall within the shoreline area of your incorporated city limits. For that reason, I am forwarding the attached request from the project engineer. I have informed him of your jurisdiction in this situation. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Redmond Office of the Department of Ecology, telephone 885 -1900. Sincerely, Curt Leigh Resource Management CL:sb Enclosure • BROWN AND CALDWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS May 17, 1982 D. H. CALDWELL, PE Chairman T. V. LUTGE, PE President R. C. BAIN, PE Vice Pres Mr. Curt Leigh Shorelines Management Division Washington Department of Ecology 4350 - 150th Avenue N.E. 014- 1200 -100 P?dmond, Warhi_ngton 930.2 B62.01 MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE (METRO) RENTON TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROGRAM Metro is proceeding with a major expansion of its Renton wastewater treatment plant and constructing a tunnel to transfer the plant effluent to Puget Sound. The location of the construction activities, projected cost, and construction timing are shown in the following enclosures. Your agency has been identified as potentially having jurisdiction over certain permitting areas of the project. As such, we would appreciate your review of the enclosures to identify what permits Metro has to obtain from your agency. Once we have established which permits are needed, we will be working with you to obtain the following: 1. Permit application form. 2. Application and review procedures. 3. Backup data required. 4. Lead times with potential delay points. 5. Permit fees. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions..,.please call me at 281 - 4000. BROWN AND CALDWELL v Jack Warburton Project Engineer JW:sjw Enclosures (3) `� � BROWN AND CALDWELL 100 WEST HARRISON ST. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 (206) 281 -4000 ATLANTA ❑ DALLAS -FT. WORTH ❑ EUGENE ❑ PASADENA ❑ SACRAMENTO ❑ SEATTLE ❑ TUCSON ❑ WALNUT CREEK ❑ WESTWOOD • - -- , ,' - -- ; 1 1 ; 1 1 11 • 1; a ti /7 11 11 11 '•••••••....s.v� v 0 HO MD X00 '°IO o"; •,1 40,,..._ 1 lobrs O 1 .i SCALE IN FEET 141TO l t070 Pt samc® `` /t_ - -_i STOM�L 1 - -- ,T,,$L Ty[Q {''] 00 i 6LCIe0 YAM[ •(1f 111 wIE1141 Q O��i�: ♦♦�� 1 ` -� - ` ;s GISSOLY[C AIM *vr^'' M11 smnct I1p1AY l0M >y N1 .. • f1°♦ 1 $ ! 1J _ 411111, ... ...To. as DI USrr..s 1 1 • 0. • AccoVC.r - 1 \1, 1, 1 \�, q1 1111 `` -•,\ t \11 \` X11 �)\\` • . • 111\ \II ,;� -�\1 /x!111 ylr 1\1`11111 A� ' -1' \1 d1 1 1 = • SrmO Recommended program TT" Future expansion IF) i 982 Figure 3 -3. Penton Treatflent Plant Layout Facility Figure 3-10 Annual Funding Needs for Recommended Renton System Improvements Project Costa ($ million) • 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 - Liquid Stream Expansionb Design Construction Solids Processingb Design Construction Tunnel /Outfall Geology & Oceano- graphy Design Construction- 3.0 27.3 4.8 43 °8 3.5 13.7 123.0 fr1 °5 1. , 12.1 12.1 3.1, 4.8, 27.3, • 4 2.4 2.4, 19.5 19.5 : 3.5 ,13.7 41.0 54.7 _ - -- Capital Coats '.. 219.1 343.0 7,4 9.0 17.6. 23.6 72.6 07.2 86.3 140.3 35 °2 62.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- c. Operations & Maintenance u 1.9 2.3 1.9 2.6 1,9 2.8 .4 3.0 5.4/7- 4,9 /9.7 6.7 13.2 6.7 14.5 6.7 15.9 6.7 17 °5 �. . Gonstant 1980 Dollars a Based on ENR -CC1 = 3500 Inflated dollars (based on assumed inflation rates of 11% annually from 1981 . to 1982 and 10% annually thereafter) b Construction will be scheduled such that some aeration, clarifier and solids processing facilities are operational by the summer of 1985. A11 facilities to be on line by 1986. PORTAL LEGENO ISSOMENMMEgain TUNNEL SECTION 01031A ERNION411IIIIOPEN DITCH SECTION 0 200 400 800 "A�MIIIIIII <<1 , IINI11N1111111I111111111111us1111NIMI I RENTON WWTP r EFFLUENT PUNP STATION Figure 3-7 East Tunnel ,Portal STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BRIAN J. BOYLE, Commissioner of Public Lands MEMORANDUM February 2, 1982. TO: All Contributors and Interested Parties FROM: Dan Barth, Division of Marine Land Management SUBJECT: Draft "Aquatic Land Management Plan for the Duwamish - Green River" During the past year the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Land Management, has developed the enclosed Draft Aquatic Land Management Plan for the Duwamish - Green Rivers. The plan is a Departmental proprietary management plan for the future use of the State -owned aquatic land. The plan does not propose any development or alteration projects to the river system, but merely designates what potential uses will be allowed and where they will be allowed on these Department managed aquatic lands. The Department of Natural Resources has been in contact with and obtained the background information from various State, federal and local agencies and cities as well as user groups. Their help and information is acknowledged and appreciated. Pursuant to WAC 197 -10 -203 through 240, the Department of Natural Resources has determined that it is the lead agency for the enclosed proposed Aquatic Land Management Plan. Enclosed is an environmental checklist and proposed declaration of non - significance pertaining to the proposal. This proposal will be filed in the Department's SEPA Publication Information Center in Olympia, Washington, on February 2, 1982. This checklist was prepared in a general format. Details of specific activities and their specific environmental impacts will be made as specific uses, projects or developments occur. This checklist addresses the Department's proposed future management of the State -owned aquatic lands as expressed in the allocation maps and text at the end of the book. These allocations are often based on present and /or historical uses. The allocations were made using the River Management Policy Plan's goals and policies and information obtained from resource agencies and user groups. The proposal is intended to be flexible to the changing needs of the public and additional information as it becomes available. A review of this proposal by all the original contributors and other interested parties is appropriate at this time. You are invited to share your views and comments concerning this draft, including your response under WAC 197 -10 -831 (4) in regards to the proposed declaration of non - significance at a meeting to be held at 10:00 a.m., February 19, 1982. The meeting will be held in the City of Auburn, main conference room, 25 West Main, Auburn, Washington. Page 2 February 2, 1982 If you cannot attend, but wish to make comment, I would appreciate receiving your written response by February 26, 1982. Please send comments to: Dan Barth Department of Natural Resources Division of Marine Land Management Public Lands Building Olympia, WA 98504 A final Aquatic Land Management Plan will be published after a review of all comments received. Thank you. DB:jc Enclosure STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BRIAN BOYLE, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON, 98504 (PROPOSED/FAME) DECLARATION OF (,8AZAA,Fd,C /NON- SIGNIFICANCE) Description of Proposal Aquatic Land Management. Plan for the Duwamish -Green Rivers Application Number Proponent Division of Marine Land Management, Department of Natural Resources Location of Proposal Duwamish and Green Rivers, King County, Washington Lead Agency Department of Natural Resources This proposal has been determined to (have /not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (is /is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environ- mental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official John De Meyer Position /Title Division Manager, Division of Marine Land Management Date of Signature RES 30- 1813(7 -76) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BRIAN J. BOYLE, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Application No. Project Title Aquatic Land Management Plan for the Duwamish- Area South Puget Sound Green Rivers District /County King County Legal Subdivision Sec. T. R. W.M. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Department of Natural Resources 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Division of Marine Land Management Public Lands Building Olympia, WA 98504 (206) 753 -0713' 3. Date Checklist Submitted: NaJtem4er, 1581 f kaimny Paz- 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Department of Natural Resources 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Aquatic Land Management Plan for the Duwamish -Green River 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give . an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): The plan represents the Department's proposed future use of the State owned and managed aquatic land. It includes maps, text, tables, charts and other background data of use and regulation. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environmental setting of the proposal): The Duwamish and Green River from Howard Hanson Dam to the mouth at Harbor Island and Elliot Bay - see attachment. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal:. 1 /11.4/a /7t7. 9. List of all Permit, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local -- including rezones): None 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further ac- tivity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Yes - Periodic review and possible revision or update as new data - -- becomes available or regulatory authorities adopt changes. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: Yes - Local Shoreline Master Program, planning or zoning ordinances, State Scenic Rivers Program, Department of Game River Studies, * 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: None - After the Draft Plan has been reviewed and the input on the proposed declaration accepted a final Plan and Declaration will be published. *the River of Green Plan, Kent Corridor Plan, Port Development Plans, Metro Plans, State Parks and Recreation Plan, Green River Conservation Area Plan. RES 30- 1802(REV)(4 -81) 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -- (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) (1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil ? , (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, Inlet or lake? Explanation: See attachment. Yes Maybe No x x x (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temper- ature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? x x Explanation: Those areas of aquatic land allocated for use or development for commercial purposes have a potential for increased odor or other air emissions (e.g., fish processing, boat building, marinas, etc.). (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: - - (a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? - x (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? x (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water.body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alter- ation of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? RES 30- 1802(REV)(4 -81) 2 • x • (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seep- age of leachate, phosphates, detergents, water- borne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters ?, (1) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Explanation: See attachment. Yes Maybe -No (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? x _ (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? x (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? x (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? x Explanation: Any areas allocated for development, use or modification to the aquatic land may change the diversity or numbers of plant species . both aquatic and terrestrial. (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? x (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of fauna? x (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? - x (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? x Explanation: Development or use in areas allocated for this use always possess the potential for benthic organism reduction or . increase in numbers. (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? x Explanation: Areas allocated for commercial or private development may have the potential for increased noise levels. RES 30- 1802(REV)(4 -81) 3 Yes .Maybe No (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? x Explanation: Again, areas allocated for commercial or other development possess the potential for increased lighting. (8) Land Use Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? x Explanation: The proposal allocates areas for both development and non - development. This may influence future land use planning in that permanent structures or development would not be allowed below the ordinary high water mark. (9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? x x Explanation: Sand and gravel or aggregate removals may influence the rate of replenishment in specific areas up and downstream from the extraction sites. (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazard- ous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an acci- dent or upset conditions? x Explanation: There always exists a chance for an accident in the operation of waste outfalls, moorage areas or other commercial operations. (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, dis- tribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: x (12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? x Explanation: (13) Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: Xi x RES 30- 1802(REV)(4 -81) 4 • Yes Maybe No (14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? x (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? x (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 X (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X (f) Other governmental services? X Explanation: Enhancement projects or areas allocated for increased public recreation may require maintenance or management. (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? x (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? +c x Explanation: 0 (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the fol- lowing utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? x (c) Water? x (d) Sewer or septic tanks? x (e) Storm water drainage? X (f) Solid waste and disposal? e Explanation: (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? x Explanation: RES 30- 1802(REV)4 -81) 5 - .�.. Yes Maybe (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the ob- struction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? x Explanation: (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x Explanation: Areas allocated for specific public recreation or access may increase these opportunities. (20) Archaeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a sig- nificant archaeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check- list should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full dis- closure on my part. Proponent: Dan Barth Title: River Management Date: Approved by: Ron Holtcamp Title: Tide and Shore Section Planning Chief Date: John DeMeyer, Division Manager Division of Marine Land Management RES 30- 1802(REV)(4 -81) 6 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ATTACHMENT A I. 7. The Plan addresses only those State - owned, DNR managed aquatic lands of the Duwamish -Green River in King County, Washington, that lay below the ordinary high water mark in areas not affected by tidal action and below the line of mean high tide in those portions which are affected,by tidal action. Also addressed are abandoned river channels associated with the rivers. The Plan includes the Duwamish River from its mouth upstream to its confluence with the Green River and the Green River upstream from the confluence with the Duwamish River to the site of Howard Hanson Dam in Section 28, Township 21 North, Range 8 East, W.M. The Plan is a Departmental proprietary management plan for the future use of this aquatic land. The Plan does not propose any development or alteration projects to the river system itself, but merely designates what potential uses will be allowed and where they will be allowed on this State -owned land. II. (1) (b) The proposal allocates certain areas for potential development or lease. In some cases there may be temporary or permanent changes in the soil. Areas requiring filling of the aquatic land, or bank stabilization projects or development of commercial or recreational facilities or boat launch sites all have the potential for affecting the soil. (c) In those areas allocated for development or aggregate removal there may be changes in the topography both above and below the shoreline. The stockpiling or placement of dredged or removed aggregate may cause topographic changes. Future replenishment of the removed aggregate may change the topography characteristics of the beds and shorelands. (e) Future development or aggregate removal always has the potential for erosion above or below the water surface. Future shoreline or bank stabilization projects may have the potential for shifting erosion problems up or downstream. (f) Erosion or deposition areas may change relative position as a result of structure placement, current deflectors or aggregate removal. (4) (a & b) Enhancement projects, aggregate removals, docking facilities, commercial uses, bank stabilization, current deflectors and other development projects may have a direct influence in the immediate areas. Associated upland facilities may alter local drainage patterns or absorption rates. (c) The proposal allocates areas for development and nondevelopment. Both posess potential alterations to the flow of flood waters. In developed areas flood waters may be confined or diverted by structures, fills, etc., while in areas allocated for nondevelop- - - ment or preservation flood waters- may disperse over large areas. (e) Increased discharges into surface waters may result in areas allocated for development or waste outfalls. These actions will be controlled by appropriate regulatory agencies.