3201 SMITH AVE BASE FILE 2018-01-02 MF Import

tl : Y P'lJ�L/C WO11�/rS ,� MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Doughty FROM: Dan Mathias� DATE: Jan 6, 1999 SUBJECT: Everett-Seattle Commuter Rail PDEIS Here are my comments on the Everett-Seattle Commuter R�il PDEfS.lane Zimmerman will be the contact person for this project now. So,please direct futurc review requests or questions to 1ane.Thanks.: Section 3.3-Remember that somewhere in the final EIS it should state that the develupment shall comply with Cverett's stortnwater standerds.On page 3-51,the discussion of altematives I a and I b nced to indicate that these sites are within the combined sewer area. So, instead of stortn sewers,combined sewers provide drainage of stormwater runoff. At the Pacific Avenue site,stormwater runoff will need to be discharged into the combined sewer system.The combined sewer system is surcharge at this location on-site detention or replacement of the combined sewer wul be required.This issue will be discussed at a I/7/99 meeting at the Public Works Dept. At the Bond Street site,conveyance of stortnwater runoff,aRer treatment,would be preferred. However,the applicant does have the option to discharqe stormwater into the combined sewer system. Again,on-site detention will be required if stortnwater runoff will be increased by this proposal above a threshold amount(for diuharge into the combined sewer system). Section 3.44-Strcams within Everett city limits are not providing freshwater habitat for Chinook salmon. However,there are coho in some of Everett's strcams.Coho are anticipated to be listed as threatened or endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act within a few years. Therefore,a biological assessment of the project's potential imaact on coho may be required before this project ie implemented. Given this context,the EIS should recommend mitigation measures rather than merely diuuss mitigation measures as this section currently dces.Table 3.4-17 states that the culvert at Pigeon Crcek No.2 dces not appear to be a fish migration barrier. My understanding, Gom prcvious studies, is that the Pigeon Creek No 2 culvert is a fish migration barrier, More infortnation should be provided rcgarding what criteria were used to detertnine that this culven is not likely a fish migration barrier. Public Water Impacts-I could not find any discussion regarding potential impacts or demands on the public water s��stem. I do nut anticipate public water to be a significant issue, but I am surprised that there is not at least a short discussion of this issue, particularly fire Flow requirements. C.C. �di lane Zimmerman cn�[wius�w