3003 W CASINO RD MISC SITE WORK 1991-93 2016-01-01 MF Import

. � Ltr to Ladiser March l3, 1992 Page 2 Boeing proposed and the County approved, mitigation in Powder Mill Crcek: A basin within Boeing's properry and immediately adjacent to Japanese Creek). It is the Ciry's position that of the five alternatives dixus�, the Pigeon Creek No. 1 restoration project is the closest mitigation method and perhaps the onty mitigation altemative for which a direct reladonship to the impact can be shown. The nexua betwetn the impacts in Japanex Croek (as identified in the County's SEPA review) and the Pigeon Creek No. 1 midgation proposal are set forth below: • The impact was the filling and culverting of approximately 3,000 fat of Japanex Creek. The Pigeon Creek mitigadon would result in opening up approaimacely 3,000 fat of Pigeon Creek No. l. It provides in-Idnd mitigation (Fisheries Habitat Restoration). • Both Japanese Creek and Pigeon Creek drain to the north e:to Port Gardner Bay. • Pigeon Creek No. 1 is in the immediate viciniry of the Boeing site and is the closest basin af the'midgation alternatives. • Restorallon of Pigeon Creek No. 1 would be a highly visible project with significant long tertn public education benefits. • The initial restocation effort within Pigeon Crcelc No. 1 have already generated substantial community pride and ownership. The efforta have meived ir.ternadonal newspaper and television media attention. Thc effort includes xhoal childrcn and school programs on environmental education and awareness. • A feasibiliry study (attached) has already been completed and the Ciry would commit to pracading with the mitigation program in the summer of 1993. While each of the other mitigation alternatives which have been dixusxd may have substandal merit, we do not see a demonsvated reL�donship betwan thoae altemativea and the impacts which are the basis of imposing the mitigadon requirement. For example, we recogniu and appreciate the significant merits of the Adopt-a-Stteam program. However, it is our undentanding that this mitigation alternative includes the construction of an office �tructure. We believe that such mitigation should be required only when in-Icind habitat mitigation optiona are u��availa�le. The City recommends that the previously issued DNS be modified. We would suggest that the Counry prepare an addendum W its environmental analysis as provided for