Resolution 4305 - Laserfiche WebLink

HEARINGS EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION SNOHOMISH COUNTY SEPA APPEAL NO. 1-95 Page 6 without Everett. Alternative 2 was an interim waste export program with local land filling. This alternative also had options with or without Everett's participation. Alternative 3 was a permanent waste export program which was examined only with an Everett participation scenario. Alternative 4 was the interim waste export with resource recovery which included participation with Everett. (Exhibit 15) 16. The last two alternatives mentioned in the previous finding did not include a "without Everett" scenario. In the 1989 EIS (Exhibit 15) it was stated that these alternatives (3 and 4) could be developed by the County without the participation of the City. However, to review the differences in detail caused by Everett's non-participation would "lengthen and complicate the EIS without adding noticeably to its completeness." The EIS did state: "Without the City, impacts would be generally reduced somewhat." (Exhibit 15, page 35) 17. In the alternatives reviewed by the County in the 1989 EIS, a permanent waste export alternative was only considered feasible with Everett's participation. This alternative called for a number of waste reduction and recycling measures to be implemented, as well as transporting waste by rail or truck to a land fill outside of Snohomish County, most likely in eastern Washington or eastern Oregon. (Exhibit 15, page 17) 18. In 1989 the preferred system development strategy of the County was to consolidate and pursue several different disposal options that were identified in the EIS. This according to the County created the greatest flexibility and assurance that one method or another would be available at all times. This preferential combination approach included adding to the capacity of Cathcart land fill as an emergency backup until a regional land fill opened; designing and constructing a regional land fill with all due speed; and, ultimately employing rail trans shipment measures. (Exhibit 15, page 29) COUNTY'S ARGUMENTS Snohomish County presented a number of arguments to support its appeal that the threshold determination of nonsignificance issued by the City was in error. In the following findings relating to these arguments are presented. 19. The County contended that the City did not consider all environmental factors before making its threshold decision for the 1995 amended plan. Included in these disregarded factors were the failure to consider environmental impacts upon both Everett and the rest of Snohomish County. (Kelley-Clarke Testimony) 20. The County argued that the City acknowledged there would be environmental impacts resulting from (1 ) the City's withdrawal from the Snohomish County Plan; and, (2) the implementation of the City plan. These impacts, according to the County, are the possibility of increased burning of trash; increased air emissions; improper storage; illegal discharges into water; and, toxic and hazardous substances being handled in an incorrect manner. (Kelley-Clarke Testimony)