19 Replies to "King County: Environmental-impact statement NOT needed for Lowman Beach overflow-control proposal"

• bridge to somewhere April 28, 2011 (7:23 pm)

  Hmmm, anyone else find it ironic that a project specifically meant to address an environmental problem will have “no significant environmental impacts?”
  .
  Methinks the press release should read “no significantly *negative* environmental impacts,” for a positive impact is, after all, an impact. If there were no *postive* environmental impact to this project, it wouldn’t have gotten funded!
  .
  I think people are getting lazy to assume “impacts” to be only negative impacts–but I’m not sure that was the initial intent of the federal law requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS).

• Nulu April 28, 2011 (8:16 pm)

  Enjoyable play on the word “impact,” ‘bridge.’
  –
  But in the vernacular of “environmental impact,” the
  million-gallon underground tank across from Lowman Beach should not have much environmental impact, as it is just a big underground storage tank.
  –
  A truly great environmental impact will be the proposed plan for raingardens and other “green stormwater infrastructure” in Sunrise Heights and Westwood where the plan is to take 15 million gallons of water off of the streets per day and let that 15 million gallons drain into the soil of the planting strips.
  –
  Since virtually all of the proposed area of Sunrise Heights and Westwood are in a natural basin that feeds Longfellow Creek Watershed, the county admits some of that polluted street water will end up in the newly restored Longfellow Creek. They just don’t know or won’t predict how much.
  –
  This 15 million gallons per day will be added to the unknown, but significantly higher, volume of street and roof runoff water already collected from the New High Point “green stormwater infrastructure” that is already added to the Longfellow Creek Watershed.
  –
  Perhaps WSB coverage of a flooded Longfellow Creek
  during this year’s storm events were a precursor to even bigger flooding in the future. The restored creek is small and fragile with considerable populated lowlands.
  –
  This unprecedented increase in ground water dating back to before the establishment of the city’s sewer and drainage system of a century ago will have some “environmental impact,” no matter how the term is used.
  –
  Of interest and a surprise to me, but not well publicized by King County, is that their plan for the artificial ‘Barton Basin’ “green stormwater infrastructure” does not include residential roof/gutter stormwater, only the contaminated street water.

• JB April 28, 2011 (9:31 pm)

  @Nulu – WOW, that’s a lot of polluted storm water being diverted into the water table, through our yards, and eventually into Longfellow creek. I did some bio-remediation research as an undergrad, and wetland plants and their associated microbe ecology have some potent pollutant degrading capabilities, but it’s not that good. Has KC discussed infiltration rates and how that will impact the already flood prone Longfellow creek?

• Westwood/Sunrise resident April 28, 2011 (9:35 pm)

  Reposting my comment from earlier on the “Myth Busting” article, in regards to the early April meeting at Westside school, because I am jumping into online forum for this a little late–looking for feedback…

  I was at this meeting, and the county did a fabulous job of skipping over the “Where does the water go” question, as they bullet pointed in slide number 23 (see the subsequent slides–not a mention, but some pretty pictures of plans!)

  Good sales pitch by the county–lots of county employees there, including the sign-in taskmaster, so I will assume with her pestering, most people did sign in, although attendance seemed upward of 100 people.

  So, my question is…where does the water go?
  The county also promised to maintenance the improved parking strips–but I am skeptical of a county with major budget woes will actually keep up with maintenance and address possible issues that may (will?) arise with this project.

  And, am I the only one that thinks the parking strips look..er…gentrified? It’s very Redmond Ridge.

  I also agree with the separate roof downspouts, even though I live below street level–there should be a solution for us. Mine used to be connected to *some* sort of sewer/storm drain ages ago before I was the owner, but now I trying to come up with my own solutions for my selfish reasons of keep water away from my foundation. This is my project for the summer. Any suggestions are welcome!

• Westwood/Sunrise resident April 28, 2011 (9:37 pm)

  I know that was a bit of a tangent, but Nulu, I know you are active in this dialogue–so I couldn’t resist!

• Nulu April 28, 2011 (10:28 pm)

  I also wrote to the county about what they meant by their 100 year maintenance claims at the Westside meeting.
  –
  They responded by saying that they meant maintaining the drain functionality, i.e. keeping the system working. My bet is that this will not include what many people at that meeting like myself took it to mean – regular (monthly) maintenance to remove weeds & trash as well as trimming overgrown plants and replanting dead or dieing ones.
  –
  This might turn out to be more like what they now do when they come out to clean storm drains that residents report are overflowing, clogged or flooding someone’s property and house.
  –
  The roof downspouts in this area are usually, due to the age of the homes, combined with your home’s sewer line which empties into the combined sewer as this area has no storm drains.
  –
  You can go online to Seattle DPD,(http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/sidesewercardsv2/) to access a fairly crude old drawing of your individual home’s “Side Sewer Card.”
  It will likely show your downspouts to be connected to your sanitary sewer to make it a combined sewer.
  –
  Some time in the past, maybe a downspout became clogged and someone just disconnected or bypassed it from the sewer line.
  –
  You could dig down replace and re-connect your downspouts as you are likely “grandfathered” in by your previous connection as proven by your Side Sewer Card.
  This would restore your home to the way it was originally, but would bypass the proposed greenwater infrastructure the same as the rest of your neighbors.
  –
  Or you could dig up your yard and construct a “tight line” from your house\basement to carry the water far enough away to install a “surface spreader” or “french drain.” This option may just shift your problem to your neighbors.
  –
  DPD has an extensive recently updated “Storm Water Control Manual” (http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codes/dr/DR2009-16.pdf) that illustrates the options and a morass of codes.
  –
  On supreme rule, water always flows downhill seeking the easiest path and often bewilders.

• bridge to somewhere April 28, 2011 (10:58 pm)

  Actually Nulu, an EIS really does list positive impacts too. From Wikipedia: “An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS.” The county–and anyone else–is wrong if they think the “environmental impact” in “environmental impact statement” is restricted to negative impacts.

  • WSB April 28, 2011 (11:02 pm)

    From the news release linked in the story (http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/dnrp/newsroom/newsreleases/2011/april/0428CSO.aspx):
    .
    “The SEPA process requires WTD to fully evaluate the environmental impacts of its projects and to document and make public the findings. The DNS was issued after the agency determined that the projects do not have probable significant adverse impacts on the environment, and that an Environmental Impact Statement for the projects isn’t required under the conditions of state law.”
    .
    (The plural is because the announcement today also involved the North Beach project in North Seattle, as well as the Murray basin one here.)
    .
    Just for anyone who didn’t, or couldn’t, follow the link … TR

• Lura Ercolano April 28, 2011 (11:43 pm)

  Environmental impact statements also look at effects on traffic flow, commute times, park usage, neighborhood flavor, etc. It’s not just effects on the natural ecology.

  I’m surprised that the removal of so much moderate income housing isn’t considered significant.

• Ben Schroeter April 29, 2011 (5:58 am)

  Folks – you have 30 days to challenge the FONSI (finding of no significant impact)

  Just because it was issued does not mean that there really are no impacts – in many cases there are and they got shoved under the table.

  I have not studied this issue but if you think that it is an incorrect decision and wish to challenge it, you can email me at benschroeter@justice.com with your phone number and I’ll call you and fill you in.

  I am not a lawyer but have some experience with FONSIs.

• amalia April 29, 2011 (8:53 am)

  Don’t worry, Bridge, we at DDES know what an EIS is and what goes into it. Just because a project is issued a DNS doesn’t mean it does not go through review at other jurisdictional levels. I have always thought that DNSs are a little too easy to get, but stricter layers of regulation apply through other avenues when critical areas are involved. I’m betting a regulatory steep slope is involved in this case.

• will o wisp April 29, 2011 (9:44 am)

  So all these tanks in the picture will be under privite property. That could be interesting in the future.

• Nulu April 29, 2011 (11:02 am)

  “will o wisp” these tanks will be under what is currently private property as shown in the photo.
  –
  But King County will acquire them through eminent domain before construction starts.

• dsa April 29, 2011 (1:30 pm)

  Call Ben if you think this determination is wrong and want more info. I don’t know him, but I do have enough experience in this field to know that that the proposing agency may have to be challenged to make the correct environmental impact call.

• kgdlg April 29, 2011 (7:37 pm)

  The houses will actually only be acquired by eminent domain if owners refuse to sell. From what I have heard, most owners across kc are open to selling to the county. If they are not, then kc will proceed to eminent domain.

• Nulu April 30, 2011 (8:42 am)

  Either way, the storage tanks will not be under private property.
  –
  The process of eminent domain will lead most property owners to sell at the highest price that they can negotiate with King County.

• Nulu April 30, 2011 (8:48 am)

  “I’m betting a regulatory steep slope is involved in this case.”
  Comment by amalia
  –
  amalia loses her bet. There are no steep slope Critical Areas at the Lowman Beach tank site (see Seattle DPD GIS mapping of Steep Slope and Critical Areas).

• Michael May 5, 2011 (10:41 am)

  I just submitted a pettition with 2561 signatures opposing the use of private property for the cso. last year I collected 450 to stop them from using lowman beack park for the cso and turned the signatures in to king county. Unfortunatly my name and adress were listed on the pettition, and now they want to claim immenent domian over my house, and all other properties on the 7000 block of beach dr. Does it sound to you like the property owners want to sell, or are we just being bullied!

  • WSB May 5, 2011 (10:43 am)

    Would love to do a story, Michael – you can e-mail me any time at editor@westseattleblog.com – TR

Sorry, comment time is over.