EPA-10-WA-KITSAP -CENTRAL KITSAP CO -WWTW
AUGUST 1975
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
EPA PROJECT NO.C-S30494-01
I U-S- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
EPA Project No. C-530494-01
Prepared by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
August 1975
Prepared with the Assistance of
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, California 94710
SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.
6420 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90048
Approved by
Date
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
11ST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY
Utapter
I
II
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Baseline
Summary
Alternative Plans
Numerical Rating
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physiography
Geology
Geomorphology
Geohydrology
Soils
Climatology
Air Quality
Existing Conditions from Available Inventory
Data
Noise
Fresh Water Hydrology and Water Quality
Surface Water Hydrology
Groundwater
Terrestrial Environment
Proposed Treatment Plant Sites
Proposed Alternative Pipeline Routes
Marine Water Quality Regulations and Standards
vi
viii
x
1-1
1-4
1-4
1-5
1-9
11-1
II-l
II-3
II-3
II-4
II-4
II-7
11-10
11-11
11-11
11-15
11-15
11-17
11-23
11-24
11-29
11-32
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter
(ID
Physical Marine Environment
Marine Water Quality
Waste Disposal and Water Quality
Initial Dilution at Candidate Sites
Dilution Due to Circulation and Flushing
Comparison and Selection of Outfall Sites
Summary
Biological Marine Environment
Marine Vegetation
Marine Habitat
Vertical Zones
Wastewater Outfall Disposal Sites
Biological Resources
Flora Resources
Fauna Resources
Water Resources
Recreational Resources
Utility Service Systems
Jurisdictions
Public and Social Services
Transportat ion
Tax Base
Land and Property Value
Labor Force
Income
History
Archaeology
Existing Land Use
Demography
Population Distribution
Page
11-33
11-34
11-35
11-37
11-39
11-41
11-42
11-42
11-43
11-44
11-46
11-51
11-51
11-51
11-54
11-58
11-58
11-60
11-63
11-63
11-65
11-69
11-69
11-70
11-71
11-73
11-74
11-74
11-75
11-78
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter
(ID
III
IV
C
Visual and Aesthetic Environment
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Introduction
Design Flows and Quality
Interaction With Other Plans
Poulsbo
Bremerton
Manchester
Alternatives
Common Features
Alternative Plan No. 1
Alternative Plan No. 2
Alternative Plan No. 3
Alternative Plan No. 4
Alternative Plan No. 5
Alternative Plan No. 6
Alternative Plan No. 7
Alternative Plan No. 8
Alternative Plan No. 9
Alternative Plan No. 10
No-Project Alternative
Project Costs
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Physical Impacts
Air Quality
Noise
Odors
Terrestrial Environment
Marine Biological Environment
iii
11-83
III-l
III-l
III-l
III-6
III-6
III-7
III-7
III-7
III-7
III-ll
111-13
111-13
111-16
111-16
111-19
111-19
111-21
111-21
111-24
111-28
111-28
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
IV-5
IV-6
IV-16
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Chapter
(IV) Soils IV-29
Water Quality IV-30
Resource Impacts IV-41
Natural Resources IV-42
Utilities Service Systems IV-48
Municipal Services IV-51
Economic Impacts IV-58
Direct Effects IV-58
Indirect Effects IV-73
Socio-Cultural Impacts IV-77
Social Impacts IV-77
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts IV-82
Traffic Effects IV-90
V ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES V-l
Physical Impact Mitigation V-l
Mitigative Measures to Protect Vegetation V-3
Along Clear Creek
Mitigative Measures to Protect Clear Creek V-6
Ecology
Mitigative Measures to Protect the Marine V-10
Benthic Community
Mitigative Measures to Protect the Marine V-12
Surface Community
Mitigative Measures to Protect Groundwater V-15
Quantity
Resource Impact Mitigation V-15
Economic Impact Mitigation V-15
Mitigative Measures to Minimize Economic Impacts V-20
Socio-Cultural Impact Mitigation V-20
,-"*"
~"^__
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter
(V)
VI
VII
VIII
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix H
Appendix I
Mitigative Measures to Protect Visual and
Aesthetic Environment
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
Impacts of the Proposed Action
Physical Impacts
Resource Impacts
Social-Cultural Impacts
Growth-Inducing Impacts
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION COMPUTER SUMMARY
SOILS
AIR QUALITY
BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY
BIOLOGICAL TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE IN THE CLEAR
CREEK DRAINAGE, EASTERN KITSAP PENINSULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SHEET FOR PROPOSED
HANSVILLE ROAD SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF
EFFLUENT
V-24
VI-1
VII-1
VII-1
VII-1
VII-2
VII-2
VII-2
VIII-1
c.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1. Study area location 1-2
1-2. Summary comparison of alternatives 1-12
II-l. Location of study area and drainage sub-basins II-2
II-2. Geological cross-sections II-5
II-3. Location of geological cross-sections II-6
II-4. Soil limitations for septic tank drain fields II-8
II-5. Percentage frequency of occurrence of hour average II-9
surface winds
II-6. Noise measurement stations 11-13
II-7. Location of principal streams and their drainage 11-16
areas
II-8. Location of wells 11-18
II~9. Generalized vegetation map of study area 11-27
11-10. Summary of alternative pipeline routes 11-30
11-11. Location of benthic sampling sites 11-48
11-12. Computed algal biomass concentrations in Dyes 11-52
and Sinclair Inlets
11-13. Commercial Fishing statistical areas 11-55
11-14. Land use plan 11-79
11-15. Proposed Kitsap County planning policy 11-80
11-16. Major routes 11-81
11-17. Summary of alternative pipeline routes 11-82
III-l. Location of alternative elements III-3
III-2. Estimated untreated waste loads III-5
III-3. Clear Creek pipeline corridor III-9
III-4. Alternative Plan No. 1 111-12
III-5. Alternative Plan No. 2 111-14
III-6. Alternative Plan No. 3 111-15
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
III-7. Alternative Plan No. 4 111-17
III-8. Alternative Plan No. 5 111-18
III-9. Alternative Plan No. 6 111-20
iil-10. Alternative Plan No. 7 111-22
111-11. Alternative Plan No. 8 111-23
IT1-12. Alternative Plan No. 9 111-25
I11-13. Alternative Plan No. 10 111-26
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1-1 Comparison of Project Ratings for Nine Alternatives 1-11
II-l Recorded Temperature and Rainfall for Bremerton 11-10
II-2 Air Pollutant Emissions in Kitsap County (1975) 11-11
11-3 Site Characteristics and Noise Analysis 11-12
11-14 Edited Results of Noise Program Output 11-14
II-5 Noise Criteria Used for Evaluating Trident Project 11-14
II-6 Low Flow Characteristics of Streams, Central Kitsap 11-17
II-7 1973-1974 Monitoring Results for Island Lake 11-19
II-8 Water Quality of Aquifers 11-20
II-9 Biotic Communities of Central Kitsap County 11-26
11-10 Biotic Communities Near Alternative Pipeline Routes 11-31
11-11 Water Quality Standards for Marine Waters 11-33
11-12 Federal Secondary Treatment Effluent Requirements 11-34
IV-13 Percent of Time Current Speeds are Less Than 0.1
Knot 11-38
IV-14 Water Quality Standards and Estimated Diluted Waste
Concentrations 11-39
11-15 Summary of Alternative Disposal Site Characteristics 11-42
11-16 Preliminary Benthic Data at Selected Station in
Kitsap County, May 1975 11-49
11-17 Major Marine Fauna and Usages in the Vicinity of
Proposed Wastewater Discharge Sites 11-53
11-18 Census of Agriculture, Kitsap County 11-54
11-19 Average Marine Landings and Value Within the Plan-
ning Area, 1972-1974 11-56
11-20 Existing Waste Collection and Treatment System 11-62
11-21 Existing Traffic Characteristics, Selected State and
County Routes, Kitsap County, Washington, 1973 11-66
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
Estimated 1980 Volume/Capacity Ratios, Selected
State and County Roads, Kitsap County, Washington 11-67
11-23 Access to Kitsap County 11-68
III-l Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives III-2
III-2 Comparison of Project Costs 111-29
ix
-------
c:
SUMMARY SHEET FOR DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY WASTEWATER FACILITIES
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
by the
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
1. Type of Statement: Draft (X) Final ( )
2. Administrative Action
3. The subject action for this environmental impact statement is
the awarding of grant funds to Kitsap County, Washington, for the
construction of interceptor sewer lines, wastewater treatment facil-
ity and wastewater disposal facility to service drainage sub-basins
9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site. The present estimates of
project cost range from $16,000,000 to $27,000,000. The County's
Draft Facilities Plan, dated July 1975, was used by EPA as a major
resource document for the preparation of this environmental impact
statement.
4. The proposed project has not been selected and is one of ten
alternatives. These alternatives differ by service area, treatment
facility location and disposal site as is shown in the following
table.
All of the projects would result in: (1) the elimination of
poorly treated effluent from Dyes Inlet; (2) discontinuance of the
use of septic tanks in unsuitable soils in the sewerage area; (3) a
reduction of bacterial pollution of water supply wells and marine
waters in the study area; and (4) provide a mechanism for locating
anticipated growth within the study area.
Major adverse primary impacts and mitigative measures that are
common to the first nine alternatives are:
a. Construction of an interceptor sewer along a Clear Creek
corridor to service the Trident Support Site will damage vegetation,
and could promote soil erosion and stream siltation. These effects
r
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Plan
no.
Service
area
Treatment fa-
cility site
Discharge
site
Total Pro-
ject cost,
$X106
1 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
2 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Poulsbo facilities
planning area
3 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
4 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Poulsbo facilities
planning area
5 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
6 Sub-basin 9 and
Trident Facility
Sub-basin 10 and
Bremerton plan-
ning area
7 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
8 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
9 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
10 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Silverdale
Silverdale
Brownsville
Brownsville
Brownsville
Silverdale
Bremerton
Bremerton
Enetai
Manchester
not chosen
Dyes Inlet
Dyes Inlet
Bainbridge
Island
Bainbridge
Island
northern Port
Orchard
channel
Dyes Inlet
Sinclair
Inlet
Sinclair
Inlet
Port Orchard
channel at
Enetai
Manchester
Land Disposal
sites not
chosen
xi
-------
can be mitigated by stabilizing the distrubed soil surface with shred-
ded brush and slash and organic mulches, followed by replanting or
receding with native vegetation. Crossings of Clear Creek can be
minimized through careful planning and damage reduced through appro-
priate construction techniques. Construction work should not proceed
during the salmonid spawning season-.
b. Installation of a sewerage system with porous backfill could
provide a drain by which the shallow groundwater could escape, lower-
ing water levels in shallow dug wells, a major potable water supply
source. It is recommended that in order to reduce draining of the
sewered areas, clay dams be required at every manhole along the sewer
lines that traverse high groundwater area.
c. Significant increases in local property taxes are likely to
result from the construction and operation of a wastewater manage-
ment system. Selection of the least-cost alternative plan that
provides acceptable environmental impacts assures that negative eco-
nomic impacts will not be excessive. Careful local planning of
residential growth in conjunction with the sewering of the study area
should endeavor to maximize utilization of the system for any popu-
lation level. Maintaining project design criteria within Federally
approved standards will assure and maximize Federal cost-sharing
funding and minimize the cost burden upon the local population.
d. Construction of a wastewater treatment facility would have
significant adverse aesthetic impacts only for alternative plans 1,
2, 6, 8 and 9 due to high visibility on a desirable shoreline or the
residential character of the neighborhood. Mitigative measures which
could be applied to all alternatives include vegetative screening of
the site, architectural treatment of the buildings and tanks, and
landscaping of treatment facility grounds.
The potential for major adverse secondary impacts exists in the
area of population location, but has not been confirmed and is
easily balanced out by the potential for directing growth into proper
locations. Development of a sewer interceptor system in an area
largely lacking such facilities, will tend to promote growth along
corridors of sewerage availability. If unplanned, growth could occur
in rural, wooded areas near Clear Creek, and produce detrimental
effects on Clear Creek. By limiting sewer size, access and location
the Kitsap County officials have a method by which natural, rural
areas can be preserved and growth directed into urban and transi-
tional zones.
Severe negative impacts were quickly identified for land disposal
and this alternative was rejected as being unacceptable.
xii
-------
The no-action alternative was considered and, due to very sub-
stantial negative environmental impacts, rejected.
5. The following Federal, State, local agencies and interested
parties were invited to comment on the environmental impact
statement.
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Projects
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Region X
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region X
U.S. Department of Transportation, Region X
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Bureau of Indian Affairs
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Henry M. Jackson, U.S. Senate
Warren G. Magnuson, U.S. Senate
Brock Adams, U.S. House of Representatives
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS
Governor of Washington
Office of Community Development
Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management
Office of Environmental Health Program
Washington Future Program
Department of Ecology
Department of Fisheries
Department of Game
Department of Highways
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Social and Health Services
Health Services Division
Parks and Recreation Commission
REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Puget Sound Governmental Conference
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
River Basin Coordinating Committee
xiii
-------
Kitsap County
Port of Brownsville
City of Bremerton
City of Poulsbo
Suquanish Tribal Council
Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
INTERESTED GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
Audubon Society
Friends of the Earth
League of Women Voters of Puget Sound
Northwest Steelheaders Council of Trout Unlimited
Sierra Club
Steelhead Trout Club of Washington
Washington Air Quality Coalition
Washington Environmental Council
Mr. Rex Lacey
Mr. Joel Haggard
Mr. Tom Brooks
Mr. Harold Dahl
Mr. Bruce Crasvell
Mr. Paul Linder
Mr. L, Blaine Highfield
Mr. Arvid Dahl
Mr. Rex A. McWhirt
Lemolo Citizens Club, Inc.
Fazooki and McMenamin
Mr. Hickey Sommerseth
CH2M/Hill, Inc.
This draft EIS was made available to the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) and the public on . The final EIS
will be made available to CEQ and the public on .
xiv
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This document is an Environmental Impact Statement prepared in
conjunction with the Central Kitsap County Draft Facilities Plan (Ref-
erence 1). Both documents address and evaluate solutions to the prob-
lems of wastewater treatment and disposal in central Kitsap County,
Washington.
The Environmental Impact Statement fulfills EPA's responsibility
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It is based upon
information supplied in the Facilities Plan and on-site data collection,
Although an effort was made to avoid duplication of information from
the Facilities Plan, the document is intended to be self-supporting and
to provide sufficient background material.
The study area, shown on Figure 1-1, has experienced numerous
failures of septic fields due to hydraulic overloading, high ground-
uater levels and soil characteristics which are unsuitable for disposal
purposes. Increases in population growth would only magnify these
problems. Other areas of concern within the county are the bacterio-
logical contamination of freshwater streams, lakes and water supplies
as well as of marine waters in the area. The Facilities Plan identi-
fies the following areas as having reported problems: Island Lake,
Brownsville, Dyes Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, Salmonberry Creek,
Barker Creek, Clear Creek, Silverdale Creek, Burke Bay and Fletcher
Bay. Specific areas where freshwater supplies have shown some bacteri-
al contamination at their sources are Dawn Park, Eldorado Water, North
i'erry Water District, Silverdale, Apex Airport and Clear Creek Mobile
Home Park.
The only existing municipal sewage treatment plant in the study
area is in Silverdale, providing primary level treatment to locally
originating wastewater prior to discharge to Dyes Inlet.
A new Trident Submarine Support Site, to be constructed in the
Bangor Naval Annex, will bring an estimated 31,500 persons into the
region, of which 24,000 are expected to reside in the study area.
Wastewaters from this population would far exceed the capability of tne
i-Alvt-.L-dale Sewage Treatment Plant and would greatly intensify all of
the sewerage-related problems in the study area. The existing sewage
treatment facilities at the Trident Support Site would also be unable
to accommodate this large influx of population.
c
1-1
-------
Federal regulations require secondary level wastewater treatment
at all sewage treatment plants by 1977. Thus, not only would capacity
have to be expanded for the existing facilities but a higher level of
treatment would be required at Silverdale. These problems combine
with the sudden change in population growth in the study area to pro-
duce a unique situation in which wastewater treatment facilities may
be planned literally from the beginning, without a commitment to use
of outdated existing facilities.
The development of the Facilities Plan began in 1973 with a plan
for interceptor sewers and wastewater treatment facilities to serve
Brownsville, Silverdale and Meadowdale, in Kitsap County, The an-
nounced intent of the U.S. Navy to develop a submarine support base
(Trident Support Site) at the Bangor Naval Annex, with an attendant
large influx of population, produced a realization that wastewater man-
agement plans for the study area should include provision for this pop-
ulation. Therefore, in February of 1975 Kitsap County authorized the
URS Company to develop a Facilities Plan for wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal within drainage sub-basins 9 and 10 and to con-
sider wastewaters generated at the Trident Support Site. The U.S. Navy
has also expressed the desire to transport wastewaters to the County
treatment system.
The Facilities Plan defines ten alternative plans for the develop-
ment of sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities in the study area.
Since the basic impetus for producing a facilities plan is the protec-
tion of man's social and natural environments, a comparative evalua-
tion of the alternative plans must address all relevant aspects of
those environments. This is one of the major functions of the environ-
mental impact statement (EIS). Another is to provide to the public a
concise statement of project alternatives and to assure that no envi-
ronmental impact has been overlooked by the planner.
Authority and guidelines for the preparation of environmental im-
pact statements are found in the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, implemented by Executive Order 11514 and the Council on Environ-
mental Quality's Guidelines of 1 August 1973. Final regulations for
the preparation of environmental impact statements by EPA were pub-
lished in the Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 72 on 14 April 1975,
Under these regulations, an "environmental impact statement is a report,
prepared by EPA, which identifies and analyzes in detail the environmen-
tal impacts of a proposed EPA action and feasible alternatives." With
regard to Kitsap County, municipalities and local agencies are required,
when planning for construction of publicly owned treatment works, to
evaluate the environmental impacts of the construction and subsequent
operation of the treatment works and to prepare an environmental assess-
ment. This assessment was presented in the Facilities Plan, The EPA
must review the assessment, collect corroboratory evidence when neces-
sary and, ultimately, issue a negative declaration or, if the project
is expected to have significant adverse primary or secondary effects or
1-2
-------
Source: Reference 1
Figure 1-1, Study area location
-------
to be highly controversial, prepare an environmental impact statement,
as has occurred in this case.
BASELINE
The impacts of the proposed project take the existence of the Tri-
dent Support Site as their starting point. The decision to proceed
with the Trident base has been made, and construction has begun. Im-
pacts resulting from this decision have been assessed, published and
officially accepted, although litigation against the Trident project
is in progress in Washington, D.C. (Reference 2),
The proposed project will serve to mitigate some impacts expected
to result from Trident, and might increase others. The reader is urged
to keep in mind the basis on which the following environmental impacts
were assessed: Impacts of the proposed project take as their starting
point the existing conditions and conditions which will obtain when
the full impact of Trident is felt. If for some reason Trident were
not to proceed, the entire Facilities Plan would require reassessment.
SUMMARY
Of the ten alternatives addressed in this Environmental Impact
Statement, nine were distinguished by service area, treatment facility
location and marine disposal site. The tenth involved a basically un-
developed concept of land disposal of treated effluent. A no-project.
alternative was addressed and eliminated in a preliminary screening in
the Draft Facilities Plan. A detailed description and analysis of the
environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives is presented in this
report. The summary contains a brief description of each alternative
and addresses the major issues of the project. These issues have been
identified as: population growth inducement, due to the availability
of sewerage service as well as the location of that population; economic
impact on the community from facility construction, operation and main-
tenance costs; the effects on marine water quality due to the treated
effluent outfall location; pipeline construction and growth inducement
along the Clear Creek corridor; and expected benefits from implementa-
tion of a wastewater management system. The alternative plan numbers
are correlated on page II1-2 with those of the Draft Facilities Plan.
1-4
-------
c
Alternative Plans
Alternative Plan No. 1
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new secondary level wastewater
treatment facility located near the present plant in Silverdale.
Treated effluent would be discharged through a new submarine outfall
into Dyes Inlet. The Silverdale site is an aesthetically poor location
for a wastewater treatment facility because of its shoreline location
and high visibility.
It has been concluded that population growth within the study area
and associated demands upon utilities and municipal services will be
primarily due to the development of the Trident Support Site and that
project-induced growth will be negligible. The sewerage systems of
each alternative will have the tendency to concentrate future growth
near sewer lines, and this fact can be used by County planners to aid
in controlling growth within the study area. This impact is identical
for all subsequent alternative plans and will not be addressed again.
The placement of a proposed pipeline along Clear Creek, for the
transport of Trident Support Site wastewaters, will have some negative
impacts on vegetation, aesthetics and stream ecology. It was determined
that diligent application of careful construction techniques and re-
forestation could reduce the negative impacts to an acceptable level.
This issue is similarly affected by all of the alternative plans and
will not be addressed separately for each alternative.
The treated effluent submarine outfall will be located in Dyes
Inlet in approximately 60 feet of water. Initial modelling results in-
dicate that first mixing and dilution of effluent would be fair and
that subsequent dispersion and flushing would be fair. Water quality
criteria should be met consistently. Further refinement of these con-
clusions may occur after disposal site dye dispersion studies are com-
pleted this summer.
Project benefits for this and all other alternatives are basically
identical. Substantial groundwater and potable water supply pollution
from inadequate and failing septic tank drainfields will be greatly re-
duced. Public health risks from contaminated wells will be reduced,
and it is expected that secondary level wastewater treatment with appro-
priate disinfection measures will reduce bacterial pollution in all ad-
jacent marine waters and may improve the quality of water in Dyes Inlet.
These project benefits accrue for all alternative plans and will not be
repeated subsequently.
This alternative plan has the lowest project cost and negative eco-
nomic impact.
1-5
-------
Alternative Plan No. 2
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10, the Poulsbo facilities plan-
ning area and the Trident Support Site would be collected and treated
at a new secondary level wastewater treatment facility located near the
present plant in Silverdale. Treated effluent would be discharged
through a new submarine outfall into Dyes Inlet. The Silverdale site
is an aesthetically poor location for a wastewater treatment facility.
The submarine outfall will be located in Dyes Inlet in approxi-
mately 60 feet of water. Initial modelling results indicate that, even
with additional flow from Poulsbo, first mixing and dilution of efflu-
ent would be fair and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be fair.
Water quality criteria should be met consistently.
This alternative plan ranks fourth in project cost.
Alternative Plan No. 3
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new secondary level wastewater
treatment facility located near Brownsville. Treated effluent would be
pumped to Lemolo, from which point it would be pumped to Point Monroe
on Bainbridge Island. An outfall would discharge the treated effluent
into Puget Sound, south of Fay Bainbridge State Park. The Brownsville
site is well screened and aesthetically acceptable for a treatment fa-
cility.
The submarine outfall has not yet been designed. Initial model-
ling results indicate that first mixing and dilution of the effluent
would be good and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be fair.
Water quality criteria should be met consistently.
This alternative plan ranks eighth in project cost and eighth in
minimizing negative economic impact.
Alternative Plan No. 4
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new secondary level wastewater
treatment facility located near Brownsville. Treated effluent would be
pumped to Lemolo, where treated effluent from a proposed Poulsbo faci-
lity would join the flow. The combined effluents would be pumped to
Bainbridge Island and discharged through a submerged outfall south of
Fay Bainbridge State Park. The Brownsville site is well screened and
1-6
-------
V^ , aesthetically acceptable for a treatment facility.
'Ihe submarine outfall has not yet been designed. Initial model-
ling results indicate that first mixing and dilution of the effluent
would be good and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be fair.
Water quality criteria should be met consistently.
This alternative plan ranks ninth and highest in project costs of
those evaluated.
Alternative Plan No. 5
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new secondary level wastewater
treatment facility located near Brownsville. Treated effluent would be
discharged through a submerged outfall into north Port Orchard channel.
The Brownsville site is well screened and aesthetically acceptable for
a treatment facility.
The submarine outfall has not yet been designed. Initial model-
ling, results indicate that first mixing and dilution of the effluent
would be good and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be fair.
Water quality criteria should be met consistently.
This alternative plan ranks third lowest in project costs.
Alternative Plan No. 6
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and the Trident Support Site would
be collected and treated at a new Silverdale wastewater treatment faci-
lity. Treated effluent would be discharged to Dyes Inlet through a
submerged outfall. The Silverdale site is an aesthetically poor loca-
tion for a treatment plant.
Initial modelling results on Dyes Inlet indicate that first mixing
and dilution of the effluent would be fair and subsequent dispersion and
flushing would be fair. Water quality criteria should be met consis-
tently.
Wastewaters from sub-basin 10 and the Bremerton planning area would
be collected and treated at the newly renovated and expanded Charleston
Sewage Treatment Plant. Treated effluent would be discharged to Sin-
clair Inlet through a submerged outfall. The Charleston site would be
aesthetically acceptable for expansion.
Initial modelling results indicate that first mixing and dilution
c
1-7
-------
of the effluent would be good and subsequent dispersion and flushing
would be fair, Water quality criteria should be met consistently.
This alternative plan ranks second lowest in project costs.
Alternative Plan No. 7
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10, the Trident Support Site
and Bremerton would be collected and treated at the newly renovated
and expanded Charleston Sewage Treatment Plant. The treated effluent
would be discharged to Sinclair Inlet through a submerged outfall.
The Charleston site would be aesthetically acceptable for expansion.
Initial modelling results indicate that first mixing and dilution
of the effluent would be good and subsequent dispersion and flushing
would be fair. Water quality criteria should be met consistently.
This alternative plan ranks seventh in project cost.
Alternative Plan No. 8
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10, the Trident Support Site and
the Bremerton planning area would be collected and treated at a new
wastewater treatment facility located near Enetai. Treated effluent
would be discharged to Port Orchard channel through a submarine outfall.
The Enetai site is well screened but located in a desirable residential
area and thus not aesthetically suited for a treatment facility.
Initial modelling results indicate that first mixing and dilution
of the effluent would be fair and subsequent dispersion and flushing
would be good. Water quality criteria should be met consistently.
This alternative plan ranks fifth in project costs and fifth in
minimizing negative economic impact on the study area.
Alternative Plan No. 9
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10, the Trident Support Site and
the Bremerton planning area would be collected and treated at the newly
expanded Manchester Sewage Treatment Plant. Treated effluent would be
discharged to Puget Sound near Rich Passage. The Manchester site has
high visibility from passing ferries and is not the most aesthetically
desirable alternative.
1-8
-------
c.
c:
Initial modelling results indicate that first mixing and dilution
of the treated effluent would be excellent, with excellent subsequent
dispersion and flushing. Water quality criteria would be met consis-
tently.
This alternative plan ranks sixth in project costs.
Alternative Plan No. 10
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new secondary level wastewater
treatment facility, the site presumably to be located at Brownsville
but as yet unselected. The treated effluent would be sprayed onto the
land for disposal.
Preliminary analysis, presented in Chapter II, indicates that at
high disposal rates the potential of polluting an extremely valuable
resource, the groundwater, in both surface and lower aquifers is too
great. At low disposal rates designed to protect groundwater, over
8,000 acres of land would be required. In both cases, the spray irri-
gation system costs would be enormous. This alternative was eliminated
from further consideration in the environmental impact statement due to
its low feasibility.
No-Project Alternative
The no-project alternative was subjected to a preliminary screen-
ing by the facilities planning consultant. Without the project, there
would be substantial negative environmental impacts, namely: polluted
groundwaters, unsafe drinking water supplies, increased pollution of
local surface and marine waters, failing septic tank drainfields and no
provisions for sewer service for an expanding population. These impacts
were deemed unacceptable, and the no-project alternative was discarded.
Numerical Rating
A numerical rating and evaluation system was used, within this en-
vironmental impact statement, as a tool to assist in the comparison of
the relative merits of each alternative. The evaluation system is ex-
plained in Appendix A, where the computer output correlating environ-
mental impacts for all alternatives is also displayed. It is antici-
pated that the ratings calculated for each alternative will change
slightly as further information is received during the review and public
comment period. A sensitivity analysis within the computer program pre-
1-9
-------
sents the expected change a, final score may receive due to a change in
a single category score.
Table 1-1 presents the final weighted scores for each alternative.
At this time, these scores should be used with caution and only as an
aid to ranking of alternatives.
Figure 1-2 presents a graphic display and comparison of positive
and negative ratings of categories for the nine alternatives evaluated.
1-10
-------
Table 1-1. COMPARISON OF PROJECT RATINGS FOR NINE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Project ratings a
URS c
6.55
6.59
9.49
9.49
10.50
6.55
9.53
8.85
11.35
Kitsap d
9.39
9.49
11.11
11.11
11.96
9.39
11.17
10.84
12.69
Composite e
7.88
7.93
9.89
9.89
10.77
7.88
9.95
9.52
11.14
Relative ratings b
URS
58
58
84
84
93
58
84
78
100
Kitsap
74
75
88
88
94
74
88
85
100
Composite
71
71
89
89
97
71
89
85
100
Resulting ranking
URS
7
6
4
4
2
7
3
5
1
Kitsap
7
6
4
4
2
7
3
5
1
Composite
7
6
4
4
2
7
3
5
1
Q
Project ratings per E.I.R.S. computer output
Each alternative rating expressed as an index number (or percentage); the highest rated alternative
was set at 100% and the other ratings calculated from that point.
Q
Based upon weightings derived from URS conducted survey
Based upon weightings obtained from sampling of Kitsap County officials
g
Arithmetic average of URS and Kitsap weighting factors
-------
-------
ALTERNATIVE 5
OVERALL WEIGHTED HATING =
ALTERNATIVE 7
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING
DATE: 08/12/75
ALTERNATIVE 8
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING =
E.l.R.S.
ENVIRONMENT 6i_ IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE
FOR: KJTSAP «AST£U«ItR TKLATMFNT
ALTERNATIVE 9
OVERALL WEIQrTED RATING - 11.35
POSITIVE
POSITIVE
POSITIVE
7521
5 0 50
1
1
MB
MM
BIH
1
Ml
1
BBBI
1
1
MMI
Bl
BBI
1
12570
JOS 0 5 0
fMMMMMMBl
|^|
^1
-
MM~
MM
MMMMI
M
IB
MMMlBl
1
MM
MM*
MMMMMMMMMM
1
Mi
MB
MMHIHi
1
R1CAL :0 7 S 2 1
RATING:0 5 0 50
3.44:
-1.67: I
o.oo:
-5.00: 1
o.oo:
-13.75: Ml
-5.00: 1
-20.00:
-20.00:
-10.00:
-5.00: 1
-10.00:
-IS. 00: Mi
29.17:
so.oo:
25.00:
12.50!
-25.00: MMi
so.oo:
0.00:
10.67:
-0.50: 1
-1.00: 1
O.oo:
2S.OO:
25.00:
o.oo:
so.oo:
7.50:
12.50:
50.00:
-25.00: MMi
S.oo:
5.00:
o.oo:
lo.oo:
lfr.67:
23.33:
-10.00:
90.00:
-10.00:
S.oo:
-25.00: MMI
10.00:
10.00:
14.17:
30.00:
10.00:
so.oo:
-1.67: 1
o.oo:
S.oo:
-10.00:
1 2 S 7 0
jos o s o
1
Mi
MMMMi
MMI
1
MMMMi
Mi
MMMMi
MMMM
i
i
MM
^Hl
MMMMMMMM
1
i
MMB
Ml
1
RICAL :0 7 5 2 1
RATING:0 5 0 50
3.44:
-1.67:
0.00:
-5.00: |
o.oo:
-13.75: Mi
-10. oo:
-20.00: MM
-20.00: MB
-S.oo: I
-10. oo:
-5.00: i
o.oo:
29.17:
so.oo:
25.00:
12.50:
-25.00: MMI
50.00:
o.oo:
10.67:
-0.50: 1
-1.00: 1
0.00:
25.00!
25.00:
o.oo:
so.oo:
7. so:
12.50!
50.00:
-25.00: MMi
5.00:
5.00!
0.00:
10.00:
17. OB:
24.17:
-10.00:
90.00:
-7.50:
5.00:
-20.00: MH
10.00:
10.00:
11.67:
30.00:
10.00:
so.oo:
-6.67:
o.oo:
5.00:
-25.00: MMi
. . . . i
1 2 S 7 0
DOS 0 S 0
1
MMB
MMMMM
MMi
Mi
""
Mi
mi
MMMMH
Mi
MMMMM
1
1
MM
MB
MMMMMMi
1
Mi
MMH
M
MMMMM
NUI'E- !1 - - - -
RICAL :0 7 5 2 1
RATINS:0 5 0 50
9.69:
-1.67: I
0.00:
-S.oo: 1
o.oo:
-13.75: Mi
-lo.oo: M
-20.00: MB
-20.00: MH
-5.00: 1
-lo.oo: M
-S.oo: 1
0.00:
54.17:
50.00:
100.00:
12. SO:
-25.00: MMI
50.00:
o.oo:
11.22:
-0.50: I
-1.00: 1
0.00:
25.00:
25.00:
o.oo:
so.oo:
9.17:
12. so:
so.oo:
-25.00: MMI
5.00:
10. oo:
o.oo:
20.00:
16.67:
23.33:
-lo.oo: M
90.00:
-10.001
s.oo:
-25.00: MM!
10.00:
10.00:
11.67:
30.00:
10.00:
SO.OO:
-6.67:
0.00:
s.oo:
-25.00: MMI
.... 1
12570
> 0 5 0 S 0
MMMMM
MMMMi
MMMMMMMMM
Ml
MMMMi
Ml
HI
^1
MMMMi
MMMMi
1
M
MB
MB
MMM
MMMMMMMM
1
MMM
MMMMM
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
AIR DUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOR
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
HILDLIFE t. ITS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE 6IOL. ENVIRONMENT
BENTHIC
HATER COLUMN
SURFACE
WATER QUALITY
SURFACE WATER
MARINE WATER
GROUNDWATER
GROUNOKATER QUANTITY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES II)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEVEN SYSTEM
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNOEPGRND WATER
DUALITY
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
FAUNA
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
PROPERTY TAX
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTURAL' IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
FNTERTAINMENT/KECREATlON
EXT ESTHETIC I"PRESSION
Figure II-l
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS! INC.tCALIF.
Summary comparison of alternatives 1-12
1974
-------
ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 6
OVERALL KEIOiTED RATING - 6.55
POSITIVE
ALTERNATIVE 2
OVERALL WEIGHED RATING = 6.59
RATING
POSITIVE
ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING - 9.49
RATING
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL DUALITIES
AIR DUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOR
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
WILDLIFE L ITS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT
BENTHIC
WATER COLUMN
SURFACE
WATER DUALITY
SURFACE KATES
MARINE hATER
6ROUNOWATER
GROUND»ATER QUANTITY
GROUNDWATEK DUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
ELECTRICAL
HATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SE*EH SYSTEM
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNDERGPND WATER
DUALITY
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
FAUNA
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
PROPERTY TAX
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
AP.CHEOLOGIC4L/HISTORICAL
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
EXT tST^tTIC IMPRESSION
RICAL !0 7 5 21
RATINGIO S 0 50
1.98:
-1.67: |
0.00:
-S.OO: 1
0.00:
-14.58: mm
-5.00: I
-dO.OO: mm
-ao.oo: mm
-13.33:
-IS. 00:
-10.00: m
-15.00:
2*. 17:
SO. 00:
10.00:
12.50:
-25.00: mmm
50.00:
0.00:
10.67:
-0.50: 1
-1.00: 1
o.oo:
25.00:
25.00:
o.oo:
50.00:
7.50:
12.50:
50.00:
-25.00: mmm
S.OO:
5.00:
0.00:
10.00:
16.67:
23.33:
-10.00:
90.00:
-10.00:
-5.00: |
-is. oo: tm
10.00:
10.00:
5.83:
30.00:
10.00:
50.00:
-18.33: mm
0.00:
5.00:
-60.00: mmmmmmm
12570
JOS 0 S 0
1
mmm
mmmmmm
mmmmmm
mm
^1
mmmmm
mmmmmm
i
i
"
mmm
mmmmmmmmmm
m\
mmm
m
mmmmmm
i
RICAL :0 7 S 2 1
RATING:O 5 o so
I.9e:
-1.67: 1
o.oo;
-5.00: 1
o.oo:
-14.58: mm
-5.00: 1
-20.00: mm
-20.00: mm
-13.33: mi
-15.00: mi
-10.00:
-15.00:
24.17:
50.00:
10.00:
12.50:
-25.00: mmm
50.00:
0.00:
10.67:
-o.so: 1
-1.00: 1
O.oo:
25.00:
25.00:
0.00:
50.00:
7.50:
12.50:
50.00:
-25.oo: mmm
5.00:
5.00:
0.00:
10.00:
17.08:
24.17:
-10.00:
90.00:
-7.50:
5.00:
-20.00: mm
10.00:
10. oo:
5.83:
30.00:
10. oo:
so.oo:
-IB. 33: mm
0.00:
s.oo:
-60.00: mmmmmmm
. « . i
12570
JOS 0 5 0
1
mmi
mmmmm
m
mm
mmmmmm
mi
mmi
mmm}
mmmrnmt
mm
mmmmmm
i
i
mmn
mmmmmmmmmm
i
fi
mmm
fi
mmmmmm
NUME- 11 - - - -
RICAL :0 7 5 21
RATING:0 5 0 50
3.13:
-1.67: 1
0.00:
-5.00: 1
o.oo:
-15.00:
-10.00:
-20.00: mm
-20.00: mm
-10.00:
-10.00:
-10.00:
-10.00:
29.17:
50.00:
2S.OO:
12.50:
-25.00; mmm
50.00:
0.00:
11.22:
-n.50: |
-1.00: 1
0.00:
25.00:
25.00:
O.oo:
50.00:
9.171
12. SO:
50.00:
-25.00: mmm
5.00:
10.00:
0.00:
20.00:
16.25:
22.50:
-10.00:
90.00:
12.50: mt
s.oo:
-30.00: mmm
10.00:
10.00:
14.17:
30.00:
10. oo:
SO.OO:
-1.67:
o.oo: 1
5.00:
-10.00:
12 57
305 0 5
1
mmmm
mmmmmm
mmm
mm
mmmmmm
mm
f^^
^^m
mmmmmm
m
mm
mmmmmm
i
i
mm
fmm
mmmmmmmmmm
i
m
mm
mmm
m
mmmmmm
-------
CHAPTER II
ENVIROMENTAL SETTING
PHYSIOGRAPHY
The study area lies on the Kitsap Peninsula in central westeru
Washington, as shown on Figure II-l. The Kitsap Peninsula areas in-
clude 5dl.a square miles of land bounded by waterways of the Puget
Trough (Reference 1). The Puget Trough is a north-south lowland be-
tween tne Cascade Mountains and the Coast Range, extending from Oregon
ill to Canada, the marine portions of which are known collectively as
Puget Sound. The Hood Canal on the north and west and Puget Sound
proper on the east border the Kitsap Peninsula area. Extensions of
Puget Sound into the peninsula area include Port Madison, Liberty Bay,
Port Orchard channel and Dyes and Sinclair Inlets.
The study area, on the Kitsap Peninsula, lies entirely within Kit-
faa^ County, between 122°30' and 122°45' west longitude and 47°3o" and
47 °W north latitude. The study area contains drainage sub-basins 9
and 10 and those portions of sub-basins 12 and 13 which lie within the
bangor Annex to the Keyport Naval Torpedo Station. Environmental im-
;.«et assessments will riot be conducted on the portions within the jjaii;,or
Annex (also referred to as the Trident Support Site) as that facility
is the subject of an environmental impact statement already completed
(Reference 3) .
Drainage sub-basins 9 and 10 generally follow topographic fea-
tures separating drainage areas tributary to Dyes Inlet (sub-basin 9)
and central Port Orchard channel (sub-basin 10) . Figure II-l presents
cue generalized sub-basin boundaries as defined by the Basin Plan (Kef-
etence 4). These boundaries are somewhat flexible in areas between
deafly defined streams; therefore, a definition of the study area
cnat reflects possible growth patterns and possible sewerage service
arei ooundaries in these vaguely defined areas was prepared by the fa-
cilities planning consultant. The facilities planning study area boun-
daries define tiie study area for this Environmental Impact Assessment
dud are a±no shown on Figure II-l. The approximate size of the plan-
uiiis area is 33 square miles, of which 10.8 square miles are within tue
Trident Support Site.
The topograpny within the study area is undulating terrain with
elevations between sea level and 400 ft. Steep bluffs and ravines
II-l
-------
exist along the eastern and western boundaries, but the majority of the
shoreline is gently sloping beach. Low north-south ridge areas sepa-
rate Central Valley from Clear Creek Valley, and sub-basin 9 from sub-
basin 10.
GEOLOGY
Geomorphology
Information on the geology of the study area is obtained primar-
ily from Water Supply Bulletin No. 18 (Reference 5),
The oldest rocks in the study area are of the Tertiary Age. Ba-
saltic and andesitic lavas were laid down in great thicknesses during
the early and middle Eocene Epoch throughout western and southwestern
Washington. Volcanic activity subsided toward the end of the Eocene
Epoch, and during the Oligocene and early Miocene Epochs marine sedi-
ments accumulated in thicknesses of thousands of feet over the volcanic
rocks. These formations were greatly deformed in the late Miocene,
giving rise to the ancestral Cascade Mountains. These mountains were
largely eroded during the early to middle Pliocene. Puget Trough was
formed in the late Pliocene as a result of a north-south uplift which
produced the present Cascade and Olympic Mountains.
After the Tertiary Period, the present Puget Sound lowlands re-
ceived great deposits of sediments consisting of silts and clays inter-
spersed with layers of coarse sands and gravels. The coarse materials
were deposited by streams and glaciers, whereas finer sediments settled
down in lakes. Several large ice sheets covered the Puget Sound low-
land during the Pleistocene (Ice Age) Epoch. These glaciers originated
in Canada and were 2,000 to 5,000 feet thick in several instances.
Climatic fluctuations resulted in several advances and retreats of
the ice mass during the Pleistocene time. The last ice disappeared
about 14,000 years ago. Sands and gravels deposited by these ice
masses were laid down by streams emanating from the front of each
glacier. Between ice periods, lush forests similar to those presently
growing in the study area appeared and were successively buried under
ice and stream deposits. Their decomposition over thousands of years
has yielded peat beds mixed within clay and silt materials.
During the advance of each new ice sheet, a primary deposit of
till or hardpan was spread onto the preexisting topography. The pre-
cise number of glacial advances and retreats is not known because of
partial obliteration of the effects of earlier glaciers by succeeding
ice flows. At least four glaciations have been documented in recent
stratigraphic investigations of the area.
II-2
-------
1
(D
1-1
H
O
O
rt
H-
§
03
ft
(0
P
I
OQ
ft)
o"
CO
o
l-t
o
03
P
O
03
03
g.
-------
In Recent time, the streams which emptied into Puget Sound have
formed deltas at their mouths. Erosion of the uplands and deposition
of silts and sands in the lowlands have continued to the present time.
Geohydrology
The succession of glaciation and formation of mountains in, the
Puget Sound area has resulted in a layering of base material under the
study area. Often this base material is fractured and discontinuous so
that aquifer layers do not necessarily readily intermix. Figure II-2
shows the cross-sections of the geological stratification underneath
the northern and southern parts of the study area (Reference 5). The
lines along which the cross-sections are represented are shown on Fig-
ure II-3.
As can be seen from Figure II-2, there are basically two aquifer
layers and one surface water table in the study area. The study area
is capped by a layer of relatively impermeable till of 20 to 50 feet
in thickness which does not permit surface water to pass easily into
the underlying aquifer. Below this till is a shallow aquifer in Colvos
Sand and Advance Outwash base materials. The aquifer is often above a
useful water table, and most drilled wells must penetrate to the Salmon
Springs formation. This aquifer is underlain by the impermeable Kitsap
Formation, below which are the Salmon Springs and Pre-Salmon Springs
formations. The latter contain abundant fresh water.
Within the study area, surface waters can generally reach the
first aquifer level (Colvos Sand) at points where this formation has
been exposed through erosion, namely, in creek valleys and in lowlands
between hills. There is essentially no connection between surface wa-
ters in the study area and the Salmon Springs formations.
SOILS
Soils within the study area are underlain either by strongly har-
dened or by slightly compacted or noncompacted subsoils. Soils under-
lain by cemented hardpan or bedrock include those of the Alderwood and
Edmonds series. Permeable subsoils and substrate may be found with
Everett, Indianola and Kitsap series soils and with undifferentiated
alluvial soils. A detailed presentation of soil types found in the
study area may be found in Appendix B.
Suitability for Septic Tank Filter Fields
The soils in the study area which are generally suitable as septic
II-4
-------
o
I
Ul
ELEVATION
400
300
CROSS SECTION I
">Z:- f/'JvVvv-'-/--'
I'"' " ' Ip36' DEEP
r
ELEVATION
400
LEGEND
IMPERMEABLE
Qvt -TILL
Ok -KITSAP
FORMATION
PERMEABLE
CROSS SECTION 2
Ova -ADVANCE
OUTWASH
Qc -COLVOS
SAND
Qvr -RECESSIONAL
GRAVEL
gg Qvrs-RECESSIONAL
SANDS
Qss -SALMON
SPRINGS DRIFT
Source: Reference 5,
r^H Qpu -PRE- SALMON
liid SPRINGS DEPOSITS
Figure II-2. Geological cross-sections
-------
\
-------
c;
tank filter fields include: (1) Everett gravelly sandy loam CEv), C2)
Everett gravelly loamy sand (Eg) and (3) Indianola loamy sand (Is).
These soils are suitable due to the underlying subsoils which provide
good pollutant filtration, with reasonable hydraulic permeability.
They cover less than one-fourth of the area and are mostly in the
southern and western parts. Most of the other soils in the study area
are severely limited for use in this method of wastewater disposal.
In most instances the existence of a hardpan and/or high impermeability
imposes a severe limitation rating on leach fields. Suitability of
soil for septic tank leach fields is shown graphically on Figure II-4.
CLIMATOLOGY
The climate of the study area is one shared generally by the en-
tire Puget Sound region. The Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound produce a
mild maritime climate with a substantial and long rainy season extend-
ing over mild and pleasant winters, with temperatures averaging 40°-
50°F during the day and 30°-40°F during the night. The Olympic Moun-
tains west of the study area serve to block passage over the study area
of most storms which occur along the western coast of Washington.
Cool, dry summers produce daytime temperatures averaging 70°-80°F and
nighttime temperatures averaging 50°-60°F.
The range and monthly mean temperature during 1974 for Bremerton
are shown in Table II-l along with total monthly precipitation. There
was no snowfall in 1974, but the Bremerton area experienced a rela-
tively wet winter. Total precipitation for 1974 was 57.28 inches,
13.14 inches above the norm of 44.14 inches. The study area, which is
within 5 to 15 miles from Bremerton, is of similar topography and is
expected to have a similar climate.
A discussion of wind conditions in the study area is aptly summa-
rized in the Facilities Plan (Reference 1), from which the following
is taken:
Kind sampling .in the vi^inj L.y of the Planning Area was begun in
July, 1974, by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. The loca-
tion of the sampling site is ... at Dewey Junior High School on Perry
Avenue and Holman Street in Bremerton [approximately five miles from
the study area]. The wind io-:e (a graphical representation of wind
sppecf and direction frequencies of occurrence over time) for the period
July 1974 through December, 1975 is presented in [Figure II-5]. The
spokes indicate the relative frequency of winds of different speeds and
.indicate the direction from which the wind blows. The numbers below
the directional signs on the perimeter of the case indicate the per-
centage frequency winds blow from the direction (disregarding speed);
the first number is for 6 months of data and the second number (in pa-
Crentheses) relates to 10 months of data. For example, winds blowing
..^'
II-l
-------
LEGEND
LIMITATION
RATINGS
SLIGHT AREA
MODERATE AREA
SEVERE AREA
FAILURE AREA
I
Source: References 6 and 7,
Figure II-4. Soil limitations for septic tank drain fields
II-8
-------
c
SOUTH
5.8
(5.4)
LOCATION-PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, DEWEY JR. HIGH, PERRY AVE
AND HOLMAN ST., BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
DATES- JUL-DEC, 1974. (JUL-APR, 1975) DIRECTIONAL FREQUENCY ONLY
OBSERVATIONS - 3,976
I.I- 4.0- 7.0- 11.0- I7,O- OVER
3.9 6.9 10.9 16.9 21.9 21.9
PERCENT
KNOTS
Source: Reference 1.
Figure II-5. Percentage frequency of occurrence of hour average sur-
face winds
II-9
-------
Table II-l. RECORDED TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL FOR BREMERTON
Precipitation, inches
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL YEAR
Temperature,
Mean
37.0
41.3
43.7
48.6
52.8
59.8
62.7
65.2
63.9
53.4
46.2
41.5
51.4
High
55
51
58
75
72
-
88
91
89
75
58
54
91
°F
Low
20
29
27
a
37
-
42
50
44
38
35
27
20
Total
precipitation
12.31
7.03
7.98
3.44
1.77
1.33
3.11
.06
.35
1.32
8.60
9.98
57.28
Departure
from normal
4.78
1.81
3.55
.91
.18
- .08
2.55
- .08
- 1.35
- 2.78
1.69
2.67
13.14
Reference: Climatological data, "Washington, Annual Summary 1974,"
U.S. Deaprtment of Commerce, N.O.A.A., Vol 78, No. 13.
D-ish indicates missing data.
from the East (E) accounted for b,6% of the six month total and 5.6% of
the 10 month total. The data from May and June is expected to show pri-
ac^r^lj a northeast orientation. Light and variable winds are those
lec*s than 1.5 knots and are shown in the center of the case. Although
wind direction and speed is influenced by local land forms and land
u.'Vtr, the Bremerton wind case generally depicts the predominant wind pat-
tern expected in the central portion of the Planning Area.
AIR QUALITY
Air quality in Kitsap County was evaluated by Northwest Environ-
meuuil Technology Laboratories, Inc. Results were presented in the
Draft Facilities Plan. These results are restated in Appendix C and
are summarized below.
The air quality in Kitsap County is very good. A monitoring pro-
gram in Bremerton, a location assumed to be a worst case because of its
11-10
-------
greater population, has shown that carbon monoxide levels are far below
one-hour and eight-hour standards. It is assumed that typical smog con-
stituents such as hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants and nitrogen di-
oxide would also be present at very low levels. This is due to the gen-
erally low county population, particularly within the study area, and
to the frequent presence of winds from nonpolluted areas, exchanging
air within the study area.
Existing Conditions from Available Inventory Data
Pollutant emission rates appropriate for the study area have been
estimated and are summarized in Table II-2 for existing (1975) condi-
tions. Countywide estimates were provided by the Puget Sound Air Pol-
lution Control Agency which summarized the 1972 air contaminant emis-
sions broken down for Kitsap County and for the following categories:
fuel combustion, industrial sources, solid waste disposal, transporta-
tion sources and miscellaneous area sources such as orchard heating,
agricultural burning and slash burning. These data were updated to 197i>
assuming that only transportation and residential area fuel sources were
population dependent. Current solid waste disposal and slash burning
art' a] so updated in accordance with population estimates.
Table II-2. AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN KITSAP COUNTY (1975)
Carbon
monoxide
A a B b
58. .19 1.10
Hydro-
carbons
A B
13. 7b 0.27
Nigrogen
oxides
A B
6.34 0.12
Sulfur
dioxide
A B
4.27 0.08
Particulates
A b
2.12 0.04
Tons per day
Pounds per person per day
NOISE
A sampling arid analysis of the existing noise levels in the study
area v?ere conducted by the U.S. Navy in conjunction with their Trident
Support Site Environmental Impact Statement (Reference 3). Table II-3
summarizes the characteristics of the measurement stations in the study
area, and Figure II-6 locates those stations.
Measurements of ambient conditions were made in the summer of 1973.
These measurements are summarized in Table II-4. The criteria by which
these noise levels were evaluated are found in Table II-5.
11-11
-------
Table II-3. Site Characteristics and Noise Analysis
Site No.
Location and characteristics
Conclusion
3A Silverdale; driveway of Central Kitsap High School. This
is a quiet residential neighborhood.
3B Silverdale; parking lot of Central Kitsap Elementary
School. This site is close to an intersection on Route 3
and current noise levels already exceed the standard.
3C Silverdale; parking lot of Halfway House Antiques on
Route 3. Current noise levels are above acceptable stan-
dards.
4 and 5 Clear Creek Road; near the intersection of Luoto Road and
north of the Sherman Hill Road intersection, respectively.
Sites 4 and 5 show fairly high noise levels because the
calculations were made only IS or 19 feet off the road.
Since this is not where the housing is located, the noise
levels do not provide an accurate indication of the acou-
stic quality of the environment.
6 Pearson; at the junction of Routes 308 and 3. The high
noise -level at this site is caused by traffic on the two
adjacent highways.
7 Pearson; in front of the Hilder Pearson Elementary School
on Route 308. Although noise levels at this site are af-
fected by traffic on Routes 308 and 3 and Central Valley
Road, the existing acoustic quality is good.
11 Intersection of Bucklin Hill Road and Richardson Road;
near Silverdale. Bucklin Hill Road is a major east-west
artery linking Route 3 with the Brownsville-Tracyton area
of Kitsap County. Considerable residential development
has recently taken place along this road. Noise levels
at the intersection are currently unacceptable (Lj.o " 72
dBA; Lso - 55 dBA).
Expected to remain quiet with only minimal increases in
background ambient noise if the Support Site is built.
1980 noise levels will exceed both th LJO and LJQ stand-
ards with or without Trident. The doubling of traffic
along Route 3 associated with the Trident project will
yield a 6 dBA increase over existing ambient noise levels.
1980 noise levels will exceed acceptable standards with or
without Trident. In either case the increase in median
noise levels will be nominal.
The relative increase in the median noise levels of these
is of greater interest than are the absolute noise levels.
Site 4 will show a small increase in noise levels by 1980
in any case. With Trident a somewhat higher but still ac-
ceptable increase. At site 5 a' somewhat higher but still
acceptable increase wiether or not Trident is built.
Nighttime noise levels will be unacceptable at both sites
with or without Trident.
Since the immediate vicinity of this site is not particu-
larly sensitive to noise, the expected increase in the am-
bient noise level of 5 dBA without Trident and 7 dBA with
Trident is for reference only.
Acceptable noise levels will remain with or without Tri-
dent. Overall increases in the ambient noise level will
be high since existing levels are low. The increase will
be 9 dBA by 1980 with Trident and 8 dBA without Trident.
Noise levels are expected to become even higher, and both
L10and L50 levels will exceed the standard by 7 dBA with-
out Trident or 13 dBA with Trident. The predicted median
noise level will be 13 dBA over the existing value with
Trident and 7 dBA over without. The higher noise levels
with Trident will be a function of the tripling of traffic
on Bucklin Hill Road over the no-build volume. Nighttime
noise peaks will be extremely high (about 80 dBA) with or
without trident.
-------
-------
Table 11-14. EDITED RESULTS OF NOISE PROGRAM OUTPUT
Existing noise
level (1973)
Site
3A
3B
3C
4
5
6
7
11
(dBA)
Peak a
hour
58/46
68/61
69/61
73/56
70/50
77/66
59/48
72/55
Night
peak
~
-
-
71
59
-
-
SO
1980 predicted noise levels, diSA
without Ti
Peak a
hour
55/43
70/59
70/59
72/60
73/61
81/71
68/56
76/61
L50
- 3
* A,
1
4
11
5
8
6
ident
Night
peak
-
-
-
72
69
-
-
80
with
Peat a
hour
57/46
78/67
74/63
75/63
75/63
83/73
68/57
83/68
Triu
LSO
0
6
2
7
13
7
9
13
etlt
Nignc
peak
-
-
-
74
71
-
-
83
L10/L50
Source: Reference 3.
Table II-5. NOISE CRITERIA USED FOR EVALUATING TRIDENT PROJEC1
£ level
Maximum allowable
exterior noise level
Source
Comment
L50
70 dBA
55 dBA
FHWA's PPM 90-
2, Table 1
Land use category B: residence,
motel, hotel, public meeting
room, school, church, library,
hospital, picnic area
Criteria based on outdoor
speech communication interfer-
ence at a conversing distance
of 10 ft.
Lpeak
(nighttime)
60 dBA
Criteria based on 50% of the
people being protected from
awakening if interior peaks do
not exceed 50 dBA.
Permissible
increase of
ambient (L$o)
noise level
0-5 dBA: few com-
plaints if gradual
EPA-NITD 300.7
Effects of
Koise on Peo-
ple, p. 49,
Fig. 14; and
EPA Region X
Guidelines,
p. 31
EPA-NITD 300.7
Effects of
Koise on Peo-
ple, p. 68,
Fig. 17; and
EPA Begrion X
Guidelines,
p. 3, 'corrected
EPA-NITD 300.3 Ambient noise level for this
Community Noise study chosen as LSQ, the out-
Ch. 5; and EPA door median noise level (with
Region X Guide- consent of Region X, EPA).
lines, p. 32, Criteria based on community
and correspon- reaction (i.e., annoyance) to
dence with Re- level increase above existing
gion X, EPA conditions.
Source: Reference 3,
11-14
-------
In general, the study area is of a rural and quiet nature. Any
noise levels exceeding guidelines for adjacent human use activities
occur along major arterial roads through the County and are the result
of truck and automobile traffic. Development of the Trident Support
Site in addition to normal County growth will increase noise levels at
sites 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 on the order of 2 to 13 dBA. Principal
areas of high noise will be Clear Creek Road, Bucklin Hill Road and
State Route 3.
FRESH WATER HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Surface Water Hydrology
Streams
Principal streams within the study area are shown in Figure j.I-7.
The principal streams and drainage areas are tabulated in Table Il-r..
Total drainage area encompassed by these creeks is 24.2 square miles;,
with the largest drainage area being associated with Clear Creek (7.46
mi*-) (Reference 5).
Chemical analyses of streams, performed in 1961, indicated that
surface water within the study area was of excellent quality with re-
spect to State of Washington standards. More recent information from
1973-1974, including bacteriological sampling, shows a deterioration in
the water quality (Reference. 1), Bacteriological sampling of Clear-
Creek indicated that the standard on colifora count for class A water
of 240/100 ml was exceeded IIL 90 percent of the samples. An increase
in iron concentration, to 0,3 mg/1 was noted in the more recent informa-
tion. Sampling from Burke's Creek showed that 'the coliform count ot
1,100/100 ml was exceeded in 50 percent of the-samples.
Comparison of data on surface water quality within the study area
indicates a general deterioration of water quality. High coliform
counts indicate possible contamination due to excessive septic tank
drain field failures. Presently, data is limited to several creeks;
sampling of other streams in areas where septic tank failures are known
to occur would probably indicate similar deterioration in water quality.
Lakes
Island Lake is the only lake within the study region. It encom-
passes an area of approximately 43 acres, with drainage via Barker Creek
to Dyes Inlet.
f
11-15
-------
J,
X
-------
\
Table II-6. LOW FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS, CENTRAL KITSAP
0705
KP60
KP52
KP59
A
KP61
KP62
KP63
KP64
Stream
Clear Creek
West Fork/Clear
Creek
Steele Creek
Barker Creek
Barker Creek
(unnamed)
Strawberry Creek
Knapp Creek
(unnamed )
Drainage
area,
sq mi
7.46
3.68
4.75
4.02
0.44
3.01
0.28
0.55
Minimum
flow,
cfs
1.5
2.16
0.89
1.81
0.06
1.08
0
0.03
Month/
year
8/47
8/47
5/71
8/47
8/47
10/47
2/71
5/71
6/71
8/71
9/71
12/71
8/47
8/47
8/58
8/58
Other
Base Flow:
4.56 cfs
Flow: 0
0.1 a
0
0
0
0
0
Source: Reference 5.
o
estimated
Island Lake water is of good quality and normally meets the State
water quality standards for Lake Class waters. Recent (1973-1974)
data from monitoring programs is summarized in Table II-7. Bacterio-
logical sampling from 1973-1974 revealed that between 10 and 25 per-
cent of all samples exceeded the coliform count of 240/100 ml, which
is the lake standard. This fairly high percentage indicates the possi-
bility of contamination due to septic tank drain field failures, al-
though the observations have been random and do not indicate continu-
ous discharges from malfunctioning drain fields.
Groundwater
Because there are no significant surface water resources in the
study area, water supply is obtained from groundwater aquifers. Figure
II-8 shows the locations of wells as given in Reference 5.. Well depths
11-17
-------
-------
Table II-7. 1973-1974 MONITORING RESULTS FOR ISLAND LAKE
Parameter
Temperature
pH
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate
Phosphate
Unit
»F
rag/1
mg-N/1
mg/1
Minimum
38
6.7
8.2
.02
.002
Maximum
74
7.7
13.2
.02
.002
Source: Reference 1,
were computed by overlaying the elevation of the static water level on
a topographic map. There are many shallow dug wells in the study area,
used primarily for domestic water supply. Some well test data were
available and are shown on Figure II-8. Well water quality is believed
to be generally excellent. Well water quality data for the area are
actually quite limited, but the quality of the aquifers which these
welIs tap is given in Table II-8. These estimates of water quality are
probably valid for the deep aquifers but are only approximate for the
surface aquifer, which is subject to contamination from a variety of
local sources. With respect to bacteriological quality of certain of
the groundwater sources within the study area, recent data were much
more plentiful. Bacteriological sampling was carried out over the per-
iod from 1973 to 1974. The following discussion of well types, depths
and quality is organized by geographical location.
North Silverdale
There is a large cluster of wells just north of Silverdale, some
of which are artesian wells. Most of the wells are very shallow, with
an average depth of approximately 20 feet. About one-half of the wells
-ire dug wells, while the other half are drilled wells. Flow from the
artesian wells ranges from 25 to 65 gallons per minute (gpm). Most of
the dug and drilled wells penetrate only through the till surface layer
to reach the uppermost water table. One well in the area extends be-
yond the till into the Colvos Sand geologic deposit, 80 feet below the
ground surface. That particular well yields about 35 gpm. Much of the
water obtained from the shallow wells is probably recharge from surface
Results from bacteriological sampling in the Silverdale area
indicated that between 18 and 20 percent of the samples contained more
than one coliform organism per 100 milliliters of sample. Although
not excessive for drinking water standards, this exceeds the limit for
11-19
-------
Table II-8 . WATER QUALITY OF AQUIFERS
Above Colvos Sand
Constituent or
property, ppm
Silica (Si02)
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
M
M Sodium (Na)
Q Potassium (K)
Bicarbonate (HCO.,)
Sulfate (SO.)
Chloride (Cl)
Nitrate (NO.,)
Phosphate (PO.)
Dissolved solids
(calculated)
Hardness (as CaCO )
pH (logarithmic averages)
5
Water-bearins
Colvos Sand
Number of
14
formational unit
Salmon Springs Drift Below Salmon Springs Drift
samples
14
4
Well depth, ft
Average
60
19
13
2.6
6.4
.4
53
5.4
4.0
2.6
.03
80
43
6.5
Range
18-88
17-21
7.0-22
1.5-3.6
2.8-11
.0-.9
34-90
.2-15
1.2-9.0
.1-4.9
.00-. 06
58-99
29-61
6.1-7.9
Average
135
26
8.4
5.9
4.6
.5
55
3.8
3.1
2.8
.12
83
45
7.3
Range
0-224
20-38
5.5-11
2.9-12
3.1-7.5
.0-1.2
35-89
.0-20
1.2-6.2
.1-10
.07-. 26
55-120
27-77
6.8-8.0
Average
297 a
35
17
6.1
8.9
2.3
96
3.2
4.5
.5
.63
125
67
7.8
Range
62-832 a
29-41
9.0-30
2.2-11
4.6-20
1.3-4.9
70-156
.0-15
1.2-22
.0-3.4
.24-2.0
94-180
46-106
7.3-8.5
Average
515
36
24
12
22
3.8
190
2.0
5.0
.2
.36
201
110
7.9
Range
353-813
26-41
12-45
1.5-19
10-43
2.0-7.4
94-346
.3-6.6
1.5-8.8
.1-.5
.19-. 59
122-338
36-190
7.6-8.3
Source: Reference 5.
a
Sampling site number 18 (Table 55) not included because well depth is unknown.
Includes carbonate (CO.) calculated as HCO,.
-------
c.
groundwater sources, which is set at one coliform per 100 ml of sample.
C
Uncontaminated groundwater suppl
count.
Chemical constituents of fc
area were determined by the State
study period (1973-1974). Watei
USPH standards for drinking wate
Dawn Park Estates well exhibitec
phosphate (1.77 mg/1). Kitsap
phate concentrations (2.4 mg/1).
East .Silverdale
About one mile east of
another group of wells. All of
wells except for two artesian
Inlet. Well depths range from f
yield a combined flow of 40 gpm,
gpm. Except for the artesian
the Colvos Sand layer and should
characteristics as the wells in
Meadowdale
Sil\erdale,
, around Bucklin Hill Road, lies
the wells in this area are drilled
w^lls located near the shore of Dyes
ive to 100 feet. The artesian wells
while the deepest well averages 250
we|lls, these wells all penetrate into
have the same excellent water quality
the Silverdale area.
Centered around Meadowdale,
area, is another group of wells,
of the dug wells range from 10
depth being around 25 feet.
face till into the Colvos Sand
in the area, with depths of 110
respectively. These wells extend
the Kitsap Formation, thus
gory. Noteworthy also is an
Port Orchard coast which producejs
in the Meadowdale area yield
drawing water from the Salmon
mineral content, as reflected by
tent. The increase in the
raised the average pH value, but
limits. This water is of
dards for drinking water.
ies should have virtually no coliform
ur water supplies in the Silverdale
Health Department during the recent
from these wells generally met the
r, with only a few exceptions. The
high levels of iron (1.72 mg/1) and
District No. 6 showed high phos-
in the southeast corner of the study
most of which are dug wells. Depths
to about 70 feet, with the average
shallow wells extend beyond the sur-
llayer. There are two deep drilled wells
and 275 feet, producing 450 and 40 gpm,
below the Colvos Sand layer through
into the Salmon Springs Drift cate-
well north of Meadowdale on the
about 1,500 gpm. All of the wells
quality water. The deeper wells,
Drift Formation, yield a higher
the higher total dissolved solids con-
concentration of this water has
it still remains within acceptable
quality with respect to USPHS stan-
feet
These
falling
artesian
excellent
Springs
bicarbonate
excellent
11-21
-------
Brownsville
Approximately one mile west of Brownsville lies another group of
wells. Virtually all of the wells in this area are shallow dug wells
with depths ranging from six to 35 feet and an average depth of 18
feet. There is one drilled well, 35 feet deep, in the area. All of
these wells reach into the Colvos Sand layer, thus yielding an excel-
lent quality water (see Table II-8). Water derived from the shallow
wells is probably recharge from surface runoff.
Results from recent bacteriological sampling does show, however,
that about 5 percent of the samples collected from the North Perry Water
District contained more than one coliform organism per 100 ml of sample,
Although this exceeds acceptable limits placed on groundwater, it is
still quite acceptable with respect to USPHS standards for drinking
water.
Clear Creek Area
There is a small cluster of drilled and dug wells about 1.5 miles
north of Silverdale, next to Clear Creek. These wells are all 25 feet
or less in depth. The Colvos Sand layer in this area is very shallow;
therefore, most of the wells extend through the Kitsap Formation into
the Salmon Springs Drift Formation.
North Clear Creek Road
Just west of Clear Creek Road, about 3.5 miles north of Silver-
dale, lies a small group of dug and drilled wells. The shallower wells
average 40 feet in depth, while data on the deep wells indicate depths
of 125 and 200 feet. These deep wells yield 300 and 1,500 gpm, respec-
tively. The shallower wells derive water from the till surface layer,
while the deeper ones penetrate into the deep-lying Colvos Sand layer.
Recent bacteriological sampling from the Clear Creek Mobile Home Park
well indicated that 10 percent of the samples contained more than one
coliform organism per 100 ml of sample.
With exception to bacteriological results, the water quality here
should be excellent, as described in Table II-8.
Island Lake
There are a few small wells of varying depths surrounding Island
11-22
-------
c
c
Lake. These wells range from 15 to 80 feet in depth and extend as far
as the Kitsap Formation. The deepest well produces 30 gpm. These
wells should yield excellent quality water, but Island Lake may be a
recharge area, and its quality may affect the future quality of the
local groundwater.
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
The Kitsap planning area is located within the Western Hemlock
Forest Zone, which is characterized as being the most extensive vege-
tation zone in western Washington and Oregon and the most important in
terms of timber production. The Puget Sound area is a sub-unit within
the Western Hemlock Zone and contains slight differences in vegetative
distribution and dominance, mainly because of climatic and soil fac-
tors (Reference 8). The topography within the planning unit is gen-
erally low-lying hilis and plateaus. The elevation averages from 200
to 300 feet, with some upland ridges reaching 400 to 500 feet. The
area lies in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, receiving 30 to
35 inches of annual precipitation, with at least 90 percent of the
precipitation falling between November and April. The amount of mois-
ture plays an important role in the distribution and abundance of lo-
cal vegetation.
Conifers originally covered almost the entire study area. Since
the arrival of western man and his subsequent land uses, the vegeta-
tion has changed to its present mosaic, which can be characterized as
being composed of seven biotic communities: (1) Coniferous Forest, (2)
Broadleaf Forest, (3) Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest, (4) Pasture/
Meadow, (5) Freshwater Marsh, (6) Residential and (7) Marine Shoreline.
There is considerable intergrading of species within these units, and
they should not be viewed as distinct entities. The distribution of
these units is largely a function of climate, relief, substrate and the
occurrence of fire, grazing, logging and other human activities. The
Coniferous Forest is the predominant unit, the wet, mild, maritime cli-
mate being favorable to the growth of conifers. Hardwoods are gener-
ally subordiuant except in stressful habitats, recently disturbed
areas or specialized habitats such as riparian zones (Reference 9).
The fire potential during the short dry season in the Puget Sound
area is very high, historically, there were many large, destructive
tires before the introduction of fire suppression measures in the early
1900'a. In the past 24 years, there has been only one small wildfire,
of 62 acres, in Kitsap County (Reference 10), Before the arrival of
western man, fire was part of the natural ecology, and periodic ground-
flrus that burned slash and debris kept the fuel load from becoming ex-
cessive. In fire ecology, the most important factor is the presence of
fuel to carry a fire. Many of the forest stands have an accumulation
cf downed timber, slash and brush that provide a continuous ladder of
11-23
-------
fuel from ground to canopy, A wildfire in such, an area in the dry sum-
mer months would be extremely difficult to control.
No rare or endangered plant species are found within the planning
area (Reference 11). Representative vegetation and wildlife for each
biotic community are presented in Table II-9. A more complete listing
of species and occurrence is given in Appendix D.
Of the wildlife occurring within the study area, the American
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is the only species consid-
ered to be endangered (Reference 19). Because of urbanization, forest-
clearing and other changes in land use, this bird is probably transient
and does not depend on specific parts of the study area as a permanent
or primary habitat. Outlying regions beyond the study area which are
less disturbed and closer to their natural habitat may attract and
support a small peregrine falcon population.
No endangered mammalian species are recognized within the study
area (Reference 20); however, several rare species which may exist in
the study area have been identified by the Washington State Game Depart-
ment. These are the mountain lion (Fells concolor), sea otter (5'nhydra
lutris), fisher (Martes pennanti) and western gray squirrel (Sciurus
griseus), The Game Department definition of rare is: "A rare species
or subspecies ... that, although not presently threatened with extinc-
tion, is in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be en-
dangered if the environment worsens" (Reference 20).
The seven biotic communities within the study area are shown on
Figure II-9 and are described in Appendix E.
Proposed Treatment Plant Sites
Silverdale Site
The proposed site is located within the Silverdale city limits at
the foot of Washington Avenue. The waterfront area is open and rela-
tively flat. Vegetation is generally low and weedy, as in residential
areas, and without trees. The local environment has been greatly dis-
turbed by human activities such as dumping, small businesses, the ex-
isting sewage treatment plant operations and miscellaneous recreational
activities.
The vegetation is typically represented by grasses such as fescue,
bluegrass, ryegrass and wildrye. Intermingled herbaceous plants in-
clude thistle, curly dock, gumplant, bur clover, horsetail and plan-
tain. Probable animal species would be those characteristic of dis-
turbed and Residential biotic communities such as house sparrow, mourii-
11-24
-------
/"N
Table II-9. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES OF CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY
Community
Locations and examples
Characteristic vegetation
Characteristic wildlife
Coniferous
Forest
Broadleaf
Forest
I
N>
Mixed
Coniferous/
Broadleaf
Forest
Major portions of central
Kitsap County, as shown
in generalized vegetation
nap. Large stands nay be
seen west of Chico, above
Meadowdale and near the
Bangor Naval Reservation.
Interspersed between coni-
ferous forest generally
occurring In lowland,
wetter areas that have
been previously cleared.
Groves found along sec-
tions of Clear Creek Road,
atound Island Lake and
Burke Bay and coastal
bluffs above Brownsville.
Mixed stands occur along
Bucklin Hill Road, north
of Brownsville, and west
of Sllverdale.
A forest of Douglas-fir with scattered
mature trees over a stand of younger
plants. Associated trees are red
alder and western white pine, with
smaller western redcedar and western
hemlock. Where light permits growth,
evergreen huckleberry, salal, Oregon
grape, Pacific dogwood, Indian plum,
sword fern, Hawthorne, twin flower,
rose, Rubus spp., red huckleberry,
and willows are found. The road-
sides support Scotch broom, orange
honeysuckle, hardback and a variety
of common herbs. Red rhododendron
is found throughout this zone.
An alder forest with cascara, bigleaf
maple, Douglas-fir and western hem-
lock. Undergrowth is mainly salmon-
berry, blackcap, sword fern, butter-
cup, bedstraw, red huckleberry and
red elderberry.
A forest of Douglas-fir, western red-
cedar, bigleaf maple, Pacific dogwood,
red alder, and western hemlock. In
the understory are salal, evergreen
huckleberry, red huckleberry, salmon-
berry, cascara, violet, buttercup,
coast rhododendron, red currant,
miner's lettuce, Oregon grape, and
starflower. Open edges support wil-
lows, Scotch brooa and common herb-
aceous species.
Birds; band-tailed pigeon. Cooper'* hawk, .
blue and ruffed grouse, screech owl, olive-
sided flycatcher, Steller's jay, raven,
chestnut-backed chickadee, red-breasted
nuthatch, brown creeper, golden-crowned
kinglet, Townsend warbler.
Animals; black bear, raccoon, striped
skunk, snowshoe haire, coyote, Townsend
chipmunk, northern flying squirrel,
beaver, red-backed vole, Townsend vole,
bats, Pacific jumping mouse, rough-skinned
newt, Pacific giant salamander, northern
alligator lizard, red-backed salamander,
long-toed salamander, garter-snake, Pacific
treefrog.
Birds! screech owl, red-tailed hawk,
mourning dove, western wood pewee, downy
woodpecker, black-capped chickadee,
Bewick's wren, cedar waxwing, Oregon Jur.co,
vireos, golden-crowned kinglet, yellow
warbler, orange-crowned warbler, western
tanager, purple finch, fox, song and white-
crowned sparrows.
Animals: black bear, raccoon, mink, striped
skunk, coyote, red fox, Townsend chipmunk,
deer mouse, cottontail rabbit, bats, north-
western and Pacific giant salamander,
rough-skinned newt, northern alligator
lizard and garter snake.
Birds and animals; Wildlife is similar to
the coniferous zone mentioned earlier, but
also supports more seed- and fruit-eating
animals such as cedar waxwing, western tan-
ager, warblers and sparrows.
-------
Table II-9 (Continued). BIOTIC COMMUNITIES OF CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY
Coi^munitv
Locations and examples
Characteristic vegetation
Characteristic wildlife
Pasfure/ Farmland and sparse residential
Meadow areas along Clear Creek Valley,
Central Valley Road and the
Rolling Hills developed area .
M
M
I
Freshwater As reported in Reference 1.
Marsh Relatively flat, small plain
near upper portion of the north
fork of Steel Creek above Burke
Bay.
Residential Silverdale and other small com-
munities such as Brownsville
and Meadowdale. Scattered
homes with some landscaping
along north perimeter of Dyes
Inlet, bluffs facing Port
Orchard and Central Valley.
Marine Sand and gravel beaches border-
Shoreline lug Port Orchard and sandy-to-
rocky northern perimeter of
Dyes Inlet.
Riparian vegetation. Typical riparian vege-
tation is western redceiJar, vine maple, red
alder, devil's club, skunk cabbage, stinging
nettle, American brookline, false Solomon's
seal and wild lily-of-the valley.
Red alder and willows. On the drier margins
are Douglas-fir and western white pine. The
meadow species include a variety of grasses,
salnionberry, blackcap, ox-eye daisy, sword
fern, rushes, field mint, buttercup and
other more common species.
A very wet lowland area supporting a vari-
ety of grasses, rushes, buttercup. Horse-
tails, skunk cabbage, cattails and water-
cress, with occasional red alder and
willows. Occasional Douglas-fir in the
drier areas.
Bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir, Scotch broom,
ocean spray, red rhododendron, pea, curly
dock and thistle are common in residential
areas. Many exotic species have been
introduced in landscaped areas.
Cord grass, gumplant, curly dock, rushes,
bulrush and hairy cat's ear are found on
beach areas.
Birds and animals: Edg^ community particularly
favored by wildlife such as the song and fox
sparrow, American goldfinch, dipper, veery,
Swainson's thrush, vireos, rufous hummingbird,
Bullock's oriole, raccoon, all shrews, most mam-
mals, Pacific tree-frog, most salamanders and
rough-skinned newt.
Birds: marsh hawk, barn owl, short-eared owl,
say's phoebe, violet-green swallow, common crow,
mountain bluebird, gray partridge, killdeer,
western meadowlark, horned lark, American gold-
finch, Brewer's blackbird, brown-headed cowbird,
savannah sparrow.
Animals; pocket gopher, white-footed mouse,
Pacific jumping mouse, coyote, boreal toad,
northwestern and red-sided garter snake.
Birds; marsh hawk, sparrow hawk, killdeer, barn
swallow, cliff swallow, mallard and other ducks,
common crow, long-billed marsh wren, yellow-
throat, red-winged blackbird, fox and song
sparrow.
Animals; raccoon, coyote, vagrant and other
water shrews, Townsend and long-tailed voles,
northwestern and long-toed salamanders, Pacific
treefrog, bullfrog and red-legged frog.
Birds; barn and cliff swallow, crow, bushtit,
mockingbird, robin, cedar waxwing (seasonal),
warblers (seasonal) house sparrow, house finch,
song sparrow and American goldfinch.
Animals: deer mouse, lownsend vole, cottontail
rabbit, feral cat, boreal toad, Pacific treefrog
and northwestern garter snake.
Birds: great blue heron, kildeer, greater and
lesser yellow leg, dunlin, common snipe, least
and spotted sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher,
common and Caspian tern, western and red-necked
grebes, ducks such as mallard, greater scaup,
goldeneye, bufflehead, and various seagulls such
as Tliayer's, ring-billed, Bonaparte's, glaucous-
winged, California and mew gulls.
Sources: References 12, 13, 14, I'j, 16, 17 and 18.
-------
c
LEGEND
. CONIFEROUS FOREST
2. BROADLEAF FOREST
3. MIXED CONIFEROUS/
BROADLEAF FOREST
4. PASTURE/ MEADOW
5. FRESHWATER MARSH
6. RESIDENTIAL
7. MARINE SHORELINE
Source: Reference 1; adjusted after site surveys.
Figure II-9. Generalized vegetation map of study area
11-27
-------
ing dove, house finch, pocket gopher, cottontail rabbit and garter
snake.
Brownsville Site.
The proposed site is an open, level field bordered by dwellings,
farm buildings, open areas and a Broadleaf Forest unit. The site is
screened from Bucklin Hill Road and on all sides by a planted line of
trees. Originally the area probably supported a Mixed Coniferous/Broad-
leaf Forest association. Previous clearing and levelling for agricul-
tural purposes has left a fairly homogeneous terrain that is presently
not under cultivation or economic use. Low, weedy growth and small
trees have invaded the open areas.
The border of the site contains scattered trees such as Pacific
dogwood, bigleaf maple and willow; shrubs such as red elderberry, trail-
ing blackberry and Scotch broom; herbs such as fireweed, red clover,
plantain, field mint, thistle and bracken fern; and grasses such as fes-
cue, bluegrass, ryegrass and wildrye. Wildlife would be those species
characteristic of a Pasture/Meadow community, such as western meadow-
lark, crow, blackbird, pocket gopher, raccoon, coyote, boreal toad and
garter snake.
Enetai Site
The proposed site is located atop a dense and steeply sloping
Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest. The general area is very steep (ap-
proximately a 30-percent slope) except in the northwest corner, where
the hilltop flattens out gradually. A dirt road cuts down through the
wooded areas to the beach. The transition from heavily wooded hillside
to peripheral marine shoreline is very abrupt and quite marked.
Major tree species are western redcedar, bigleaf maple, Douglas-
fir and western hemlock, with a thick, shrubby understory composed
primarily of salal, thimbleberry, salmonberry, large sword ferns and
stinging nettle. Wildlife in the area would be typical of the Mixed
Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest community.
Charleston Site
The proposed site is located in a swale bounded on the east by
Highway 3 and on the west by a Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest unit.
The site area has been graded to form two terraces, supporting the
present sewage treatment plant, a warehouse area and other buildings.
11-28
-------
c
The western boundary area dips down to form what appears to be a sea-
sonal drainage channel. The area was probably vegetated formerly by a
Broadleaf riparian community.
Vegetation consists primarily of weedy grasses and herbs, with
some sparse, woody vegetation such as Scotch broom, bigleaf maple and
bitter cherry. Six Douglas-fir saplings appear to have been recently
planted, but one of these has died and the others are in poor condition.
Due to the disturbed and unnatural conditions of the area, wildlife is
scarce and is probably characterized by human-tolerant species such as
mourning dove, sparrow, gophers and raccoons.
Manchester Site
The proposed site is located on U.S. Navy property. The general
area is a Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest community, with scattered
residences. Vegetation within the Navy property has been cleared in
several places for roads and facilities. The site consists of open,
grassy spots, with scattered stands of bigleaf maple and Douglas-fir.
Wildlife would by typical of the Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest com-
munity. Animal populations within the Navy facility may be smaller
than in adjacent areas due to a high fence which separates the proper-
ties and forms an effective barrier to passage and migration.
Proposed Alternative Pipeline Routes
A summary of the proposed alternative pipeline routes is shown on
Figure 11-10. For presentation purposes, all routes have been shown
on the same figure. The exact pipeline selection for each alternative
is discussed in Chapter III. Biotic communities which would be tra-
versed by the pipelines are presented in Table 11-10. The majority of
the pipeline routes will be within the road or the roadway right-of-way.
Several alternatives have connecting pipeline segments which will cross
through vegetated areas. One pipeline route in the Clear Creek valley,
which is utilized in all alternatives, passes through mainly vegetated
areas and is singled out for further discussion below.
Clear Creek Pipeline Route
Clear Creek is a small, perennial stream that runs from north to
south, emptying into Dyes Inlet east of Silverdale. The creek traverses
three biotic communities: Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest, Pasture/
Meadow and Broadleaf Forest. Riparian vegetation is found along the
entire length of the creek because of the continuous supply of water
11-29
-------
Figure 11-10. Summary of alternative pipeline routes
11-30
-------
o
Table 11-10. blOTIC COMMUNITIES ^
ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ROUTES
M
M
UJ
I "
Pipeline
route
MR
ER
S3
CC
CCR
BR
BHR
MRB
303 A
303 B
P 3
P 305
C
Location and dc-crintion Biotic communities4 traversed, apprpx. %
i.ui_cii.j.uu aim ui-ai-i. j.pLj.011 . ' * ,« ... Comments
1 ^ j A 5 6 7
Beach Drive (north of Annapolis), across peninsula 50 17 33 1/4 mi. through steep
to Orchard Point. Narrow shoulder along beach; wooded section, no road.
undulating hills.
Point Herron to Enetai, along road. 50 50
Level; steep rise.
Chico to Silverdale, along Highway 3. 67 33
Level.
Clear Creek, from road to Bucklin Hill Road. 25 33 42 Sensitive area - see
Slight grade down. , text.
Clear Creek Road, from road to Bucklin Hill Road. 37 50 13 Includes 1/4 mi. connector
Slight grade down and up. which traverses valley and
From Bucklin Hill Road through Tracyton, along 33 33 33 crosses Clear Creek bed.
beach, to East Bremerton. Level; low, flat hills
Bucklin Hill Road from Highway 3 to Highway 303. 8 50 17 25
Over ridge; level.
From Bucklin Hill Road on Old Military Road south 50 50 1/4 mi. segment through
to Tracyton. Rolling hills. pasture area, 'no road.
Meadowdale to Bucklin Hill Road on Highway 303. 8 26 66
Relatively flat. .
Highway 303, from Bucklin Hill Road to Keyport. 50 25 19 6
Poulsho Junction to Clear Creek. 33 33 33
Poulsbo Junction through Lemolo, across Agate 50 33 17
Passage, to Bainbridge State Park.
Coastline of West Bremerton following local 100
streets. Relatively flat.
Key to Biotic Communities: 1 - Coniferous Forest
2 - Broadleaf Forest
3 - Mixed Conifer/Broadleaf 5 - Freshwater Marsh
4 - Pasture/Meadow 6 - Residential
7 - Marine Shoreline
-------
available for plant growth. Different riparian species occur according
to the distribution of the three biotic communities.
The northernmost section runs approximately one mile through Mixed
Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest, with occasional Pasture/Meadow areas being
encountered. Livestock grazing is conducted in pastures beyond the ri-
parian forest zone on both sides, and cattle frequent the creek where
access is available. This section of the creek can be characterized
as extremely dense and overgrown. Typical vegetation consists of wes-
tern redcedar, vine maple, red alder, bigleaf maple, devil's club,
stinging nettle, blackcap, salal, Oregon grape, skunk cabbage, sword
fern, bracken fern and herbaceous plants. Many large trees have fallen
near and across the creek, and vine maple grows in dense, bushy masses.
These factors make this section of the creek nearly impassable in many
places.
The next section of Clear Creek runs for approximately l-% miles
through open pasture and meadow land. Agricultural activities occur up
to and on both sides of the creek, which narrows considerably at some
points. Small riparian growths of willow, alder and blackcap are found
on creek banks along this zone. Highway 3 crosses the creek in this
section.
The southernmost section extends for approximately 3/4 mile
through a Broadleaf Forest unit, with occasional pasture and residence
openings. Bigleaf maple, alder, willow and other riparian vegetation
grow along this section.
The watercourse varies from three to eight feet in width and ap-
proximately six inches to two feet in depth. Stream velocities range
from one to three feet per second depending on stream width. The Creek
bottom is predominantly coarse sand, with pebbles and large stones in
the fast-moving stretcties. Little detrital matter accumulates in the
creek bed. Little vegetation occurs in the creek; however, in. wooded
sections the creek is heavily shaded with dense vegetative growth on
both banks. A cursory stream survey in July 1975 indicated the pres-
ence of insects such as water boatman, water strider, mayfly larvae and
caddisfly larvae of the limriephilid family. Finger ling trout were a],so
seen within the creek.
MARINE WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
Beneficial uses have been identified and water quality standards
defined for the waters likely to receive wastewater from the alterna-
tive systems considered here. Marine waters adjacent to the. study
area have been designated as Class AA (Extraordinary), with the excep-
tion of Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet, which have been designated Class
A (Excellent). Criteria for these classes are included as Appendix F
11-32
-------
and include numerical values for some parameters and qualitative non-
degradation statements. Applicable standards for streams and lakes
are also included in the appendix. Some of the more significant cri-
teria are shown in Table 11-11. These standards apply throughout the
water body except within a limited initial mixing zone surrounding a
wastewater discharge.
Table 11-11. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR MARINE WATERS
"
Character! st ic
Total ccdiform
Dissolved oxygen
PH
Tempe.rature
Unit
MPN/100 ml
mg/1
°F
Class
AA Extraordinary
< 70
> 7.0
7.0 - 8.5
< 55
A Excellent
< 70
> 6.0
7.0 - 8.5
< 61
Within the initial mixing zone surrounding a wastewater discharge,
State of Washington standards prohibit acute biological shock, which
means "that dose or circumstance which has been demonstrated by field
or laboratory observation to directly result in mortalities of food,
or commercial fish species."
In order to meet the water quality standards, point sources of
wastewater are regulated by means of the NPDES or permit system. Per-
mits define the minimum quality of effluent that must be discharged to
maintain compliance with the water quality standards. Under the provi-
sions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
publicly owned treatment plants must provide at least secondary treat-
ment by ^iid-1977 and Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology by
mid -1983. Secondary treatment is defined numerically as shown in
Inble 11-12. Best practicable waste treatment technology is presently
defined as secondary treatment plus any additional treatment required
to meet water quality standards. Thus it is apparent that all alterna-
tives will require secondary treatment; however, some may require fur-
ther treatment in order to meet water quality standards.
PHYSICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
The alternative wastewater disposal sites considered in this re-
port lie x\'ithin Puget Sound and its inlets and canals. Puget Sound is
connected to the Pacific Ocean by the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Admi-
ralty Inlet, through which most of the Sound's oceanic waters enter.
c
11-33
-------
Table 11-12. FEDERAL SECONDARY TREATMENT EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
Parameter Unit Value
Monthly average Weekly average
Biochemical oxygen demand mg/1 30 45
(fiv-day)
Suspended solids
Fecal coliform
PH
mg/1
no./ 100 ml
30
200 a
6.0 to
45
400 a
9.0
«a
Geometric mean
Puget Sound is a deep fjord-like embayment covering approximately
2,500 square miles. Water depths of 600 feet are typical in the cen-
tral basin near Seattle, and maximum depths extend to 930 feet. Theo-
retically, the entire volume of the Sound's waters is believed to be
replaced about twice a year. Considerable variation occurs between
the extremities and the central basin, however, and flushing efficiency
varies widely on a monthly basis. Tidal exchange of Sound waters with
incoming ocean waters varies with depth and density characteristics.
Submerged sills within the Sound tend to restrict the exchange of some
of the colder bottom waters which are stratified at depth. The ex-
hange of the upper waters, however, is relatively efficient.
The shallow sills that exist are critical in controlling the mix-
ing and the nature of the water which contributes to the deep waters
in the inner basins of Puget Sound. Mixing by surface cooling during
the winter and by flow across sills tends to equalize oxygen and nu-
trient salts vertically through the water. Because of this mixing and
the tidal exchange that occurs with waters of the open ocean, the water
of Puget Sound is well supplied with oxygen and with mineral salts ne-
cessary to support aquatic ecosystems. Consequently, Puget Sound pro-
vides a rich habitat for a diverse community of organisms.
The two Puget Sound subsystems of most interest to the present
inquiry are the Port Orchard subsystem, which includes Sinclair Inlet
and Dyes Inlet, and the central portion of the Sound adjacent to Bain-
bridge Island.
MARINE WATER QUALITY
Information on the quality of waters in the study area has been
recorded as far back as 1932. The following paragraphs are summarized
from the Draft Facilities Plan (Reference 1), which itself summarizes
11-34
-------
data obtained from a multitude of sources.
Point Jefferson to Blakely Harbon extraordinary water quality,
with only occasional violations of standards, deemed to be due to na-
tural causes.
Port Orchard: generally extraordinary water quality; frequent
violations of bacteriological and turbidity standards in the Burke Bay/
Brownsville area.
Rich Passago: extraordinary water quality, with only occasional
vi.olati.oiis of standards, probably due to natural causes.
Dyes Inlet/ Port Washington Narrows: generally excellent, water
quality; irequent violations of coliform standards and occasional vio-
l-i c ions of dissolved oxygen standards.
Sinclair Inlet: average water quality conditions; considered ac-
cepUsbJe, but frequent violations of the coliform standards.
In conclusion, marine water quality conditions in the study area
might be described as excellent but with local bacteriological problems
in areas that are subject to only mild flushing.
Waste Disposal and Water Quality
To ivUste effluent: quality and the water quality standards, it is
b.ti',, 10 considei the mechanisms that affect marine wastewater dis
posal, Discharged waste water, being less dense than the surrounding
ocean water, ascends from the point of discharge in the form of an ex-
panding plume. As the wastewater rises, it mixes with the adjacent
ocean water until the density of the wastewater ocean water mixture
becomes e-iual co the density of the surrounding ocean water.
-Affected during this process is called initial dilution
aucl n.-^u LL.S ft-oru the mixing induced by the dissipation of energy as
che iuiijal and buoyant uiomentuius of the discharged wastewater are ex-
hausted. The degree of initial dilution depends on the diffuser de-
si0n, tiif height of the rising plume, and the rate of transport of di-
luted wnstewciter away from the area above the diffuser, The rising
plume may ,-Labilize at or below the ocean surface, depending on the
discharge depth aud the prevailing density structure of the ocean. As
the wastewaLet -seawater field moves away from the discharge point, it
is riubjtvt (.0 fart lic-.r dilution due to horizontal dispersion. Concen-
ttdtJooh ur nonc.onsorvat.ive waste constituents are still further re-
duced by dec-ay or disappearance.
the purpose of the diffuser system is to induce rapid mix-
11-35
-------
ing of effluent with seawater in order to minimize the possibility of
contact between marine organisms and high concentrations of wastewater,
it is apparent that the initial dilution is the most important of the
diminution processes. Effective initial dilution depends on two phenom-
ena: rapid momentum-induced mixing of wastewaters with seawater, and
transport of clean dilution water across the site. The former phenom-
enon can be controlled by the system designer, provided an adequate
depth of water exists, while the latter is an uncontrollable natural
characteristic of the discharge site. In general, it is the latter
phenomenon that controls the degree of initial dilution obtainable at
a specific site.
Once initial dilution is completed, further waste concentration
diminution depends on horizontal dispersion and decay mechanisms. For
waste constituents that do not decay rapidly, the degree of flushing
or residence time of waters within the boundaries of the receiving
area determines the steady-state concentrations of waste constituents
that will remain.
Thus it becomes apparent that with respect to both initial dilu-
tion and horizontal dispersion a key issue in comparing candidate
sites is the degree of mixing that occurs at each site. Another key
issuethe relative sensitivity of the biological community in the dis-
charge areais considered elsewhere in this report.
In the course of facilities planning activities, two models were
used to study water quality and mixing within the study area. A mathe-
matical model was used to simulate and link together ecologic succession
from primary producers through successively higher levels in the marine
environment. The ecologic model was combined with a hydrodynamic model
in order to predict water quality and biological characteristics that
might occur as a result of waste discharge. Due to present limitations
in the data base for verification, the model has not been used to simu-
late the effects of nutrient removal upon water quality and biological
characteristics in Puget Sound. Presumably such simulations will be
made in the future.
The second model used in the study was the University of Washing-
ton hydraulic model. Two interim reports on the hydraulic model stud-
ies of the possible outfall locations within the Port Orchard System
and its connecting passageways and inlets were submitted by the Univer-
sity of Washington to the URS Company during May and June of 1975. The
results of the findings were incomplete at that time, yet enough infor-
mation was gathered to make a preliminary survey of the outfall loca-
tions within the study area. A brief description of the model and its
limitations is included below since most of the conclusions with re-
spect to dispersion are based on model results.
The study area for the physical hydraulic model encompasses an
area about 12 miles wide, from the edge of Dyes Inlet eastward to
11-36
-------
c.
Point Jefferson, and about 16 miles long, from Sinclair Inlet eastward
to Point Jefferson and beyond. Given the horizontal scale ratio for
the Puget Sound model, this area represents a rectangular grid 19 in-
ches wide by approximately 25 inches long. Hydraulic modeling of such
a physically small area can give erroneous results if extensive care
is not taken to assure precise measurement of all controllable param-
eters. Vertical and horizontal scale ratios were adjusted to reduce
possible side effects of surface tension and laminar flow, thus pro-
ducing better results. In general, model results can be regarded as
accurate, but there are limitations to this model which lead to ques-
tionable results from some of the outfall locations studied.
There are three major limitations of this model which cannot be
avoided. Because of the effects of surface tension and land topography
it was not possible to incorporate the effects of wind into the model-
ing of the study area. Winds and the waves caused by winds contribute
significantly to mixing. Surface drag between wind and water inter-
faces can modify tides, surface transport of the effluent and water ex-
change processes.
Surface tension is also an important factor in the scaling of any
large body of water with a relatively shallow depth. Its effects
strongly influence water movement in shoals or near the shoreline, es-
pecially in areas where current velocities are low enough that the
water in the basin remains relatively undisturbed. As a result of sur-
face tension, estimations of current velocities are unreliable where
real tidal currents are weak.
Viscosity is another factor that cannot be scaled; thus, the pos-
sibility of laminar rlow in the model exists where turbulent ' low ac-
tually occurs in the area under consideration. This limitation, like
tnat relating to current velocity, is due to scale effects of the model,
A total of nine possible outfall locations was under considera-
tion, and these were studied using the model. The number of candidate
sites was subsequently reduced by URS to six: Dyes Inlet, Point Monroe
on Bainbridge Island, worth Port Orchard channel, Port Orchard channel
at Enet-ai, Sinclair Inlet and Rich Passage at Manchester.
luitiaJ Dilution at Candidate Sites
As previously noted, the principal factor determining the effi-
cacy of initial dilution is net transport of clean dilution water
across the diffuser. The initial dilution obtained over a multiport
diffuser can be predicted from the continuity equation:
_ ubd
o Q
11-37
-------
where
C is the initial dilution
o
u is the current speed across the diffuser, ft/sec
b is the diffuser length, ft
d is the effective depth, ft
Q is the wastewater flow rate, cfs
If we assume that an initial dilution of 100:1 is a desirable
goal, that 30 feet is the minimum effective depth at any of the sites,
that 30 feet is half full depth and that a reasonable rule of thumb
for diffuser length, based on hydraulic considerations, is 50 feet per
MGD, then it can be estimated that the minimum current speed across
the diffuser to obtain that dilution is 0.09 ft/sec or approximately
0.05 knots.
Current speeds at each site under spring and neap tide conditions
were estimated using the model. These tidal periods represent lowest
water velocities. Table 11-13 shows the percent of time during a 36-
hour period that current speeds at each site were less than one-tenth
of a knot (Reference 20).
Table IV-13. PERCENT OF TIME CURRENT SPEEDS ARE LESS THAN 0,1 KNOT a
Discharge site
Dyes Inlet
North Port Orchard
Point Monroe
Manchester
Sinclair Inlet
Port Orchard, Enetai
Neap tide
44
36
22
14
37
39
Spring tide
58
19
17
3
14
36
Average
51
28
20
9
26
38
a
Calculated to produce minimum 200:1 dilution; data not available for
0.05 knot speeds.
Table 11-14 compares applicable water quality standards with ef-
fluent from a secondary treatment plant which has been subject to di-
lutions of 10:1 and 100:1. Although this is a crude comparison and
does not take account of complex interactions between waste constitu-
ents and water quality, it does demonstrate that at any disposal site
which experiences good flushing action it is reasonable to expect that
secondary treatment will be sufficient to meet the standards.
11-38
-------
c
Table IV-14. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ESTIMATED
DILUTED WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
Estimated waste concentration
Characteristic
Total coliform,
AA
standard
70
Secondary effluent a
Undiluted
1,000
Diluted 10:1
180
Diluted 100:1
11
MPN/100 ml
Dissolved oxygen,
n.ji/1
7.9
pH
Toxic ity, t.u.
Ammonium
Chlorine
7-8.5 6 -
1.
20 -
0.1 -
9
25
25
0.5
7.8
2
0.01
- 8.
0.12
- 2.
- 0.
1
5
05
0.2
0
8
0.
-
-
01
0.
0.
25
005
Assumed background for secondary effluent is 100 MPN/100 ml for to-
tal colLform; 8 mg/1 for dissolved oxygen; 8.0 pH value.
Assumes dechlorinacion of effluent.
Can be significantly reduced by extending biological treatment period.
Dilution Due to Circulation and Flushing
The first area under consideration was the location off Point
Jefferson. Here the outfall would extend into the main causeway of
Puget Sound, where excellent mixing and dispersion would occur due to
the strong tidal currents in the area. Model study results for this
location are probably accurate because of the relatively large area
and deep water studied. Surface tension effects are probably limited
to the immediate shoreline because of relatively strong currents. As
indicated in the interim reports, this site is probably the best with-
in the study area with respect to mixing and dispersal.
Also open to the main causeway of Puget Sound is the outfall lo-
cation at Point Monroe on Bainbridge Island. The water depth off the
Point increases very rapidly to depths greater than 60 feet and up to
300 feet. As at the Point Jefferson location, model results here are
probably accurate. Again, there is a large surface area with deep
water whicti serves to reduce the effects of surface tension. The pres-
ence of weak currents around Point Monroe, which inhibit good mixing
and effective dispersal, are indicated by the results of the model
study at> well as in tidal current charts. The model results also indi-
cate considerable tidal oscillation at the outfall location, which
would effectively contain large concentrations of effluent in and
around Point Monroe before eventual dispersion via Puget Sound.
11-39
-------
The next site considered was north Point Orchard, where an outfall
would be located about 1.5 miles north of Brownsville, Discharge
would be out into the deep water in the Port Orchard basin. Excluding
the effects of shoreline surface tension and possible laminar flow
through Agate Passage, model results for this area are probably accu-
rate. Strong currents coming from Agate Passage and Liberty Bay pro-
vide good mixing in this basin. An approximate dilution ratio was
calculated on the assumption that the northern Port Orchard basin, ex-
clusive of Liberty Bay, is a complete-mix basin. It was also assumed
that all net flow into or out of the basin occurs through Agate Passage
and that the basin is separated from Port Orchard at Battle Point.
Calculations were made during the preparation of this report to
confirm the good mixing observed in the Port Orchard basin section of
the model study. It was assumed that an eight-foot tide occurs and
that the effluent will be completely mixed in this basin after the two
days it takes to reach equilibrium concentrations. With a tidal ex-
change of 25 percent each tidal period, a dilution of one part effluent
to 5,000 parts water was estimated. This dilution is considered accu-
rate within an order of magnitude. Adverse wind conditions, local ed-
dies, etc. could reduce effective mixing.
Two more sites under consideration are located in Port Orchard,
ae Brownsville and at University Point. Due to weak currents present
in the channel and its narrowness, scale effects may have a signifi-
cant impact on model results. It is known, however, that currents
through Port Orchard are always weak; therefore, proper mixing and dis-
persal may not be achieved. Where mixing does not occur, wind could
have the detrimental effect of blowing the effluent to the shore. It
is recommended that if either of these, two sites is given serious con-
sideration a field dye study of the area be made to determine actual
feasibility.
The next outfall location considered is offshore from Silverdale
into Dyes Inlet, Surface tension and viscosity are probably the con-
trolling factors for mixing and dispersion in the shallow portions of
Dyes Inlet. Actual performance results in Dyes Inlet are expected to
deviate significantly from the model results because of wind, surface
tension and possibly distorted channel velocities. Accumulation of
significant quantities of effluent is expected to occur under high on-
shore or northerly wind conditions. Model results obtained from the
deeper portion of Dyes Inlet are probably accurate. This deep inner
basin represents over half of the surface area of the inlet, and excel-
lent dispersal and mixing may be expected to occur due to strong flood
tidal currents in Washington Narrows. On the basis of the same assump-
tions as used for Port Orchard, an approximate dilution ratio of 1300:1
was calculated for Dyes Inlet. It would take about 3.4 days to reach
equilibrium concentrations. This relatively high dilution ratio is due
to the relatively large tidal exchange volume. Depending on the tide,
this volume represents approximately one-third of the total volume of
11-40
-------
c
c
Dyes Inlet at mean lower low water level. Mixing would be less under
adverse wind conditions and local eddies,
Just north of Manchester, at the mouth of Rich Passage, is another
outfall location. Here the water depth increases rapidly to 60 feet
into Rich Passage. Modeling results for this location are probably ac-
curate because of the deep water in the fairly wide channel and the
swift currents (1.7-5.0 ft/sec). The strong southeasterly currents in
Rich Passage would probably induce good mixing and transport from the
diffuser site into Puget Sound.
The southernmost alternative location for an outfall is below
Bremerton in Sinclair Inlet. There is no net flow through Sinclair
Inlet, and currents are therefore weak or negligible in this area.
Surface tension, coupled with the fact that depth here Is very shallow,
will limit model results throughout a large portion of the inlet. In
addition to the model results, information is available from a dye
study of the Charleston treatment plant outfall made on 23 and 24 Jan-
uary 1973 (Reference 8). Results indicated poor dispersal, with con-
centrations of effluent near the diffuser. Dilution ratios for sur-
face samples ranged from 1.3:1 up to 2,140:1, depending on sample loca-
tion, with an overall average of 250:1. Subsurface samples indicated
considerably less dilution, with an average of 5.5:1. It was indicated
that low current velocities in Sinclair Inlet result in poor mixing.
The last site under consideration within the study area is located
in Port Orchard, off Enetai. As in the rest of Port Orchard, current
velocities at this site are very weak and could lead to erroneous con-
clusions in modeling. Inflow from Rich Passage may well serve to dis-
perse and mix the effluent with the salt water, but large accumulations
of effluent may be expected to occur along the shore during ebb tide
before eventual dispersal through Rich Passage.
Comparison and Selection of Outfall Sites
On the basis of initial model studies and cost considerations, the
following sites were selected by the facilities planning consultant for
detailed investigation as major disposal site alternatives: Point
Monroe on Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard at Enetai, Dyes Inlet at
Silverdale, Sinclair Inlet and Rich Passage at Manchester. Because
many assumptions are involved in the model studies and in the confirma-
tory calculations made as part of this study, it is not possible to
make accurate comparisons of the dilutions likely to result from dis-
charge at each site. In order to provide some scale of performance as
an input to the evaluation of alternatives, the sites might be rated
from the point of view of waste dispersion as follows: Manchester,
best; Port Orchard at Enetai and north Port Orchard, good; Dyes Inlet,
Point Monroe and Sinclair Inlet, fair.
11-41
-------
Summary
The previously developed criteria for calculation of mixing under
the worst possible conditions resulted in the assumption that a 100;1
dilution would be a reasonable goal and would require a minimum current
speed of 0.05 knots. The data for this speed at the sites were not
available, and a calculation was made using frequency of time when
current was less than 0,1 knots as the basis, a value which results in
a 200:1 dilution with a multiport diffuser.
Table 11-15 compares initial mixing characteristics of each site
with that site's rating for flushing and dispersion. Until proper
model information is available, one can justifiably compare only the
trade-offs between initial dilution and subsequent flushing and dis-
persion.
Table 11-15. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Percentage of time site provides Dispersion and
at least 200;1 initial dilution flushing rating
Manchester 91 best
North Port Orchard 72 good
Enetai 62 good
Point Monroe 80 fair
Dyes Inlet 49 fair
Sinclair Inlet 74 fair
BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
The Marine ecosystem within the waterways, inlets and passages of
Puget Sound is a complex system with myriad links and multiple affect-
ing factors. The Kitsap County marine environment has been described
in detail in Basic Data and Related Sources to Shorelines and in Appen-
dix D, Kitsap County Short-line Inventory (Reference 22). The inventory
was compiled from marine biological records of the Bureau of Sports
Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Interior in conjunction with Ever-
green State College and the North Kitsap Marine Environmental Center,
Poulsbo, Washington. Portions of this report are quoted extensively
below.
11-42
-------
c
c
Marine Vegetation
Vegetation in saltwater and estuafine areas of Puget
Sound and connected waterways is very important to the marine
environment. Marine vegetation can provide the following bene-
fits: stabilization of the beach shore system and the subtidal
shore system; an environment for wildlife, benthic and other
marine life; energy through the photosynthesis process/ increased
productivity in the marine environment; food for all forms of
marine life. Kxamples of marine vegetation arc kelp, eel gratis
(Zostera;, green and brown algaecommonly known as su-?weed-~
and other forms of floating plants.
Eel grass and kelp are important dominants and are discussed below.
Eel Grass
Eel grass can be found in areas with high water salini-
ties, moderate water CUT rents and semistable sandy bottoms, and
usually at depths lowc-r than one foot below mean Lo\r&£ low
water. Eel grass is a cyclical [seasonal] plant that thrives
in warm water temperatures ... [from 10°-2Q°C during the sum-
mer, being dormant in cooler fall and winter water temperaturest
below 10°C], Eel grass is a food source for bl^ck hf^nt, dr'~r ;"
tous feeders such as limpets and snails, and otner nari'ie .lift*
j'he heavy beds of underwater eel grass provide ... \ excellent]
phr-tosynthetic food production capability. They are used by
spawning herring and provide nursery areas for small shore
fishes and salmonids. The eel grass beds also provide habitat
for certain benthic organisms and crustaceans^
Kelp beds can be readily seen at low tides along rocky
.-shorelines where current flow is swift and water salinities
are high. A long, wnip-like cord, anchored at one end to ,*
rock or other object, ... [extends upward 30 to 60 feet toward
cue. surface to a mass of long, tough fronds]. Kelp beds pio*-
vidc a dense, junyle-Jike environment at. mid-depth in the water
column, like large underwater trees. Kelp beds are prime habi-
tat areas for fish such as copper rock cod, kelp cod, kelp cr^o
perches and other small fisn.
11-43
-------
Marine Habitat
The marine shorelines of the study area can be grouped into three
habitat zones. This classification provides a basic understanding of
the general character of shorelines and the associated marine life.
River-Creek Mouth
The river-creek mouth may either be an open system [e.g.,
Chico Creek on lower Dyes Inlet] or be enclosed by a system of
sand spits ... [or one that has resulted from human interven-
tion (Clear Creek on upper Dyes Inlet)]. Sand and silt usually
comprise the bottom materials. For anadromous fish (salmonids)
spawning in tributaries to these areas, the salt/fresh water
area is used by descending young salmonids for feeding, as a
transition zone between fresh and saltwater, and as a refuge
from predators. The substrate in these areas provides and har-
bors organisms that are extensively grazed upon by juvenile
pink and chum salmon. Other fish make extensive use of these
areas for feeding and as a nursery area. Such fish include
starry flounder, stickleback, eulachon, surf perch, sculpin,
Pacific herring, surf smelt and various species of flounder
and sole. Some fish may spawn in these areas. At depths
greater than one foot below mean lower low water, eel grass may
be present. [Pacific herring and surf perch may -spawn here.]
Dungeness crab (particularly jeveniles) feed extensively in
this type of habitat during the summer and fall months. Shrimp
usually inhabit the bottom substrate. If bottom conditions are
favorable, clams may be found in the sediment.
Steelhead salmon and cutthroat trout have been observed in the lagoon.
at the mouth of Clear Creek.
Wildfowl, particularly heron, are attracted to estuarine environ-
ments and sandy beaches. Herons are common in these areas, yet the
Pacific Flyway population is small. Shorebirds feed on the numerous
snails, worms and insects of the estuaries and shorelands. Some species
also nest in the near vicinity, under the protection of cover and trees.
The river-creek mouth areas are also important for food and shelter to
all wildfowl during climatic stress conditions such as prolonged cold
periods, strong winds and severe storms. Marsh grasses usually border
the shoreline areas of estuaries. Nutrients produced by these plants
feed the food chain mechanisms and associated plant and animal cummu-
nities in other types of habitat adjacent to river and creek mouths.
11-44
-------
Open-Mud Bays
Open-mud bays without fresh water source (e.g., lower por-
tions of Dyes Inlet and Liberty Bay) are characterized by an
extensive intertidal zone, large mud flat areas and marsh
grasses around the periphery. Sand and silt usually make up
the bottom materials. Lack of fresh water ,.. [limits] use of
these areas by juvenile salmonids as a transition zone between
fresh and saltwater; however, they still provide rich feeding
areas for juvenile salmonids. Shallow water provided by this
type of habitat also provides refuge for young salmon from
larger predatory fish. Other fish make extensive use of these
areas for feeding and as a nursery area. Such fish include
starry flounder, stickleback, eulachon, surf perch, sculpin,
Pacific herring and various species of flounder and sole. At
depths greater than one foot below mean lower low water, eel
grass may occur, ... [providing spawning conditions for Pacific-
herring and surf perch]. Dungeness crab, oysters and oyster
drills are found in Chico Bay.
Salmon and cutthroat trout are found along the entire shoreline of Dyes
Inlet. Smelt historically have spawned on the shoreline from Chico Bay
to Silverdale. Littleneck and butter clams may be found at the head of
Dyes Inlet, while bent-nose clams and other clams, shore crabs, barna-
cles, snails, tube worms and sand dollars are found in the general area.
Nutrients produced by the marsh grasses and algal communi-
ties of this habitat serve to sustain food chain mechanisms and
associated communities in other types of habitat adjacent to
these areas.
Sand-Gravel-Cobble Beach
Sand-gravel-cobble beach are typical of most shorelines in
Kitsap County. Most of the beaches in Puget Sound fall into
this category. Marsh grass is usually not present or is found
in very limited distribution in association with this type of
habitat. Rockweed and sea lettuce are the types of vegetation
usually found in the middle of low tide zones. Eel grass might
be present at depths greater than one foot below mean lower low
water. At about this depth, the bottom will usually be of a
sandy type, with less rock ... [except at protruding points of
land], Anadromous fish utilize these shorelines as migrating
areas, for feeding and as protection from predators. Cutthroat
trout, salmon and rockfish can be found along the shoreline.
Benthic examination off Point Herron revealed periwinkles, lim-
pets, shore crabs and barnacles. Herring also spawn off Point
11-45
-------
Herron, Subtidal geoduck are found from Ilahee to University
Point. At Ilahee, butter, littleneck and bent-nose clam, barna-
cle, shore and butter crab, tube worm, mussel and periwinkle
have been found,
Wildfowl also utilize this type of habitat. Use is usually depen-
dent on the presence of some type of vegetation on the bottom inter-
face, fish concentrations or presence of aquatic vegetation in areas
where fresh water crosses the beach. Bars, spits and gravel beaches
are favored by wintering black brant, which travel in great numbers
along the Pacific Flyway.
Vertical Zones
Plant and animal life within the marine environment normally exhi-
bit a vertical stratification representing three ecological niches.
They are the benthic, water column and surface zones, which are dis-
tinct and yet interact with each other. The benthic zone includes the
bottom sediments and the associated immediately overlying areas. The
water column zone is that portion of the marine environment where the
water column meets the benthic zone to two feet under the water sur-
face. The surface zone is that portion of the water environment above
the water column zone to six feet above the surface of the water body,
The Benthic Zone
The benthic community essentially covers all bottom-dwelling plants
and animals. These include infauna living within the substrate, such
as clams and worms, and epifauna utilizing the zone above the substrate,
such as crabs, barnacles, mussels, limpets and snails.
Man places a direct value on some of the benthic organ-
isms, such as clams, oysters, other edible molluscs and crus-
taceans. Others, while not seeming to be of value, are ac-
tually of great indirect importance through various food-chain
and food-web relationships. Barnacles, which are abundant in
the intertidal zone are often considered a nuisance, at worst,
and of no importance at best. They are actually an important
source of food for several species, including the pile perch.
The bent nose clam, while it seldom attains a size large enough
for people to feast on, is the victim of an interesting feeding
relationship in which the English sole bites off the siphon of
the clam if the fish finds it sticking up from the sand. Both
the perch and the sole are food for man.
Other seemingly unimportant benthic organisms, such as
11-46
-------
isopods, amphipods, polychaete and nemertean wormsf should not
be overlooked, as they too are part of intricate food-web re-
lationships that may involve man.
Many of the worms and crustaceans play an important role
in the ecology of the benthic community by acting as scaven-
gers, eating dead plants and animals on the bottom and helping
to convert them back to nutrients for the algae.
The numbers and types of benthic organisms that inhabit a particu-
lar area are dependent upon factors such as degree of slope, substrate
composition, tide level, wave action and influences of man.
Within the planning area, baseline benthic data for Puget Sound
are currently being collected at Shoreline Community College. Limited
data on sampling stations in Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet, Port Orchard,
Rich Passage and Puget Sound near Bainbridge Island have been extracted
from studies by J.C. Serwold (Reference 1). Benthic sampling locations
are shown on Figure 11-11. Preliminary benthic data for selected loca-
tions are given in Table 11-16.
In the shallow portions of Dyes Inletless than 20 feet deepare
found Washington clam (Saxidomonas gigantus), manila clam (Venerupis
japonica), cockles (Clinocardium mittalli), lean dog whelk (Nassarius
mendicus*) and over 15 species of polychaete worms, of which the lumber-
inerids, ampharetids, orbiniids and trichobranchids are most common.
In the lower end of Sinclair Inletless than 30 feet deepare
Washington clam, the small clams Axinopsis serricatus and Psephidia
lordi, lumberinerid and cirratulid polychaetes and some unidentified
cumaceans.
At the mouth of Rich Passage offshore of Manchester, in water
depths greater than 60 feet, were found large concentrations of the
small clam Axinopsis serricatus and some Macoma carlottensis. Poly-
chaetes were generally scarce.
Benthic fishes in the general study area include spiny dogfish;
bay goby; great, rough-back and Pacific sculpins; speckled sanddab;
starry flounder; and flathead, rock, slender, English, C-0 and sand
sole. A more complete listing of probably occurring fish species is
given in Appendix D.
The Water Column Zone
Marine life in the water column zone is extremely complex and dif-
ficult to comprehend completely. It has been observed that many ani-
mals, including salmonids, rockfish, bottom fish, herring, oysters and
11-47
-------
p-
00
H
(I)
M
V
o
to
rt
H-
o
0
O
Hi
cr
I
0)
tn
O
H
o
(D
ro
Ml
o
(0
-------
ri a n
< CT* n
» 2 ^ "
SI
M
M
I
f 9
*V P V 0 H-
W M O [D ft MM
t-tn>cr'-ttaijro 3Hhj3l- »i H. 3* 3 H-i-'t^cro3*33' (u (iO'-'-woaci-. c»inooat3i--a ^ tracnH o
H- £! H- C 1 ' ft it h~« Oi H- H- H- "<; P rt fll fi) 3 fl) Qj (fj C DJ :3 flj fl> 3 *Q G. f!) CU »- *~-" ft*
Q. PJ G. r i-*r''H-CLi(TiO.3Cl.H- (0 n-tU^i &" (1) O I-1- l^- 0 a H ^ O 1-- (n l-j OB* O
(I> [DG-O-Cl- ro lUflfDtU M. fli(/](t> £" Sa"cS!K"^rtSH'?riflr3«)'S Sn-ID.
ro dj c *-* I--". htcaft, ft 30 M. o -oaM
fcrt^o Cit3*-- a Clfttl-. to K<. rr
WET w M. 01 (n n-t-. SO l--0'>'
jj. rt t/i (-. rt i-h n- a* to c i
RiCO UlfeOC tfl
R >
t-- C
(n w
a a a
01
a a a
t-» 00 U>
1 1 1
cr
UJ
tororoHi-'N u> *- *- o\ o\ ro
**
10 t-1 00 t-1 O M
-j i-1 j> o^ t-1 t-1 ro.
ro ro t-1 t-1 -j j>
M
H* t-* J> M O I-1
to
K3 t- H'f-'roOO ,vOtO
vo H M ro M
10 J-*
Ui H* t-1 *- Ln -*j
to
0 03
P- a a
CA
*o
n
p-
01
Site "B" NR of
Bainbridge Island
Site "C" North
of Brownsville
I-O
o
to
(-n
1
Ln
r
Ul
00
_,,
CT
1
"^
£-
OO
1
£~
00
r
^
^
00
i
t-
i
I
>j.
i'
w
rt
-
h<-
O
Site "F" North
end of Dye's Inlet
Site "C" North
of Manchester
Site "H" lower
Sinclair Inlet
Site "T" Offshore
from Enottil
H
CT1
(D
H
H
1
ON
*
T)
M M
2! f
M H
H a
CO >
p> pd
T) Kj
n w
o w
a *~3
t< H
- O
s e
K! H
!>
VO >
^1 H
C/3
M
r1
M
n
H
H
era
jjij
i i
o
rf^
CO
-------
shrimp, utilize the water body. These life forms each have a life
cycle in which from birth to maturity there are strict requirements or
limits within their migratory or territorial ranges for survival.
The intertidal and the subtidal zones, where the process of
photosynthesis is carried on, is important to the existence of
these fish. The intertidal zone is visited by many fish, es-
pecially at nighttime, to feed on the collected waste, decom-
posed plant life, smaller shore life and other smaller fishes
on the bottom. During the daytime, the larger fish retreat to
safe deeper waters. Shallow bay and shoreline areas are neces-
sary during the infant state of development for many fishes.
Important local fish species in the water column include stickle-
back, eulachon, bay pipefish, pricklebacks, shiner and pile perch,
striped and white seaperch, sturgeon and pygmy poacher. Fishes favor-
ing algal and other vegetative associations include northern clingfish,
plainfin midshipman, blackbelly eelpout, whitespotted greenling and
longspine combfish. Other pelagic fishes include Pacific herring, sal-
mon, Pacific cod, Pacific hake, walleye pollock and Pacific tomcod. A
more complete list of probably occurring fish species is given in Appen-
dix D.
The Surface Zone
The surface zone is used for navigation, water contact
sports and visual and aesthetic appreciation; as a resting area
for wildfowl; and for protection of small fish, predation by
larger fish and swimming by mammals such as seals and otters.
[This zone is utilized by all life forms, includingindirectly
benthic life in the intertidal zone.] Phytoplankton require
high percentages of light transmission to carry on the photo-
synthesis process.
Increased water turbidity or any activity which occupies the total sur-
face zone hinders any other use of that zone and halts phytoplankton
production. Since the surface zone consists of an interface of water
element and air element, it is important to consider this zone as an
edge environment which is affected by activity or development on either
side.
Algal concentration studies for Sinclair and Dyes Inlet were per-
formed in Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters (Ref-
erence 23). Although limited phytoplankton data were available for the
calibration, the algal concentrations were studied for their value as
an indicator of productivity in the marine environment and as an indi-
cator of other factors, such as nutrients, light, certain growth coef-
ficients and zooplankton. Computed algal biomass concentrations in
11-50
-------
C
Dyes and Sinclair Inlets are shown in Figure 11-12, A species nonspe-
cific algal biomass was computed, based on 80 mg biomass corresponding
to one mg chlorophyll a.
In winter, the model computed the lowest algal biomass with an av-
erage of 800 yg/1 in Port Orchard. Spring values were higher, presum-
ably due to increased light (heat) energy and upstream nutrient inputs.
Concentrations exceeding 1,500 pg/1 were computed for Sinclair Inlet,
Port Washington Narrows, Dyes Inlet and Liberty Bay. Model results
show that summer algal concentrations dropped to approximately 500 pg/1
in the bays and inlets while remaining relatively high in Port Washing-
ton Narrows and near Bremerton. By contrast, the main channel of Puget
Sound, near Bainbridge Island, ranges from 5 yg/1 in the winter to 348
pg/1 in the spring. Model results can only approximate true conditions,
which could vary from those predicted.
The seasonal pattern of variation in algal concentration tends to
infer that phytoplankton in Puget Sound are primarily limited by light
and secondarily by the input of nutrients. Continuously high concen-
trations from spring to summer in Port Washington Narrows reflects the
nutrient loading from the Mannette Sewage Treatment Plant wastewater
outfall on the western shore of East Bremerton and the return of much
of that wastewater at each tidal cycle.
Wastewater Outfall Disposal Sites
A summary presentation of the prominent features at each of the
potential marine outfall disposal sites is given in Table 11-17. The
table indicates the general presence of shellfish and vegetation spe-
cies in addition to fishing and other activities in the local area.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Flora Resources
The Planning Area is situated within a broad evergreen belt char-
acterized by dense growths of primary and secondary coniferous forests.
Approximately 290,000 acres or 60 to 65 percent of Kitsap County is
commercial forest land. The major commercial species is the Douglas-
fir. Commercial tree-harvesting occurs in limited portions of the
Planning Area but does not constitute a major industry. The produc-
tion of forest and floral products such as Christmas trees, holly and
foliage plants (brush and ferns) comprises a minor industry in Kitsap
County.
C
V 11-51
-------
SPRING
SUMMER
H
o » w is if a y>
CCNCENTRATiONS !N/ig/l
Source: Reference 23,
Figure 11-12. Computed algal biomass concentrations in Dyes and Sinclair Inlets
-------
c
Table 11-17. MAJOR MARINE FAUNA AND USAGES IN THE VICINITY OF
PROPOSED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SITES
Marine environment summary
Mussels " ' .X
Barnacles X
Cockles
Manila clams
Caper clams
Bentnose clams X X
Butter clans X X
,I.ip.»ne<5o oystora
Pacific oysters
Oyster drill infestations
Geoduck (subtldal)
Littlcmeck (subtidal) X X
Mixed
Intcrtidal hardshell clams X
General fishing area (sport salmon) x X
Concentrated fishing area (sport salmon) X
Commercial salmon fishing: Gill net
Non-salmon sports fishing: Cutthroat
Bottom fish
Commercial otter trawl: Regularly fished x
Historically fished
Closed to trawl x
Commercial herring fishing X
Hen ing spawning tfrp.is X X
SuvV snirit spawning nrnm
Major watertowl areas
Eelgrass heds a
Sea lettuce (ulva) and Laminaria X
College of Fisheries research areas X
State tidelands
-A<|u.ilU- laud uiu- ill locations
Bcdlands: .iquncul titre
commercial
Tidelands: commercial
Presence of existing outfalls
Source: Reference 22,
indicates "nearby"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11-53
-------
Agricultural production is limited to home fruit and vegetable
gardens, small-scale farms and forage for grazing livestock. The 1969
U.S. Census of Agriculture reported consolidation and decreasing num-
bers for farmsteads, as shown in Table 11-18.
Table 11-18, CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE, K1TSAP COUNTY
1
Land use
Farms
Woodland, including wood-
land pasture farms
Total
number
1964
845
607
1969
260
159
Total
acreage
1964
50,907
35,467
1969
24,461
16,071
Percent of
county
1964 1969
19.7 9.7
Source: Reference 24.
Fauna Resources
Fisheries and Aquaculture
There are three major salmonid-producinb streams in the Planning
Area which, although small in size, support runs of coho and chub sal-
mon and steelhead trout. They are Clear Greek at the head of Dyes
Inlet, Barker Creek on Dyes Inlet and Steel Creek, which enters. Port
Orchard at Burke Bay. The shoreline area.s of Kit sap County are alsu
important for the overall salmon production of much of Puget Sound.
Juvenile salmon migrating to the ocean remain close to shore for pit'-
tection and food,
Puget Sound also produces major groundfish resources, including
several flatfish, rockfish, herring, smelt and other species, Some of
the species present are dependent on shallow shoreline, reaches for
spawning and/or nursery areas. The commercial and sport harvest of
shellfish in the area is relatively intense, with emphasis on oy.sters,
hardshell clams, crabs and shrimp. Significant commercial production
of Pacific oysters occurs in the Poulsbo area in Liberty Bay and in
lower Dyes Inlet near Silver-dale.
Commercial fishing statistical areas for central Kitsap County are
shown on Figure 11-13. The three-year average commercial poundage, arid
dollar value of marine landings within these statistical areas are giv-
en in Table 11-19. The statistics reflect commercially valuable and
harvestabie species but do not necessarily reflect all resident spe-
cies, ecological effects, productivity or Fisheries Department harvest
restrictions. Salmon were not included in individual port catch statts-
11-54
-------
PORT MADISON
i WREMER
Source: Reference 1.
Figure 11-13. Commercial Pishing statistical areas
11-55
-------
Table 11-19. AVERAGE MARINE LANDINGS AND VALUE
WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, 1972-1974
Species
Kingston and
Port Madison
Pounds Dollars
Pelagic Fish
Herring
Silver Smelt
Dover Sole
English Sole
Rock Sole
Sand Sole
Flounder
Ling Cod
True Cod
Rockf ish
Blue Perch
Silver Perch
White Perch
Skate
Pelagic Total
Benthic Species
Butter Clams
Horse Clams
Littleneck Clams
Pacific Hard
Clams
Pacific Oysters
Octopus
Crab
Sea Cucumber
Geoducks
Benthic Total
TOTAL
3,353
3,371
18,066
2,081
1,166
9,161
71
14,574
1,926
561
873
3,953
350
59,506
6
4,517
285
545
5,145
1,200
11,698
71,204
671
336
2,171
240
188
713
16
1,457
202
44
135
778
10
6,961
1
1,084
42
112
2,857
300
4,396
11,357
Fletcher Bay
Pounds
21,751
72
24
4
457
2,106
24,414
132,987
21,187
74,355
570
2,148
425,694
658,941
683,355
Dollars
4,350
14
6
-
36
415
4,828
12,218
1,065
17,845
84
537
41,871
73,530
. 78,358
Bremerton
Pounds
33,910
232
69
7,231
313
22,259
64,014
519
20,878
1,000
2,148
24,545
88,559
Dollars
6,782
46
7
570
48
4,383
11,829
47
5,011
148
537
5,757
17,586
Poulsbc
Pounds
2,949
406
165
661
1,355
5,536
45
8,986
197
113,576
67
122,871
128,407
Dollars
590
81
20
52
267
1,010
4
2,157
29
130,612
14
150,388
151,398
Source: Reference 22.
11-56
-------
/ tics because they were categorized as a wide-ranging species not speci-
v fie to particular areas.
The Kingston and Port Madison areas produced over 33,000 pounds of
groundfish, of which English sole and cod species were most important.
Overall economic yield was the lowest (4.4 percent) compared to the
other areas.
The Bremerton area, including Dyes Inlet, yielded the second low-
est economic marine harvests (6.8 percent). Predominant catch items
included herring, white and blue perch and littleneck clams.
The Fletcher Bay area includes .Fletcher Bay on Bainbridge Island
and the main portion of the Port Orchard channel. The main fish catch
is herring; however, the majority of the local income is derived from
geoduck clams, with some contribution by butter and littleneck clams.
The Fletcher Bay area accounts for approximately 30.3 percent of total
Planning Area marine catch income. Geoduck harvests alone account for
53 percent of the income.
The Poulsbo statistical area includes Liberty Bay and the connect-
ing channel from the bay to Port Orchard. Although the area is small,
the Poulsbo region accounts for 58.5 percent of the local income. The
major economic species is the Pacific oyster, which comprises almost
87 percent of the fishing income. Supplemental marine resources in-
clude littleneck clams and herring.
Terrestrial Fauna
The primary livestock activities in the general area are dairy
farming and the raising of poultry; some beef and swine farming also
take place in the region. However, the largest concentration of live-
stock is found on McNeil Island, well to the south of the Planning
Area.
Game species within the Planning Area are generally associated
with particular habitats. Mammals generally prefer densely wooded
areas with intermittent openings and running water. These include bear,
deer, bobcat, coyote and rabbit. Black bear numbers have been esti-
mated at 300 to 500 within Kitsap County (Reference 25). Although ma-
jor bear populations usually occur in the southern and western portions
of the county, small populations are found near Island Lake and in
scattered areas. Deer range through the semi-open areas but are not in
great abundance. Bobcat and coyote counts are not available, but these
species are considered numerous in rural, farm and wooded areas, Rab-
bits, on the other hand, are found in all meadow and brush areas, with
a cyclical abundance from year to year. Gamefowl occur in limited
areas and include blue grouse, ruffed grouse, mountain quail, ring-
11-57
-------
necked pheasant and California quail. The most conspicuous and probably
most abundant animal is the raccoon. These are plentiful along shorelines
of lakes and streams and near agricultural areas.
The only lake within the Planning Area is Island Lake, which con-
tains populations of rainbow trout. The Department of Fish and Game
stocks the lake with preseason legal and mid-May fingerling trout.
WATER RESOURCES
The Planning Area is located within several miles of marine and
estuarine water on all sides. To the west is Hood Canal, a long, narrow
and deep salt water body, to the north-east, east, and south, the Port
Orchard system. The Port Orchard System, characterized as shallow, is
directly connected to Puget Sound proper via Rich Passage and Agate Pass.
A number of streams are found in the Planning Area; among them Clear
Creek, Steele Creek, Barker Creek, Strawberry Creek and Knapp Creek.
Only one lake (Island Lake) with an area of about 42.7 acres, is located
in the area. Primary uses of surface waters are for domestic, agricul-
tural, recreational purposes and for migrational fish uses. Most of the
area is underlain by Vashon Drift till, which is normally impermeable and
yields little groundwater. However, deeper strata, including the Colvos
sands and the salmon and pre-salmon spring deposits yield moderate to
large quantities of water. The major local groundwater supplies are
located in Silverdale, Meadowdale, Bangor Base and Gilbertson.
(Reference 1). If planned improvements are implemented, including the
tapping of additional aquifers, adequate domestic water supplies will
be available to meet the projected needs resulting from the development
of the Trident Support Site (Reference 3).
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Kitsap County has been a popular area for second homes and an at-
tractive site for vacationers. Its scenic beauty as well as the area's
recreational resourcesparticularly water-based recreationare among
the reasons for its appeal.
Kitsap County offers a number of recreational opportunities although
it is currently deficient in recreational land. However, none of these
lands were designated as winter sports areas, wildlife habitat areas,
scenic and recreational roads and highways, urban and non-urban trails,
wetland areas, outstanding natural areas, or wilderness areas.
(Reference 25).
For Central Kitsap County, in which most of the planning area
falls, the following 1974 supply of recreational areas is listed along
with the corresponding demand for 1973, (Reference 25). The standards
11-58
-------
for determining the number of acres required per 1,000 population for each
area are also given.
Area type
Standard,
no. acres/1000 pop.
Small urban
Neighborhood parks 2.5
Community parks 2.5
Large urban parks
Without shoreline 1.5
With freshwater 1.5
shoreline
With saltwater 2.0
shoreline
Special purpose areas
Golf courses 1.0*
Non-urban trails
Bicycle .6+
Nature walking .9+
Equestrian .3+
* No. holes/1000 population
+ No. Miles/1000 population
1973 demand,
acres
141.3
157.0
154.7
154.7
206.2
103.1
61.9
92.8
34.2
1974 supply,
acres
14.8
28.5
218.8
125.9
93.1
81.0
275.0
837.1
Source: Reference 25
The activities which are common in the aforementioned recreational
areas include field sports (e.g., soccer, baseball, football), court
sports (e.g., handball, tennis, volleyball, basketball), water sports
(e.g., boating, water skiing, swimming) and other miscellaneous activ-
ities (e.g., horseshoes, shuffleboard, etc.). Other recreational activ-
ities which are pursued by the public include hunting and camping.
The county recognizes that the existing 837 acres of developed
recreational land are inadequate to meet current and future needs, and
has made a number of recommendations and planning policies. The reader
is referred to the proposed "Kitsap County Park and Recreation system
Plan" by ORB for further details.
c
11-59
-------
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
The utility service systems which are currently available in Kitsap
County are gas, electricity, water and telephone. The gas, electricity,
and telephone systems are privately owned, while a number of municipal-
ities, water districts, and private systems provide water service.
Telephone service to the U.S. Naval reservation at Bangor is pro-
vided by the United Telephone Company. Most of the rest of the planning
area is served by the Pacific Northwest Bell System, which is presently
making improvements in the area, including extending switching capabili-
ties, increasing the number of lines, and extending service to areas request-
ing it, according to the System's Commercial Forecasting Office.
Electricity for the planning area, excluding the naval base, is
provided by the Puget Sound Power and Light Company, the western division
of the Bonneville Power Administration. The electrical needs of the
naval base are met directly by the Bonneville Power Administration. The
Puget Sound Power and Light Company indicates that there are no problems
in handling the electrical requirements of the planning area and antici-
pate that they will be able to adequately handle any future increases in
demand.
The Cascade Natural Gas Company has been providing natural gas to
Kitsap County in the Bremerton and Port Orchard areas, which are outside
of the planning area. The company states that their natural gas supply
is sufficient to provide service to the planning area, but that there
has been the economic problem of making the gas available to the area,
given the low present population density and the nature of the terrain.
(Reference 26).
The planning area has a number of water systems in operation. The
publicly-owned Silverdale Water District serves a population of approx-
imately 2,100 with meters installed only for schools and commercial
customers, the remainder being served by local wells. (Reference 1).
Privately-owned water systems in Kitsap County include non-profit corpor-
ations. The State Department of Health regards all water systems serving
two or more families as public, regardless of ownership. These must
comply with public health requirements. Most of the water for the plan-
ning area is supplied by wells.
11-60
-------
( The major sources of groundwater in the planning area are shown in
the following table:
Yield Capacity
Location Well designation (gpm) (gpm)
Silverdale 25/1E-16J 25 250
-21B 22 100
-28R 25 150
Meadowdale 25/1E-25M 50 450
Bangor Base
25/1E-60
-32K
-32L
-32M
35
350
30
550
100
1,500
300
550
Gilbertson 25/1E-24H 250 1,500+
Source: Reference 1
Table 11-20 shows the extent of existing waste collection and
treatment systems.
c
11-61
-------
Table 11-20, EXISTING WASTE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Plat
Parkwood
Firglade
Kariotis
North
Mobile Home
Park
Quad 2
Woodridge
Eldorado Park
Eldorado Hills
Division 1
Division 2
Division 3
Highland Park
Bridleview
Adkins Trailer
Park
Bali Hai
Woodmere
Evergreen East
Bridle Ridge West
Silverdale
Type of
system
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
Interim
Septic Tank
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Sewered
Existing
residences
259 sf
1 school
70 sf
37 sf
48 mh
104 mf
1 golf
61 sf
25 sf
10 sf
41 sf
34 sf
53 sf
11 sf
16 sf
407
Proposed Existing
residences flow, mgd
460 0.07
1 school
73 0.024
204
31 0.009
0.004
16 0.004
0.006
66
66
98
10
20 sewered to
Parkwood East
50 septic tank
0.17
Source: (Reference 1). Notes:
mf = multi-family
sf = single family mh = mobile home
11-62
-------
c
c
JURISDICTIONS
Kitsap County's governmental responsibilities are defined by the
State. Three elected County Commissioners oversee administrative and
legislative activities. Other elected officials include sheriff, assess-
or, auditor, treasurer, clerk, judges, prosecuting attorney, and coroner.
In addition, there are twelve primary appointed county officials. There
are eleven districts in the county, including school, water, fire, port,
and sewer districts, each with its own taxing authority. County Agencies
such as the Department of Planning, Budgets and Personnel, Human Re-
sources, Public Works, Engineering, etc. handle planning and development
for the County, The County has four municipal governments: Bremerton,
Port Orchard, Poulsbo and Winslow, all located outside of the planning
area.
There are a number of federal, state and regional agencies which
administer programs to the county. Three important regional agencies
which exercise planning policies in the county include the Puget Sound
Governmental Conference, the Central Puget Sound Economic Development
District and the Puget Sound Health Planning Council.
PUBLIC AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Public and social services are provided in Kitsap County by a number
of different agencies. The Kitsap Community Action Program did a "Human
Resources Survey" in May, 1973, and found that 415 agencies provide
mainly "social" services to county residents. These agencies were class-
ified as follows: 10.1% are public, 63.2% are private volunteer agencies
with human resources services as their primary goal, and 27.5% are pri-
vate agencies which have services as a secondary function and exist pri-
marily for other purposes, such as fellowship. Approximately 28 percent
of these agencies are out-of-county agencies which provide services to
Kitsap County. The largest categories by agency function are represented
by recreation and fraternal agencies (17.1%), general and child welfare
agencies (16.1%), and educational and religious agencies (12.5%). The
State Department of Social and Health Services provides county residents
with such programs as public assistance, vocational rehabilitation, and
veterans' assistance.
Health services in the county are limited. There are two hospitals
in Bremerton, which is located outside of the planning area. One of
these hospitals, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Hospital, exclusively
serves the military segment of Kitsap County, including military depen-
dents. The other hospital, Harrison Memorial, is available to the
civilian population. The Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department
provides a variety of personal and environmental health services and
handles a near-maximum workload. Emergency response services include
commercial and community ambulances, fire departments, and volunteer
services but there is no integrated dispatch or communications systems
between the different ambulance jurisdictions.
11-63
-------
The Kitsap Comprehensive Health Planning Council has been trying to
develop a county health plan which would make health care services more
accessible and available to county residents living outside of the
Bremerton area. The council states, "The development to meet the emer-
gency medical needs of Kitsap residents has been uncoordinated, uninte-
grated, and uneven in quality and quantity". (Reference 3).
Dentists and physicians are concentrated in the urban centers of the
county. About 80 percent of the county's physicians are located in the
Bremerton area. The Bremerton Program Planning and Grant Administration
indicated that in 1973 there were 54 available full and part-time pri-
mary care physicians per 100,000 people and 47 dentists per 100,000 people
compared to the state average of 82 and 60 per 100,000 people, respectively.
They also stated that there were 8 medical clinics, 55 pharmacists, and
256 nurses in the county.
Law enforcement in the county is provided by the state, the county,
and the municipalities within the county. There were 141 officers serv-
ing the county in 1974. The International Association of Chiefs of Police
require that there be at least one commissioned law officer for every
1,000 people. The police force currently complies with this requirement
but will have to expand as population growth occurs in the county.
Fire protection is provided mainly by volunteer fire departments.
Three fire stations and one sub-station are located in or immediately
adjacent to the planning area. The "Central Kitsap Study Area Compre-
hensive Plan" calls for two more sub-stations in the planning area.
(Reference 27).
Public educational facilities for the planning area include three
elementary schools, one junior high school, and one high school. In
October 1974, 4,415 students were enrolled in these schools. There are
two private parochial schools in the county, one in Bremerton and one
in the Central Kitsap School District. Facilities for higher education
are provided by the Olympic Junior College, located in Bremerton. It is
the seventh largest of the 22 community colleges in Washington.
Construction to expand educational facilities of the Central Kitsap
School District No. 401 has already been funded by local voters, with the
following estimated completion times:
1 Elementary School - Foster Road area September 1976
1 Elementary School - Esquire Hills area September 1976
1 Elementary School - Bangor (So. Gate area) September 1977
1 Elementary School - Between Silverdale & September 1977
South Bangor
1 Elementary School - Eldorado Hills area September 1979
1 High School - South of Fairgrounds September 1979
1 Elementary School - East side of District September 1980
Source: Reference 28
11-64
-------
c
As of 1983 - ass
transportation network
Traffic impacts are
TRANSPORTATION
umibg the existence of Trident - the Kitsap County
wlill be severely overloaded.
determined by using volume/capacity ratios. Any
road has a certain calculated capacity which is determined by the number
of lanes, topography, and speed limit. The volume/capacity ratio is
calculated by dividing the observed or (for future conditions) estimated
traffic volume by the calculated capacity. When the ratio is below 1.0,
traffic is stable and moves at satisfactory speeds. As the volume
approaches capacity, (when the ratio is close to 1.0), freedom of move-
ment and speed became restricted. At ratios above 1.0, traffic movement
is impeded and traffic is severely congested.
Table 11-21 shows 20
portation system as of 1973
impact on these 20 segmeits
County growth rate.
selected segments of the Kitsap County trans-
(before Trident). Table 11-22 shows the
by Trident and the expected general Kitsap
Kitsap County is located on a peninsula, and access to the region
is chiefly by bridge or Eerry, with the only land access over an isthmus
to the southwest. As shown in Table 11-23 the average daily number of
passenger trips in and oit of the county is 16,233. Presently, the ferry
service cannot transport more vehicles during peak hours with present
equipment, and, due to costs, no new equipment is likely to be purchased.
It should be noted t:hat most of the ferry traffic are commuters who
live in Kitsap County anc
population will live and
affect peak ferry traffic
work in Seattle. As the Trident-generated
work in Kitsap County, its presence will not
although it will affect off-peak traffic.
C
11-65
-------
Table 11-21. EXISTING TRAFFIC CHAEACTERISTICS, SELECTED STATE AND
COUNTY ROUTES, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, 1973
Segment number and Average peak
description hour volume
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
SR 305, Winslow to Day Rd.
SR 305, Day Rd. to Agate
Pass Br.
SR 305, Poulsbo to Bond Rd.
Connection, SR 305 & SR 3,
Bond Rd. to Finn Hill Rd.
SR 3, Finn Hill Rd. to
Sherman Hill Rd.
SR 3, Sherman Hill Rd. to
Luoto Rd.
Luoto Road
SR 3, Luoto Rd. to SR 3
Fwy.
Clear Creek Rd . , Base to
SR 3 Fwy.
Clear Creek Rd . , SR 3
Fwy. , to Silverdale
Bucklin Hill Rd., Sil-
verdale to Tracyton Blvd.
Bucklin Hill Rd., Tracy-
ton Blvd. to SR 303
SR 303, McWilliams Rd. to
North Bremerton
SR 3 Fwy., Clear Creek Rd.
to Newberry Hill Rd.
Interchange
SR 3 Fwy., Newberry Hill
1C to Chico 1C
SR 3 Fwy. , Chico 1C to
Oyster Bay 1C
SR 3 Fwy., Oyster Bay 1C
to Werner Ave. 1C, West
Bremerton
SR 3, End of Fwy. to Gorst
Junction
SR 16, Gorst to Junction
with SR 160
SR 160 from Junction SR
16 to Port Orchard
390
350
-
-
650
643
-
655
206
210
-
352
547
-
858
605
-
1551
1720
787
Volume/ capacity
Capacity ratio
1200
1200
1200
1200
1000
1000
1100
1200
1100
1100
1100
1100
1400
1660
3300
3300
1660
1910
1910
1100
0.32
0.29
-
-
0.65
0.54
-
0.55
0.19
0.19
-
0.32
0.33
-
0.26
0.18
-
0.81
0.90
0.71
Note: Congestion within Bremerton not specifically analyzed.
Source: Reference 3
11-66
-------
Table 11-22. ESTIMATED 1980 VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS, SELECTED STATE
AND COUNTY ROADS, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
2
Segment numbers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Without
TRIDENT
1.01
0.68
1.41
1.00
1.24
1.06
0.13
1.01
0.28
0.23
0.49
0.37
0.75
0.52
0.38
0.35
0.52
0.94
0.95
0.88
VOLUME/CAPACITY
RATIOS *
_ With TRIDENT ,
Option 1 Option 2
1.18
0.89
2.28
1.94
2.36
2.23
1.24
1.31
3.28
1.38
1.22
1.02
1.30
1.91
1.06
1.00
1.14
1.32
1.27
1.22
1.13
0.81
1.88
1.53
1.87
1.67
0.59
1.31
0.98
0.54
0.60
0.49
0.98
0.95
0.61
0.58
0.83
1.17
1.14
1.04
Volume/capacity ratios calculated using estimated 1980 peak
hour traffic volume and 1973 capacity at level of Service "C".
table for segment location.
^ Assumes all military family housing off -base.
Assumes all military family housing on-base.
Source: Reference 3
C
11-67
-------
Table 11-23. ACCESS TO KITSAP COUNTY
(May 1973)*
Route Passengers per month
Hood Canal Bridge 125,000
Winslow-Seattle Ferry 180,000
Bremerton-Seattle Ferry 110,000
Edmonds-Kingston 72,OOP
487,000**
* Average volume month; volume tends to increase during summer and
decrease during the winter.
** On a daily basis, the average is 16,233 passengers.
Source: Reference 3
11-68
-------
s TAX BASE
The tax base (amount of revenue necessary to operate county services
per fiscal year) is determined by the projected budgets and expenses of
the various county service agencies and departments. The following is a
breakdown of the 1975 Kitsap County tax base: (Reference 29)
TAX DOLLARS NEEDED PERCENT OF REVENUE
County $ 2,139,516.47 13.06
Road District 1,595,554.16 9.74
Municipalities 1,233,642.66 7.53
School Districts 9,525.754.13 58.13
Fire Districts 711,599.33 4.35
Library Districts 347,476.24 2.12
Island Rec. District 100,888.93 .62
P.U.D. 158,170.27 .97
Hospital District 66,034.94 .40
Port Districts 505.547.88 3.08
TOTAL $16,384,185.01 100.00
The tax base for the county has fluctuated between $14 million and $17
million for the last four years. However, with an influx of population
and the relative increase in demand for public services, the tax base
is expected to rise sharply.
LAND AND PROPERTY VALUE
Property values in Kitsap County have been rising for the past nine
years at an increasing rate, particularly in recent years. The County
Assessor's office indicates $980,833,997 total valuation of taxable prop-
erty for the 1975 Tax Rolls. The county assesses land and personal
property in terms of existing market value plus improvements made to
land and personal property during the fiscal year. (Reference 29)
The 1974-75 Tax Rolls Assessment breakdown is:
Land
Acreage $336,391,047
Improvements $318,092,922
City and Town Lands $ 84,419,958
Improvement s
11-69
-------
Personal Property
Boats $ 5,279,340
All other $ 51,077,642
TOTAL $980,833,997
For the next few years, the increase in land value and personal
property is expected to continue due to the influx of population induced
by Trident. A significant increase in assessed value will result from
improvements made to the land for residential and commercial developments
and the increase in taxable personal property. This expected increase,
though it has just begun, is here considered to be part of the context
(environmental setting) of the area.
LABOR FORCE
The economy of Kitsap County is dominated by the Federal defense
industry. Civilian Employment in 1972 at the Puget Sound Naval shipyard
and Bangor Annex accounted for about one-third of the county's total
employment. A breakdown of county civilian force employment for the
year 1972 follows:
Kitsap County Civilian Labor Force
Total Civilian Labor Force 36,600
Unemployed 3,300
Total Employed 33,000
Agriculture 1,000
Mining, Forestry, and Fishing 200
Contract Construction 900
Manufacturing 900
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 900
Wholesale and Retail Trade 4,900
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 800
Services 3,300
Domestics, Self Employed and 3,400
Unpaid Family Workers
Government (Federal, State, and Local) 17,000
Federal only v (12,100)
Source: Reference 30
11-70
-------
c
By way of comparison, mid-1974 Kitsap County data on Covered Employ-
ment (which generally exclude agricultural employment and classifie
employment slightly differently than the preceding 1972 County Civilian Labor
Force breakdown) is presented:
Covered Employment: Kitsap County
(September 1974)
Total Covered Employment 29,531
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries 125
Mining 38
Contract Construction 1,090
Manufacturing 1,045
Transportation, Communication 953
and Utilities
Wholesale and Retail Trade 5,609
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 900
Services . 3,855
Government 15,916
(Federal only) (14,535)
Source: Reference 30
To some extent, the relatively higher skills required at the naval
installations are reflected in the occupational distribution of the county
civilian force. The 1970 ratio of white-collar to blue-collar workers in
the county was similar to that in the nation as a whole. However, within
the blue-collar category (craftsmen, operatives, and laborers) almost
60% of Kitsap County workers belonged to the skilled craftsman category,
compared to a national proportion of approximately 33%. (Reference 3).
INCOME
The following information on income levels in Kitsap County was
largely derived from the Trident Support Site Terminal Environmental Impact
Statement and "Manpower Profile" from the US Dept. of Labor. (References
3 and 31). With a large middle income level and several localized areas
of both lower and higher income levels, median family income in Kitsap
County in 1969 was $10,541, (12% higher than the national median family
income of $9,430). Median white family income was $10,617, compared with
$8,273 for blacks and $7,946 for other groups. 5,525 families (21% of
the county total) earned more than $15,000. In 1969, most county house-
holds earned income from direct wages and salaries, 9% from self-employment,
and 15% received social security payments. About 45% of all households
identified additional sources of income, suggesting that income comes to
a large extent from retirement sources other than Social Security. This
is characteristic of predominantly military communities where retired
11-71
-------
military personnel commonly work at other jobs. 1,936 families (7.3%)
received less than poverty level income, a total of 8,828 or 9.1% of all
county residents. The 'near poor' (persons with income less than 125%
of poverty level) totalled 11,534 (11.9% of total county population),
while the 'poor poor1 (with incomes less than 75% of poverty level)
numbered 5,925 (6.1%). Mean income of families below poverty level was
$1,602. Public assistance provided income for about 4% of County house-
holds.
/*>»
11-72
-------
HISTORY
The Kitsap Peninsula was inhabited by the Suquamish and Clallam
Indians before the European explorers arrived (Reference 20). They
existed on a seasonal subsistence basis. Chief Seeaathl and Chief Kitsap
are the two most famous of the Suquamish.
The English explorer, Captain George Vancouver, was the first
visitor to the area. He sailed into Puget Sound in 1792 and gave names
to such areas as Port Orchard Bay and Restoration Point. In 1841, Cap-
tain Charles Wilkes arrived and named Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, Agate
Passage and others.
Homesteaders began populating the area in 1850, concentrating prin-
cipally along the coast. A timber industry developed in response to a
need for lumber to provide housing in San Francisco during the Califor-
nia gold rush. Five of the largest sawmills in the world were established
in areas surrounding the planning area, including Port Gamble, Port
Madison, Port Orchard, Port Blakeley and Seabeck. The Port Gamble sawmill
is still operating today. Until 1944 when the US Naval Base was estab-
lished at Bangor, the timber industry was the region's main industry.
In 1857 Kitsap County, originally called Slaughter County, was
created from portions of Jefferson and King Counties. Settlers founded
small villages such as Poulsbo, Keyport, Port Orchard, Silverdale, Man-
chester and Traceyton. They came largely from the eastern and mid-
western United States between the years 1850 and 1870 and generally of
German, English and Scandinavian descent. Further settlement was induced
by the Great Northern Railroad terminus in Seattle in the 1880's and by
the 1890's Klondike gold rush. Immigrants from northern Europe began
arriving after World War I.
Kitsap County has been developing slowly. The Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard was established in 1891 by the federal government. The town of
Bremerton arose on the eastern outskirts of the shipyard. Other naval
installations were later established at Keyport and Bangor which provide
the county with a major source of revenue. Kitsap County is still prin-
cipally a rural area which is slowly becoming urbanized in planned growth
regions.
The proposed Trident Support Site to be built at the US Naval Base
in Bangor has just been approved. Completion of this facility is expected
in 1983. A population increase of approximately 28,000 people has been
projected to occur in Kitsap County due to Trident. This will cause
major impacts in the area as far as resources, economic and socio-cul-
tural conditions are concerned.
II-73
-------
ARCHAEOLOGY
Prior to findings of an archeological survey of the planning area
done in mid-December 1974, the National Register of Historic Places and
the Site Survey Records for Kitsap County from the University of Wash-
ington indicated that there were no known sites of archaeological or
historical significance within the planning area (See Appendix G) . The
archaeological survey revealed one minor site located near the Browns-
ville Marina or Burke Bay, a shell midden which has been essentially des
troyed by historic and modern activities such as road construction and
dredging operations. Because of the extensive destruction, the investi-
gating archaeologist has judged that further investigation of the site
would not yield any cultural information of value. No other historical
or archaeological sites have been identified in the planning area.
EXISTING LAND USE
The major land use in Kitsap County is low density residential,
including both primary and seasonal residences. Within the planning area
the principal urban concentration occurs in the unincorporated town of
Silverdale. The other area of concentration is in Brownsville, which is
undergoing transitional growth to higher densities.
There is a large U.S. Naval reservation on the northwest portion of
the planning area. The land surrounding the naval base is largely rural
in which residential, agricultural, and open-space use dominates. Resi-
dential and recreational use characterizes the land in the southern por-
tion of the planning area.
Year-round residences and vacation homes occur primarily along the
shorelines, but suburban residential developments have been increasing
in the inland areas during recent years.
Due to the beauty of the area, recreational and open-space land uses
tend to be more important than agricultural land use. Natural understory
and lushly wooded forests provide an aesthetically-pleasing landscape.
The farms in the area are generally small, widely scattered and operated
on a part-time basis. Forestry occurs in some portions, while commercial
land uses are associated primarily with the urban areas.
The Harstad study for Central Kitsap County, in which most of the
planning area falls, indicates the following breakdown for land use in
1968: Total land area in Central Kitsap County covers 81,850 acres of
which 10% is developed (i.e., in land use categories other than open space,
where open space is defined as "areas of undeveloped land used for agri-
culture, forestry, grazing, etc., and areas where topography is too severe
for development." (Reference 27).
11-74
-------
c
Use % of developed land No. acres
DEVELOPED
Residential
Single family 56.1 4,614.5
Multiple family .2 17.7
Trailers .1 9.9
Commercial .5 42.6
Manufacturing 0 0
Parks & Recreation 4.7 390.3
Public 38.1 3,130.1
TOTAL DEVELOPED 8,221.4
UNDEVELOPED 73,358.8
TOTAL LAND 81,580.2
Source: Reference 27
DEMOGRAPHY
According to the 1970 Census, Kitsap County's population was 101,732
with a population density of 258.9 persons per square mile. This popula-
tion total represents an increase of 20.9% from the 1960 population of
84,176. The county can be characterized as a semi-rural area containing
one relatively small city (Bremerton), three smaller incorporated areas,
and scattered development throughout.
Kitsap County population
1960* 1970* 1975**
Bremerton 28,922 35,307 37,132
Port Orchard 2,778 3,904 4,065
Poulsbo 1,505 1,856 2,415
Winslow 919 1,451 1,810
Unincorporated areas
Total 52,293 59,131 70,802
County total 84,176 101,732 116,224
(including home
ported military
and dependents)
Source: *U.S. Census.
**(Reference 32)
II" 7 5
-------
Estimates of 1971-1973 population, cited in the Draft EIS, Trident
Support Site, published in 1974 as follows:
1971 1972 1973
Bremerton 39,400 34,750 35,975
Port Orchard 3,900 3,940 4,030
Poulsbo 1,962 1,939 2,748
Winslow 1,605 1,661 1,748
Unincorporated area 51,333 59,310 59,337
County total 106,200 101,600 103,100
The Puget Sound Council of Governments estimated 1974 total County Popu-
lation as 104,299. (Reference 33).
The proposed Trident Support Site is expected to bring substantial
numbers of additional residents to the county. A.D. Little, Inc. has
estimated that between 1975 and 1986, an additional 31,438 residents
will come to the county due to Trident. (17,952 - Civilian, 13,476 -
Military). Of this total 28,184 (8,835 households) are expected to live
off-base (Reference 34).
In 1970 approximately 44% of Kitsap County's population was character
ized as urban, a decrease from 48% in 1960 (Reference 1). Although the
Planning Area does not coincide with political boundaries or with the
boundaries of Census Enumeration Districts, the estimated population of
the Planning Area (Reference 1) is as follows: 1973 - 8,635; 1974 -
9,000; 1975 - 10,500 (preliminary estimate). The unincorporated com-
munity of Silverdale is characterized as the principal area of popula-
tion concentration in the Planning Area, with a 1970 population of less
than 2,000 according to the Draft Facilities Plan. Brownsville popula-
tion was estimated at 480 in 1968, by Harstad Associates, Inc. (Refer-
ence 27) .
The Kitsap County Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan
(Reference 25) predicts population for Kitsap County with and without
the Trident project as follows:
11-76
-------
Kitsap County
North Kitsap
Central Kitsap
South Kitsap
Bainbridge Island
1973
103,100
12,200
62,800
19,400
8,700
Kitsap County
North Kitsap
Central Kitsap
South Kitsap
Bainbridge Island
1981*
Without
113,900
13,900
66,900
22,700
10,400
With
140,900
20,200
82,000
25,300
11,400
1990
Without
With
129,300
16,400
73,100
27,100
12,700
173,200
23,900
101,700
33,100
14,500
*1981 was shown before the Trident schedule was final.
be 1983.
This should now
Assuming a natural growth rate of 10.5% in the 1973-1983 period,
the 2000 population can be roughly estimated from the above table as:
2000
Without
With
142,877
18,122
80,776
29,946
14,033
191,386
26,410
112,379
36,576
16,021
Kitsap County
North Kitsap
Central Kitsap
South Kitsap
Bainbridge Island
The figure for Kitsap County in 1990 is within 5% of the population
projections by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (176,400) and the
Arthur D. Little estimate (167,900). (References33 and 34).
The URS Draft Facilities Plan indicates an expected population in-
crease of 24,000 in the planning area due to Trident by the year 2000.
The Trident EIS assumes 27,000 people due to Trident and 10,800 due to
estimated growth in Kitsap County by 1983.
The coun£y»wide 1983 number can be extrapolated to a county wide
figure for the year 2000 by using the 1973-83 predicted increase rate of
10.5%. This yields a predicted population increase of approximately
45,000 by 2000. If the total county increase is 45,000, and the increase
within the study area is 24,000 then the study area will contain 47% of
the population increase of Kitsap County.
11-77
-------
This increase of 45,000 is essentially compatible with the current
predictions. If the county 1983 population is 140,900 then adding 45,000,
the 2000 population would be about 185,900. This is close to the predic-
tion made by the PSCG and by A. D. Little.
The question of population projection in Kitsap County is currently
being studied in depth by A.. D. Little, Inc. While preliminary findings
are cited here, definite results of this study are not yet available.
The northern portion of the Planning Area is rural in character with
residential, agricultural and open space lands as the dominant use. The
southern half of the area is more intensively used for both recreational
and residential uses. Commercial activities are concentrated in the in-
corporated communities (Bremerton, Port Orchard, Poulsbo, Winslow) , and
Silverdale. Aside from these business centers and naval installations,
there is little other significant non-residential development in the
county.
According to the 1970 Census, 96.1% of the population was white,
with blacks accounting for 1.4%, and other groups, 2.5%. The population
characteristics of the county population tended to differ from the state
in general. 9.98% of the population was 65 or older in 1970 compared to
a statewide average of 9.4%. Because of this fact, a higher than average
number (15%) of county population receives Social Security payments. Due
to the presence of the military (the economy of the county is heavily
dependent on employment related to the U.S. Navy), the percentage of
males (51. 2%)was higher than the state average of 49.5%. Approximately
15% of the 1970 population was military personnel and dependents, and
this proportion increased significantly whenever large ships were in
port. Approximately 25% of 1970 county population was of school age.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Current land use is shown in Figure 11-14 taken from the URS Draft
Facilities Plan. It shows higher density residential areas in the
southern portion of the study area, with a commercial concentration in
Silverdale.
The new population that will be added to Kitsap County and, partic
ularly, to the study area, will be limited in location by three con-
straints: the County Plan, location of existing transportation, and
location of the sewer interceptors and feeders.
The proposed Kitsap County Plan, shown in Figure 11-15 taken from
the URS report, is essentially the plan approved by the Kitsap County
Planning Commission on March 25, 1975. This plan indicates a desire to
limit urban areas to the southern portion of the study area, in keeping
with existing land use trends. The plan maintains a rural area between
11-78
-------
r
% \
-JP V*
V,
*
-------
LEGEND
URBAN AREA
TRANSITIONAL
RURAL
I HoheeO :::$;:;.
Source: Reference 1,
Figure 11-15. Proposed Kitsap County planning policy
11-80
-------
H
H
00
CO
g
rt
fi
(0
(0
l-t
(D
H-
-CW
c
H
n>
H
H
o
H
ft
CD
co
UJ N>
t^ o to w w
Ef H rt rt C
&, (D ps pi o
(D fu rt rt fv
f{ i-i (0 fD H
CD H'
O O >*! & P
p 8 g °
EU n> rt
H- ^ (0
-------
/*
V
Source: Reference 1
Figure 11-17. Summary of alternative pipeline routes
11-82
-------
the Trident base and the south, and emphasizes urbanization to the east
and west of Dyes Inlet.
Within the study area, the limits of the second constraint are
shown in Figure 11-16, indicating that development will most likely
take place in the areas served by Bucklin Road, State Route 3, State
Route 303, the southern portion of Clear Creek Road, and Anderson Hill
Road, extending from Silverdale to the northwest.
The added Kitsap population, with or without the proposed wastewater
project, would tend to concentrate in the areas described above.
The third constraint - the sewer pipeline - will serve to locate
expanded populations within the "transitional area" in the study area,
regardless of which pipeline route is ultimately chosen. Pipeline
routes are shown in Figure 11-17. The major east-west pipeline parallels
Bucklin Road; the north-south pipelines parallel States Routes 3 and 303.
Clear Creek Road, which is the pipeline route from Bangor (or the route
within the Clear Creek area) are precluded from development by the County
Plan.
In summary, the distribution of the increased populations is expect-
ed to diffuse within the limits imposed by the County Plan, with concen-
tration along the major transportation corridors and pipeline routes.
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
The study area has an extremely pleasing visual and aesfhetic envir-
onment. The heavy predominance of wooded greenery and the low population
density in the rural areas have created a relaxing atmosphere of escape
for many dwellers. Of particular beauty are the shoreline areas, and the
public's appreciation of these areas is evidenced by the relatively high
shoreline land costs, ranging from $200 to $600 per front-foot. Shore-
line housing is predominantly low density and frequently blends well
with the terrain.
The older residential areas in Silverdale and Brownsville have, in
general, aged with a special quiet charm and remain desirable for habi-
tation. New housing tracts, principally in the Meadowdale area around
Military Road and Bucklin Hill Road, that are now under construction or
in the planning stage are being developed with an appearance typical of
urban sprawl and retain little of the rural character of the region.
In the vicinities of the proposed treatment plant sites, one finds
a mixture of environments. The Silverdale site is located on a large,
low beach and is immediately surrounded by open land with few buildings.
The site is highly visible, particularly from homes on the surrounding
hillsides.
11-83
-------
The Brownsville site is on elevated property screened by trees on (
all sides and sits on the intersection of major roadways. There is one
homestead adjacent to this site and one located at the north end on
property which the county has an option to purchase. (Reference 2S)
The Enetai site is located in a desirable, low-density residential
neighborhood northeast of Bremerton. The site is elevated and overlooks
Port Orchard channel, but it is heavily wooded and well screened from
view.
The Charleston plant site, currently a sewage treatment plant, is
in a commercial area at the intersection of major arterial roadways
and has little visual appeal.
The Manchester site, currently a sewage treatment facility, is on
a wooded peninsula extending into Puget Sound toward Blake Island and
is highly visible from the waterway and from passing passenger ferries.
Sewage treatment plants can be designed with architectural flair
and landscaping to provide a not unpleasing appearance. Nevertheless,
they will retain a commercial or semi-industrial atmosphere that may
be ill suited for certain locations. In general, sites that have ade-
quate screening, are relatively remote from residential neighborhoods
and do not intrude upon the landscape are aesthetically the most ac-
ceptable.
11-84
-------
CHAPTER III
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE PLANS
INTRODUCTION
Ten alternative plans were selected by the facilities planning
consultant for detailed investigation and comparison (Reference 1).
These plans contain provision for the transport of sewage from sewered
concentrations of population, treatment of the sewage to levels com-
patible with receiving water quality criteria and discharge of treated
effluent to the final disposal site. Wastewaters would be collected
from drainage sub-basins 9 and 10 in north-central Kitsap County and
from the Trident Support Site, now under construction in the U.S. Navy
Keyport Torpedo Station Bangor Annex. Detailed descriptions of these
sub-basins are provided in Chapter II, Environmental Setting. Table
III-l lists the potential wastewater treatment and disposal options for
the study area that resulted from an initial screening by the facili-
ties planning consultant of a larger number of alternatives. Figure
III-l shows the locations of major alternative facilities under con-
sideration.
Design Flows and Quality
The facilities planning consultant has estimated that the study
area population will rise to 24,000 in the year 2000 from a 1975 popu-
lation of 10,500, due in large part to the influx of population asso-
ciated with the Trident Support Site. This population value was based
on studies conducted by the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (Ref-
erence 33) and the Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plans for Central
Kitsap County (Reference 46). Of this population, it was predicted
that only 18,000 persons would be connected to the ultimate sewerage
system. The impact of a viable sewerage system upon population growth
and sewer connections will be examined in Chapter IV, Environmental
Impacts.
Preliminary figures from a study presently being completed by the
Arthur D. Little Company (Reference 34) indicate that Trident-related
off-base population could rise as high as 28,000 persons. While such
an estimate would not substantially affect the relative desirability of
alternative plans, design wastewater flows and facility sizes would in-
III-l
-------
Table III-l. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Facilities Plan
reference no.
( 1 )
( IP)
Plan
no.
1
2
Service
area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Sab-basins 9 and 10
Treatment fa-
cility site
Silverdale
Silverdale
Discharge
site
Dyes Inlet
Dyes Inlet
( 3 )
( 3P)
( 4 )
( 8 )
( 9A)
(10A)
(HA)
(17 )
Trident facility
Poulsbo facilities
planning area
3 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
4 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Paulsbo facilities
planning area
5 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
6 Sub-basin 9 and
Trident Facility
Sub-basin;10 and
Bremerton plan-
ning area
7 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
8 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
9 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
10 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Brownsville Bainbridge
Island
Brownsville Bainbridge
Island
Brownsville northern Port
Orchard
channel
Silverdale Dyes Inlet
Bremerton Sinclair In-
let
Bremerton Sinclair In-
let
Enetai
Port Orchard
channel at
Enetai
Manchester Manchester
not chosen Land disposal
sites not
chosen
III-2
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
MILES
Source: Reference It
Figure III-l. Location of alternative elements
III-3
-------
crease. The population estimates will be resolved prior to release of
the Final EIS, but for current purposes populations and wastewater
flows will be taken from the Draft Facilities Plan.
The 20-year design flow, for 1995, was estimated at 3.9 million
gallons per day (mgd) of average daily flow. This value includes 85
gallons per person per day (gpcd) of average dry-weather flow and 15
gpcd of daily infiltration of groundwater into the sewers. Inflow of
storm water to the system through openings such as manhole covers would
further temporarily raise the daily flow value. Commercial and institu-
tional flow exclusive of Trident Support Site wastes are estimated to
total 0.3 mgd. Further details may be found in Appendix L of the Draft
Facilities Plan (Reference 1). It is not intended to collect storm wa-
ter runoff into the system, and the sewer design would attempt to mini-
mize such inflow. The division of sewage flows in 1995 is estimated
to be as follows: sub-basin 9 at 1.2 mgd, sub-basin 10 at 0.7 mgd and
the Trident Support Site at 2 mgd.
Wastewaters originating through 1995 are expected to be of typical
domestic sewage quality, containing approximately 230 milligrams per
liter (mg/1) of biochemical oxygen demand and 200 mg/1 of suspended
solids. The untreated waste loads assumed by the facilities planner
are presented in Figure III-2 (Reference 1). Typical domestic waste-
waters provide no problems to the standard sewage treatment processes.
Industrialization within the study area is virtually nonexistent
and is expected to remain so during the planning period. The major fu-
ture source of nondomestic wastewaters is the Trident Support Site.
Although the bulk of the sewage from the Trident Support Site will be
domestic in origin, there will be some contributions from drydocks .and
repair facilities. The U.S. Navy projection of 2 mgd of average daily
flow from the Trident Support Site (Reference 3) is, in the absence of
detailed data, estimated for purposes of this EIS to contain 1.2 mgd of
domestic sewage and 0.8 mgd of infiltration and industrial waste. It
is not possible to predict, before the facility is constructed, the ex-
act quantities of industrial waste that may be produced because of two
principal factors: (1) a large portion of shipyard wastes results from
seepage and washdowns in drydocks (Reference 47), and (2) the military
retains the prerogative of changing the nature of activities conducted
at its military bases. With regard to the second item, conversation
with Trident Support Site personnel indicated that current plans do not
call for any major ship repair activities at the drydocks. There can be
no guarantee, however, that this situation will not change at some time
in the future.
It is the intent of the U.S. Navy to provide pretreatment to all
industrial wastes to attain compatibility with standard sewage treat-
ment processes adopted by the County. A series of analyses of untreated
drydock drainage waters at other locations has indicated notable quanti-
ties of chlorides, hydrocarbons, chromium, copper and zinc (Reference
47). With the exception of chlorides, the oils and metals can be appro-
III-4
-------
9000-t
8000-
7000-
6000'
1
\
CO
CO
5000'
o
<
o
4000-
o
°- 3000
2000-
1000'
ASSUMED UNIT WASTE PRODUCTION
BOD5
SOLIDS
NITROGEN
PHOSPHOROUS
COMMERCIAL
0.20
0.15
0.03
0.01
LBS/CAPITA/DAY
LBS/CAPITA/DAY
LBS/CAPITA/DAY
LBS/CAPITA /DAY
50% STRENGTH OF RESIDENTIAL
TRIDENT-' BOD= 3340 LBS/DAY
(IN 1983) SS 3340 LBS/DAY
N
P
500
500
LBS/DAY
LBS/DAY
NITROGEN.
PHOSPHOROUS
1970 1975
Source: Reference 1.
I960
1985
YEAR
1990
1995
2000
Figure III-2. Estimated untreated waste loads
III-5
-------
prlately reduced by existing treatment systems. The use of fresh water
for cleaning ship hulls and for dust control can greatly reduce the
chloride content of the discharges, to that originating from leakage
and infiltration in the drydocks. Chloride content is of concern only
if effluent is disposed to land or fresh water, or sewage sludges to
agricultural land.
The U.S. Navy intends to collect and treat separately for local
discharge all storm water runoff occurring at the Trident Support Site.
Title 40 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Part 128 specifies
that industrial dischargers to publicly owned treatment works must use
best practicable control technology to remove, before discharging to
the sewer system, pollutants incompatible with the treatment processes.
INTERACTION WITH OTHER PLANS
The development of potential wastewater treatment and disposal
sites beyond the boundaries of the study area, as defined by the Wash-
ington State Department of Ecology, requirs coordination of planning
with the facilities plans of the affected sub-basins. Alternative
plans 2 and 4 would involve the collection of untreated and treated
wastewaters from the town of Poulsbo and their incorporation into the
disposal scheme. Alternative plans 6, 7 and 8 would transport study
area sewages to the City of Bremerton for treatment and disposal, while
plan 9 would combine study area wastes with Bremerton's and treat and
dispose of them in Manchester.
Poulsbo
The Poulsbo Facilities Plan, originally prepared in June 1974 (Ref-
erence 48) is currently undergoing revision and reevaluation of alterna-
tives, with the inclusion of possible joint treatment or disposal with
study area wastewaters. Population estimates for the Poulsbo service
area numbered 13,425 persons for 1995. This population would produce
approximately 1.35 mgd of average daily dry-weather sewage flow, with
no industrial components. The facilities plan for the Poulsbo planning
area estimates an additional 0.15 mgd of infiltration flow. In view of
the size of the service area (2,889 acres), the length of the existing
sewerage system (58,070 lineal feet) and the EPA requirements for cor-
recting faulty sewers (Reference 49), this is a reasonable estimate.
Therefore, for alternative plans 2 and 4, the 1995 design wastewater
flows from the Poulsbo service area would be 1.5 mgd.
III-6
-------
Bremerton
The City of Bremerton prepared a comprehensive sewerage plan recom*
mending a new wastewater treatment facility either at the existing
Charleston plant or at a new site near Enetai (Reference 49). That
plan was abandoned upon the designation by the Department of Ecology of
Sinclair Inlet as a U.S. EPA "201" planning area, to include Port
Orchard and Gorst. The current "201" planning consultant,CH2M/HILL,
has retained the two recommended treatment plant sites as viable alter-
natives and has indicated the inclusion of alternatives investigating
the addition of study area wastewater flows to those of the City of
Bremerton. The original Bremerton Sewerage System Plan demonstrated a
detailed study of flow records, population contributions and infiltra-
tion, to predict a 15.1 mgd average daily flow in the year 2000, the
design year of the originally proposed Bremerton sewage treatment faci-
lity. The value of 15.1 mgd will be used for the present EIS study un-
til a revised figure has been issued as a result of on-going facilities
planning. Wastewaters were estimated to be typically domestic sewage,
with the following raw sewage loadings:
BOD 18,075 Ib/day
Suspended solids 18,075 Ib/day
Phosphorus 723 Ib/day
Nitrogen 1,446 Ib/day
Manchester
Location of a regional wastewater treatment and disposal facility
at Manchester, currently the site of a small primary plant, was origi-
nally suggested in the Basin Plan (Reference 4). Wastewaters from the
study area, Bremerton, Gorst and Port Orchard, and Manchester, total-
ling over 19.4 mgd, would be pumped to the Manchester site for secondary
level treatment and direct disposal into Rich Passage and Puget Sound
through a submerged outfall. Due to ever changing population growth and
economic conditions, it is doubtful that the Basin Plan will ever be
fully adopted and implemented; the Manchester site was retained for the
present study solely as a potential alternative.
ALTERNATIVES
Common Features
Several features of the proposed projects are common to all of the
alternatives and generally pertain to major pipeline routes and service
areas, as follows.
III-7
-------
Clear Creek Pipeline
Raw domestic wastewater and pretreated industrial wastewater
would be collected from the Trident Support Site at the boundary of the
U.S. Naval Reservation on Clear Creek Road. An 18 in. diameter gravity
sewer would carry the wastewater directly east to Clear Creek and then
directly south along a Clear Creek corridor. At Halfmile Road, the
sewer would begin to alternate 27 in. and 24 in. diameter sections. At
a new pumping station, No. 10, on Bucklin Hill Road at Clear Creek,
these wastewaters would be pumped to the selected regional treatment
facility site. The Clear Creek trunk sewer has provisions for the ad-
dition of wastewater from an estimated 10,000 persons who might locate
along its route.
It has been determined that a pipeline corridor along Clear Creek
could become a sensitive issue. Preliminary design criteria were se-
lected by the facilities planner in order to minimize any potentially
negative environmental impact. Figure III-3 shows details of the Clear
Creek pipeline routing.
The pipeline from the Trident Support Site would be placed along
existing roads on its way east to Clear Creek. Directly east of Clear
Creek the pipeline turns southward within a 50-foot corridor along the
main creek bed. This corridor is intended to allow for variations in
the placement of the interceptor to avoid excessive interruption of
benthic and pelagic life, stream flow or property lines.
The corridor passes through heavily wooded and undeveloped land.
Local interceptor sewers connecting to the trunkline may at times need
to cross the creek bed. Construction techniques for the temporary di-
version of a stream's flow through pipes, rapid trench excavation and
cast iron pipe placement under the stream bed, can greatly minimize the
discharge of silt and disturbed sediment with the flow. After construc-
tion, a gravel and sand backfill could produce a nearly normal stream
bed material.
It is strongly recommended that Department of Fisheries personnel
supervise construction activities along the creek to assure that anadro-
mous fish spawns receive little or no damage.
After a distance of approximately one mile along the upper third of
Clear Creek, the pipeline may be placed along existing roads closely
paralleling the creek for another third of its length. At the end of
this distance, the pipeline would cross Clear Creek from east to west
at the intersection with State Route 3. Along the western shore the
pipeline would again be placed within a 50-foot corridor and would pass
through open fields and several large private lots and skirt stands of
trees until its intersection with Bucklin Hill Road.
III-8
-------
c
LEGEND
MIXED CONIFEROUS
BROADLEAF FOREST
AGRICULTURAL /
OPEN COUNTRY
PROPOSED SEWER
TRUNKLINE
c
Figure III-3, Clear Creek pipeline corridor
III-9
-------
The degree to which local sewers would connect with the trunkline
along Clear Creek has not been determined and is subject to a decision
by County officials on the amount of growth they wish to permit in that
area. It is certain that crossings of Clear Creek can be minimized
through careful planning and combining of local interceptor sewers.
Western Shore of Dyes Inlet
The western shore of Dyes Inlet would be served by a combination
of gravity sewer and force main, starting from just north of the com-
munity of Chico and continuing to and including the town of Silverdale.
The sewer lines, ranging from 10 to 12 in. in diameter, would be placed
along the rights-of-way of Old State Route 3 and local streets. A con-
nection would always be provided between Silverdale and pumping station
No. 10 through a sewer line located on Clear Creek Road. The direction
of sewage flow through this sewer line would be dependent on the speci-
fic alternative plan under consideration.
Brownsville Community
The community of Brownsville would be provided with sewerage ser-
vice through a force main placed along State Route 303 and leading to
the intersection of Bucklin Hill Road and Military Road. At that lo-
cation, either a regional wastewater treatment facility will receive
the flow, or the sewage will be passed on to another treatment loca-
tion.
Meadowdale Area
Communities and new developments in the vicinity of Meadowdale along
the southern study area boundary and east of Dyes Inlet would receive
sewerage service. General pipeline locations are presented with the
description of each alternative plan.
Sewage Sludge Disposal
The treatment of wastewaters results in the production and separa-
tion of organic and inorganic solids, principally biological matter with
some greases and large particulates. These solids are initially biolog-
ically active; that is, they undergo decomposition and exert an oxygen
demand. The typical new wastewater treatment facility would stabilize
these solids by anaerobic digestion, and they would subsequently be de-
111-10
-------
c
watered by centrifuges to approximately 20 percent solids and 80 per-
cent water. This has been assumed for the study area for purposes of
costing and alternative comparison. Properly digested sewage sludges
are characterized by a reduction in mass from raw sludges and a general
lack of offensive odor; in other words, the available biological food
has mostly been used up.
It has been assumed that each alternative would involve trucking
of the digested sewage solids to a sanitary landfill for disposal by
burial. This would amount to approximately 15.9 tons of moist (20 per-
cent dry solids) sludge daily for a wastewater flow of 3.9 mgd. In
order to protect the receiving environment from many of the pollutants
that are still present in sewage sludges, a proper sanitary landfill
site must be utilized. Principal characteristics of such a site are a
daily earth cover and, for wastes that may leach pollutants, an imper-
vious clay layer under the landfill. The clay layer may be accompanied
by a leachate collection and treatment system (similar to a wastewater
treatment facility) and if the clay layer is not present must be sub-
stituted by such a system. Due to operating difficultues and air pol-
lutant emissions, in addition to an ash disposal problem, incineration
of sludges would not be a preferred system. A land disposal alterna-
tive may be considered by the facilities planners and would be addressed
in the Final EIS.
The Hansville Road Solid Waste Disposal Site has been proposed for
northern Kitsap County (Reference 50). Although this site has not yet
been formally approved, the facilities planners and the EIS staff have
assumed that this site or a similar one will be available for sewage
sludge disposal. An environmental impact statement has been filed for
the Hansville Road site, and the summary sheet is included as Appendix
H. It must be remembered that the sewage sludge disposal represents
only a small portion of the 100 tons of waste that would be disposed of
daily at the site.
Alternative Plan No. 1
Under this plan, wastewaters averaging 3.9 mgd in 1995 would be
collected from sub-basins 9 and 10 and from the Trident Support Site
and transported to a new wastewater treatment facility at Silverdale,
with subsequent discharge to Dyes Inlet through a new outfall, the
length of which has not yet been established. It is estimated that an
advanced level of wastewater treatment beyond the secondary level may
be necessary to maintain water quality standards in Dyes Inlet, which
would receive the treated effluent through a submerged outfall,
Figure III-4 presents a map locating the major facilities to be
constructed under this plan. The Meadowdale area communities would be
III-ll
-------
1
I-1
OQ
s
(D
H
I
P-
(0
i-t
e
rt
CO
2;
O
co
O
n
O
(0
CD
n
(D
-------
connected to the Bucklin Hill Road trunk sewer by a combined gravity
and force main sewer along Central Valley Road.
The unit processes to be employed at the new regional treatment
facility that would be located in Silverdale have not yet been selected.
It is presently assumed that secondary level treatment will be appro-
priate to meet water quality standards, although more extensive treat-
ment levels will be added if required (Reference 1).
Alternative Plan No. 2
Alternative plan No. 2 is, with one major exception, identical to
plan No. 1. Plan No. 2 has provision of an additional wastewater flow
of 1.5 mgd from the Poulsbo Facilities Planning Area for a total aver-
age dry-weather flow of 5.4 mgd to the proposed new treatment facility
at Silverdale. The flow would include wastes from the communities of
Poulsbo and Lemolo.
Figure III-5 presents the basic features of this plan. Raw sewage
collected from Poulsbo and Lemolo would be pumped through a trunk sewer
of less than 24 in. diameter located along State Routes 305 and 303 to
the study area and then east along Mountain View Road to connect with
the Clear Creek trunk sewer.
Alternative Plan No. 3
For plan No. 3, a new wastewater treatment facility would be lo-
cated near Brownsville on the northeast corner of the intersection of
Military Road and Bucklin Hill Road. The facility would receive an
average daily flow of 3.9 mgd in 1995 from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the
Trident Support Site. A standard secondary level wastewater treatment
facility would be constructed to produce an effluent suitable for the
maintenance of water quality standards in Puget Sound.
The proposed locations of major facilities in this plan are pro-
vided on Figure III-6. In addition to the sewer trunklines common to
all alternative plans, a new trunkline composed of pressurized and grav-
ity flow sections would drain the Meadowdale area by way of Military
Road. The treated effluent from the Brownsville facility would be
pumped through a new trunkline along State Route 303 to Keyport, where
the trunkline would pass under Liberty Bay to Lemolo. From Lemolo, the
trunkline would follow State Route 305 to Agate Passage and cross the
passage to Bainbridge Island, using the existing bridge for support.
On Bainbridge Island, State Route 305, Hidden Cove Road and local roads
would be used for the placement of the trunkline to the shoreline south
of Fay Bain ridge State Park. The exact site has not yet been selected,
c
111-13
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
PORT MADISON'
<; ""..:;:.:'£':%&£
y Bambridge::"":,.:::::::
State Pork .':;:.!;!:!.!*-::
Source: Reference 1.
Figure III-5. Alternative plan No. 2
111-14
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
PORT MADISON
Source: Reference 1,
Figure III-6. Alternative plan No. 3
111-15
-------
but from it an outfall would extend into Puget Sound, The specific
length and location of the outfall for this and all other alternatives
would be chosen upon completion of hydrologic dispersion studies being
conducted by the University of Washington under contract with the faci-
lities planning contractor. All construction of pipeline from the
Brownsville treatment facility would be within the rights-of-way of ex-
isting public roads, and appropriate easements would be obtained for
the placement of the outfall.
Alternative Plan No. 4
Alternative plan No. 4 is essentially identical to plan No. 3 ex-
cept for the addition of treated wastewater from Poulsbo and Lemolo.
A combined wastewater treatment facility for the two communities would
be built at a location somewhere between Poulsbo and Lemolo and would
discharge 1.5 mgd of wastewater treated to secondary levels. This
treated wastewater would be pumped through a new sewage trunkline along
State Route 305 and existing local roads to a connection with the
treated effluent pipeline from the proposed Brownsville facility. From
this connection, at an undetermined site in the vicinity of Lemolo, the
combined treated effluent streams would be pumped to the proposed out-
fall off Bainbridge Island for ultimate disposal. Total treated flow
from both facilities would equal 5.4 mgd. Figure III-7 presents the lo-
cations of major elements of this plan.
Alternative Plan No. 5
Many elements of plan No. 5 are identical to those of plan No, 3.
A regional wastewater treatment facility would be located near Browns-
ville at Military and Bucklin Hill Roads. The facility would provide
treatment to 3.9 mgd average dry-weather flow of raw sewage. It is es-
timated that standard secondary level wastewater treatment would be
adequate, but continuing studies on dispersion and water quality in
Port Orchard may indicate a higher necessary level of treatment. If
this should be so, the appropriate level of treatment with specific
unit processes would be incorporated into this plan.
Treated wastewater from the proposed Brownsville facility would
be pumped north along State Route 303 for approximately 2.2 miles,
then due east to an outfall site in Port Orchard channel. Appropriate
easements from the road to the shoreline would be obtained. The exact
length and specific location of the outfall and diffuser have not been
determined and are awaiting the results of further studies on local
water currents being conducted by the University of Washington. The
major facilities of this plan are shown on Figure III-8.
111-16
-------
0
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
m SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
^PROBABLE SEWER PIPELINE
["] PROBABLE TREATMENT
FACILITY SITE
Source: Reference 1.
Figure III-7. Alternative plan No. 4
111-17
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
Source: Reference 1,
Figure III-8. Alternative plan No. 5
111-18
-------
Alternative Plan No, 6
This plan would keep the wastewaters generated in sub-basin 10
separate from those of sub-basin 9 and the Trident Support Site,
Wastewaters collected from the Trident Support Site, Silverdale and the
western shore of Dyes Inlet would be transported to a treatment faci-
lity in Silverdale. The facility in Silverdale, located in the vicin-
ity of the existing primary level plant, would provide currently esti-
mated secondary treatment to approximately 3.2 mgd of average daily
dry-weather flow and would discharge the treated effluent through a
submerged outfall into Dyes Inlet. The specific location of the outfall
and its length have not yet been determined and are awaiting the results
of water current studies. The land for the Silverdale facility would
have to be purchased from private sources.
Sewage originating in sub-basin 10 would be pumped along Central
Valley Road in a new pressurized trunkline to Tracyton, In Tracyton,
the trunkline would connect with new 12 in. diameter gravity lines
proposed as part of the sanitary sewer system expansion plan for the
City of Bremerton (Reference 49).
These gravity lines would connect to a 16 in. force main to be
placed on the eastern beach of Port Washington Narrows. In the vicin-
ity of the existing Manette Sewage Treatment Plant, a 20 in, gravity
sewer would transport the flow to a 16 in. submarine line under Port
Washington, from which a new 36 in, force main would carry the flow
along the shoreline and existing roads to an expanded Charleston Sew-
age Treatment Plant, referred to in alternative plan 3 for Bremerton
(Reference 49). It is anticipated that the additional 0,2 mgd (560
gpm) of average daily dry-weather flow would require an expansion of
the sewer lines along the proposed route.
The proposed Charleston Sewage Treatment Plant is assumed to pro-
vide secondary level treatment but may require tertiary level consis-
tent with the maintenance of water quality standards for Sinclair Inlet.
The major features of this alternative plan are presented in Fig-
ure III-9.
Alternative Plan No. 7
This plan is similar to plan No. 6 in that wastewaters originating
in sub-basin 10 would be pumped to the proposed expanded Charleston
Wastewater Treatment Plant in Bremerton along the route presented in
plan No. 6. However, under plan No, 7 there would be no wastewater
treatment facility in Silverdale, Wastewaters originating in Silver-
dale and in Trident Support Site would be pumped along existing roads
111-19
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
PORT MADISON;;;.'." :;;;'.' ':!;'.'!':;;£ '%:*.
Source: Reference 1.
Figure III-9. Alternative plan No. 6
111-20
-------
c.
to Tracyton, where they would be combined with wastewater from sub-
basin 10. The proposed sewer pipelines between Tracyton and the
Charleston site, as defined by the Bremerton Sewerage System Plan (Ref-
erence ), would need to be enlarged to accommodate the additional
flows from the study area. Also, the proposed expansion of the Charles-
ton plant would need to be increased from 15,1 mgd to 19 mgd.
Figure 111-10 provides the locations of major components of plan
No. 7.
Alternative Plan No. 8
Alternative plan No. 8 is very similar to plan No, 7, All of the
wastewaters originating in sub-basins 9 and 10 and in the Trident Sup-
port Site would be pumped out of the study area for treatment with
wastewaters from the City of Bremerton. Wastewaters from the study
area would follow the same proposed pipeline routes as in plan No, 7
to the Manette Sewage Treatment Plant. From that point, new pressur-
ized sewer lines, which would be placed along the beach around the
southern tip of the Bremerton peninsula to a new sewage treatment plant
site south of Enetai, are proposed in one of the recommended alterna-
tives for the Bremerton sewerage plan (Reference 49). Since the pro-
posed beach pipelines were to have been operated under low pressures,
it is assumed that the additional flows from the study area would not
require an increase in pipeline size but can be accommodated with an
increase in pipeline pressure. Wastewaters at the proposed facility
would receive secondary level treatment and be discharged through a
2,000-foot outfall into Port Orchard channel. A presentation of the
major features of this plan is found on Figure III-ll.
Alternative Plan No. 9
Alternative plan No. 9 is basically identical to plans No. 7 and 8,
with one major exception: the location of the wastewater treatment fa-
cility. A wastewater treatment facility sized to treat wastes from the
Bremerton area has been proposed for Manchester by the Pace Corporation
in their Basin Plan (Reference 4). Plan No. 9 would collect wastewa-
ters from sub-basins 9 and 10, from the Trident Support Site and from
Bremerton and, as in plans No. 7 and 8, pump the wastewaters along the
eastern shore of Dyes Inlet and Port Washington Narrows. At Point Herron,
the wastewaters would cross beneath Port Orchard channel in a submerged
pipeline. On the southeastern shore of Port Orchard channel, wastewa-
ters from Port Orchard would be added and, using existing country road
rights-of-way, piped to the existing Manchester Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The plant would be expanded and upgraded to receive the addi-
tional flows and after providing secondary level treatment would dis-
111-21
-------
(W
H
H
H
I
O
H >
H I-1
H n-
M
B
a
o
en
O
H
O
fD
fD
l-h
(D
H
CD
P
n
fD
m -<
-------
c
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
PORT MADISON
Source: Reference 1,
Fay Bombndge.
State Park
Figure III-ll* Alternative plan No. 8
111-23
-------
charge effluent to Puget Sound, Figure 111-12 shows the basic compo-
nents of this plan.
Alternative Plan No. 10
This plan would collect wastewaters from the study area, subject
them to an appropriate level of treatment and dispose of the treated
effluent to the land within the Study Area. Figure 111-13 presents the
developed components of this plan.
This alternative has not been developed in great detail; there-
fore an analysis was made of the overall suitability of land disposal
as a viable option for the study area. A positive analysis would indi-
cate the need for detailed environmental impact analysis and a negative
analysis would result in exclusion of alternative plan No. 10 from fur-
ther consideration. A background discussion of suitability of soil for
land disposal is provided in Appendix I.
Low-Rate Irrigation
Two types of land disposal schemes were considered: low-rate and
high-rate irrigation. Low-rate irrigation is explained fully in Chapter
II, Environmental Setting. It involves application of treated effluent
to the land in amounts equal to the difference between net rainfall and
evapotranspiration reported for the study area. This is a low applica-
tion rate (7 in./yr maximum) and is seasonal, with the highest rate dur-
ing the dry summer months. A feature of this type of disposal is that,
theoretically, no net effluent would reach the groundwater tables below
the root zone. Unfortunately, an estimated one billion gallon storage
reservoir would need to be constructed to contain treated effluent dur-
ing rainy periods. Also, the land requirement for this type of appli-
cation with 3.9 mgd of effluent is on the order of 7,000 acres.
Since it would be difficult to locate a contiguous 7,000-acre par-
cel, and even more difficult to control public access to this land,
special wastewater treatment requirements would become necessary. In
California, treated effluent used for irrigation where human contact
may occur requires high levels of disinfection. With secondary level
effluent, this can mean the addition of effluent filtration to assure
proper disinfection. Discussion with Department of Health officials
indicate that California requirements for land disposal would be used as
guidelines in Washington (Reference 52).
111-24
-------
c
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
Source; Reference 1,
c;
Figure 111-12. Alternative plan No. 9
111-25
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
SEWER PIPELINE
PROBABLE TREATMENT
FACILITY SITE
PROBABLE SEWER PIPELINE
'.;.;.:. PORT MADISON I'!:/..'':*/..'"! J's|;":!':'|J'- "«!
Source: Reference 1.
Figure III-13. Alternative plan No. 10
111-26
-------
High-Rate Irrigation
High-rate irrigation can be defined as any application rate rang-
ing from low-rate to the maximum infiltration rate of the soil. The
facilities planner investigated high-rate irrigation on the order of
2,700 to 14,400 gallons per acre per day for Everett series soils, a
suitable disposal soil present in sufficient quantities in the county.
An estimated 1,657 acres of land would be needed for year-round irri-
gation, but with storage lagoons for rainy periods only 600 acres
would be needed for direct disposal. Storage would require 90 acres
of 12-foot deep lagoons (352 million gallons). A careful comparison
of suitable soil areas, availablllity of land, possible storage reser-
voir sites, local climatology and land topography resulted in the very
tentative identification of two disposal sites, both south and south-
west and outside of the study area,
A major aspect of high-rate irrigation is the drastic change it
induces in local vegetation and fauna. Furthermore, there would be a .
net transfer of treated but relatively poor quality effluent to the
local groundwater table. Salts and some pollutants would not be re-
moved from sewage by practicable treatment technology. Soils underlain
by hardpan were eliminated from consideration.
Conclusions
Low-rate irrigation cannot be considered feasible within or near
the study area. Land area requirements are enormous, and in the study
area land is already desirable and expensive. Further pressure on the
land market would be expected from the Trident Support Site development.
The need to provide highly disinfected wastewater would raise
treatment requirements above those necessary for many marine disposal
alternatives. Furthermore, the costs of a spray irrigation system for
such a large disposal area would be prohibitive. Such costs have been
estimated on the order of $1,500 per acre (Reference 51). Only spray
irrigation systems are suitable for forested, rolling terrain.
High-rate land disposal cannot help deteriorating the quality of
the underlying aquifers. One could readily expect significant increases
in nitrogen and total dissolved solids, while the question of virus
travel through soil and aquifers has never been conclusively settled.
While much has been written in the literature about the benefits
of land disposal of treated effluents, certain distinctions must be men-
tioned. At other locations, successful land disposal has usually been
on an experimental basis; long-term effects have not been fully explored;
smaller areas have been involved; usually the climate has been more arid;
111-27
-------
and, finally, there has been a lesser need to protect groundwaters not
having Kitsap County's quality,
For these reasons, it was felt Inadvisable to pursue land disposal
as an option for Kitsap County, The Benefits of land disposal would be
difficult to find, in comparison with some of the alternative plans,
and the risks and disadvantages would be too large, Therefore, the de-
cision was made not to further evaluate alternative plan No, 10, land
disposal,
No-Project Alternative
A no-project alternative was evaluated by the facilities planning
consultant prior to the selection of ten alternative plans for detailed
development and investigation. The consultant concluded that because
legal requirements for 1977 specify secondary level wastewater treat-
ment for existing primary and interim systems, the no-project alterna-
tive would be eliminated.
A rapid evaluation of the negative environmental impacts associated
with this alternative provides more cogent reasons for its rejection,
A no-project alternative would promote expansion of septic tank drain-
fields to serve population growth due to Trident developments; would not
alleviate bacterial pollution of streams, bays and potable water sup-
plies from inadequate and failing septic tank drainfields; would in-
crease health hazards within the study area; and would foster continued
pollution of adjacent marine waters from inadequately treated waste-
water discharges. The no-project alternative is justifiablly rejected
from further consideration.
Project Costs
Table III-2 provides the current estimates made by the facilities
planner for total project costs of each alterantive (Reference 1). Al-
ternatives involving addition of Poulsbo wastes to the regional treat-
ment facility reflect the higher cost of an enlarged facility, and
these costs have been provided for the benefit of Poulsbo's planners.
Alternatives not involving Poulsbo do not include a separate treatment
cost for Poulsbo. Alternatives involving joint treatment with Bremerton
or Manchester reflect the study area's relative share of the costs.
111-28
-------
M
H
VO
Table III-2. COMPARISON OF PROJECT COSTS
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rank order
7 C
6
4d
4d
2
7 C
3
5
1
Capital cost
15,979,000
18,887,000
25,510,000
26,620,000
18,655,000
16,054,000
21,979,000
20,765,000
21,304,000
0 & M cost
($/vr) &
412,400
483,200
500,300
578,500
445,700
417,500
435,800
419,200
411,700
Total annual ~cost a
1,791,400
2,113,200
2,701,900
2,875,900
2,055,700
1,803,000
2,332,600
2,211,200
2,250,300
ft
Capital costs amortized over 20 years at 5-7/8 percent.
In June 1975 dollars.
Q
Alternatives 1 and 6 have identical numerical ratings.
Alternatives 3 and 4 have identical numerical ratings.
-------
Table III-2. COMPARISON OF PROJECT COSTS
M
O
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rank order
7 C
6
4d
4d
2
7 C
3
5
1
Capital cost
15,979,000
18,887,000
25,510,000
26,620,000
18,655,000
16,054,000
21,979,000
20,765,000
21,304,000
0 & M cost
($/yr) D
412,400
483,200
500,300
578,500
445,700
417,500
435,800
419,200
411,700
Total annual cost a
1,791,400
2,113,200
2,701,900
2,875,900
2,055,700
1,803,000
2,332,600
2,211,200
2,250,300
Capital costs amortized over 20 years at 5-7/8 percent.
In June 1975 dollars.
C
Alternatives 1 and 6 have identical numerical ratings.
Alternatives 3 and 4 have identical numerical ratings.
-------
c
CHAPTER IV
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives are pre-
sented on special project summary sheets. These sheets provide not
only a discussion of the related impact but also the category and
sub-category of classification, the definition of the environmental
impact category, the boundary or extent of analysis and the method
by which the analysis was conducted. A basic reference source for
background information is presented along with the name of the indi-
vidual providing the assessment. The rating for any particular im-
pact is generally the subjective judgement of an evaluator tech-
nically qualified and experienced in that impact category.
The following impacts are grouped by physical, resource, eco-
nomic and socio-cultural categories. Where it was felt that impact
categories could be relevant to the proposed project, those factors
were evaluated and, where the impact was not trivial, rated. Irrele-
vant impact topics, such as airport noise, are not even addressed.
The ratings developed for each impact were determined by an expert in
that field. The numbers developed are used in Appendix A where they
are multiplied by weighting factors which represent their relative
value. Weighting factors are selected to reflect community opinion,
and their derivation is explained in Appendix A. Weighted scores for
each impact category are combined for individual alternatives and the
resulting numerical values have been presented in Chapter I.
c:
IV-l
-------
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
The assessments of physical impacts have been divided into the
following sub-categories and criteria to separate significantly inde-
pendent variables:
Air Quality
Noise
Odors
Terrestrial Environment
Vegetation Communities
Clear Creek
Overall study area less Clear Creek
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
Rare and Endangered Species
Freshwater Ecology
Clear Creek
All freshwater bodies except Clear Creek
Marine Biological Environment
Benthic
Water Column
Surface
Soils
Water Quality
Surface Water
Clear Creek
Burkes Creek
All streams other than Clear Creek and Burkes Creek
Lakes
Groundwater
Quality
Quantity
Marine Water Quality
IV-2
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
If Criterion:m
LJ Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Category:^
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Air Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project pro-
duces air pollution emissions under current
regulations in the project area.
RATING: 0
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Study Area and treatment facility sites
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of known air emissions from similar
sewage treatment facilities
DISCUSSION:
Properly operated sewage treatment facilities generally
do not emit measurable quantities of air pollutants.
+7,
+50
+2,
It was estimated that daily, one to two truckloads +20
totalling 17.5 tons of dewatered, digested sewage sludge
would be taken to a sanitary landfill. The
exhaust emissions of the truck would be neg-
Igiible in comparison to the vehicle emissions
from the Study Area population.
-10
Dust and particulates raised during construction activ-
ities can be reduced by following EPA published guide-
lines for minimizing fugitive dust from construction
sources. It will be shown in a subsequent section that
project induced population growth will be insignificant.
-Secondary impact air contaminants produced by such a
population would also be insignificant.
-50-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
M. Dean High, Senior Air Quality Engineer
EIR Form K1016/
Copyright 1973
Reduces ambient pollution
by 50%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 25%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 15%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 10%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 5%.
No change from ambient
levels.
Increase ambient pollution
by 5%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 10%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 15%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 25%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 502.
c
IV-3
-------
/fflf-
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project NO.
d Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Noise
Fj Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The affect of ambient noise level upon resi-
dences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic
areas.
| RATING; - 5
-f-lOOtt Over 10 <*BA decrease of
~.50 ambient.
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Major roads and pipeline routes in
Study Area and sewage treatment plant
sites.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Comparison of existing noise levels with estimated
increases due to project. Scale based upon EPA
guidelines.
DISCUSSION:
Sewage treatment facilities are relatively quiet and do
not produce substantial noise outside facility location
but some motor noise may be detected.
Since traffic increase is not attributable to project
and major noisy roadways will remain so due to other
growth factors, only slight noise levels may be attri-
buted to trucks transporting sewage sludges to land-
fills once or twice daily.
+7,
+50
+2,
+10
-10
Construction noise for the facility or the placement of
major pipelines could be substantial and over 10 dBA
but would be of short, temporary duration at any specific
location. "<*
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIS form #1016/
Copyright 1973
M. Dean High, Sr. Air Quality Eng.
EPA NTID 300.3 "Conaaunity Noise";
EPA Region X Guidelines
-Z00LJ
10 dBA decrease of
ambient.
5 dBA decrease of LJQ
ambient.
0 dBA increase of LJQ
ambient.
5 dBA increase of LSQ
ambient, few complaints if
gradual.
10 dBA increase of LSQ
ambient, more complaints,
especially during sleeping
hours.
Over 10 dBA increase of LSQ
ambient, substantial number
of complaints.
IV-4
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
f~| Category :m
Ixl Sub-Category:
LJ Criterion:
II Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Odors
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project
creates odors in the project area.
RATING:
0
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Study Area and treatment facility sites
+100
+7,
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of known odor generation from
similar sewage treatment facilities.
DISCUSSION:
Properly operated sewage treatment facilities generally
do not produce nociceable objectionable odors. Due to
the small size of the service area, it is expected that
fresh, rather than septic, sewages would arrive at the
plant. Some local odor may be noticed at the plant
when (1) tank trucks deliver septic tank sludges
to the treatment facility; (2) a malfunction in
the sewage system delays flow to the plant; and
(3) an unforseen upset in plant process occurs.
+50
+2,
+10
-10
Dewatered, well-digested sewage is relatively odor free
and transport of this sludge to a sanitary landfill would
would not result in odors at the landfill or during
transport. A reduction in odors will be noticed in _25
areas of septic tank failure when these areas are con-
.neeted to a sewage system. This benefit would outweigh
possible plant odors.
-50-
SOURCE QF REFERENCE:
M. Dean High, Senior Air Quality Engineer
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-100**
Reduces ambient odors by 50Z.
Reduces ambient odors by 25%.
Reduces ambient odors by 15%.
Reduces ambient odors by 10%.
Reduces ambient odors by 5%.
Ho change from ambient
levels.
Increases ambient Odors
by 5Z.
Increases ambient odors
by 10%.
Increases ambient odors
by 153!.
Increases ambient odors
by 252.
Increases ambient odors
by SOS.
c:
IV-5
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Q Category:^
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial 'Environment
Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Vegetation Communities
Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project af-
fects vegetation as a soil stabilizer. Site
characteristics (topography, riparian loca-
tion) determine degree to which vegetation
prevents erosion.
RATING: - 30
BOUNDARY: . Alternatives 1 through 9
Clear Creek Pipeline Corridor
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-Bite inspection at route discussed in Chapter XII
+100 '
+75
+50-
DISCUSSION:
The upper and portions of the lower thirds of the Clear +%
Creek pipeline route are heavily wooded and sustain thick
ground cover.
+10 -
Removal of plants and trees for pipeline construction
on the left bank would be necessary along the upper third
of the creek bed (approximately one mile). This would
destroy local vegetation and cause a potential for bank "
erosion and soil instability.
The middle portion of the pipeline follows local road- ~10
ways and will not affect Clear Creek. The lower third
of the pipeline route crosses over a road to the right
bank and borders another thickly wooded section. Erosion
along this segment will probably be less severe ~'
if the pipeline is laid in the open field area
bordering the riparian woodland.
Construction of the sewer pipeline may encourage popula-
tion locations near to Clear Creek. This could be de- "
trimental to heavijy^wooded sections of the route. Such
population relocation is only a possibility and subject to
control by County officials. It cannot be accepted as a
definite impact at this time because it is contrary to
current planning designations of the area as rural/
agricultural.
SOURCE OF .REFERENCE:
-7S|-.
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
EIB Farm K1016/
Copyright 1973
-100*>
increases soil
stability by introduction of
vegeta- ion (planting, seed-
ing, fertilizing).
Project will not induce
erosion, i.e., no or neg-
ligible effects on soil
stability.
Erosion hazard reduced by
less severe site character-
istics.
Vegetation removal will ,
cause serious erosion and
sedimentation because of
site characteristics (topo-
graphy, riparian location).
IV-6
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
[1 Category: Physical Impacts
il Sub-Category:
LJ Criterion: Vegetation Communities
[xl Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Terrestrial Environment
Overall Study Area less Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
vegetation as a soil stabilizer. Site charac-
teristics (topography, riparian location) de-
termine degree to which vegetation prevents
erosion.
RATING:
- 10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Study Area excluding Clear Creek
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation of existing
conditions
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+60
+25
The majority of the pipe alignments will be within local
roadway right-of-ways. On some alternatives, the align-
ments must pass through vegetated sections. Pipeline
construction will cause minor land disruptions during +
vegetation clearing, trenching, and burying of pipes.
In limited areas, some erosion may occur, especially if
the section is not replanted or the plantings fail.
-50-
SOURCE QF REFERENCE:
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
EIR Form #1018/
Copyright 1973
Project increases soil
stability by introduction
of veg-tation (planting,
seeding, fertilizing).
,
Project will not induce
erosion, i.e., no or neg-
ligible effects on soil
stability.
Erosion hazard reduced by
less severe site character-
istics.
Vegetation removal will
cause serious erosion and
sedimentation because of
site characteristics (topo-
graphy, riparian location).
IV-7
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project Ho.
11 Category:^
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
Q Criterion.-
Sub-Criterion:
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
wildlife numbers, complexity and habitat.
RATING:
- 5
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection
DISCUSSION:
+101
+7
+25
Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility
at Silverdale or Charleston (Bremerton) will have no
effect on local wildlife or habitats. Both sites are
within urbanized areas and not greatly frequented by -W Op-
wildlife.
All proposed pipeline routes except for Clear Creek
will be within road right-of-ways and should
cause negligible impact to wildlife and hab-
itats in adjacent areas. ~1
Construction within the Clear Creek corridor will cause
a temporary disruption of habitat. Wildlife will be'
displaced to adjacent areas for a short term but return ~2
fully within a year.
Operation of facility or pipelines will not affect terres-
trial wildlife. Relocation of population near available
sewer lines will disturb, if not eliminate, most wild-
life. Since it is assumed that population growth will
occur in the study area anyway and that presently built-up
areas would not increase substantially in density, this
population would locate somewhere and disturb wildlife for
a negligible difference between project and no-project. -?
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
EIR Form K1016/
Copyright 197 Z
-SO
Significantly improves wild-
life habitats and wildlife
number -.
Increased wildlife numbers
provide more "niches".
Improves or expands wildlife
habitat in localities.
No changes reflected within
system.
Degrades or reduces wildlife
habitat in localities.
Decreases wildlife numbers
or leads to unstable popula-
tion;
Significantly degrades wild-
life habitats and reduces
wildlife number and complex-
ity.
IV-8
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project NO.
Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Terreatrial Environment
0 Criterion:
r_J Sub-Criterion: _
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
wildlife numbers, complexity and habitat.
RATING:
- 10
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation
DISCUSSION:
Although several alternatives are represented, it was
felt that the impacts would be essentially identical.
+50
+25
Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility will
displace wildlife presently utilizing the areas. Due to+10
the small site sizes, disruption of wildlife and habitats
will not be significant.
All proposed pipeline routes except for Clear Creek will
be within road right-of-ways and should cause negligible
impact to wildlife and habitats in adjacent areas. -
Construction within the Clear Creek corridor will cause a
temporary disruption of habitat. Wildlife will be dis-
placed to adjacent areas for a short term but return -25
fully within a year.
Construction of the final pipeline segment leading to the
marine outfall will diverge from the road right-of-way
and cut through a wooded area to reach the shoreline. -*>'
Wildlife will be temporarily disrupted during this seg-
tnfcnt of pipeline construction but will be restored
naturally upon completion of the project.
Operation of facility or pipelines will not affect -7,
terrestrial wildlife. Relocation of population near
SOURCE OF.REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
SIR Form U016/ -100**
Copyright 1973
Significantly improves wild-
life habitats and wildlife
number..
Increased wildlife numbers
provide more "niches".
Improves or expands wildlife
habitat in localities.
No changes reflected within
system.
Degrades or reduces wildlife
habitat in localities.
Decreases wildlife numbers
or leads to unstable popula-
tion.
Significantly degrades wild-
life habitats and reduces
wildlife nunber and complex-
ity.
IV-9
-------
Physical Impacts
Socio-Economic Systems
"" "" CJ Category:
[~] Sub-Category: __
0! Criterion: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
Sub-Criterion: _
SES Project No.
Terrestrial Environment
available sewer lines will disturb, if not eliminate, most wildlife. Since it is
assumed that population growth will occur in the study area anyway and that presently
built-up areas would not increase substantially in density, this population would
locate somewhere and disturb wildlife for a negligible difference between project
and no-project.
IV-10
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
d Category:
LJ Sub-Category:
G§ Criterion: _
Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
DEFINITION:
the degree to which the proposed project affects
wildlife numbers, complexity and habitat.
RATING:
- 10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3, 4, 5. 8, 9
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation
DISCUSSION:
+100
+7,
+50
+2,
Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility will
displace wiJdlife presently utilizing the areas. Due to
the small site sizes, disruption of wildlife and habitats
will not be significant. +10
All proposed pipeline routes except for Clear Creek will
be within road right-of-ways and should cause negligible
impact to wildlife and habitats in adjacent areas.
Construction within the Clear Creek corridor
will cause a temporary disruption of habitat.
Wildlife will be displaced to adjacent areas for a short
term but return fully within a year.
-25
Construction of the final pipeline segment leading to the
marine outfall wlll'diverge from the road right-of-way
and cut through a wooded area to reach the shoreline.
Wildlife will be temporarily disrupted during this seg-
ment of pipeline construction but will be restored
naturally upon completion of the project.
-SO
-75-
SOURCE pF REFERENCE:
£. Chan, Environmental Analyst
EIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Significantly improves wild-
life habitats and wildlife
numbers
Increased wildlife numbers
provide more "niches".
No changes reflected within
system.
Degrades or reduces wild-
life habitat in localities.
Decreases wildlife numbers or
leads to unstable population.
Significantly degrades wild-
life habitats and reduces
wildlife number and complex-
ity.
c
IV-11
-------
Socio-Economic Systems ' SES Project NO.
11 Category: Physical Impacts
LJ Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
LxJ Criterion: Rare and Endangered Species
Sub-Criterion: .
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affect!
the viability of habitat for the rare or en-
dangered species.
ASSESSED BUT
NOT RATED
BOUNDARY:
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing information
DISCUSSION:
No rare or endangered plant species will be affected within the study area. Of the
rare mammals, the sea otter will not be affected. The mountain lion and fisher
which might occur in the area and which are wide-ranging animals, may temporarily
be disturbed by construction activities and perhaps slight loss in habitat. The
western gray squirrel appears in the oak-prairie association and will probably not
be affected by the projects.
No long-range negative impacts are associated directly with the project itself.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
References 19 and 20
IV-12
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
INCOK»0*ATCO
LJj Category: Physical Impacts
II Sub-Category:
[3 Criterion:_ Freshwater Ecology
P3 Sub-Criterion: Clear Creek
SES Project No.
Terrestrial Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the Riparian or marsh system: shore vegetation,
aquatic habitat and aquatic productivity.
RATING: - 50
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Clear Creek Pipeline Corridor
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection
DISCUSSION:
Portions of the Clear Creek pipeline route are heavily
wooded and sustain thick groundcover with a complex
ecosystem.
+7
+50
+2
+10-
The construction impacts of vegetation clearing,
trenching, earth-moving and foot and vehicular traffic
would have an adverse effect upon the Riparian Com-
munity. Construction activities would lead to bank
erosion, siltation, release of nutrients to the stream
and deterioration of the aquatic habitat, primarily in ~1@
the upper one-third of the creek. Nevertheless, erosion
impacts would still be felt along the entire length of
the creek. Winter rains and runoff would eventually
flush the creek bed and restore the aquatic habitat, -25
probably within 1-3 years. Sufficient water and
sediment disturbance could impair or preclude salmonid
fish spawning migrations for one or more seasons. This
would be minimized if pipeline construction were sched-
uled after the salmon migration and spawning season
and proper construction techniques utilized.
The possibility of growth inducement along Clear Creek
due to the availability of sewer services, as opposed
to growth in another portion of the study area, is -7>
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
SIR Form #1016/ -10Ct-l
Copyright 197S
Significantly improves and
promotes stable aquatic hab-
itat and food chain.
<
Aquatic productivity and
complexity increased within
system.
Aquatic habitat improved or
stabilized in local areas.
No changes reflected within
present conditions.
Disturbance of nearby water-
shed area causing deteriora-
tion of aquatic habitat in
local areas.
Decreases aquatic productiv-
ity promoting temporary in-
stability within system.
Significantly degrades or
removes aquatic habitat and
productivity.
IV-13
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject No-
Q Category: Physical Impacts
Q Sub-Category: Terrestrial EnvironmenE
Q Criterion: Freshwater Ecology
Sub-Criterion: cl««r Cr«ete
quite substantial. Housing developments up to the very banks of Clear Creek would
result in erosion, loss of vegetative cover and increased water temperatures, de-
position of litter and possible direct interference with salmonid spawning. These
effects can be prevented by the County through the institution of a Clear Creek
natural corridor, restricted zouing and limitation of the Clear'-Creek pipeline
carrying capacity. It is assumed that the present rural planning designation of
the upper Clear Creek would be retained and precautionary measures instituted to
maintain that designation.
Operation of facilities would not adversely affect the terrestrial environment.
IV-14
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
|_ _| Category: Physical Impacts
LJ Sub-Category:
Q Criterion: Freshwater Ecology
My Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Terrestrial Environment
All freshwater bodies except Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the Riparian or marsh system: shore vegetation,
aquatic habitat and aquatic productivity.
RATING:
+ 30
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Island Lake, Barker, Steel and Burke
Creeks and all other tributaries
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing conditions
DISCUSSION:
Pipeline construction will cause minor land disruptions
during vegetation clearing, trenching and burying of
pipes. In limited areas, some erosion may occur which
can damage stream beds during the first rainy season.
These would be limited impacts and should not last more
than 6 months. More significantly, runoff from septic
fields and leaking septic tanks will be removed from
tributaries to Burke Bay and lower portions of Barker's
Creek. This will reduce organic loading and lead to
an overall improvement in the freshwater environment.
This is most significant during the summer when flows
are low and aquatic organisms are more sensitive to
external influence.
The crossing of all creeks by new sewage pipelines
should be made after the salmonid spawning season and
with proper construction techniques; these crossings
are expected to affect only very small sections of
the streams at present roadway crossings.
Significantly improves and
promotes stable aquatic hab-
itat a.d food chain
+50
+25
+10-
-10-
-25
-50-
SOURCE pF .REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst; Earnshaw and Richman,
EIB Form K016/ Consulting Botanists
Copyright 1973
-100*-*
Aquatic productivity and com-
plexity increased within
system.
Aquatic habitat improved aad
stabilized in local areas due
to improvement in water
quality.
No changes reflected with
present conditions.
Disturbance of nearby water-
shed area causing deteriora-
tion of aquatic habitat in
local areas.
Decreases aquatic productiv-
ity promoting temporary in-
stability within system.
Significantly degrades or re-
moves aquatic habitat and
productivity.
c
IV-15
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project NO!
Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
Ej Criterion:.
Sub~Criterion:
Benthic Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
+75
+50
+2S
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, and 6
Dyes Inlet
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
An anticipated wastewater input of 3.5-5.8MGD into Dyes
Inlet may have some negative effects on the marine en-
vironment.
Construction and laying of the outfall pipe will have &
short-term negative Impact on the benthic community. Dis-
ruption of the substrate, increase in turbidity, and dis-
placement of marine organisms, particularly clam beds, '
is unavoidable during construction. Species most likely
to be affected are butter clam, manila clam, littleneck
clam, bent nose clam, cockles and the small bent nose
clam. A scant population of Japanese oysters would
also be in the outfall path. Eelgrass beds, important to
marine productivity, are scattered throughout shallow
Dyes Inlet and may also be disrupted in lineal seg-
ments. With proper and mitigative construction tech-
niques, the intertidal and subtidal communities should
substantially re-establish themselves within 3-5 years
-10
-25
Operational effects of secondary effluent to be dis-
charged through the new outfall system indicate a gen-
eral benefit to the marine environment through improved
water quality as compared to present conditions.
-50-
(cont'd)
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference (22) " .
(RATING: ~ 15 )
Significantly enhances ben-
thic productivity and pro-
motes stable bottom com-
munity .
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces ben-
thic productivity and de-
grades bottom environment.
IV-16
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°ject NO.
j_j Cate(jora. Physical Impacts _ __
d Sub-Category. Marine Biological Environment
GO Criterion: _ Bent hie Community
I ) Sub-Criterion: __
Long-term pollutional effects are subtle and generally difficult to quantify.
Although secondary treatment removes most of the coliform bacteria and organic
material, the effluent still retains dilute concentrations of dissolved nutrients,
heavy metals and some hydrocarbons. In cases where wastewater chlorination is
necessary, it is assumed that -ubsequent de-chlorination will remove potential
chlorine toxicity in the effluent. The incorporation of heavy metals into the
primary trophic levels can lead to residual cumulative effects within organisms
of higher trophic levels such as grazers, filter feeders, and predators. The
high dilution ratio of 1300:1 for ambient concentration of effluent materials
in Dyes Inlet (see Chapter II ) would probably reduce the threat of toxic
accumulations of heavy metals. It is anticipated that no pollutant would be
present in acutely toxic concentrations in the effluent.
Assessment of further effects on the benthic conmmnity is difficult to determine.
Further modeling studies to be conducted during summer 1975 by the University of
Washington will contribute more information on this subject.
c.
IV-17
-------
Socio-Economic Systems S£s Project NO.
Q Category: Physical Impacts
D Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
[*| Criterion: Benthie Community
F~] Sub-Criterion: _____
DEFINITION:
The degree, to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING: -
+100
+75
+50
+25
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3 and 4
Liberty Bay, Agate Passage and
Puget Sound
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
Construction of conveyance pipelines and the marine
outfall to Bainbridge Island will have short-term
impacts in 2 areas.
To reach site B on Bainbridge Island from Brownsville,
two intermediate saltwater crossings are planned. The
first crossing would traverse the narrow mouth of Liberty Q
Bay from Keyport to Lemolo. Disruption of local beach.
and sublittoral communities by underwater pipeline con-
struction would be a short-term impact. Elimination -20
of sessile invertebrates and limited marine
flora in the path of construction would be a signifi-
cant localized impact. The second pipeline crossing
would be at Agate Passage. Probable pipeline instal- _25
lation underneath the existing bridge would avoid a
,, submarine channel crossing and have only negligible
impacts on the marine environment.
Construction of a 900-foot outfall near Fay Bainbridge _
State Park south of Point Monroe on Bainbridge Island
would displace intertidal and subtldal populations of
littleneck clams, butter clams, gaper clams, sea lettuce
and Laminaria in the path of the outfall. Because of
the small localized populations and moderately fast ?g
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form K1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference ( 22)
-100*I
Significantly enhances ben-
thic productivity and pro-
motes stable bottom com-
munity.
Benthie conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
<
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces ben-
thic productivity and de-
grades bottom environment.
IV-18
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
IMCO*»Oft«TfB P*^
[I Category: Physical Impacts
Ll Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
, ix| Criterion: Benthic Community,
Sub-Criterion:
regeneration times, the construction impact for this area should be short with
community re-establishment proceeding quickly in 2 to 3 years.
Adequate dilution and mixing at the Point Monroe site, as calculated in Chapter IV_
should greatly reduce potentia- adverse impacts of wastewater discharge through
the outfall system. An approximately 250 foot long multiport diffuser system
would further promote fast mixing. The great dilution would thus have minor direct
Impact on the benthie community, although some cumulative effects of effluent
material concentrations, as mentioned in alternative 1, may occur. Avoidance
of the central plume area by salmonids and pelagic fish may occur as a reaction
to salinity and temperature changes.
IV-19
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
II Category: Physical Impacts
Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
0 Criterion:_
LJ .Sub-Criterion.'
Benthie Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING:
- 5
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 7
Sinclair Inlet
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
+100
+7,
+50
+25
Construction and laying of the outfall pipeline will
have a limited short-term negative impact on the benthic
community. Large portions of the subtidal and shallow
intertidal habitats have been eliminated or altered
along the Bremerton waterfront. Benthic organisms near
the proposed outfall site are limited and consist pri-
marily of pollution tolerant polychaete worms (see
Chapter 3).
Mixing in Sinclair Inlet is highly variable depending _j
on wind and surface toBcion- factors. Flushing and dis-
persion is generally fair allowing a general increase in
water quality. Due to limited benthic communities in
this area of Sinclair Inlet, effects of wastewater _,,
discharge will not greatly alter present conditions.
-50-
SOURCE QF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016/
Copying/it 1973
Z. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-100*
Significantly enhances ben-
thic productivity and pro-
motes stable bottom com-
munity.
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish..
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly.reduces ben-
thic productivity and de-
grades bottom environment.
IV-20
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
f~j Category: Physical Impacts
[1 Sub-Category:
L3 Criterion: Benthic Community
L] Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING: - 10
+100 ji Significantly enhances bent
productivity and promotes
stable bottom community.
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 5, 8, and 9
fort Orchard, Rich Passage and Puget Sound +7
MLfhUD Of ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DI^ftJSSlO/1.
Water circulation within these areas will provide
adequate dilution of wastewater and lead to negligible
effects on the benthic community.
+50
+2
+10
Corr;r rur-i Jon ,
and britLlea stars (Ophiodphus sp.) along with some sea
Lettuce, Laminaria and eel grass will be disturbed. The
presence of adjacent benthic communities should lead to
substantial repopulation within 2 years.
Existing benthic conditions at the Manchester outfall
site show scattered dense pockets of the small clam
Axinopsls serricatus. Outfall construction is expected
to have a minor short-term impact.
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Reference 22
EIR Form M016/
Copyright 1973
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces benthic
productivity and degrades
bottom environment.
IV-21
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°j«t NO.
[I Category: Physical Impacts
LI Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
jx| Criterion: Benthic Community
1 I Sub-Criterion: ____________^_________________________
Adequate dilution and mixing at Port Orchard and Puget Sound as calculated in
Chapter III should greatly reduce potential adverse impacts of wastewater dis-
charge through the outfall system. An approximately 250 foot long multiport
dlffuser system would further promote fast mixing. The great dilution would
thus have minor direct impact on the benthie community, although some cumula-
tive' effects of effluent material concentrations, as mentioned in alternative 1,
may occur. Avoidance of the central plume area by salmonids and pelagic fish
may occur as 'a reaction to salinity and temperature changes.
IV-22
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
f"| Category: Physical Impacts
LJ Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
JT| Criterion: Water Column Comnunity
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment within the Water Column Zone
(beginning at the benthic community and extend-
ing up to two feet below the water surface).
RATING:
- 10
BOUNDARY: Alternative 1, 2, 6 and 7
Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
Wastewater effluent entering Dyes and/or Sinclair Inlet
will contribute nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Within small shallow bays and inlets with retarded
flushing, nutrient enrichment can trigger algal blooms +10r~
which block light transmittance to benthic plants and
rob dissolved oxygen from the water when they decompose.
0\
A daily input of 4.3 million gallons of freshwater may
have small effects on salinity and temperature directly L
in the mixing zone. Some mortality will occur "'"'
as plankton and more sensitive marine organisms
become entrained in the freshwater/seawater outfall
plume.
-10
Some benefit will accrue along the shoreline to inter-
tidal organisms, due to improved water conditions.
-25
-SO
-75-
SOURCE ;OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Enhances and maximizes use of
intermediate water column for
fish a.d other marine organ-
isms.
Increased productivity in the
marine environment through
lower food chain due to im-
proved water conditions.
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Changes in water quality par-
ameters which may affect pho-
tosynthesis capability of
plants and reduce productivi-
ty.
Degrades and severely limits
the intermediate water column
for fish and other marine
organisms.
C
IV-23
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Q3 Category :f
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
[jj Criterion:^
1I Sub-Criterion;
Water Column Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment within the Water Column Zone
(beginning at the benthic community and extend-
ing up to two feet below the water surface).
RATING:
- 10
+100r~.
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3 and A
Liberty Bay and Puget Sound
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
Construction of a pipeline crossing at the mouth of
Liberty Bay will have a noticeable short-term impact.
Disruption of the substrate would lead to a temporary
increase in turbidity at the mouth of the poorly cir-
culating Liberty Bay. The sediment load in the water
could have a short-term effect on photosynthetic plants
and filter-feeding animals. These effects should be
limited to the construction period plus a few months to
half-a-year for the bio-regeneration lag time.
Outfall operation may contribute added nutrients to
the local waters causing slight enrichment, but is
not expected to become greatly concentrated due to
mixing conditions. Avoidance of the central plume
area by salmonids and pelagic fish may occur as a
-reaction to salinity and temperature changes.
+50
+25
+10
-10
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
SIR Form
Copyright 1973
-100-*
Enhances and maximizes use of
intermediate water column for
fish rid other marine organ-
isms.
Increased productivity in the
marine environment through
lower food chain due to im-
proved water conditions.
<
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Changes in water quality par-
ameters which may affect pho-
tosynthesis capability of
plants and reduce productiv-
ity.
Degrades and severely limits
the intermediate water col-
umn for fish and other
marine organisms.
IV-24
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Category: Physical Impacts
[""I Sub-Category:
L3 Criterion: Water Column Community
Sub-Criterion:
SES Project NO.
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment within the Water Column Zone
(beginning at the benthic community and extend-
ing up to two feet below the water surface).
RATING:
- 5
BOUNDARY:
Alternatives 5, 8, and 9
Fort Orchard, Rich Passage, Puget Sound
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
Enhances and maximizes use of
I intermediate water column for
fish a-.i other marine organ-
isms.
Wastewater effluent entering Port Orchard and Rich Passage
will contribute nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Within small shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment
can trigger algal blooms which block light transmittance^jQ _
to benthic plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the
water when they decompose.
A daily input of 4.3 million gallons of freshwater may
have small effects on salinity and temperature
directly in the mixing zone. Some mortality
will occur as plankton and more sensitive marine
organisms become entrained in the freshuater/seawater
outfall plume.
Wastewater discharge into open-ended passages with good-
mixing will minimize these effects or entirely eliminate
them.
-10
-2;
-50-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR form M1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Encironmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
Increased productivity in the
marine environment through
lower food chain due to im-
proved water conditions.
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Changes in water quality par-
ameters which may affect pho-
tosynthesis capability of
plants and reduce productiv-
ity.
Degrades and severely limits
the intermediate water column
for fish and other marine
organisms.
c
IV-25
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
IHCOHPOHAriO
LJ Category: Physical Impacts
[~1 Sub-Category:
[jg Criterion: Surface Community
i) Sub-Criterion: ______________
SES Project No.
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
RATING:
- 15
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7
Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Inlet
+101.
+7.
+50
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
+25
Wastewater effluent entering Dyes and/or Sinclair Inlet
will contribute nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Within small shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrich-
ment can trigger algal blooms which block light trans- +*"
mittance to benthic plants and rob dissolved oxygen from
the water when they decompose.
Water volumes are generally adequate to ensure good
dilution. Sinclair and Dyes Inlets normally
have high spring algal biomass and it would
be difficult to ascertain contributions from
additional sources.
-10
-25
SOURCE OF.REFERENCE:
EIR Form #101S/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
Enhances and maximizes use of
surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Introduces excess nutrients,
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality lead-
ing to simplification and
reduction of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
IV-26
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Pr°Ject N°-
Category:
Sub-Category :
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
fxj Criterion:
|J Sub-Criterion: _
Surface Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
RATING:
- 10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3 and 4
Liberty Bay and Fuget Sound
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
Construction of a pipeline crossing at the mouth of
Liberty Bay will have a noticeable short-term impact.
Disruption of the substrate would lead to a temporary
increase in turbidity at the mouth of the poorly cir-
culating Liberty Bay. The sediment load in the water
could have a short-term effect on photosynthetic plants
and filter-feeding animals. Liberty Bay normally has
high algal biomass in the upper layers in the spring
runoff season. The shallow Bay depths also sustain
large shellfish populations. These effects should be
limited to the construction period plus a few months to
half-a-year for the bio-regeneration lag time.
Outfall operation may contribute added nutrients to the
local waters off Bainbridge Island causing slight en-
-richment, but is not expected to become greatly con-
centrated due to mixing conditions. No acute or chronic
toxic effects on marine biota are foreseen outside of
the immediate mixing zone.
Removal of the present wastewater input to Dyes Inlet
should provide a market benefit to that local area.
+50
+25
-25
~SO-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form K1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
Enhances and maximizes use
of surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Introduces excess nutrients
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality lead-
ing to simplification and
reduction of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
C
IV-27
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
$E$ project NO.
Q Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impact*
Marine Biological Environment
L3 Criterion:
if Sub-Criterion: _
Surface Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
RATING: °
+10'Or-n
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 5, 8 and 9
Port Orchard, Rich Passage and Puget Sound
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing conditions
DISCUSSION:
+75
+50
+2,
Wastewater effluent entering local areas can contribute
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Within small
shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment can trigger
algal blooms which block light transmittance to benthic +10
plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the water when
they decompose.
Adequate mixing of effluent through a well-designed
outfall will greatly dilute these effects, especially
through areas of good circulation.
Removal of wastewater input at Sinclair and Dyes Inlets
will provide a benefit to these systems.
-2;
-5C -
-SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Reference 22
Enhances and maximizes use of
surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
<
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Introduces excess nutrients
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality leading
to simplification and reduc-
tion of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
IV-28
-------
c.
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category;
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Soils
(x" Criterion:
Sub-Criterion: _
Long-Term Soil Fertility
DEFINITION:
The extent of change in yield of native and/or
cropped vegetation brought about by the proposed
alternative.
RATING:
0
+100 Yield of vegetation is in-
r~ creased by more than 50
percent.
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Portion of Kitsap County within Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
+75
+50
Examination of soil and geologic reports prepared by the
USDA Soil Conservation Service and the State of Washington
DISCUSSION:
+25
Extent of change of yield is estimated from a series of
existing soil-vegetative associations, climatic conditions
and the available information on effects of increased ir-
rigation, fertilization and toxic element additions as +10
a result of effluent discharges upon soil surfaces.
Disruptions in soil properties along pipeline
routes are assumed to involve the destruction
of soil A and B horizons and their replacement
with mineral aggregates of low fertility; however,
these effects are minor and generally involve road -10
right-of-ways.
-25
-50-
-75-
SOURCE PF REFERENCE:
EIR Farm #1016/
Copyright 1973
B. Sheikh, Ph. D., Soil Scientist;
References 6 and 7
-200*I
<
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by 30 percent.
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by 20 percent.
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by 10 percent.
Soil Properties Remain Un-
changed.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by 10 percent.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by 20 percent.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by 30 percent.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by more than 50
percent.
C
IV-29
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
[]] Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Criterion:
fit] Sub-Criterion:
Surface Water
Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
RATING:
+ 50
+2QQ Substantially upgrades
^^ presently degraded stream
to meet standards through-
out its length.
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Clear Creek
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within drainage
basin, especially where septic tank failures
have occurred, and estimate the reduced waste loading
to the stream.
DISCUSSION:
Bacteriological standards in the lower reaches of
Clear Creek are violated 90 percent of the time. In-
stallation of sewers, although it may cause some
temporary construction related degradation, will
improve water quality over the long-term after
presently contaminated groundwater and construction
related disturbances have been flushed out. Im-
provement will be confined to the lower reaches,
hence a rating of + 50 is appropriate.
+75
+50
+25
+10
-10
-25
-50-
-76-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; Reference 1 ; State Health Department Data
EIB form M016/
Copyright 1973
Upgrades stream to meet water
quality standards in selected
reaches.
Upgrades selected water
quality indicators in
selected reaches.
No or negligible effect.
Degrades selected reaches of
stream. i
Substantially degrades a
stream that presently meets
the standards throughout
its length.
IV-30
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCOMPOHATCO f^^
LJ Category:__
[]] Sub-Category: <-
["] Ofrfterton.' Surface Water
[H Sub-Criterion: Burkes Creek
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
RATING:
+ 50
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Burkes Creek
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within drainage
basin, especially where septic tank failures
have occurred, and estimate the reduced waste loading
to the stream.
DISCUSSION:
Bacteriological standards for Burkes Creek are ex-
ceeded over 80 percent of the time in the lower
reaches. Installation of sewers will improve long-
term water quality after the polluted groundwater
presently being discharged from failing septic tank
drainfields is flushed out. Improvement will be con-
fined to the lower reaches, hence a rating of + SO
is appropriate.
+100
+75
+50
+2,
+10 -
-10
-25-
-50-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; Reference 1 ; State Health Department Data
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-1001
Substantially upgrades a
presently degraded stream
to meet standards throughout
its length.
Upgrades stream to meet water
quality standards in selected
reaches.
Upgrades selected water
quality indicators in
selected reaches.
No or negligible effects.
Degrades selected reaches
of stream.
Substantially degrades a
stream that presently meets
the standards throughout its
length.
C
IV-31
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project NO.
, .
II Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
LJ Criterion: Surface Water
Sub-Criterion: All streams other than Clear Creek and Burkes Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
| RATING: + 40
+100
n
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
All streams other than Clear Creek
and Burkes Creek
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within drainage
basin, especially where septic tank failures have
occurred, and estimate the reduced waste loading to
the stream.
DISCUSSION:
t
There are at least six major septic tank drainf ield
failure areas located within a number of small tributary
streams of Dyes Inlet and Port Orchard channel. Although
no water quality data exists for these streams, except *
for Silverdale Creek, it can be assumed that Class A
standards are not being met. The impact of sewage col-
lection will be less than in Clear Creek and Burkes
Creek because not all of the other stream basins will
be sewered so it can not be assumed that the effect
is equally beneficial. A lower positive rating of
+ 40 has been established.
+50
«
-10-
-25-
-50-
-?&-
SOURCE QF.REFERENCE: w. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.
Reference 1 ; State Health Department Data
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-10&-*
Substantially upgrades
presently degraded streams
to meet standards throughout
their length.
Upgrades stream to meet water
quality standards in selected
reaches.
Upgrades selected water
quality indicators in selec-
ted reaches.
No or neglegible effect.
Degrades selected reaches of
selected streams.
Degrades all streams through-
out their length.
IV-3 2
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
[~J Category:__
LJ Sub-Category: ___
IJ Cretepfon:. Surface Water
ixl Sub-Criterion: Lakes
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
RATING:
+ 50
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Island Lake
+7
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within lake
drainage basin, especially where septic tank
failures have occurred, and estimate the reduced waste
loading to the lake.
DISCUSSION:
It is assumed that the Clear Creek Interceptor will have
capacity to serve the existing and proposed residential
development around Island Lake. This would eliminate a
known septic tank drainfield failure area and possibly
upgrade the quality of the lake so that it more fre-
quently meets Lake Class Standards. A positive rating
of + 50 has been assigned provided that this area is
sewered.
+5
+SS
+1
-10
-2,
-SO
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: « 0- Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 1 > State Health Department Data
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
ii Substantially upgrades a
presently degraded lake to
consistently meet Lake Class
Standards.
Upgrades a presently degraded
lake and reduces the fre-
quency of violating Lake
Class Standards.
No or neglegible effect.
Degrades a lake so that there
is some frequency of violat-
ing the standards.
Degrades a. lake so .that Lake
Class Standards' ar« consis-
tently not met.
c
IV-33
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject N°-
(~1 Category: Physical Impacts
Q Sub-Category: Water Quality
Q Criterion: Ground Water
jxT Sub-Criterion:
Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which alternatives affect the
quality of the principal aquifers in the
Study Area.
RATING: + 50
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Proposed Sewered Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing water quality, septic tank
failures, location of wells
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
The installation of sewers will alleviate the
recently observed pollution of shallow wells in areas of
septic tank malfunctions. This will help in the Silver-f20f
dale area and particularly the Meadowdale and Browns-
ville area where dug wells predominate. Pollution of
wells would grow worse in the future if septic tank 0
disposal is continued to be used in areas of suburban
density land use. Groundwater quality is excellent in all
deep aquifers not subject to septic tank infiltration -10
and the installation of sewers will not change this.
Therefore a rating of + 50 is assigned to' alternatives
1-9.
-25
-50-
-7&-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer;' References 1 and 5
EIR Perm H1016/
Copyright 1973
Substantially increases
groundwater quality through-
out Study Area, all aquifers.
«
Groundwater quality increases
in localized areas or in se-
lected aquifers.
No or negligible effect.
Groundwater quality reduced
in localized areaa or selec-
ted aquifers.
Substantially reduces ground
water quality throughout
Study Area.
IV-34
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category:
Sub-Category: _
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Q Criterion:
1*1 Sub-Criterion:
Ground Water
Quantity
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability)of groundwater
in the Study Area.
RATING:
- 25
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +li
these precautions the rating would be - 75 but with these
features the rating of - 25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particular-^
ly where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basin will be adverse--^"
ly affected by exporting water extracted from the basin
for discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-25
-50-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.
' ' Reference 5
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
Water levels increase in
some existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
C
IV-35
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
M
LJ Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Cr*£tei*tOK.'
Marine Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated waste-
waters discharged to marine waters.
RATING:
+ 10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, and 6
Dyes Inlet
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet state quality standards +50
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
+SS
Based upon model studies, discharges to Dyes Inlet
receive fair mixing and dispersion from wind dispersion
and tidal flow and fair initial dilution.
For explanation see Chapter 2. Present +lt
contamination of Dyes Inlet would be reduced.
There probably would be a slight increase in background (
nutrient levels of nitrogen and phosphorus but sub-
stantial decrease in coliform organisms.
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concen-
trations of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone
(plume) . Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential
problem by extending . the biological treatment period
to nitrify the effluent.
-10
-25
Properly operated secondary level treatment facilities
with disinfection facilities can produce an effluent with
total coliform levels as low as 23MPN per 100 ml. After -5
dilution, dispersion and die-away, this would be neglig-
ible in the receiving waters-
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would reduce
pollutant concentrations to at least water quality _7
standards levels.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: J. A. Davis, Water Quality Engineer;
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1.
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area. ^ l
SIR Form #1016/ -100*-*
Copyright 1973
Maximum dispersion of
effluents to exceed
water quality standards;
would maintain present
water quality.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water quality
standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-3 6
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
I"") Category: Physical Impacts
{,1 Sub-Category: Water Quality
ET) Criterion: Marine Water Quality
Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated waste-
waters discharged to marine waters.
RATING:
+ 25
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3 and 4
Waters off Bainbridge Island
+100
+7,
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet state quality standards,.
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
+50
+25
Based upon model studies, discharges from Bainbridge
Island receive good mixing and dispersion and fair
initial dilution. For explanation see Chapter 2. Present
contaminators of Dyes Inlet would be reduced. +10
It is unlikely that noticeable increases in background
concentrations of nutrients would be detected after
dispersion of the effluent from this site.
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concen- -10\
trations of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone
(plume). Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential
problem by extending the biological treatment period'
to nitrify the effluent. ~Si
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would reduce
pollutant concentrations to at least water quality
standards levels. ...
oO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: J' A' Davis« Water Quality Engineer;
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1.
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area.
EIS Form #1016/ .
Copyright 1973
Maximum dispersion of ef-
fluent to exceed water
quality standards.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water quality
standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
C
IV-37
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
(3 Criterion:
IJ Sub-Criterion:
Marine Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated waste-
waters discharged to marine waters.
RATING: + 50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 5
north Fort Orchard channel
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet water quality standards,
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
+50
+25
Based upon model studies, discharges to north Port
Orchard would receive good mixing and dispersion and good
initial dispersion. For explanation see Chapter 2. Pres-
ent contamination of Dyes Inlet would be reduced. +i
It is unlikely that noticeable increases in background
concentrations of nutrients would be detected after
dispersion of the effluent from this site.
-10
-25
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concen-
trations of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone
(plume). Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential
problem by extending the biological treatment period to
nitrify the effluent.
Properly operated secondary level treatment facilities
with disinfection facilities can produce an effluent
with total coliform levels as low as 23MPN per 100 ml.
After dilution, dispersion and die-away, this would be
negligible in the receiving water.
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would
reduce pollutant concentrations to at least water
quality standards levels.
SOURCE OF .REFERENCE: J- A- Davis, Water Quality Engineerj
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1;
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area.
EIR Form #1016/ -100*-*
Copyright 1973
Maximum dispersion of ef-
fluent to exceed water quality
standards; would maintain
present water quality.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water quality
standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-38
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
MM
j_J Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
0 Criterion:
I I Sub-Criterion:
Marine Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated
wastewaters discharged to marine waters.
RATING:
+ 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 7, 8
Sinclair Inlet; Port Orchard
channel at Enetai
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet water quality standards,
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
Based upon model studies, discharges to Sinclair
Inlet and Port Orchard channel at Enetai would receive
good mixing and dispersion and fair initial dilution.
For explanation see Chapter 2. There probably would
be a slight increase in background nutrient levels of
nitrogen and phosphorus.
+100
+75
+50
+2
+10
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concentra-
tions of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone (plume).
Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential problem by
extending the biological treatment period to nitrify the "*
effluent.
Properly operated secondary level treatment facilities
with disinfection facilities can produce an effluent
with total coliform levels as low as 23MPN per 100 ml.
'After dilution, dispersion and die-away, this would be
negligible in the receiving water.
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would
reduce pollutant concentrations to at least water
quality standards levels.
-2,
-50
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: J< Al Davis' Water Q"*1111? Engineer
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1;
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area.
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-700"I
Maximum dispersion of ef-
fluent to exceed water
quail.y standards and main-
tain present water quality.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
efluent to meet water
quality standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-39
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
n Category:
LJ Sub-Category:
13 Criterion:
LJ Sub-Criterion: __
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Marine Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated
wastewaters discharged to marine waters.
RATING:
+ 100
BOUNDARY: Alternative 9
Rich Passage at Manchester
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet water quality standards,
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
Based upon model studies, discharges to Rich Passage at
Manchester would receive the best mixing and dispersion
and excellent initial dilution. For explanation see
Chapter 2. Presant contamination of Dyes Inlet would
be reduced.
It is unlikely that noticeable increases in background
concentrations of nutrients would be detected after
dispersion of the effluent from this site.
+50
+25
-10
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concentra-
tions of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone (plume).
Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential problem by
extending the biological treatment period to nitrify the _^
effluent.
Properly operated secondary level treatment facilities
with disinfection facilities can produce an effluent
with total coliform levels as low as 23MPN per 100 ml.
After dilution, dispersion and die-away, this would be
negligible in the receiving water.
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would
reduce pollutant concentrations to at least water
quality standards levels.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: * A. Davis, Water Quality Engineer;
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1;
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area
EIR Form »101B/ -100*-*
Copyright 1973
-50-
-75-
Maximum dispersion of ef-
fluent to exceed water qual-
ity standards; would main-
tain present water quality.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water
quality standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-40
-------
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The impacts of the proposed alternative plans upon natural,
social and utility resources in the study area are assessed and
rated by the following sub-categories:
Natural Resources
Surface Water Resources
Potable
Ground Water
Quality of Potable Supplies
Quantity of Potable Supplies
Flora
Fauna
Terrestrial
Marine
Utilities Service Systems
Electrical
Gas
Water
Municipal Services
Environmental Health
Parks and Recreation
Flood Control and Storm Drains
Sanitary Sewer System
Streets and Lighting
IV-41
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
f| Category._ Resource Impacts
Sub-Category:
Natural Resources
Criterion:
Sub-Criterion: Potable
Water Resources - Surface
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject affects the quality and quantity of potable
water obtained from surfaces in the impact area
{ RATING; ~
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Study area.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
engineer's report.
Staff review of consulting
DISCUSSION: Sub-standard and overtaxed tanks
permit raw sewage to flow into surface
waters in the planning area.
The proposed project, by carrying the sew-
erage to a treatment plant, will reduce
or prevent further pollution of surface
water supplies and will enhance the quality
of surface waters.
The use of surface waters as potable water supply in the
Study Area is insignificant.
+SO
+25
+10-
-10
-2S
-50-
-75-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIS farm #1016/
Copyright 1973
Feffer, Senior Environmental
Analyst
Significantly enhances the
quality and quantity of
potable surface water
Enhances the quality and
quantity of potable surface
water
No or negligible effect
Diminishes quality and
quantity of potable surface
water
Significantly diminishes
quality and quantity of
potable surface water
IV-42
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
IHCOM00M4TCD _M
II
["i Sub-Category:
ij Q*£terton.' Ground Water
flj Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. _i_
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
Quality of Potable Supplies
DEFINITION: The degree to which alternatives
affect the quality of the principle potable water
supplies in the Study Area.
RATING:
+ 50
Substantially increases
" jroundwater quality throughout
Study Are1., all aquifers
BOUNDARY: Proposed Sewered Area
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Evaluation of existing water quality,
septic tank failures, location of wells.
DISCUSSION: The installation of sewers will alleviate
the recently observed pollution of shallow wells in +25
areas of septic tank malfunctions. This will help in the
Silverdale area and particularly the Meadowdale and Browns-
ville area where dug wells predominate. Pollution of wells
would grow worse in the future if septic tank disposal +11
is continued to be used in areas of surburban density
land use. Groundwater quality is excellent in all deep
aquifers not subject to septic tank infiltration and the
installation of sewers will not change this. Therefore
a rating of + 50 is assigned to alternatives 1-9.
-10
SOURCE OF-REFERENCE: W.O. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; Reference 1 and 5
SIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Groundwater quality increase in
localized areas or.in selected
qifcif ers.
No or negligible effect.
-25-
Groundwater quality reduced
-5C|tin localized areas or selected
aquifers.
Substantially reduces ground-
water quality throughout Study
Area.
IV-43
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
_ Q Category: Resource Impacts
il Sub-Category:
Q Criterion: Ground Water
00 Sub-Criterion: Quantity of Potable Supplies
SES Project No.
Natural Resources
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of potable ground-
water in the Study Area.
RATING:
- 25
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines
DISCUSSION:
+100 Substantially Increases
groundwater availability.
+75
+50
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particular- 0
ly where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basin will be adversely.^
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin
for discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form #101B/
Copyright 1973
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
Water levels increase in
some existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
IV-44
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES
NO.
Criterion:
I""} Category:^
Sub-Category:
Flora
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
vegetation as an economic resource.
I RATING: 0_
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
+100ri ^ncreases significantly
amount of vegetation for
econom-'-; production.
+75
+50 -
DISCUSSION:
Proposed treatment plant sites and pipeline routes
require only small amounts of land area. This limited
land utilization should have a minimal effect or no
effect at all on any type of vegetation as an economic
resource.
+10
-10
-25-
-SO-
-75-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst ;
Earnstiaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
SIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
<
No or negligible effect.
Removes significant amount
of vegetation from economic
production.
IV-45
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
l e , »» »-f« * __
Lj Category:
ft Sub-Category:
n Criterion; Fauna
xl
SES Project NO.
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
Terrestrial
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
terrestrial game species and abundance.
RATING: 0
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Study Area
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of available data
DISCUSSION:
Proposed treatment plant sites and pipeline routes
require minimal land utilization, some of which passes
through areas of human usage and traffic. The project
will probably have a negligible effect on game species
and abundance.
Natural population growth in the study area, not asso-
ciated with the proposed project, will have a negative
effect on the abundance of game species.
+50
+25
-10
-25-
-50
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-Wff
Provides attractive and
stable habitat for many
species.
Improvement or extension of
favored game habitats in
local areas.
No or negligible effects on
present condition.
Destruction of habitat de-
creases animal abundance in
localized areas.
Significantly decreases types
of game species and number
through loss of habitat.
IV-46
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
' ..... '"" Q Category: Resource Impacts
O Sub-Category: Natural Resources
Q Criterion: *auna _ _______
pH Sub-Criterion:
Marine
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
commercial and sport fisheries, including effects
on mollusc abundance.
RATING: +10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8
Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet and lower
Port Orchard near East Bremerton.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of present condition
DISCUSSION:
The Bremerton area as defined in the above boundary
accounts for approximately 7% of foodfish value to the
planning area. Improvement of water conditions should
improve habitat and gradually lead to growth of
populations and acceptability for market.
+7.
+SO
+10
Disruption of habitat in clear creek for pipeline con-
struction may reduce salmonId migration in the local area
Disruption may be greatly reduced if construction is
scheduled after the salmonid migration season. The
reduction in salmonid spawning would be short-term.
A return of productivity would be achieved with the
natural renewal of the habitat in 2-5 years.
-10
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
Promotes and enhances con-
tinuation of shellfish beds
and marine fish resources.
Attracts and sustains addi-
tional fish populations.
No or negligible effects on
present condition.
Reduction in range of shell-
fish harvesting.
Impaired productivity and de
cline in fish populations.
Degradation or deterioration
of shellfish beda and signi-
ficant reduction in marine
fish resources.
IV-47
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
ATI* __
if Category^
LJ Sub-Category:
Electrical
SES Project No.
Resource Impacts
Utilities Service Systems
if
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on the local electrical
power supply system.
RATING:
- 1
BOUNDARY: Planning Area, Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of
the Kitsap County Public Works Dept., Puget Sound
Power and Light Co.
DISCUSSION: The planning area, excluding the Trident
base itself, will be serviced by the Puget Sound Power
and Light Co., the western division of the Bonneville
Power Administration. The U.S. Naval Base at Bangor,
where Trident will be located has, and will continue to
have its electrical needs served separately by the
Bonneville Power and Light Company.
+100r-1
+75
+SO
+25
+10
Although the project engineers cannot yet provide an esti-
mate of the power demand of the proposed project, the
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. indicates that electrical
power resources in the area are adequate to meet the -10
increased demand of Trident related growth, and expressed
confidence that the additional demand that this project
will impose can be met.
-25
Given the lack, of project-specific electrical demand data
and the probability that no project alternative will
exceed availability of this resource, all alternatives
will receive the same rating at this time.
-S0\
SOURCE OF, REFERENCE: Suzanne Yuen, Environmental Analyst"
References 1, 35, 36 and 38
SIS Farm HI 016/
Copyright 1973
Continuously supplies
significant power.
Supplies power at peak
demand times.
Supplies stand-by^power.
Supplies emergency power.
No power demand.
Approaches limits of current
service capacity.
Requires augmenting existing
transmission lines.
Requires enlarging existing
transmission facilities
Requires new substation.
Requires increases generating
IV-48
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
NO.
_
. Resource Impacts
Sub-Category: Utilities Service Systems
(jSj Criterion: Gas
J_J Sub-Criterion: ^
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject imposes demands on the local natural gas systeo
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel from the Cascade Natural Gas Co., URS
'DISCUSSION: The Cascade Natural Gas Company does not yet supply natural gas to the plan-
ning area, but does service the Bremerton and Fort Orchard areas which are located just
outside of the planning area. The gas company anticipates that there will be ample gas
available for all of Kitsap County even with the increased demands due to Trident related
growth. Although the service capacity will be more than adequate for future demands there
exists the problem of transporting the gas to the area. The Gas Company says that this
problem has yet to be worked out.
The proposed project will probably not use any significant amount of gas since electricity
will be readily available and the preferred source of power. The project will therefore
have only negligible impact on the gas supply system. Since the project alternatives are
net expected to differ signigicantly in their demand for this resource, each alternative
will receive the same rating with respect to this criteria.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Suzanne Yuen, , Environmental Analyst References 26, 36
Form 91Q1S/
Copyright 1972
IV-49
-------
/""--
Socio-Economic Systems SES p«>ject NO.
Q Category: Resource Impacts
£3 Sub-Category: Utilities Service System
MJ Criterion: Water
- ll Sub-Criterion: .
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demsnds on the local water
supply system.
RATING:
0
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County, Alternatives 1 through 9
+lOOr-\
+7S
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of the
Kitsap Cpunty Public Works Dept., URS; Examination of
Kitsap County planning policies.
+60
DISCUSSION: Although the project engineers are not yet
able to estimate the water needs of the proposed pro- +25
ject, demand in this resource is expected to be small.
No supply problem is anticipated, as "productive aquifers
known to exist....will provide supplies of ground water to
meet anticipated 1990 requirements" (Draft Facilities
Plan).
The impact on this resource can be considered insignifi-
cant.
-10
-25
-50-
-7.
SOURCE OF,REFERENCE: Suzanne" Yuen, , Environmental Analyst
References 1, 35 and 36
EIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Continuously supplies potable
water.
Continuously supplies non-
potable water.
Supplies emergency potable
water
Supplies emergency clean, non-
potable water.
No water demand.
Approaches limits of current
service capacity.
Requires increase in local
pressure to increase volume
delivered.
Requires installing larger
lines.
Requires augmenting storage
capacity.
-100 e1u-res major addition to
water distribution system.
IV-50
-------
c
Socio-Econornic Systems
SES Project, No. iso
II Category:
Sub-Category:
Resource Impacts
Municipal Services
JTJ Criterion:
[~| Sub-Criterion: _
Environmental Health
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on the environmental
health division of the local health district.
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County, Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with Kitsap County
Department of Public Health Staff, review of Project
plans.
+100
+7S
+50
DISCUSSION: There is an existing potential health hazard
in Kitsap County resulting from the over-loaded con-
dition of septic tanks and the inadequate sewage treat-
ment facilities now in use. The demand for environmental
health services, vector control, etc. can be expected to
rise as Trident-induced growth /combined with natural +10\
population increases and use of inadequate disposal
systems impact on the area.
The proposed project, by improving the local handling
of sewage, will reduce the existing and expected health
hazard, and consequently reduce the demand for this
municipal service below what would be required without
the project.
-10
-25
-50-
-71 -
SOURCE OF, REFERENCE:
Reference 38
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1373
Shlomo Bachrach, Environmental Analyst
0 -
I RATING; +25 j
-Greatly augments service
on a continuous basis
Significantly augments
services
Slightly augments service
capacity
Neither supplies nor
demands services
Approaches limits of
service capacity
Requires minor increase in
services
_300LJ Destroys existing facilities
and places major new demands
or services and facilities
IV-51
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
li Category: Resource Impacts
Li Sub-Category:
jx| Criterion: Parks and Recreation
I | Sub-Criterion: ___^^__^_____________
SES Project No. 180
Municipal Services
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on local parks and
recreation facilities and services (services
include personnel and equipment).
j RATING: °
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of County recreation
resources, proposed project plans.
+100
+7S
+SO
DISCUSSION: There is currently a deficiency in public
recreational areas in the planning area as well as all +25
of Kitsap County which was indicated by the October 1974
ORB study. ORB reported that the present total demand
for all recreational areas in Central Kitsap County (in
which most of the planning area falls) is 814 acres
(calculated by totaling the various demands for each
type of recreational area based on the individual standards
(No. acres/1000 population) e.g., neighborhood parks
(2.25 acres), community parks (2'.5 acres), large urban
parks without shoreline (1.5 acres), large urban parks
with freshwater shoreline (1.5 acres), and large urban -10
parks with saltwater shoreline (2.0 acres). The present
supply is 481 acres with only 43 acres actually occuring
in the planning area. There are no shoreline parks in '
the planning area. _25
The demand for, hence the shortage of recreational areas
will be greater when the full impact of Trident related
growth is felt. The recreation consultant (ORB) estimates
that 1,013 acres of recreational land will be needed at -£0j
that time, based on an assumed Trident related increase
of 27,000 people by 1981.
-7J
SOURCE OF- REFERENCE:
Engineer; Reference 25
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Suzanne Yuen, Environmental
-100-*
Makes available major
new facilities
Substantially increases
available facilities.
Slightly increases available
facilities
Neither supplies nor
demands facilities
Approaches limits of
current service capacity
Requires minor increase
in services
Requires major increase in
services
Required- increase in
services and expansion of
facilities
Requires construction of
major new facilities.
IV-52
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
Q Category:
Q Sub-Category: Municipal Services
G3 Criterion: Parks and Recreation
Sub-Criterion:
COJnpJUED:
The'shortage of recreational land will not be affected by the proposed project.
Vejry little-more probably no-recreational land will be used by the project
itself. The employment potential of the project is small (20-40 employees), and
will not significantly affect the population and thus the demand for recreational
facilities. To the extent thatthe proposed project reduces the rush of contamination
of local surface and marine waters, it may even beneficially affect this resource
slightly.
Regardless of the alternative selected, the net effect with respect to recreational
resources in Kitsap County is considered insignificant.
c
IV-53
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES p«>ject NO.
|""| Category: Resource Impacts
Sub-Category: Municipal Services
nn Criterion' Flood Control and Storm Drains
I""] Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands for drainage and flood
control on surrounding properties and local flood
control systems.
ASSESSED BUT NOT SATED
BOUNDARY: Study Area,. Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of Draft Facilities Plan.
DISCUSSION: The impact of the proposed project on flooc control and storm drains cannot
be determined until the project alternative identifying tie site(s) involved has been
chosen. If the site(s) do not interfere with normal runoff, or affect existing or planned
storm drains, there will be no impact, and the rating will be zero. Underground trans-
mission lines associated with the project will have no impact with respect to this criterion.
The present and growing hazard of raw sewage from failing .teptic tanks being washed into storm
drains is discussed elsewhere (See "Environmental Health", "Sanitary Sewer System", "Health
& Safety").
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner; Reiference 1
EIR'Form #1016/
Copyright 2973
IV-54
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
SES
No-
| |
Sub-Category:
Tanactg
Municipal Services
Sanitary Sewer System
l) Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on the local sanitary
sewer system
RATING: +50
BOUNDARY:
study
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with Department
of Public works and review of Central Kitsap County
Interim Facilities Plan.
+100
+75
+60
DISCUSSION: ~^s 8°al °f the proposed project is to pro-
vide transport and treatment capacity for sewage in +25
an area with seriously inadequate existing capacity,
and to prepare for a sharp increase in demand for this
service in the near future resulting from the construc-
tion of the Trident Support Site. +10\
This Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department lists
numerous areas which have failing drainage, transport,
and treatment systems. Approximately 90% of the
Planning Area is classified as having severe limitations
for drainage. The existing sewer system in the county, -10
serving Silverdale, is inadequate to meet legal re-
quirements for secondary treatment. The need for an
adequate sewer system to serve the growing population
of Kitsap County is evident. _25
The proposed project,-, regardless of the alternative
selected, will not serve the entire population of the
planning area. It will, however, significantly augment
existing sewage disposal capacity, hence it's rating. -50
SOURCE OF, REFERENCE:
Planner; Reference 1
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
Lauryn Jones, Environmental
Creates a new system with
capacity significantly
greater than current demand
Creates a new system pro-
viding adequate treatment
of current demand pro-
jections
Significantly augments
existing system on a
continuous basis
Augments existing system
for overload demand
Slightly upgrades treatment
Neither supplies nor
demands service
Slightly increases demand
for service
Reduces adequacy of
existing service
Requires major expansion of
existing facilities
Requires major expansion
of existing facilities
and construction of over-
load capacity facilities
IV-55
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
j I Category: Resource Impacts
Sub-Catejori/.- Municipal Services
|T[ Criterion: Streets and Lighting
Sub-Criterion;.
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposed demands on local street and
lighting service.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study area, Alternatives 1 through 9
IEIHOD OF ANALYSIS: Analysis of project plans.
DISCUSSION: The demand for street and lighting service created by the proposed project is
expected to be negligible, regardless of the project alternative selected.
Existing sites will be served by existing access roads, which at most may require limited
widening or repair.
New sites may require the construction of short access roads and possible lighting, if the
sites are not served by existing roads, and if the extensive development required to support
Trident-induced growth does not provide the necessary access.
The demand for service to support the small operational staff (20-40 employees) of the facility
will not impact measurably on this resource.
In the context of projected growth resulting from the Trident Support Site development, the
potential increase in demand on local resource for streets and lighting due to the proposed
project is deemed too minor to rate.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Aanon Feffer, Senior Analyst; Reference 34
SIR farm *1016/
Copyright 2973
IV-56
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The economic impacts of the proposed alternative plans are
assessed and rated in this section. The sub-categories are divided
as follows:
Direct Effects
Employment Potential
Municipal Service Costs
Loans (Bonds) and Subsidies
Loans (Bonds)
Subsidies
Property Tax
Property Tax Base
Changes in Property Tax Rates
Changes in Property Tax Revenues
Indirect Effects
Property Values
Existing Local Businesses
New Business Formation
New Construction
IV-57
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 180
1""] Category:
Sub-Category: r
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Q Criterion:
I"") Sub-Criterion: _
Employment Potential
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject affects the employment potential of the local
area by creating or eliminating employment.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination Of U.S. Dept. of Commerce data; consultation with
engineering consultant
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will employ between 20 and 40 people, depending
on the alternative selected and the operational procedure established. Kitsap County
had in 1973, a work force totaling over 36,000. The project will thus have an in-
significant effect on the local job market, in its operational phase.
There will be a temporary increase in available employment during the construction
phase. The project engineers are not yet able to estimate the size of the increase,
nor its duration.
Because the proposed project will not have a meaningful impact on local employment
potential regardless of the alternative selected, no rating is given. If the con-
struction force will be large and needed for an extended period, a rating should
be given when the facts are established or can be estimated.
While employment opportunities will expand in the study area due to Trident related
growth, the proposed project will affect the location of jobs {by attracting residents
to its service area) rather than the number of jobs.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryri Jones, Environmental Planner
SIR Form M016/
Copyright 1973
IV-5 8
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
LJ Category: Economic Impacts
C3 Sub-Category: Direct Effects
LU Criterion: Municipal Services Costs
LJ Sub-Criterion: .
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects the cost (to the agencies in-
volved, and consumers) of providing municipal
services to the local area.
RATING:
-10
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with County Assessor's
office, staff analysis of county tax data.
+50
DISCUSSION: The following table indicates the estimated
annual operating costs for each project alternative: +25
ALTERNATIVE NUMBER
ESTIMATED OPERATING &
MAINTENANCE $ 1 YEAR
412,400
483,200
500,300
578,500
445,700
417,500
435,800
419,200
411,700
(Low)
+1Q
0
(High)
-25
* Poulsbo (not in the study area) is included in these
alternatives, which propose regional solutions to the
wastewater treatment problem. If an alternative is
selected which does not include Poulsbo, additional -SO
operation costs of an estimated $50,000/year for the
1.5 MGD facility can be projected, though these funds
will be generated outside the study area.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Amnon Feffer, Senior Environmental
Analyst; Reference 44
SIR form #1016 /
Copyright 1973
Community income exceeds
expenditures by more than
50%.
Community income exceeds
expenditures by more than
25% . ' -
Community income exceeds
expenditures by more than
10%.
No change
Community expenditures
increase by 10%.
Community expenditures
increase by 25%.
C
IV-59
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO
'««'« __
LJ Category:^ Economic-Impacts
U Sub-Category: Direct Effects
IBU Criterion:_ Municipal Services Costs
Q Sub-Criterion:
CONTINUED; The municipal cost increase to serve the 20-40 facility employees and
families is considered to be negligible.
Total County tax revenue is currently $16,411,584. The high and low costs noted
above are equivalent to 3.5% to 2.5% of current revenues. Because project costs
are estimates, and the partially offsetting revenue increases will vary somewhat
from alternative to alternative, the same rating will be .given to each alternative,
and reflects a general order of magnitude impact.
IV-60
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 18°
Category:^
Sub-Category:
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Q Criterion: Loans (Bonds) and Subsidies
Sub-Criterion:
Loans (Bonds')
DEFINITION: The degree to which the funding of the
proposed project tends'to increase or decrease
the financial burdens of the community.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Kitsap County
METHOD OF ANALYSIS" Consultation with major bank bond specialist and project engineers.
nTSni^TON- ** ^s our working assumption that Kitsap County will finance their portion
or tne project cost by means of a public loan or bond issue. This bond would probably
be a general obligation bond ranging between 14.8 and 16 million dollars on a 20
year maturity level at an interest rate of 5-7/8.
The general obligation bond (GO) approach is the method most widely used by public
entities to finance improvements which are considered to be of a general benefit
to a region as a whole. They are primarily secured by and payable from ad valorem
taxes levied on all taxable properties within the jurisdiction of the issuing entity.
General obligation bonds represent the highest type of credit that a public entity
can issue, and, as a result, they can normally be sold at lower interest rates than
other types of bonds. The lower interst rates stem from the fact that the GO bonds
are backed by the public agency's total assets and the interest payments are not
subject to Federal income tax. Such bonds represent an equitable system for
financing works of benefit to the entire area of the agency, and, when employed with
deferred redemption schedules, the costs of the improvement may be paid by the future
benefited population and the per capita cost is held fairly constant over the life
of the issue.
General obligation bonds must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate
and are limited to a reasonable percentage of the assessed valuation. Under emergency
or urgent circumstances, special legislation may permit the issuance of general
obligation bonds can be summarized as follows: (1) lower interst, (2) lower annual
cost, to meet principal and interest payments compared with other types of bonds, and
(3) greater flexibility in raising funds.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner ; Reference 45
C
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-61
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO "o
I. C.... . » T , « -
U Category^
LJ Sub-Category: Direct Effects
Criterion:
CONTINUED;
The revenue bond is another method which may be used by an entity to finance major
facilities when an adequate method of levying and collecting service charges to
secure payments of the bonds can be developed. As distinct from general obligation
bonds, payments of revenue bonds are secured solely by the revenues derived from
or as a result of the improvements constructed with bond proceeds, and no property
taxes may be levied for their payment. This type of bond is becoming increasingly
popular in California and elsewhere in the United States because of increasing
difficulties faced by many communities and public agencies in attempting to finance
an increasing number of services within their general obligation bonding capacity.
There is no legal limit on the amount of revenue bonds that may be issued; however,
from a practical standpoint, and in order to uake the bonds saleable, the principal
amount of bonds so issued should be sufficiently small that the required annual
principal and interest payments are less than the revenues available for bond service.
Estimated revenues should be in the range of 30 percent to 50 percent in excess of
projected requirements to allow for possible errors in forecasts. In addition, a
bond reserve fund equal to about one year's bund service requirements is usually
created from the initial proceeds of their sa'.e and is maintained over the life
of the issue to further secure their payment. Interest rates on revenue bonds
are generally one-fourth to one-half percent higher than the rates applicable to
comparable general obligation bond issues.
Major advantages of revenue bonds can be summarized as follows: (1) there is no
legal limit on the amount of such bonds, (2) revenue bonds are payable solely
from the revenues of the project and can never become a lien or charge against real
property, and (3) payment of the bonds is derived solely from users of the facilities
of the project for which the bonds were issues.
The disadvantages of such bonds can be summarizec as follows: (1) relative
inflexibility in the management of the funds, (2) the interest rate is usually
higher than for general obligation bonds, (3) owmrs of property now using the
service pay nothing toward the bonds even though some indirect benefit may be
received by such owners from the project financed i>y such bonds, (4) a reserve
fund must be maintained as additional secutity for bond payment may be from 30
to 50 percent in excess of expected requirements.
IV-62
-------
c
Impacts.
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Category:
f| Sub-Category: Direct Effects
LJ Criterion: Loans (Bonds) and Subsidies
00 Sub-Criterion: Subsidies
SES Project No. 18°
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project attracts outside funding.
RATING:
+90
f-lOOr% FroJect totally subsidized
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Kitsap County
+7S
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with project engineers
and Washington State Department of Ecology. +50
+2
+10-
DISCUSSION: Ninety percent of the project cost will be
subsidized by State and Federal grants. The Federal
Government is assuming 75% of the project cost and
Washington State is assuming an additional 15% of the
cost.
The ratio of subsidized to local costs is the same
for each alternative, hence each receives the same
rating.
Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include Poulsbo, which will thus
require independent additional service capacity of -10
1.5 MGD at a cost of $1 million to $1.25 million. A federa
subsidy of $190,000 (75% and 15%, respectively, of
$1.25 million) will be necessary to provide the additional
capacity. While this additional cost will not affect _£
the study area, it will raise the total combined cost
of meeting the wastewater treatment needs of Kitsap
County.
The policy of the Environmental Protection Agency _£
(Region X) regarding federal funding for wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal systems is that
75% of the funding for the needed system is federally
provided. Treatment facilities and regional interceptors
are eenerally considered of higher priority for funding. «
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Norm Siebertson, Water Operations
Branch,EPA, Region X; Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner;
Reference 1.
SIR Form H1016/ -10(f-*
Copyright 1973
80:20 subsidy to local
funds
70:30 subsidy to local
funds
60:40 subsidy to local
funds
50:50 subsidy to local
funds
No subsidy
Subsidy partially
forfeited
Subsidy entirely forfeited
IV-63
-------
Economic Impacts
Socio-Economic Systems
I.C<.»»«.T1>
LJ Category:^
L_J Sub-Category:
LJ Criterion;. Loans (Bonds)-and Subsidies
[1Q Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. iao
Direct Effects
Subsidies
CONTINUED:
Presently local collection systems are not being funded until the state's criteria
for priority listings for required local collectors is acceptable to EPA. The
facilities to be funded must be sized to be cost-effective, in harmony with the
local land use and planning goals, and based upon realistic population projections.
IV-64
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
LJ Category: Economic Impacts
Q Sub-Category: Direct Effects
Eel Criterion: Property Tax
fj Sub-Criterion: .
SES Project NO. _i8p_
DEFINITION: The degree to which changes induced
by the project affect the local tax base, rate,
and revenues, thereby increasing or decreasing
property tax.
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 and 6
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: See individual criterion sheets
DISCUSSION: This rating is derived by combining the
evaluation of the following subcriteria:
Sub-Criterion Rating
Changes in Property Tax Rates -15
Changes in Property Tax Revenues - 5
Composite
-10
RATING:
-10
+50
+25
+10
0
-25
-54-
-7'.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Planner ;. Reference 44
SIR Form #1016 /
Copyright 1973
Lauryn Jones, Environmental
Significantly decreases
property tax
Decreases property tax
Marginally decreases property
tax
Slightly decreases property
tax
No or negligibel effect
Slightly increases property
tax
Marginally increases
property tax
Increases property tax
Significantly increases
property tax
c
IV-65
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project NO.
Category: Economic Impacts
Sub-Category: Direct Effects
§3 Criterion: .
LJ Sub-Criterion: _
Property Tax
DEFINITION: The degree to which changes induced
by the project affect the local tax base, rate,
and revenues, thereby increasing or decreasing
property tax.
I RATING; - 7.5
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 2, 5, and 8
METHOD OF ANALYSIS1 See individual criterion sheets.
DISCUSSION: This rating is derived by combining
the evaluation of the following subcriteria:
Sub-Criterion Ratir
Changes in Property Tax Rates -20
Changes in Property Tax Revenues + 5
Composite
-7.5
+100
+76
+50
+2S
+10
0
-10-
-25
-50J-
-7J
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Planner; Reference 44
SIR Form K1016/
Copyright 1973
Lauryn Jones, Environmental
Significantly decrease's
property tax
Decreases property tax
Marginally decreases
property tax
Slightly decreases property
tax
No or negligible effect
Slightly increases property
tax
Marginally increases
property tax
Increases property tax
-100* Significantly increases
property tax
IV-66
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
SES
NO. MO.
x Cfriterton:
Sub-Criterion: _
[j Category:
Sub-Category:
Property Tax
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
DEFINITION: The degree to which changes induced
by the project affect the local tax base, rate
and revenues, thereby increasing or decreasing
property tax.
I RATING: -12-5 |
+100rt Significantly decreases
property tax
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3 and 4
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: See individual criterion sheets
Sub-Criterion Rating
changes in Property Tax Rates -30
Changes in Property Tax Revenues +5
Composite
-12.5
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Planner;, Reference 44
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
Lauryn Jones, Environmental
+75
+50
DISCUSSION: This rating is derived by combining the
evaluation o£ the following subcriteria: +2(
+10
-10
-25
-50-
Decreases property tax
Marginally decreases pro-
perty tax
Slightly decreases property
tax
No or negligible effect
Slightly increases pro-
perty tax
Marginally increases pro-
perty tax
Increases property tax
Significantly increases
property tax
C
IV-67
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
CD Category:,
LJ Sub-Category:
EC") Criterion:
f") Sub-Criterion: _
SES Project No.
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Property Tax
DEFINITION: The degree to which changes induced
by the project affect the local tax base, rate
and revenues, thereby increasing or decreasing
property tax
RATING:
-10
+100t Significantly decreases
property tax
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 7 and 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: See individual criterion sheets
DISCUSSION: This rating is derived by combining the
evaluation of the following subcriteria:
Sub-Criterion
Changes in Property Tax Rates
Changes in Property Tax Revenues
-25
+ 5
Composite
-10
+7S
+50
+25
+10-
-10 +
-25
-50-
-75-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Planner;-Reference 44
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Lauryn Jones, Environmental
Decreases property tax
Marginally decreases
property tax
Slightly decreases
property tax
No or negligible effect
Slightly increases
property tax
Marginally increases
property tax
Increases property tax
-100*' significantly increases
property tax
IV-68
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
LJ Category :m
{~1 Sub-Category:
C] Criterion:
PS] Sub-Criterion: _
SES Project No. 180
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Property Tax
Changes in Property Tax Rates
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects property tax rates in the local
area.
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County Tax Districts
Alternatives 1 through 9
+100
+76
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with County Planning
Personnel, County Appraiser, Engineering Consultant, +SO
and review of 1974 assessed valuation with levies and
taxes for 1975.
DISCUSSION: Public service costs in Kitsap County will
significantly increase due to an influx of population
induced by Trident and the cost of establishing a sewer
system in the planning area. To meet the rising costs,
the county will be forced to substantially increase re-
+25
The proposed project will require public funds. It is
assumed that 75% of the project cost will be supplied
by a federal grant, and an additional 15% supplied from
state funds. The remaining 10% is the responsibility
of Kitsap County.
Each of the project alternatives has a different cost,
hence the amount of county funds needed varies with
each alternative. The 10% project cost borne by
local taxpayers ranges from $179,140 (Alternative #1
lowest cost) to $287,590 (Alternative #4 highest cost)
annually, according to the project engineer's estimate.
Since annual county revenues must increase between
$179,140 and $287,590, the standard revenue collection
methods must adjust to meet this need. Tax rates (a
flexible mechanism to adjust revenue*) may rise to
generate enough revenue to offset new costs. The
figures relating to the proposed project cost and
associated rate increases are found on the following
tables:
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental
Planner.; Reference 44
EIR Form #1016/ ^ '
Copyright 1973
+10-
-10-
-25
-50-
-71
I RATING: See table
Significantly reduced
property tax rates
Reduces property tax
rates
No or negligible effect
Increases property tax
rate
Significantly increases
property tax rates
IV-69
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
LJ Category:
Sub-Category!
Tmpnofro
TMr»r»
Q Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Property Tax
Changes in Property Tax Rates
CONTINUED:
TABLE I
ALTERNATIVE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FUEL COST ESTIMATE
1,791,400
2,113,200
2,701,900
2,875,900
2,055,700
1,803,000
2,332,600
2,211,200
2,250,300
TABLE II
CURRENT COUNTY
REVENUE
16,411,584
NEEDED REVENUE
INCREASE
179,140
180,300
205,570
211,320
221,120
225,030
233,260
270,190
287,590
ALTERNATIVE
1
6
5
2
8
9
7
3
4
% INCREASE
IN REVENUE
0915
0986
2525
2876
3473
3711
4213
6463
1.7523
ANTICIPATED TAX
INCREASE IN C PER
$1,000 ASSESSED
VALUE **
.1725
.1735
.1979
.2034
.2138
.2166
.2245
.2630
.2768
*Assuming the assessment ratio and raxable base remain constant. Although the
taxable base will increase with development of the area, an absolute estimate
of the taxable base increase is premature. The scores for the alternatives
with respect to this criterion thus reflect relative changes in property tax
rates.
** Assumes valuation remains constant and tax rate for planning area is an
average of 15.8c per $1,000 of assessed value.
IV-70
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO. 18°
D Category: . g^«n«m-Ca*egory; Direct Effects
Q Criterion: Property Tax
Sub-Criterion: Changes in Property Tax Rates
CONTINUED:
Aii alternative means of increasing revenue to pay for the project would be to
establish a sewer district. The district would be composed of the service
area and taxed for the sewti service. Establishment of a sewer district would
reduce the tax burden countywide but would sharply increase the taxes of those
within the service area.
NOTE: Although property values will rise as a result- of the influx in pop-
ulation, experience indicates that the increase in property tax revenues
associated with a residential population increase does not offset the rise
in municipal service costs. An accepted rating is that for each $10.00 of
increased cost, an additional $4.00 of revenue is generated. Since the in-
creased revenues resulting from the population increase will not cover the
increased costs generated, this revenue increase is not considered an off-
setting factor in determining the impact of this project on local property
tax rates.
ALTERNATIVE RATINGS
23456
Rating -15 -20 -30 -30 -20 -15 -25 -20 -25
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Annum Feffer, Senior Environmental Analyst; Reference 44
IV-71
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
f"l Criterion:
fic] Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 18°
Category :m
Sub-Category: m
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Property Tax Base
Changes in Property Tax Revenues
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project tends to increase or decrease local
property tax revenues in the local area.
RATING: +5
BOUNDARY: Service area
+100ri Significantly increases
property tax revenues
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of the
Kitsap County Assessors Office and staff review of "1974
Assessed Valuation with Levies and Taxes for 1975"
DISCUSSION: The project will have both direct and indirect
impacts on property tax revenues by increasing the pro- +25
perty values within the project service area.
Direct Impacts: The amount of property tax revenue
collected from a parcel is a function of the parcel's
assessed value and the tax rate for that tax district.
In Kitsap County the assessment ratio is 100.00 (which
means the assessed value is 100% of the market value)
*Assuming the tax rate remains constant, property values
in the planning area will rise even without the project
in response to demand for housing caused by Trident.
The location of the proposed project will help define
the specific areas that will rise in value and will
cause a somewhat greater rise in property value in the
service area.
The additional increase in property values, hence re-
venues beyond the rise expected due to Trident-induced
demand and which is attributable to the proposed pro-
ject is estimated at 5% this is a favorable impact and
so rated.
+10
-10
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Analyst;, Reference 45
Feffer, Senior Environmental
Increases property tax
revenues
No or negligible effect
Decreases property tax
revenues
SIS Form
Copyright 1973
-100* Significantly decreases
property tax revenues
IV-7 2
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Criterion:
["*) Sub-Criterion:
Category:^
Sub-Category:
SES Project No.
Economic Impacts
Indirect Effects
Property Values
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects the property value in the
local area.
RATING:
+10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Staff assessment of local economic
pressures for residential and commercial areas.
+50
DISCUSSION: Property values in the planning area will rise
as a result of the large Trident-induced population +25
influx. The proposed project will serve to increase
further the property values in its service area, because
the availability of adequate sewerage is limited else-
where in Central Kitsap County. This additional in-
crease due to sewerage expansion is not likely to be
extreme, since factors other than sewerage also enter
into the decision to buy, rent or build a home.
-10
-25
-50-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Taft, Building Contractor
EIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Significantly augments
property values
Slightly augments property
values
_ No or negligible effect
Slightly degrades property
values
significantly degrades
property values
c
IV-7 3
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project No-
«"*' r~| Category: Economic Impacts
Sub-Category: Indirect'Effects
0 Criterion: Existing Local Businesses
Sub-Criterion: ___________
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project effects the volume of trade in local
businesses
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY:
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination of project alternatives
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will minimally stimulate local business activities
with Trident-induced growth fueling a significant increase in population and hence,
a growth in trade for local suppliers of goods and services. The additional in-
.crease resulting from this project will be relatively small, both during the con-
construction and the operational phases.
The impact with respect to this criterion will not change regardless of the al-
ternative selected and will be too small to rate.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner
SIR Form HI 016'/
Copyright 1973
IV-74
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
D Category:
(~| Sub-Category: _
(0 Criterion: New Business Formation
Sub-Criterion: _ _
SES Project No. 18°
Economic Impacts
Indirect Effects
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project stimulates or retards formation of new
businesses in the local area
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Kitsap County
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Projection of demand resulting from the proposed project which
may or may not accentuate the need for new services.
DISCUSSION: The project itself is service oriented and does not impose significant
service or utility demands on the community. The small number of employees necessary
to operate the facility (20-40) will not generate sufficient demand to support the
formation of new businesses. New businesses will undoubtedly be established in the
County -to meet the Trident-induced needs, and will easily absorb the minor increases
in demand caused by the proposed project. The location of new business formation
will be affected by the project by attracting residents, and hence service businesses,
to its service area.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner
SIR Form ill 016/
Copyright 1973
C
IV-75
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°.iect NO. iso
f~) Category: Economic Impacts
Q Sub-Category: Indirect Effects
K| Criterion: New Construction
I j Sub-Criterion: _________-__________________^____________________
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects future construction outside
of the project area.
ASSESSED BUT
NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study area, Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Assessment of project plans
DISCUSSION: The proposed project is not expected to stimulate new construction in the
area beyond the small amount needed to house the 20 to 40 employees of the facility, and
even that assumes that all employees will be newcomers to the area. This level of con-
struction activity will be submerged in the much larger effort to house the Trident-in-
duced growth in the area.
The impact with respect to this criterion will be the same regardless of the alternative
selected, and is considered too small to rate. The proposed project will permit multiple
unit housing development in it's service area, which is not possible presently because of
the lack of adequate service capacity to receive the concentrated volumes associated with
multiple unit housing. The number of units required will not be affected.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner
SIS Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
IV-76
-------
c
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
C
The category of socio-cultural impacts has been subdivided into
sub-categories of unique, identifiable subjects as follows:
Social Impacts
Compatibility with planned land use patterns
Health and Safety
Population size and density
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
Archaeological and Historical Sites
Entertainment and Recreational Facilities
Visual and Aesthetic Environment
Traffic Li-fects
IV-7 7
-------
Socio-Economlc Systems SES Project NO. jso_
I I Category: Soelo-Cultural Impacts
O Sub-Category: Social Impacts
0 Criterion:__ COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANNED LAND USE PATTERNS
Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project conforms to planned land use in the
project area.
RATING: +10
+1001\ Pr°Ject of a scale that
essentially achieves
ultimate planned land
use for the regions.
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
+7S
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination of Kitsap County planning
policies; consultation with the associate planner of the +50
Kitsap County Planning Dept.
DISCUSSION: . In order to comply with planned land use of
the planning area, as recommended in "Amendment to Kitsap'-SS
County Comprehensive Plan Planning Policies", the proposed
project must be located in either an urban or a transitional
area (adjacent to an urban area where urban development is
anticipated). The alternative sites for the proposed
ject fall within these categories. The proposed Bremerton,
Silverdale, Manchester, and Enetai sites are all in urban
locations, while the proposed sites at Brownsville are in 0
a transitional area.
New facilities or major expansions and reconstruction
will be required at all of the sites.
-20
Regardless of the alternative selected, the proposed project
will: A) Conform with planned land use with respect -25
to site
B) Assist the local jurisdiction to direct develop-
ment to areas designated for growth by the
Planning Dept. by providing service in desired-50
areas and denying access in other areas. The
rating for all alternatives is therefore slightl)
positive.
~7£
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Amnon Feffer, Senior
Environmental Analyst; References 27, 40 and 41
EIR Form
Copyright 1973
Promotes planned land use
development on a regional
scale.
Promotes planned land use
in local areas.
Site is compatible with
planned land use.
No or negligible effect on
ultimate planned land use.
Projected land use slightly
different from planned use.
Substantially different from
planned use.
Thoroughly incompatible with
planned land use.
IV-78
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project NO. _«o_
Category: Socio-Cultural Impacts
f~| Sub-Category: Social Impacts
po} Criterion:
(~) Sub-Criterion:
Health and Safety
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject affects health and safety in the local area
and within the project itself.
RATING:
+50
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of existing conditions, pro-
ject plans, Trident Report, consultation with Bremerton- +50
Kitsap County Haalth Dept., PACE Corp. Report.
DISCUSSION: ^ne existing health hazard in the area has
been documented by the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health +25
Department. Projected growth resulting from the Tri-
dent Base work force will overload existing sewage treat-
ment capacity at the existing Navy facility at Bangor
and will induce substantial growth in the planning area, +10\
increasing the existing hazard.
The hazard results from (a) hydraulic overloading of the
existing sewage systems, and (b) the generally poor
soil suitability for drainfields in the area. A further
complication results from the high groundwater table, 1C
which can lead to contamination of subsurface water
from failing drainfields. In addition, surface waters also
show excessive levels of contaminants, for example at
Island Lake, Port of Brownsville, Dyes Inlet, Port _g,
Washington Narrows, Clear Creek and Silverdale Creek,
among others.
The proposed project will substantially reduce the
existing and potential health hazard by reducing
pressure on the overloaded systems, thereby reducing
the risk of contamination from failing septic tanks
and inadequate treatment facilities such as the
existing system at Silverdale.
The impact rating is thus significantly positive.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones,
Environmental Planner ; References 4 and 42
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-50
-71
-1001
Creates ideal health
and safety conditions.
Greatly improves health
and safety conditions.
Significantly improves health
and safety conditions.
Promotes health and safety
conditions.
No or negligible net
effect.
Health and safety conditions
barely meet current minimum
standards.
Slightly degrades health
and safety conditions.
Significantly degrades health
and safety conditions.
C
IV-79
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project No-
t| Category: Socio-Cultural Impacts
n Sub-Category: Social Impacts
PC] Criterion: Population Size and Density
f~) Sub-Criterion: _____________________
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject promotes desired (General Plan, Zoning Laws)
local population size and density without over-
taxing the local infrastructure.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of "Amendment to Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, Planning
Policies, Project Plan, Staff Analysis.
DISCUSSION: ^ne "Amendment" document referred to above outlines the planning policies
with respect to intensity of development of rural, transitional, urban and redevelopment
areas. The plan outlines an approach to the management of growth which will encourage
higher densities in and around urban centers (urban and transitional areas), while
maintaining the rural character of other areas. In addition to preserving existing
attractive qualities of rural and semirural areas, the control of urban growth will
promote more efficient delivery of public services to the present and expected pop-
ulation.
The proposed project will enhance the ability of county planners to channel growth
toward selected areas in conformity with local goals. The growth itself has' become
inevitable as a result of the decision to proceed with the Trident Base.
If an alternative or operational plan is selected which increases service capacity
in areas not selected for growth, or if access to the sewer lines is permitted at
a future date in areas not now selected for growth, the proposed project will undermine
current planning goals.
Assuming that access to the sewer lines will only be permitted in designated growth
areas, and that the project alternative selected will provide service in those areas,
population size and density should conform to planning goals. While local infra-
structure will be taxed (and perhaps overtaxed) by expected growth, the proposed
project, rather than causing this situation, will be a major component of the effort
to enable the infrastructure to cope with the growth.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Arrie Bachrach, Environmental Analyst
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-80
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES project NO.
Q Category:
LJ Sub-Category: Social Impacts
C3 Criterion: Population Size -and Density
f~] Sub-Criterion:
CONTINUED: Population size will be minimally increased by the proposed project,
regardless of alternative, since it will employ between 20 and 40 people.
Population density will be increased by the proposed project, inducing concentration
in those areas served by the facility that will be greater than the more random dis-
persal that could be expected if no sewage collection service is available in the
planning area. This will be compatible with local planning if the service, hence
the increase in density, is available in the urban and transitional areas designated
for growth, and if actual development is not permitted to violate zoning restrictions
affecting density. A small positive rating is therefore given to each alternative.
However, until sites are better defined, no rating will be shown.
c
IV-81
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
{_] Category: Socio-Cultural
[__ Sub-Category: ___
3E5JJ Criterion.' Archaeological and Historical Sites
II Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Cultural and Aesthetic.
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects local archaeological and paleon-
tological sites.
RATING:
0
+200r-i
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Project planning area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination of the archaeological
reconnaisance report.
+75 -
+50 -
DISCUSSION: A literature survey (National Register of
Historic Places, Site Survey Records for Kitsap Councy
at the University of Washington) indicated that there were
no known sites of archaeological or historical significance
within the project planning area. An archaeological survey
of the planning area in December, 1974, revealed only +10t~
one archaeological site, a shell midden near the Brownsville
Marina on Burke Bay. The midden has essentially been de-
stroyed by historic and modern activities (e.g., dredging 0\4-
operations, road construction) and the investigating
archaeologist has judged that the cultural information
coming from further investigation of this site would be -10
of dubious value. The proposed project would therefore
have little or no impact upon the midden. No other
historical or archaeological sites have been identified
in the planning area.
-SO
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Analyst,; Reference 43
EIR form H1016/
Copyright 1973
Suzanne Yuen, t Environmental
Preserves and enhances
archaeological and
paleontological remains.
No or negligible effect on
archaeological or paleonto-
logical remains.
Destroys paleontological or
archaeological remains.
IV-82
-------
c
SES Project No. 18°
Soclo-Cultural
Socio-Economic Systems
LJ Category:
(l Sub-Category: ___
ECj Criterion: Entertainment and Recreational Facilities
Sub-Criterion:
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project supplies or demands entertainment and
recreational facilities.
RATING:
+5
+100ri Provides major new facilities
BOUNDARY:
Kitsap County
Alternatives 1
through 9
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination of the alternative plans
for the proposed project. +50
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will have a beneficial
impact on the recreational resources of the area. Gut- +25
fall sites releasing sewage after primary treatment will
either be upgraded or replaced, reducing the level of
coastal pollution to acceptable levels. The most sig-
nificant improvements will be noted in such areas as +20
Dyes Inlet, which receives the outfall from the Silver-
dale plant and which suffers from inadequate flushing.
The beneficial impact will result regardless of the
alternative selected, because no outfall will be per-
mitted after only primary treatment.
-10
Alternative plans 1,2, and 6 would provide discharge to
the upper end of Dyes Inlet, presently used as an outfall
site for the Silverdale facility. In addition, plan 6
would utilize the Bremerton-Charleston outfall site _gj
at Sinclair Inlet (south of the Puget Sound Naval Ship-
yard) . Plan 7 is essentially plan 6 without the Dyes Inlet
outfall. Plan 9 would provide secondary treatment with
discharge to Puget Sound from the Manchester facility
outfall site. Water quality at any of these sites will _5<
be improved with the upgraded treatment. Hence, shore-
line recreational areas will be due to improved water
quality.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
-71
Suzanne Yuen, Environmental Analyst
-100-*
Significantly augments
existing facility inventory.
No or negligible effects
Overloads existing facilities
Destroys existing facilities
without replacement.
C
IV-8 3
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO. iso
«. ..Tl.
Q Category: __Soci0mCa:Uiaai
Lj Sub-Category: Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
Criterion tv.<-,.,.« fl.^^,^ anf Recreational Facilities
CONTINUED; If the effluents are discharged at new outfall sites, the recreational
potential of these areas may be reduced to some extent, but this effect will be
outweighed by the net overall improvement of effluent quality resulting from the
project. The potential sites include Puget Sound near Fay Bainbridge State Park
or Bainbridge Island (Plans 3 and 4), northern Port Orchard Channel near Brownsville
(Plan 5) and Sinclair Inlet near Enetai (Plan 8).
There is a small lake within the planning area, Island Lake, which is utilized for
recreation. Occasional incidents of coliform contamination above acceptable levels
have been reported here. The proposed project, by reducing dependence on over-
loaded systems, will serve to reduce or eliminate such incidents.
IV-84
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
INeOB»O«AT(D __
IJ Category; Socio-Cultural
[| Sub-Category: Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
[xj Criterion; Visual and Aesthetic Environment
f~} Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
j RATING: - 60
+10
+7
+50
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, and 6
Sewage treatment facility locations
Pipeline routes
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visited
proposed sites.
DISCUSSION:
+25
The shoreline location of the Silverdale site, adjacent
to public access to Dyes Inlet and highly visible to homes
on surrounding hillsides would be substantially
visually degraded by the construction of a large
sewage treatment facility.
+10
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline place- (
ment along existing roads. Placement of the sewer trunk-
line along the upper third of Clear Creek would be through
wooded areas that would suffer visual scarring for _2t
several years until vegetative regrowth occurred. Pipe-
line placement along the middle third of Clear Creek
would follow existing roads. Along the lower third, one
half of the route would be in open fields skirting _2i
woodland and one half in woodlands before intersection
with Bucklin Hill Road. Some of the lower third route
would pass through yards of nearby residences. It is
felt that with careful construction techniques designed to
protect the stream bed, negative aesthetic impact would _g(
be minimal.
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project staff
EIB Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
Promotes aesthetic quality
in localized areas.
No changes in present
aesthetic quality.
'
Degrades aesthetic quality
in some local areas.
Substantially degrades
aesthetic qualities.
IV-85
-------
Socio-Cultural
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCOM»«M*TtB _
tl Category:^
l~i Sub-Category: m
0 Criterion; Visual and Aesthetic Environment
SES Project No.
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
j RATING: - 10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
Sewage treatment facility locations
Pipeline routes
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visited
proposed sites.
DISCUSSION:
The Brownsville site is well screened from view from
adjacent roadways and property. Its location at the
intersection of major routes through the Study Area
preclude any use of the site as a "natural or serene"
preserve. Its present condition of overgrown farmland
contains little aesthetic value.
+50
+10
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline placement
along existing roads. Placement of the sewer trunkline
along the upper third of Clear Creek would be
through wooded areas that would suffer visual
scarring for several years until vegetative re-
growth occurred. Pipeline placement along the middle
third of Clear Creek would follow existing roads. Along_gg
the lower third, one half of the route would be in open
fields skirting woodland and one half in woodlands be-
fore intersection with Bucklin Hill Road. Some of the
lower third route would pass through yards of nearby
residences. It is felt that with careful construction _
techniques designed to protect the stream bed, negative
aesthetic impact would be minimal.
~7\
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project staff
EIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
Promotes aesthetic
quality in localized areas.
No changes in present
aesthetic quality.
Degrades aesthetic qualities
in some local areas.
Substantially degrades
aesthetic qualities.
IV-86
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
il Category :^
Sub-Category:
Socio-Cultural
Cultural'and Aesthetic Impacts
Q Criterion:
["] Sub-Criterion: _
Visual and Aesthetic Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
RATING: - 10
+100
+7.
+50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 7
Sewage treatment facility locations
Pipeline routes
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have
visited proposed sites.
DISCUSSION:
+25
The location of Bremerton's Charleston Sewage Treatment
Plant is semi-commercial and surrounded by urban develop-
ments. The area currently has almost no aesthetic appeal
which could be damaged by the presence of a sewage +10
treatment facility.
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline placement
along existing roads. Placement of the sewer trunkline
along the upper third of Clear Creek would be
through wooded areas that would suffer visual -20
scarring for several years until vegetative re-
growth occurred. Pipeline placement along the middle
third cf Clear Creek would follow existing roads. Along
the lower third, one half of the route would be in open _
fields skirting woodland and one half in woodlands be-
fore intersection with Bucklin Hill Road. Some of the
lower third route would pass through yards of nearby
residences. It is felt that with careful construction
techniques designed to protect the stream bed, negative -SO
aesthetic impact would- be minimal.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Project staff
-20011
Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
Promotes aesthetic quality
in localized areas.
«
No changes in present aesthet-
ic quality.
Degrades aesthetic qualities
in some local areas.
Substantially degrade
aesthetic qualities.
C
IV-87
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
.
f~) Category:
Sub-Category:
Socio-Cultural
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
0 Cr*£tgr£on.-
LJ Sub-Criterion:
Visual and Aesthetic Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
RATING: - 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 8
Sewage treatment facility locations
Pipeline routes
'+100
+7
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visited
proposed sites.
DISCUSSION:
+50
+25
The Enetai site is undeveloped, heavily wooded and in a
desirable location for residences. The construction of
a sewage treatment facility at that site would probably
be opposed by local residents in spite of available +10
screening material that makes this site lass conspic-
uous than the Silverdale shoreline. The site itself
would suffer a loss of intrinsic beauty.
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline place-
ment along existing roads. Placement of the sewer -10
trunkline along the upper third of Clear Creek would be
through wooded areas that would suffer visual scarring for
several years until vegetative regrowth occurred.
Pipeline placement along the middle third of -25
Clear Creek would follow existing roads. Along
the lower third, one half of the route would be in open
fields skirting woodland and one half in woodlands be-
fore intersection with Bucklin Hill Road. Some of the
lower third route would pass through yards of nearby -SO
residences. It is felt that with careful construction
techniques designed to protect the stream bed, negative
aesthetic impact would be minimized.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project staff
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-200L-I
Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
Promotes aesthetic quality
in localized areas.
No changes in present
aesthetic quality.
Degrades aesthetic quality
in some local areas.
Substantiallydegrades
aesthetic qualities.
IV-88
-------
V .-
Socio-Cultural
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCO*»OM*TCO Pf
t~J Category:
ff Sub~Category:
LJ Criterion; Visual and Aesthetic Environment
i~| Sub-Criterion: __ .
SES Project No.
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
RATING:
- 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 9
Sewage treatment facility locations
Pipeline routes
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visited
proposed sites.
DISCUSSION:
+100ri Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
+7,
+50
+2,
The Manchester site currently contains a small sewage
treatment facility but is surrounded by attractive wooded
parcels. Construction of a regional facility at Man-
chester would require expansion of the present plant +^
and clearing of the surrounding land. Due to the high
visibility of this site from passing passenger ferries
this can be considered a loss in visual aesthetic appeal.
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline place-
ment along existing roads. Placement of the sewer _j
trunkline along the upper third of Clear Creek would be
through wooded areas that would suffer visual scarring for
several years until vegetative regrowth occurred.
Pipeline placement along the middle third of _g
Clear Creek would follow existing roads. Along
the lower third, one half of the route would be in open
fields skirting woodland and one half in woodlands be-
fore intersection with Bucklin Hill Road. Some of the
lower third route would pass through yards of nearby -50
residences. It is felt that with careful construction
techniques designed to protect the stream bed, negative
aesthetic impact would be minimized.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project staff
SIR Form #101S/
Copyright 1973
Promotes aesthetic quality
in localized areas.
No changes in present
aesthetic quality.
Degrades aesthetic qualities
in sone local areas.
Substantially degrades
aesthetic qualities.
c
IV-89
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES ^ject No.1^
n Category: Socio-Cultural
fx| Sub-Category: Traffic Effects
Ij Criterion:
{ J Sub-Criterion: __
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject impacts traffic flows and patterns.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study Area
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with Traffic Engineer and the Engineering Consultant
DISCUSSION: ^ne loading imposed by project-related traffic generated by the approximately
20-40 employees of a sewage treatment facility is negligible when compared with baseline
traffic loads. Additionally, these 20-40 employees will work in three shifts.
In the context of projected growth resulting from the Trident Support Site development,
traffic increases due to the proposed project are deemed too minor too rate.
Preliminary estimates of construction related traffic, provided by the engineering
consultant are intended to show an order of magnitude. For an initial 12 to 18 month
period, approximately 12 truck trips/day can be expected, for the final 2-3 month,
an estimated 18 truck trips/day can be expected. The construction crew will add
approximately 22 trips/day. In the event of an urgent request to reduce the construction
period, related traffic can be expected to rise to 21/day (12 to 18 months), 20/day
(2-3 months), 44/day (work force).
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-90
-------
c:
CHAPTER V
ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Impacts which received ratings between -10 and +10 are con-
sidered to be of negligible importance. In some instances these im-
pacts would have rated higher scores except that mitigative measures
were automatically built into the system. As an example, odors from
a poorly operated sewage treatment facility could be very unpleasant
and far ranging. It must be assumed that the facility would be de-
signed, constructed and operated with reasonable care and diligence.
Under such conditions, odors are very rarely a problem.
This chapter specifically identifies substantially negative
environmental, social and cultural impacts and states special miti-
gative measures that should be taken to lessen those impacts. The
discussion is separated into categories of physical, resource, eco-
nomic and socio-cultural impacts.
PHYSICAL IMPACT MITIGATION
The following are physical impacts identified as being of sub-
stantially negative nature within the study area and/or as a result
of implementation of project alternatives. The impacts which received
ratings greater than -10 in Chapter IV are reproduced in this section.
C
v-i
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I J Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Category:
Sub-Category: t
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
Vegetation Communities
Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project af-
fects vegetation as a soil stabilizer. Site
characteristics (topography, riparian loca-
tion) determine degree to which vegetation
prevents erosion.
[ RATING: - 30
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Clear Creek Pipeline Corridor
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection at route discussed in Chapter III
+200 Project increases soil
stability by introduction of
veg'.-.ation (planting, seed-
ing , fertilizing).
+75
+50
DISCUSSION:
The upper and portions of the lower thirds of the Clear
Creek pipeline route are heavily wooded and sustain thick
ground cover.
+10
Removal of plants and trees for pipeline construction
on the left bank would be necessary along the upper third
of the creek bed (approximately one mile). This would
destroy local vegetation and cause a potential for bank
erosion and soil instability.
The middle portion of the pipeline follows local road- ~-
ways and will not affect Clear Creek. The lower third
of the pipeline route cro^sas over a road to the right
bank and borders another thickly wooded section. 'Erosion
along this segment will probably be less severe ~^5
if the pipeline is laid in the open field area
bordering the riparian woodland.
Construction of the sewer pipeline may encourage popula-
tion locations near to Clear Creek. This could be de- ~50
trimental to heavily wooded sections of the route. Such
population relocation is only a possibility and subject to
control by County officials. It cannot be accepted as a
definite impact at this time because it is contrary to
current planning designations of the area as rural/ -7£|
agricultural.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
EIR Form iflOlS/
Copyright 1973
Project will not induce
erosion, i.e., no or neg-
ligible effects on soil
stability.
'
Erosion hazard reduced by
less severe site character-
istics.
Vegetation removal will
cause serious erosion and
sedimentation because of
site characteristics (topo-
graphy, riparian location).
V-2
-------
c
Mitigative Measures to Protect Vegetation Along Clear Creek
The destruction of vegetation along the pipeline route is un-
avoidable. The severity of the effects of this destruction and its
duration can be shortened. Appropriate measures would include re-
seeding and replanting disturbed areas with native vegetation and
short-term stabilization of the soil surface with organic mulches.
Straw has been successfully used as a mulch and soil stabilizer for
sloping embankments along new highway construction.
A chipper should be used to shred the brush and slash, with
this resulting mulch being used with the soil to fill in the trench.
Besides serving to check erosion, this activity would facilitate
reseeding by native vegetation and reduce the availability of dry
brush feed for wild fires.
Seeding and fertilizing should be carried out, particularly in
pasture and meadow areas where natural reseeding would be expected to
be difficult. Additionally, reseeding would assure the growth of
desired plant species. Fertilization within forested areas would also
enhance revegetation of bare areas.
Separate storage during construction and replacement of the
upper natural soil layers over the backfill material would provide an
improved environment for the growth of new plants.
These mitigative measures should be applied at all locations
where the sewers would deviate from roadside cuts.
Secondary effects due to population growth can be minimized if the
County officials implement measures to protect the rural/agricultural
planning area designation along upper Clear Creek. These measures
could include restrictive zoning, pipeline capacity limits, restricted
access to the pipeline and establishment of a Clear Creek nature
corridor.
C
V-3
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category :m
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
I"*} Criterion.\
Sub-Criterion:
Freshwater Ecology
Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the Riparian or marsh system: shore vegetation,
aquatic habitat and aquatic productivity.
RATING:
- 50 .
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Clear Creek Pipeline Corridor
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection
DISCUSSION:
Portions of the Clear Creek pipeline route are heavily
wooded and sustain thick groundcover with a complex
ecosystem.
+50
+2,
+10
-10
The construction impacts of vegetation clearing,
trenching, earth-moving and foot and vehicular traffic
would have an adverse effect upon the Riparian Com-
munity. Construction activities would lead to bank
erosion, siltation, release of nutrients to the stream
and deterioration of the aquatic habitat, primarily in
the upper one-third of the creek. Nevertheless, erosion
impacts would still be felt along the entire length of
the creek. Winter rains and runoff would eventually
flush the creek bed and restore the aquatic habitat,
probably within 1-3 years. Sufficient water and
sediment disturbance could impair or preclude salmonid
fish spawning migrations for one or more seasons. This
would be minimized if pipeline construction were sched-
uled after the salmon migration and spawning season
and proper construction techniques utilized.
The possibility of growth inducement along Clear Creek
due to the availability of sewer services, as opposed
to growth in another portion of the study area, is -71
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
-100*-*
Significantly improves and
promotes stable aquatic hab-
itat and food chain.
Aquatic productivity and
complexity increased within
system.
Aquatic habitat improved or
stabilized in local areas.
No changes reflected within
present conditions.
Disturbance of nearby water-
shed area causing deteriora-
tion of aquatic habitat in
local areas.
Decreases aquatic productiv-
ity promoting temporary in-
stability within system.
Significantly degrades or
removes aquatic habitat and
productivity.
V-4
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project No-
"" ° tl° Q Category: Physical Impacts
Q Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
Ci-iterion: Freshwater Ecology
Sub-Criterion: Clear Creek
quite substantial. Housing developments up to the very banks of Clear Creek would
result in erosion, loss of vegetative cover and increased water temperatures, de-
position of litter and possible direct interference with salmonid spawning. These
effects can be prevented by the County through the institution of,a Clear Creek
natural corridor, restricted zoning and limitation of the Clear Creek pipeline
carrying capacity. It is assumed that the present rural planning designation of
the upper Clear Creek would be retained and precautionary measures instituted to
maintain that designation.
Operation of facilities would not adversely affect the terrestrial environment.
V-5
-------
Mitigative Measures 'to Protect Clear Creek Ecology
Several measures are available by which disruption of Clear
Creek ecology during pipeline construction can be minimized.
The number of crossings of Clear Creek should be minimized.
This refers both to the main trunkline and to any future interceptors.
It appears that present plans minimize trunkline crossings of the
creek. The number and location of interceptors is somewhat indefi-
nite. A permanent planning policy for growth along the Clear Creek
Valley would first need to be adopted and locations and sizes of pro-
posed residential and commercial developments defined. Based upon
such an ordered plan, the location, sizing and sharing of sewer inter-
ceptors could be planned for a minimal number of crossings and disrup-
tion of Clear Creek.
Pipeline crossings of the creek should be made at locations where
the creek is narrow and shallow. During construction of crossings,
the temporary diversion of creek waters through pipelines would permit
excavation without washing excessive silt down the stream. Backfill-
ing above the pipeline crossing should be done with materials compa-
tible with the native stream bed.
Construction activities adjacent to Clear Creek in the 50-foot
construction corridor would disturb soils in wooded areas and along
roadsides. Precautions should be taken to prevent rainfall runoff
from washing loose earth and silt into the creek. These discharges
may be mitigated by placing obstructions such as sand bags in likely
runoff channels during construction to slow the runoff and allow sus-
pended particulates to settle. After construction, rapid reseeding,
mulching and revegetation of construction sites can minimize erosion
and reduce or prevent stream pollution.
The construction contractor and the sewer designers should be
advised by the Soil Conservation Service for soil erosion control
measures and by Department of Fisheries personnel to assure protec-
tion of anadromous fish spawns in Clear Creek. The recommendations
of these agencies should also be solicited for all crossings of other
creeks.
The secondary effects of the proposed alternatives upon Clear
Creek ecology include direct physical intervention due to shoreline
developments that may be attracted to the available sewer trunkline
and the discharge into the creek of polluted stormwater runoff from
developed areas.
Direct intervention by shoreline developments would increase ac-
cess to the creek, eould reduce shoreline vegetation, with a resultant
warming of the creek waters from direct sunlight, and could increase
V-6
-------
erosion along the banks. These potential effects can be mitigated by
governmental action. It would be helpful to establish a Clear Creek
corridor, on either side of the creek bed, within which no development
or construction would be permitted. This might be accomplished through
zoning or direct purchase of the necessary land.
c
V-7
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project NO.
,
L_J Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
Criterion:
Benthic Community
I] Sub-Criterion: _
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING:
- 15
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, and 6
Dyes Inlet
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSi'ON:
An anticipated wastewater input of 3.5-5.8MGD into Dyes
Inlet may have some negative effects on the marine en-
vironment.
+50
+25
Construction and laying of the outfall pipe will have a "'
short-term negative impact on the benthic community. Dis-
ruption of the substrate, increase in turbidity, and dis-
placement of marine organisms, particularly clam beds, '
is unavoidable during construction. Species most likely
to be affected are butter clam, manila clam, littleneck
clam, bent nose clam, cockles and the small bent nose
clam. A scant population of Japanese oysters would
also be in the outfall path. Eelgrass be'ds, important to
marine productivity, are scattered throughout shallow
Dyes Inlet and may also be disrupted in lineal seg-
ments. With proper and mitigative construction tech-
niques, the iritertidal and subtidal communities should
substantially re-establish themselves within 3-5 years
-10
Ol
tj\
Operational effects of secondary effluent to be dis-
charged through the new outfall system indicate a gen-
eral benefit to the marine environment through improved
water quality as compared to present conditions.
-SO
(cont'd)
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIX Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference (22)
-75
-lOffI
Significantly enhances ben-
thic productivity and pro-
motes stable bottom com-
munity.
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces ben-
thic productivity and de-
grades bottom environment.
V-8
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems SES pject NO.
Q Category: Physical Impacts _
Q] Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
fxl Criterion: Benthic Community
j_J Sub-Criterion:
Long-term pollutional effects are subtle and generally difficult to quantify.
Although secondary treatment removes most of the coliform bacteria and organic
material, the effluent still retains dilute concentrations of dissolved nutrients,
heavy metals and some hydrocarbons. In cases where wastewater cbJorination.is
necessary, it is assumed that subsequent de-chlorination will remove potential
chlorine toxicity in the effluent. The incorporation of heavy metals into the
primary trophic levels can lead to residual cumulative effects within organisms
of higher trophic levels such as grazers, filter feeders, and predators. The
high dilution ratio of 1300:1 for ambient concentration of effluent materials
in Dyes Inlet (see Chapter II ) would probably reduce the threat of toxic
accumulations of heavy metals. It is anticipated that no pollutant would be
present in acutely toxic concentrations in the effluent.
Assessment of further effects on the benthic community is difficult to determine.
Further modeling studies to be conducted during summer 1975 by the University of
Washington will contribute more information on this subject.
c
V-9
-------
Mitigatlve Measures to Protect the Marine Benthic Community
Careful construction techniques can minimize the impact of out-
fall placement upon the marine benthic community. Although a specific
outfall design has not been selected, it is felt that an outfall placed
on the bottom rather than in a shallow trench would cause minimal dis-
turbance. Disruption of the intertidal benthic community from the
placement of the outfall in a covered trench cannot be avoided but
would affect only a very small shoreline area for only three to five
years.
Assessment of the effects of wastewater discharges upon the ben-
thic community is expected to be minimal. Potential concerns involve
the gradual accumulation of toxic metals in benthic organisms. This
gneerally is a potential effect that could be mitigated only by expen-
sive tertiary wastewater treatment processes or by selecting outfall
sites that maximize initial dilution and subsequent dispersion of the
effluent.
V-10
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
l»CO»fO««TIO ^_
L_j Category: Physical Impacts
LJ Sub-Category:
(3 Criterion: Surface Community
I I Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
RATING:
- 15
+10
+75
+5,
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 7
Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Inlet
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
Wastewater effluent entering Eyes and/or Sinclair Inlet
will contribute nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Within s&ali. shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrich-
ment can trigger alga] blooms which block light trans- "
mittance to benthic plants and rob dissolved oxygen from
the water when they decompose.
Water volumes are generally adequate to ensure good
dilution. Sinclair and Dyes Inlets normally
have high spring algal biomass and it would
be difficult to ascertain contributions from
additional sources.
-10
-2,
-SO-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIB Form #1026/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
Enhances and maximizes use of
surface zone f-or wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Introduces excess nutrients,
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality lead-
ing to simplification and
reduction of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
V-li
-------
Mitigative Measures to Protect the Marine Surface Community
The marine surface community could be adversely affected by large
inputs of undiluted fresh water and gradual accumulations of nutrients.
These potential adverse effects can be minimized, if not eliminated,
by selecting an outfall site that provides both excellent initial dilu-
tion and subsequent dispersion and flushing of effluent. Application
of this mitigative measure would tend to preclude the use of Dyes Inlet
as a disposal site because of its rating of only fair for dilution and
dispersion.
V-12
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Ground Water
Quantity
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of groundwater
in the Study Area.
RATING:
- 25
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines
DISCUSSION:
+100
+7.
+50
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +1[
these precautions the rating would be - 75 but with these
features the rating of - 25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particular-"
ly where dug wells are utilized, such as Srownsville and
Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydro logic balance of each stream basin will be adverse-"^"
ly affected by exporting water extracted from the basin
for discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-2
-50-
-?£-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
Water levels increase in
some existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
C
V-13
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
INCOHPOHATtO f~t
LJ Category.-_
II Sub-Category:
Q Criterion: Ground Water
|x| Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
Quantity of Potable Supplies
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of potable ground-
water in the Study Area.
RATING:
- 25
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without ^
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particular-
ly where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basin will be adversely_j0
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin
for discharge outside of the basin. Beep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-25
-SO
-76-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Kng.;
Reference 5
SIR Form
Copyright 1973
Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
Water levels increase in
some existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability, -
numerous wells go dry.
V-14
-------
c
Mitigative Measures to Protect Groundwater Quantity
The reduction of local availability of groundwater from the
uppermost water bearing strata will come about primarily due to the
placement of sewerage systems. Groundwater tables above the eleva-
tions of gravity flow sewers will cause the infiltration of ground-
water into the sewers. This effect is somewhat minor and can be
greatly minimized by using neoprene or plastic gaskets or seals at
sewer pipe joints. Of greater impact would be the drainage of local
groundwaters along the bed of the sewer pipe. The beds upon which
sewer pipe are placed and the backfill material are usually more
porous than surrounding undisturbed soils and will act as drains.
All available groundwaters in the vicinity of such drains and above
the sewer pipe elevation would be drained to the sewer pipe eleva-
tions. This impact can be very substantially mitigated by the care-
ful placement of impermeable clay dams at regular intervals along
the sewers. These dams would act as a stop to the drainage of
groundwaters.
Water levels in shallow dug wells would still decline and may
decline in slightly deeper drilled wells in spite of these measures.
The current practice of using septic tank disposal fields in most of
the study area provides a natural, albeit impure, recharge to the
local groundwater. The proposed plans to extract waters from the
ground, use them and then transport them out of the local recharge
areas will reduce the natural recharge but gain improved water
quality.
RESOURCE IMPACT MITIGATION
Mitigative Measures to Protect Quantity of Potable Water Supplies
The preceding discussion on groundwater is applicable to this
topic.
ECONOMIC IMPACT MITIGATION
The following are negative economic impacts identified as being of
substantial nature within the study area and/or as resulting from im-
plementation of project alternatives.
C
V-15
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
|x] Criterion:
I I Sub-Criterion: _
Project NO.
j Category:
Sub-Category:
Property Tax
Economic Impacts-
Direct Effects.
DEFINITION: The degree to which changes induced
by the project affect the local tax base, rate
and revenues, thereby increasing or decreasing
property tax.
RATING:
-12.5 .
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3 and 4
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: See individual criterion sheets
+100
+75
+50
DISCUSSION: This rating is derived by combining the
evaluation of the following subcriteria: +25
Sub-Criterion Rating
changes in Property Tax Rates -30
Changes in Property Tax Revenues +5
Composite
-12.5
+10
-10
-25
-50
-75
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Planner; Reference 44
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Lauryn Jones, Environmental
Significantly decreases
property tax
Decreases property tax
Marginally decreases pro-
perty tax
Slightly decreases property
tax
No or negligible effect
Slightly increases pro-
perty tax
Marginally increases pro-
perty tax
-Increases -property tax
Significantly increases
property tax
V-16
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Category :m
f"1 Sub-Category: m
[""] Criter^ow.-
I3Q Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. iso
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Property Tax
Changes in Property Tax Rates
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects property tax rates in the local
area.
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County Tax Districts
Alternatives 1 through 9
+100
+71
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with County Planning
Personnel, County Appraiser, Engineering Consultant,
and review of 1974 assessed valuation with levies and
taxes for 1975.
DISCUSSION: Public service costs in Kitsap County will
significantly increase due to an influx of population
induced by Trident and the cost of establishing a sewer
system in the planning area. To meet the rising costs,
the county will be forced to substantially increase re-
venues.
The proposed project will require public funds. It is
assumed that 75% of the project cost will be supplied
by a federal grant, and an additional 15% supplied from
state funds. The remaining 10% is the responsibility
of Kitsap County.
Each of the project alternatives has a different cost,
hence the amount of county funds needed varies with
each alternative. The 10% project cost borne by
local taxpayers ranges from $179,140 (Alternative #1
lowest cost) to $287,590 (Alternative #4 highest cost)
annually, according to the project engineer's estimate.
Since annual county revenues-must increase between
$179,140 and $287,590, the standard revenue collection
methods must adjust to meet this need. Tax rates (a
flexible mechanism to adjust revenue*) may rise to
generate enough revenue to offset new costs. The
figures relating to the proposed project cost and
associated rate increases are found on the following
tables:
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental
Planner; Reference 44
EIR Form #1016/ ' \, '
Copyright 1973 . ' -,>.v..
+50
+10
-10
-2!
-SO-
-WO**
RATING: See table
Significantly reduced
property tax rates
Reduces property tax
rates
No or negligible effect
Increases property tax
rate
Significantly increases
RFoperty tax rates
c
V-17
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
II Category:
II Sub-Category:
ij Criterion:
13 Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 180
Tmpgrfc
Plrer.f
Property Tax
Changes In Property Tax Rates
CONTINUED:
TABLE I
ALTERNATIVE
1 1
. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FUEL COST ESTIMATE
1,791,400
2,113,200
2,701,900
2,875,900
2,055,700
1,803,000
2,332,600
2,211,200
2,250,300.
TABLE II
CURRENT COUNTY
REVENUE
16,411,584
NEEDED REVENUE
INCREASE
179,140
180,300
205,570
211,320
221,120
225,030
233,260
270,190
287,590
ALTERNATIVE
1
6
5
2
8
9
7
3
4
% INCREASE
IN REVENUE
0915
0986
2525
2876
3473
3711
4213
6463
1.7523
ANTICIPATED TAX
INCREASE IN C PER
$1,000 ASSESSED
VALUE **
.1725
.1735
.1979
.2034
.2138
.2166
.2245
.2630
.2768
^Assuming the assessment ratio and raxable base remain constant. Although the
taxable base will increase with development of the area, an absolute estimate
of the taxable base increase is premature. The scores for the alternatives
with respect to this criterion thus reflect relative changes in property tax
rates.
** Assumes valuation remains constant and tax rate for planning area is an
average of 15.8c per $1,000 of assessed value.
V-18
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO. _180
Q Category: tv<..
Q Sub-Category: _ Direct Effects
Criterion: . Property Tax
Sub-Criterion: __ Changes in Property Tax Rates
CONTINUED:
Mi alternative means of increasing revenue to pay for the project would be to
establish a sewer district. The district would be composed of the service
area and taxed for the sewer service. Establishment of a sewer district would
reduce the tax burden countywide but would sharply increase the taxes of those
within the service area.
NOTE: Although property values will rise as a result of the influx in pop-
ulation, experience indicates that the increase in property tax revenues
associated with a residential population increase does not offset the rise
in municipal service costs. An accepted rating is that for each $10.00 of
increased cost, an additional $4.00 of revenue is generated. Since the in-
creased revenues resulting from the population increase will not cover the
increased costs generated, this revenue increase is not considered an off-
setting factor in determining the impact of this project on local property
tax rates.
ALTERNATIVE RATINGS
1 234 56
Rating -15 -20 -30 -30 -20 -15 -25 -20 -25
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Amnon Feffer, Senior Environmental Analyst; Reference 44
C
V-19
-------
Mitigative Measures to Minimize Economic Impacts
Maintaining project design criteria within Federally approved
standards will assure and maximize Federal cost-sharing funding. This
will minimize the cost burden upon the local population.
Selection of the least-cost alternative plan that provides
acceptable environmental impacts assures that negative economic
impacts will not be excessive.
Careful local planning of residential growth in conjunction
with the sewering of the study area, endeavoring to reach full utili-
zation of the system for any population level, will assure that the
sewerage system will always be serving a maximum number of customers.
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACT MITIGATION
The following are negative socio-cultural impacts identified as
being of substantial nature within the study area and/or as a result
of implementation of project alternatives.
V-20
-------
c
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
- Category:
Sub-Category: _
Socio-Cultural
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
LXJ Criterion:
(~j Sub-Criterion: _
Visual and;Aesthetic Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
RATING: - 60
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, and 6
Sewage treatment facility locations
Pipeline routes
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visited
proposed sites.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
The shoreline location of the Silverdale site, adjacent
to public access to Dyes Inlet and highly visible to homes
on surrounding hillsides would be substantially
visually degraded by the construction of a large ,,
sewage treatment facility.
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline place- (
ment along existing roads. Placement of the sewer trunk-
line along the. upper third of Clear Creek would be through
wooded areas that would suffer visual scarring for _^(
several years until vegetative regrowth occurred. Pipe-
line placement along the middle third of Clear Creek
would follow existing roads. Along the lower third, one
half of the route would be in open fields skirting _g,
woodland and one half in woodlands before intersection
with Bucklin Hill Road. Some of the lower third route
would pass through yards of nearby residences. It is
felt that with careful construction techniques designed to
protect the stream bed, negative aesthetic impact would _
be minimal.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project.-etaff
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1975
Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
Promotes aesthetic quality
in localized areas.
No changes in present
aesthetic quality.
Degrades aesthetic quality
in some local areas.
'Substantially degrades
aesthetic qualities.
V-21
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project NO.
. .
LJ Category:
.Sub-Category:
Socio-Cultural
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
tx| Criterion:
Cj Sub-Criterion:
Visual and Aesthetic Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
I RATING: - 25
+100
+25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 8
Sewage treatment facility locations
Pipeline routes
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visited
proposed sites.
DISCUSSION:
The Enetai site is undeveloped, heavily wooded and in a
desirable location for residences. The construction of
a sewage treatment facility at that site would probably
be opposed by local residents in spite of available
screening material that makes this site less conspic-
uous than the Silverdale shoreline. The site itself
would suffer a loss of intrinsic beauty.
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline place-
ment along existing roads. Placement of the sewer -10
trunkline along the upper third of Clear Creek would be
through wooded areas that would suffer visual scarring for
several years until vegetative regrowth occurred.
Pipeline placement along the middle third of -Si
Clear Creek would follow existing roads'. Along
the lower third, one half of the route would be in open
fields skirting woodland and one half in woodlands be-
fore intersection with Bucklin Hill Road. Some of the
lower third route would pass, through yards of nearby -SOJ
residences. It is felt that with careful construction
techniques designed to protect the stream bed, negative
aesthetic impact would be minimized.
-75-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project staff
SIR Form V1016/
Copyright 1973
Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
Promotes aesthetic quality
in localized areas.
No changes in present
aesthetic quality.
Degrades aesthetic quality
in some local areas.
Substantially degrades
aesthetic, qualities.
V-22
-------
Socio-Cultural
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCQ*PO*ATCO i»~~l
If Category:,
ft Sub-Category:
[j Criterion: Visual and Aesthetic Environment
I| Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the
the public's visual and
an area.
proposed project affects
aesthetic enjoyment of
RATING: -
25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 9
Sewage treatment facility locations
Pipeline routes
+100 Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
+75
+50
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visited
proposed sites.
DISCUSSION:
+2.
The Manchester site currently contains a small sewage
treatment facility but is surrounded by attractive wooded
parcels. Construction of a regional facility at Man-
chester would require expansion of the present plant +iQ
and clearing of the surrounding land. Due to the high
visibility of this site from passing passenger ferries
this can be considered a loss in visual aesthetic appeal.
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline place-
ment along existing roads. Placement of the sewer _j
trunkline along the upper third of Clear Creek would be
through wooded areas that would suffer visual scarring for
several years until vegetative regrowth occurred.
Pipeline placement along the middle third of _g
Clear Creek would follow existing roads. Along
the lower third, one half of the route would be in open
fields skirting woodland and one half in woodlands be-
fore intersection with Bucklin Hill Road. Some of the
lower third route would pass through yards of nearby -50
residences. It is felt that with careful construction
techniques designed to protect the stream bed, negative
aesthetic impact would be minimized.
-75-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project staff
EIR Form JL1016/
Copyright 1973
Promotes aesthetic quality
in localized areas.
No changes in present
aesthetic quality.
Degrades aesthetic qualities
in some local areas.
Substantially degrades
aesthetic qualities.
c
V-23
-------
Mitigative Measures to Protect Visual and Aesthetic Environment
Adoption of these measures would diminish the negative impacts
of facility location and pipeline placement but would not change the
ratings of an alternative plan. Alternative plan ratings were de-
veloped with the assumptions that these measures would be instituted
to a reasonable degree.
The negative primary aesthetic impact of the Clear Creek pipe-
line would be in the disruption of vegetation. This impact would be
of relatively short duration, provided revegetation recommendations
are adopted, and contribute a negligible score to the overall rating.
Secondary impacts of pipeline placement pertain to the develop-
ment of housing along available sewer lines. From an aesthetic view-
point this impact is highly subjective and subject to an extremely
large number of variables such as development type, land use, popula-
tion density and architectural treatments. No rating can be assigned
and mitigative measures will not be discussed.
The location of sewage treatment facilities in any but the most
depressed areas can have negative aesthetic effects. Sites with high
visibility, frequent public access or natural beauty suffer aesthetic
loss when developed as sewage treatment facilities or for any type of
large commercial or industrial uses.
Mitigative measures to reduce negative aesthetic impacts must be
directed at the sense which perceives aesthetics, namely vision.
Vegetative screening would block views of plant buildings, tanks and
machinery, in addition to providing some noise protection barriers.
Bare fencing or high walls would only create a forbidding, dis-
quieting or monolithic impression.
Architectural treatment of buildings and tanks to produce
pleasing designs would be superior to plain, drab, strictly functional
structures. Landscaping of treatment facility grounds, often main-
tained by facility personnel, can create a parklike appearance, al-
though unrestricted access would not be feasible due to safety con-
siderations.
V-24
-------
CHAPTER VI
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
The proposed alternative plans will have similar resource commit-
ments. Resource commitments in the physical environment are negligi-
ble. The treatment facility site will require on the order of five
to ten acres of land, which will be removed from consideration for
other uses during the life of the treatment facility. Small amounts
of land will be committed to easements for the sewerage system. Con-
struction of the sewerage system will temporarily destroy some flora,
but this is not a permanent commitment, and regrowth of vegetation
can be arranged. With regard to other physical parameters, such as
water quality, fauna and marine resources, the effects of the pro-
posed alternative plans would be negligible.
The creation and construction of a regional sewerage system for
sub-basins 9 and 10 and for the Trident Support Site will impose on
future generations the necessity for a strong commitment to the main-
tenance, expansion and continuation of the wastewater management sys-
tems now being developed. Future alternatives for wastewater collec-
tion, treatment and disposal will to a large extent be precluded by
implementation of the selected plan.
A secondaryand desirableeffect is the population concentra-
tion forced by the interceptor location. By providing service in
appropriately zoned areas designated in the General Plan, the inter-
ceptor location could stimulate development according to County plan-
ning goals. This will result in an irreversible environmental change
with respect to the applicable properties by committing them to use
for residential and commercial development purposes. By fostering
relatively high-density development in areas so designated, the pro-
ject will reduce the potential throughout the area for urban sprawl
and strip development in contravention of the General Plan.
c
VI-1
-------
-------
^HJ.,.-'
CHAPTER VII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND
THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This section develops the relationships between basically nega-
tive, short-term impacts upon the environment and the ultimate bene-
fits to be accrued from the proposed project.
Physical Impacts
The negative, short-term physical impacts of the proposed project
will be more than offset by the future benefits. Negative impacts can
be reduced to: temporary (one to 10 year) disruption of present types
and quantities of vegetation along pipeline routes; temporary distur-
bance of stream ecologies during construction; temporary (one to three
year) disruption of marine benthic communities due to outfall construc-
tion; and a decrease in aesthetic appeal of the site selected for the
treatment facility. There will also be construction impacts, which
will include some traffic impacts due to construction workers and ma-
terial hauling, construction noises andalong the interceptor route
impacting of traffic where the pipeline follows highways and streets.
These impacts are common to all of the proposed alternative plans.
For alternative plans No. 3 and 4, there would also be some very small
damage to clam beds in Liberty Bay.
Benefits to the physical environment are common to all of the al-
ternative plans, but in varying degrees. Failure of septic tank drain
fields will no longer occur in sewered areas connected to the treat-
ment facility. As a consequence, existing pollution of streams, of
Island Lake and of local groundwaters, which are used extensively for
potable water supply, will diminish. Pollution of Dyes Inlet and Port
Orchard channel will, in general, be diminished, and Health Department
restrictions on shellfish harvesting in presently highly polluted areas
probably could be lifted. Health hazards within the study area would
be substantially reduced.
Adoption of any one of the alternative plans would provide sewer-
age service and wastewater treatment to wastes originating at the Tri-
VII-1
-------
dent Support Site.
Resource Impacts
The placement of pipelines in undeveloped areas along Clear Creek
may temporarily frighten game animals from the area. Construction of
a treated effluent outfall will temporarily eliminate benthic orga-
nisms in a small area, for all alternatives. For alternative plans
No. 3 and 4 there would be some small damage to clam beds in Liberty
Bay.
Balancing these negative impacts, a substantial reduction is ex-
pected in bacterial pollution of clam beds, commencing with the elimi-
nation of septic tank drainage and primary level treated sewage dis-
charges. Health Department restrictions upon certain clam harvesting
areas might be lifted.
Social-Cultural Impacts
Development of a new major wastewater interceptor and treatment
system in an area largely lacking these services provides to Kitsap
County planners and officials a unique opportunity and mechanism by
which growth may be controlled in a well planned and orderly manner.
Placement of sewer interceptors in areas zoned for residential
use will tend to fulfill the goals of the General Plan. Urban sprawl
and strip development will tend to be minimized, thereby maintaining
agricultural and open space in areas so designated in the Plan.
Growth-Inducing Impacts
Growth-indueing impacts are secondary effects of a project which
either lead directly to growth (for example, by attracting large num-
bers of workers to an area) or which remove an obstacle to growth (for
example, the construction of a highway which opens a new area for de-
velopment) .
The growth-inducing impacts of a service facility are related to
a number of factors, including: other service facilities, labor force,
capital, transportation network, markets, etc. Here, in considering
Kitsap County, there is another, unique factor: the Trident Base.
Growth in the study area, essentially due to the Navy facility,
is expected to increase to a population of 24,000. These people will
VII-2
-------
^-
c
(and must) live in the area and will do so with or without the proposed
sewage facility. In addition, given that the proposed facility will
service an estimated 18,000 people plus the Trident Support Site flow,
only somewhat more than two-thirds of the "new" residents of the study
area will be affected, and only to the extent that the presence of a
sewer interceptor will determine the location of new residences and
businesses, not their construction, which has become necessary as a
result of the Trident Base.
The rapid rise in local population will hit full stride in 1983,
when the Trident site is scheduled to become operational. The pres-
sure on housing, schools and all other facilities and services required
by a residential population will be severe, and the area will not be
attractive to newcomers other than those employed at Trident, their
dependents and those associated with public and private services that
the area will need.
The existence of the proposed project will thus not have a signi-
ficant growth-inducing impact in the area; for the foreseeable future,
the entire growth capacity of the area will be strained to the limit,
and beyond, in coping with a growth stimulus already under construc-
tion. When Trident is operating at its planned level, and associated
growth has already taken place, the service capacity of the proposed
facility will be utilized at or near its limits, thereby effectively
eliminating itself as a source of future growth.
Rather than inducing growth, the proposed project will serve to
channel growth toward its service area, as it mitigates a serious ex-
isting problem: the substandard treatment of sewage. Such an outcome
is clearly desirable because the service area conforms to planning
goals by providing service in urban and transitorial areas designated
for growth.
There will be small indirect impact attributable to the proposed
project, stemming from the slight increase in jobs (20-40 is the pre-
liminary estimate) necessary to operate the treatment system, sewer
lines and pump stations and to manage the treatment system staff.
There will thus be a minor increase in population, with attendant needs
for housing, etc., generating a small amount of business activity. In
the context of Trident, this small increase will not measurably increase
the growth pressure in Kitsap County and is probably substantially less
than the precision of population estimating.
V1I-3
-------
c
CHAPTER VIII
REFERENCES
1. The URS Company. Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities:
Draft Facilities Plan, Seattle, Washington, July
1975.
2. Horsely, John. Kitsap County Trident Coordinator, Personal
Communication, 13 August 1975.
3, U.S. Department of the Navy. Trident Support Site Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement, July 1974.
4. Pace Corporation. Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan
for Drainage Basin 15, rough draft, Seattle, Washing-
ton, July 1973.
5. State of Washington Department of Conservation, Division of Water
Resources. Water Resources and Geology of the Kitsap
Peninsula and Certain Adjacent Islands, Water Supply
Bulletin No. 18, 1965.
6. USDA Soil Conservation Service and Washington Agricultural Ex-
periment Station. Soil Survey, Kitsap County, Wash-
ington, 1934.
7. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Interpretations of Soils for
Land Use Planning, Supplement to Soil Survey of Kit-
sap County, Washington, January 1972.
8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Environmental
Resources Section. Washington Environmental Atlas,
January 1975.
9. USDA Forest Service. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washing-
ton, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report,
PNW-8, 1973.
10. Kingsbury, John. State of Washington Department of Natural
Resources, South Puget Sound Area. Personal Communica-
tion, 9 July 1975.
^ VIII-1
-------
11- State Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species of
the Continental United States, Federal Register, Vol.
40, No. 237, 1 July 1975.
12. Ingles, Lloyd G. Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford Univer-
sity Press, Stanford, California, 1965.
13. Larrison, E.J. and Sonnenberg, K.G. Washington Birds, Their Lo-
cation and Identification, Seattle Audobon Society,
1968.
14. Yocom, Charles and Dasmann, Ray. The Pacific Coastal Wildlife
Region, Naturegraph Company, Healdsburg, California,
1965.
15. Stebbins, Robert C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Am-
phibians, Houghton Mifflin -Company, Boston, Massachu-
setts, 1966.
16. Peterson, Roger Tory. A Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1961.
17. Larrison, Earl J. Field Guide to Birds of Puget Sound, Seattle
Audubon Society, 1952.
18. Lyons, C.P. Trees, Shrubs and Flowers to Know in Washington,
J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., Toronto, Canada, 1956.
19. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. United
States List of Endangered Fauna, May 1974.
20. State of Washington Department of Game. Rare Mammals of Washing-
ton, 1 June 1973.
21. Lincoln, John H. Model Studies of the Port Orchard System and
Adjacent Areas, Interim Report No. 2, University of
Washington, Seattle, June 1975.
22. Kitsap County Planning Department. Basic Data and Related
Sources to Shorelines, Port Orchard, Washington,
February 1973.
23. Water Resources Engineers. Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound and
Adjacent Waters, prepared for EPA, Contract No. 14-
31-001-3385, April 1975.
24. Census of Agriculture - Kitsap County, Washington. U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, September
1971.
VIII-2
-------
/" 25. Kitsap County Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan,
^ by the ORB Company, October 1974.
26. Munton, John, Vice President. Industrial Departments, Cascade
Natural Gas Company. Personal Communication, 15
July 1975.
27. Harstad Associates, Inc. Central Kitsap Study Area Comprehen-
sive Plan, Seattle, Washington, June 1969,
28. Linder, Paul G. Superintendent of Central Kitsap School Dis-
trict No. 401. Letter of 22 July 1975.
29. Rutherford, F.C. County Assessor, Kitsap County: Assessed
Valuations with Levies and Taxes for 1975. Port
Orchard, Washington, 1975.
30. State of Washington. Employment Security Department. Employment
and Payrolls in Washington State by County and by
Industry, No. 112, 3rd Quarter, 1974.
31. United States Dept. of Labor - Manpower Administration. Man-
power Profile, Kitsap County, Washington, September
1972.
32. Porterfield, Robert; Planner. Kitsap County Planning Department
Personal Communications, July 11 & 15, 1975.
33. Puget Sound Council of Governments. Data Transmittal from
Jan Pilskog, PSCG. July 1975.
34. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Preliminary Allocations of Population
and Households to Subareas Under Alternative Policy
Models, to Central Puget Sound Economic Development
District, 7 May 1975.
35. Sanderson, John. Superintendant of Public Works, Kitsap County
Public Works Department, Personal Communication,
11 July 1975.
36. Williams, Richard. Environmental Planner, URS Company, Personal
Communications, July 8, 10, 14, 1975.
37. Brincken, Glen. Assistant Manager of Customer Service in Market-
ing, Puget Sound Power and Light Company, Personal
Communication, 16 July 1975.
38. Benham, Shirley, M.D. Department of Public Health, Kitsap County,
Personal Communication, 11 July 1975.
c
VIII-3
-------
39. Loop, Enzo. Kitsap County Traffic Engineer, Personal Communica-
tions, July 1975,
40. Kitsap County Planning Policies - Outline for the Future Growth
of Kitsap County, Washington: An* Element of the
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, Approved 24 February
1970.
41. Kitsap County. Ammendment to Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan
Planning Policies: Outline for the Future Growth
of Kitsap County, Washington, Approved 24 June 1975.
42. Weigle, Joseph and Brown, Eleanor. Kitsap County Health Depart-
ment, Personal Communications, 11 July 1975.
43. Benson, Charlotte L. Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Clear
Creek Drainage, Eastern Kitsap Peninsula, University
of Washington, Office of Public Archaeology
Reconnaissance Report No. 3, 3 February 1975.
44. Shobert, Cheryl. Office Administrator, Kitsap County Assessor's
Office, Personal Communication, 22 July 1975.
45. Savoie, Gordon. Manager of Bond Investments, Security National
Bank, Personal Communication, March 1974.
46. Hill, Ingman, Chase and Company. Comprehensive Water and Sewerage
Plans for Central Kitsap County, Seattle, Washington,
January 1970.
47. Engineering-Science, Inc. Pollutional Effects of Drydock Dis-
charges, a report to the Department of the Navy,
Contract No. N62474-73-C-5275, October 1973.
48. Li, Richard C.T. City of Poulsbo Facilities Plan for Proposed
Sewerage Facilities, Seattle, Washington, June 1974.
49. Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc. A Comprehensive Sewerage System
Improvement Plan for the City of Bremerton, Washing-
ton, Seattle, Washington, January 1974.
50. The URS Company, Environmental Impact Statement for the Hans-
ville Road Solid Waste Disposal Site, Seattle, Wash-
ington, March 1974.
51. Sopper, W.E. and Kardos, L.T. Recycling Treated Municipal Waste-
water and Sludge through Forest and Cropland, Pennsyl-
vania State University Press, University Park, 1973.
VIII-4
-------
v 52. Stetson, John. State of Washington Department of Ecology, Personal
Communication, 16 July 1975.
c
VIII-5
-------
-------
c
APPENDIX A
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION COMPUTER SUMMARY
A-l Methodology
A-2 Typical Individual Output
A-3 Summary Output
C
A-l
-------
-------
c
Appendix A-l
METHODOLOGY
C
A-2
-------
-------
C
NUMERICAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The Environmental Impact Report format used herein is based on
the Socio-Economic Systems, Inc. EVAL Methodology. The EVAL system
is characterized by four primary procedural steps:
1. The environmental impacts to be evaluated are classified
according to environmental impact categories and numerous sub-categor-
ies. The four basic categories are:
a. Physical Impacts: Those aspects of the proposed project
which physically degrade or enhance the environment: e.g.,
air pollution, noise, changes to physical and biological
systems, etc.
b. Resource Impacts: Those aspects of the proposed project
which demand or supply services and/or resources: e.g.,
power demands, municipal service demands, transportation
demands, etc.
c. Economic Impacts: Those aspects of the proposed project
which affect the economic conditions in the relevant
area: e.g., employment, tax base, etc.
d. Socio-Cultural Impacts: Those aspects of the project
which affect the social, cultural and aesthetic condi-
tions in the relevant areas: e.g. architectural features,
maintenance 'of historical sites in the area, health and
safety, etc. The environmental impact categories, cri-
teria and sub-criteria used in this study are shown on
the following page.
2. Once the impact categories are defined, they are assigned a
value according to their relative significance. For instance, the
Physical Impacts of the project may be more significant than Socio-
Cultural Impacts, so the former would be given a rating factor of 100%,
the latter a rating factor of 80%. The relative importance of sub-
categories are similarly determined, and weighting factors are assign-
ed.
3. Numerical ratings are given for each individual criterion.
Generally, a "0" rating indicates no impact. A positive number indi-
cates a beneficial impact, and a negative number indicates an adverse
impact. The range of ratings is +100 to -100, with "significant"
adverse impacts being identified by a ranking of -10 or lower. It is
important to note the comparative, rather than absolute nature of these
ratings; that is, a rating of -10 for a particular alternative's
impact upon air quality fundamentally means the alternative ranks bet-
ter in comparison to an alternative which is rated -20 according to
this criterion.
A-3
-------
4. The numerical ratings are multiplied by the appropriate
weighting factors, and the resultant weighted impact ratings are summed
up for each alternative to give a composite rating for each of the al-
ternatives, including the "no project" alternative.
A graphical display of the comparative impacts of the alternatives is
given to provide a summary comparison of the alternatives. Detailed
information on the individual rated criteria is provided on a separate
page for each criterion. Each of these pages lists:
1. Criterion title
2. Criterion definition
3. Boundary of the affected area
4. Method of analysis
5. Discussion of synthesis of pertinent information
6. The source or reference from which the data came and with
whom the data was verified.
The summarized, composite values are designed to provide at-a-
glance comparison of alternatives. The detailed criteria analyses are
designed to provide explicit and clear explanations of each environ-
mental impact evaluation. This allows the interested reader to see
exactly how the evaluation process was carried out. The numerical
ratings precisely communicate the comparative impacts of the alterna-
tives on the particular environmental factor. With this information
the reader is able to decide whether or not he agrees with the impact
assessment. In determining the set of weighting factors used to denote
cumulative impact of the proposed project, various officials were con-
tacted in order to ascertain which criteria groups were the most criti-
cal in terms of the long-range goals of Kitsap County.
Two sets of weighting factors are presented: one derived from a
public opinion survey conducted by URS and the other developed in a
meeting held in June, 1975. Present at this meeting were members of
the Kitsap County Planning Department, the County Engineer, and others.
The public opinion survey results were analyzed to obtain the
weighting factors by separating the sampling matrix into the four cate-
gories of physical, resources, economic, and socio-cultural impacts (see
following table). The value number was then divided by the number of
items to give the mean value. For physical impacts, this value was
likewise multiplied by 27.63 to equal 100%. The other mean values
were likewise multiplied by 27.63 to obtain their relative weights.
A-4
-------
c
Environmental Impact Criteria
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
Environmental Qualities
Air Quality
External Noise
Odor
Terrestrial Environment
Wildlife & Its Habitats
Vegetative Communities
Marine Biological Environment
Benthic
Water Columm
Surface
Water Quality
Surface Water
Marine Water
Groundwater Quantity
Groundwater Quality
Soils (Fertility)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Direct Effects
Municipal Services Cost
Loans and Subsidies
Property Tax
Changes in Tax Revenues
Changes in Tax Rates
Indirect Effects
Property Values
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Utility Service Systems
Electrical
Water
Municipal Services
Environmental Health
Parks and Recreation
Sanitary
Natural Resources
Potable Underground Water
Quality
Quanity
Potable Surface Water
Fauna
Marine
Terrestrial
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Social Impacts
Planned Land Use Pattern
Health and Safety
Cultural/Esthetic Impacts
Archeological and Historical
Entertainment and Recreation
External Esthetic Impression
A-5
-------
Total
Impact No. of Items Value Mean Weight
Physical 21 76 3.6 100
Resource 8 16 2.0 55
Economic 9 9 1.0 28
Socio-Cultural 11 30 2.7 75
The sub-categories were not weighted for the public opinion survey.
It was felt that the sub-category items received equal weight.
The weighting factors assigned at the June, 1975 meeting were as
follows :
Category Sub-Category
Weight Weight
Physical Impacts 100
Environmental Qualities 100
Terrestrial Environment 90
Alteration of Biological
Environment 95
Resource Impacts 90
Utilities Service System 100*
Municipal Service 100*
Natural Resources 100*
Economic Impacts 95
Direct Impacts 100
Indirect Impacts 95
Socio-Cultural Impacts 85
Social Impacts 100
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts 90
*Considered equal
In summary, the EVAL methodology makes it possible to compare
the total impact of proposed project alternatives by quantitative
evaluation, emphasizing during the process the more important criteria,
and therefore, the most critical environmental impacts. The individual
impact evaluations which led to the final comparison are clearly de-
lineated, allowing the reviewer the opportunity to determine whether
he agrees with the evaluation, if not, precisely where the disagree-
ment lies.
A-6
-------
c
APPENDIX A-2
TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT
The following section contains a typical computer output of the
basic information developed for a single alternative plan.
C
A-7
-------
»*«»*****»»»*««*»«««**»»**«*«««**«******
« E.I.R.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE
FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (1) *
«»»***»»»»**»*»«*»**»» »**»»*«»*»«*«*»»«#
DATE: 08/12/75 PAGE: 4 (18001)
CODE: 75-? CLIENT KEF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC., ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY CLASSIFIES IMPACTS IN FOUR CATEGORIES:
i. PHYSICAL IMPACTS: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED PROJECT
PHYSICALLY ENHANCES OR DEGRADES THE ENVIRONMENT IN AREAS SUCH
AS AIR QUALITY. NOISE» FAUNA AND FLORA»HYDROLOGi» TRAFFFIC, ETC.
(THIS PROJECT HAS 4 SUBCATEGORIES CONTAINING 10 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
2. RESOURCE IMPACTS: THOSE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH
DEMAND OR SUPPLY SERVICES AND/OR RESOURCES. E.G. UTILITIES
DEMANDS, MUNICPAL SERVICE DEMANDS, TRANSPORTATION DEMANDS.
(THIS PROJECT HAS 3 SUBCATEGORIES CONTAINING 8 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
s. ECONOMIC IMPACTS: THOSE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH
AFFECT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE RELEVANT AREA, E.G. TAX BASE,
EMPLOYMENT, NEW BUSINESS FORMATION, ETC.
(THIS PROJECT HAS Z SUBCATEGORIES CONTAINING 4 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
4. SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS: THOSE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
WHICH AFFECT SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND AESTHETIC CONDITIONS IN THE
RELEVANT AREA, E.G. LAND USE COMPATARILITY. POPULATION SIZE
AND DENSITY, HISTORICAL OR ARCHEEOLOGICAL SITES, ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURES, ETC.
(THIS PROJECT HAS 2 SUBCATEGORIES CONTAINING 5 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
THESE FOUR CATEGORIES ARE BROKEN DOWN INTO THE INDICATED NUMBER OF
SUBCATEGORIES AND CRITERIA, SOME WITH SUB-CRITERIA, WHICH ARE ANALYZED
SEPARATELY. -THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS ARE SUMMA-
RIZED IN THE SECTION TITLED "ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES",
DISPLAYED GKAPHICALLY IN "GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS" AND "PROJECT ALTERNATIVES BAR GRAPH", AND DESCRIBED IN DETAIL
IN "ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS INDEX OF CRITIERIA".
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.»CALIF. 1974
A-8
-------
c:
DATE!
CODE!
**»*»«««*««*««««*«»»««*««**»«««««««»««*»«
E.I.R.S. «
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE »
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (1) *
**«««««««»«««««««««»»«»«««*«*»«»««»>»»««««
08/12/75 PAGE!
75-2 CLIENT REF!
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT INDEX OF CRITERIA
8 (18001)
EPA-10
KEY TO INDEX OF CRITERIA:
ITEM: PARTICULAR IMPACT ITEMS ANALYZED IN THIS REVIEW.
PAGE(S): LOCATION OF RELEVANT DATA IN EIR UNDER REVIEW
KEY ITEM: ASTERISKS (»*«) CALL ATTENTION TO ITEMS WITH RATINGS
GREATER THAN *10 OR -10 ON A SCALE OF -100 TO *100.
"UNR" INDICATES AN UNRATABI.E ITEM. EIR CONTAINED INSUFFI-
CIENT DATA ON WHICH TO BASE A NUMERICAL RATING.
STATUS: M (MANDATORY) OR D (DESIRABLE) INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
PARTICULAR IMPACT ITEM IN THE ANLYSIS OF OVERALL PROJECT
IMPACTS.
WEIGHT: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PARTICULAR ITEM RELATIVE TO OTHER ITEMS
WITHIN THE SAME CATEGORY* SUB-CATEGORY, OR CRITERION.
C (CATEGORY), SC (SUB-CATEGOKY), CR (CRITERION), SX (SUB-
CRITERION) INDICATE LEVEL OF ITEM BEING WEIGHTED.
BASE RATING: UNWEIGHTED NUMERICAL RATING OF IMPACT ON A SCALE OF -100
TO + 100 ASSIGNED TO PARTICULAR ITEM.
RATING SENSITIVITY: THE CHANGE IN THE OVERALL PROJECT RATING
THAT WOULD RESULT IF THIS INDIVIDUAL BASE ITEM WERE RAISED OR
LOWERED BY 10 POINTS.
ACTUAL OVERALL PROJECT RATING IS 9.39.
IMPACT OF PARTICULAR ITEM FOR NO-PROJECT AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED. RATED AT CATEGORY AND SUB-CATEGORY LEVELS ONLY. FIRST
NUMBER IS NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. ALTERNATIVE #1 DIRECTLY BELOW
NO-PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVE #2 BELOW #1.
ITEM ID * PAGE(S)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
: : : : :RATING:RATNG
:KEY :STA-: : BASE :SENSI-:ALTER
ITEM :TUS :WEIGHT :RATING:TlVITY:NTVFS
1000 PP.
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
1100 PP.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
:
M : c 100%: 2.99: 2.74: o.oo
M :SC 100*: -1.67: 0.77: 0.00
C
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.,CALIF. 1974
A-9
-------
***«***«*««««*«»«««*»«***«««««**»««***«»«
» E.I.R.S. . »
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (1)
**«***«**«**««««»««*««*«**«*«««««««««*««
DATE: 08/12/75
CODE: 75-2
ITEM ID # PAGE(S)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
1110 PP.
AIR QUALITY
1120 PP.
EXTERNAL NOISE
1140 PP.
ODOR
1200 PP.
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
1210 PP.
WILDLIFE & ITS HABITATS
1220 PP.
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
1230 PP.
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
1270 PP.
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT
1271 PP.
BENTHIC
1272 PP.
WATER COLUMN
1273 PP.
SURFACE.
1500 PP.
WATER QUALITY
1510 PP.
SURFACE WATER
1520 PP.
MARINE WATER
:KEY :STA-
:ITEM :TUS
:
: : M
| '.
: : M
j 1
: : D
I j
: »** : M
«
: : M
| j
: «** : M
i i
: *»* : M
; ;
*
: «*» M
: %
j ;
: »** : M
*
: : M
! |
: «** : M
: :
: :
: *« : M
| i
: «** : M
: : M
PAGE.
CLIENT REF
: : BASE
:WEIGHT :RATING
:CR
!
:CR
*
:CR
*
:SC
\
:CR
I
:CR
:
:CR
;
:CR
j
:
:SX
\
:sx
*
:SX
t
:
:SC
I
:CR
*:
:CR
*
100%: 0.00
100%: -5.00
100%: 0.00
65%:-14.58
\
100%: -5.00
'.
100%:-20.00
*
loo%:-20.oo
s
100%:-13.33
*
*
9 (18001)
EPA-10
RATING:RATNG
SENSI-:ALTER
T1VITY NTVES
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.50
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
100%:-l'5,,00: 0.04
i ';
100%:-10.00 0.04
;
100%:-15.00 0.04
*
:
90%: 24.17 0.69
\
100%: 50.00 0.23
0.00
0.00
': j
100%: 10.00: 0.23:
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC.tCALIF. 1974
A-1Q
-------
c
**»»*»» »»»*»»»*«»***»»»«»*»»***»**»»«*»»
» E.I.R.S. . «
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR! KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT U> «
»«««««*«««««««« »»«««'>««««««««««»««««»««««
DATE: 08/12/75 PAGE: 10 (isooi)
CODE: 75-2
i
ITEM ID # PAGE(S)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
1530 PP.
GROUNOWATER
1531 PP.
GROUNDWATER QUANTITY
1532 PP.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
1600 PP.
SOILS (FERTILITY)
2000 PP.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
2100 PP.
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
2120 PP.
ELECTRICAL
2170 PP.
WATER
2200 PP.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
2220 PP.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
2250 PP.
PARKS AND RECREATION
2370 PP.
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
i
KEY :STA-
ITEM :TUS
*** : M
*
**» : M
*** : M
: M
»** : M
: M
: M
: M
*»* : M
**» : M
: M
«»* : M
2400 PP. : :
NATURAL RESOURCES : : M
CLIENT REF
: BASE
WEIGHT :RATING
CR 100%: 12.50
SX 100*:-25.00
SX 100%: 50.00
*
SC 100*: 0.00
C 90%: 10.67
*
SC 100*: -0.50
*
CR 100*: -1.00
CR 100%: 0.00
SC 100*: 25.00
CR 100*: 25.00
*
CR 100%: 0.00
CR 100*: 50.00
SC 100*: 7.50
2410 PP. : : : :
POTABLE UNDERGRND WATER : *»* i M :CR 100*: 12.50
EPA-10
RATING:RATNG
SENSI-:ALTER
T1VITY:NTVES
*
0.23:
0.12:
*
0.12:
0.77: 0.00
:
2.47: 0.00
0.74: 0.00
0.37:
*
0.37:
0.74: 0.00
0.25:
0.25:
0.25:
0.74: 0.00
0.25:
C
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC..CALIF. 1974
A-ll
-------
*«»***«**«**«««**»«»*«««««««»«««*»«««»««»
* E.I.R.S. »
« ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
» FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (1) *
**«*««***»«*«*««»*««**«**«*««*«»»«««««««»
DATE: 08/12/75 PAGE: 11 (18001)
CODE: 75-2 CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ITEM ID * PAGE(S)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
2411 PP.
QUALITY
2412 PP.
QUANTITY
2420 PP.
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
2450 PP.
FAUNA
2451 PP.
TERRESTRIAL
2452 PP.
MARINE
3000 PP.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
3100 PP.
DIRECT EFFECTS
3120 PP.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
3130 PP.
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
3140 PP.
PROPERTY TAX
3141 PP.
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
3142 PP.
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
3200 PP.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
! : : : :RATING:RATNG
:KEY :STA-: : BASE :SENSI-:ALTFR
:ITEM :TUS :WEIGHT :RATING:T1VITY:NTVES
: «** : M :sx
: : :
: *»» : M :SX
: : :
: : M :CR
: : :
: : M :CR
: : :
: : M :sx
: : :
tJt * C V
n JA
: : :
: *«* : M : c
: : :
: **« : M :sc
: : :
: : D :CR
: t :
: : :
: »* : M :CR
: : :
: : M :CR
: : :
: : M :SX
: : :
: *»* : M :sx
: : :
: : M :SC
*
100%: 50.00:
| !
100%:-25.00:
! !
100%: 5.00:
! !
loo%: s.oo:
\ !
100%: 0.00:
*
*
100%: 10.00:
I !
95%: 16.84:
I I
100%: 23.33:
: :
100%:-10.00:
« ;
:
100%: 90.00:
'. I
100%:-10.00:
100%: -5.00:
j |
100%:-15.00:
*
95%: 10. 00:
0.12:
!
0.12:
!
0.25:
*
0.25:
!
0.12:
*
*
0.12:
!
2.60:
*
1.27:
!
0.42:
2
0.42:
*
0.42:
*
0.21:
|
0.21:
!
1.20:
0.00
0.00
0.00
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC..CALIF. 1974
A-12
-------
c
»»«*»«#»»»»»*»»»**« *««*»*»»»»*»»»«*«»»»«
* E.I.R.S. «
» ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
» FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (1) *
»**»**#*»*»««*«****»»***»***»«**»*»*»***»
DATE: 08/12/75 PAGE: 12 ueooi)
CODE: 75-2 CLIENT REP: EPA-10
ITEM ID # PAGE(S)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
3210 PP.
PROPERTY VALUES
4000 PP.
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
4100 PP.
SOCIAL IMPACTS
4120 PP.
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
4140 PP.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
4200 PP.
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
4210 PP.
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
4230 PP.
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
4240 PP.
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
KEY
ITEM
...
»»»
...
...
STA-
TUS
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
: M
:WEIGHT
:CR 100%
: C 80%
:SC 100%
:CR 100%
:CR 100%
:SC 90%
:CR 100%
:CR 100%
:CR 100%
:RATING:RATNG
BASE :SENSI-:ALTER
RATING:T1VITY:NTVES
*
10.00: 1.20:
7.11: 2.19: 0.00
*
30.00: 0.92: 0.00
* *
10.00: 0.46:
50.00: 0.46:
-18.33: 0.83: 0.00
*
0.00: 0.28:
5.00: 0.28:
*
*
-60.00: 0.28:
C
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMSt INC.»CALIF. 1974
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A-3
SUMMARY OUTPUT
This section contains the complete computer calculation of all
ratings, weights and final scores for each individual alternative plan
under consideration for the study area. The numerical scores that re-
sult from this calculation are intended to aid the evaluator in deter-
mining the relative value or environmental impact of each of the various
alternatives.
The first summary output for alternative plans No. 1 and 6 is based
upon weights obtained from Kitsap County officials and the EPA, while
the second provides a comparison by averaging those weights with weights
obtained from the URS public survey. The scores resulting from each of
these computer runs are provided in Chapter I. All subsequent summary
outputs in this appendix are based upon weights obtained from the URS
public survey, which is considered the most valid indicator of local
citizen concerns.
A-14
-------
y
»««««*««*»«**«««»«««««»««««««««««»««»«»««
* E.I.R.S. »
« ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE »
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (1 }{4>
«««*«#««*«««*««««*»« «»«««»« »«»»«»»««««»««
PROJECT NAME: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT
-------
«*»*«»»«»«»*«»*«««»«««*«««*«««««*««**«**«
* E.I.M.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (1 >(
fr
DATE: 08/12/75 PAGE: S (18001)
CODE: 75-? CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
:UNWEIGHTED: : WEIGHTED:
: HATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 3.0 : 100% : 3.0 :
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 10.7 : 90* : 9.6 :
MMIWH._M.._.__._*«* ^WW-IW^W W »-<»«_.>«»
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 16.8 : 95* : 16.0 :
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS : 7.1 : 80% : 5.7 :
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING**
PROJECT: 9.39
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: 0.00
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN »10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OK -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
A-16
-------
E.I.H.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE
FOR: KITSAP HASTEWATEH TREATMENT
DATE: OR/12/75
CODE: 75-2
PAGE: f> (isooi)
CLIENT KEF! EPA-10
GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ADVERSE
RATING
POSITIVE
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
AIR QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
OOOR
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
WILDLIFE S. ITS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT
BENTHIC
WATER COLUMN
SURFACE
WATER QUALITY
SURFACE WATER
MARINE WATER
GROUNQWATER
GROUNDWATER OUANTITY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNDERGRND WATER
QUALITY
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
FAUNA
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
PROPERTY TAX
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
SNUMt- i 1
:RICAL :0
RATING:0
2.998
-1.67:
o.oo:
-5.00:
o.oo:
-14.58:
-5.00:
-20.00:
-20.00:
-13.33:
-15.00:
-10. oo:
-15.00:
24.17:
50.00:
10. oo:
12.50:
-25.00:
50.00:
o.oo:
10.67:
-0.50:
-1.00:
0.00:
25.00:
25.00:
o.oo:
50.00:
7.50:
12.50:
50.00:
-25.00:
5.00:
5.00:
O.oo:
10.00:
16.84:
23.33:
-10.00:
90.00:
-10. 00:
-5.00:
-15.00:
10.00:
10. oo:
7.11:
30.00:
10.00:
50.00:
-IB. 33:
O.oo:
s.oo:
-60.00:
7 5 2112 5 7
5 0 50005 0 5
:l
1 :
:
I:
:
1 1 :
:
1 1 :
1 1 :
I :
1 :
:
1 :
:i 1 II I
:l III 1 1 II 1 1
1 1 1
Mil
Ml 1 :
Ml MM 1 1 M
MM
1 :
It
I
: III
: III
:
: II M Ml 1
:
: 1
: 1 M 1 MM
Mill:
:
:
:
M 1
Mill
MIMI
1 1:
M 1 1 M 1 M 1 II II M M 1
1 1:
1 :
III:
Ml
M 1
: 1 1
M Ml M
M 1
MIMIIMM
MM:
t
M
M 1 1 1 M M 1 M:
i:
0:
o:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
t
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
*
:
:
.
:
:
t
i
i
t
:
}
t
t
A-17
-------
»»»»»**»»»»»»*»»»»»»»«»»»*«»***»»*»»*»*»*
* E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE «
« FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATEK TREATMENT (1 !(6>
»*»»»***»*****»»*«*»«#*»«»»*»«*»*»«**»»*»
PROJECT NAME: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT
(18021) ALTERNATIVE PLANS (ALT. 1 OF 9)
ADDRESS:
CODE: 75-2
CLIENT REF:EHA-IO
MAP REF:(USGS)
KITS O' NA- 0
PROJECT TYPE: PUBLIC-UTIL. MARKET VALUE: $ 0.
PROJECT SIZE: 0. SO. FT. SITE SIZE: 0.00 ACRES
CURRENT ZONING:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
LEAD AGENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
EIR AUTHOR: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
APPLICANT: KITSAP COUNTY
DRAFT EIR
CONSULTANT: ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
600 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710
WEIGHTING FACTORS
PHYSICAL IMPACTS: 100.*
RESOURCE IMPACTS: 73.%
ECONOMIC IMPACTS: 62.*
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS: 78.«
EIR SUBMISSION DATE: 8/22/75
SOURCE: AVERAGE OF URS PUBLIC
OPINION SURVEY AND EPA
DATE: 7/19/75
NOTE 1- PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT SUBMITTED TO EPA FOR INTERNAL
REVIEW ON JULY 22, 1975.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC.,CALIF. 197*
A-18
-------
c
*»»*«»»«*»««»»»«<»*»»»»*«»**««»»««»»»»*»»*
» E.I.R.S. . *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: K1TSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT ( 1 i
»**«»»» »»»«
DATE: 08/12/75
CODE: 75-2
PAGE: S (18021>
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
RESOURCE IMPACTS
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
:UNWEIGHTED: : WEIGHTED:
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
: 2.0 : 100% : 2.0 :
: 10.7 : 73% : 7.8 :
: 16.7 : 62% : 10.3 :
: 5.8 i : 78% s 4.'J :
OVERALL WEIGHTED WATING**»
PROJECT: 7.88
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: o.oo
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN *10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
C
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
A-19
-------
* t.l.R.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE
» FOR: KITSAP WASUWATER TREATMeNT u>
^ssr
v_
DATE: 08/12/75
CODE: 75-?
PAGE: 6 (18021)
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
RATING
ADVERSE
POSITIVE
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
AIR QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
OOOP
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
WILDLIFE & ITS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE B10L. ENVIRONMENT
BENTHIC
WATER COLUMN
SURFACE
WATER QUALITY
SURFACE WATER
MARINE WATER
GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER QUANTITY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNOERGRND WATER
DUALITY
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
FAUNA
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
PROPERTY TAX
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
RICAL :0752
RATING:0 505
] .98:
-1.67:
o.oo:
-5.00:
O.oo:
-l'..S8:
-!,.00:
-20.00: 1
-20.00: 1
-13.33:
-15.00:
-10.00:
-is.oo:
24.17:
SO.oo:
10.00:
12.50:
-25.00: II
50.00:
o.oo:
10.67:
-0.50:
-1.00:
0.00:
25.00:
25.00:
0.00:
50.00:
7.50:
12.50:
50.00:
-25.00: II
5.00:
5.00:
0.00:
10.00:
16.67:
23.33:
-10. oo:
90.00:
-10.00:
-5.00:
-15.00:
10.00:
10. oo:
5.83:
30.00:
10. oo:
50.00:
-18.33: 1
O.oo:
s.oo:
-60.oo: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC., CALIF.
1125 7
0005 0 5
: 1
1 :
:
I:
t
1 1 :
:
1 :
1 :
1 :
1 :
:
1 :
: 1 1 1 1 1
:l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
:l 1
:l 1 1
III:
: 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
il II
1 :
1 :
:
: III
: III
:
: 1 1 II 1 1 1 1
:
: 1
: 1 It 1 1 1 1 1
III:
:
:
:
: 1 1
:l 1 1 1
:l 1 1 1 1
1 1 :
: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 I ! 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
1 1 :
I :
Hi:
: 1 1
:i 1
: 1 1
:l 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mi:
i
SI
III:
197
-------
c
***#»»»*»»*»»»«»»«*»*«»*»»«***««»**»**»*
* E.I.R.S. «
» ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
» FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (1 )/«>
***»*»««»»»»»«»»»«*«»»***«*»*«»**»*»**»»»
PROJECT NAME: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (1)
<18011) ALTERNATIVE PLANS (ALT. 1 OF 9)
ADDRESS:
CODE: 75-2
CLIENT REF:EPA-IO
MAP REF:(usos)
KITS 0 NA- 0
PROJECT TYPE: PUBLIC-UTIL. MARKET VALUE: $ 0,
PROJECT SIZE: 0. SO. FT, SITE SIZE: 0.00 ACRES
CURRENT ZONING:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
LEAD AGENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
EIR AUTHOR: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
APPLICANT: KITSAP COUNTY
DRAFT EIR
CONSULTANT: ENGINEERING-SCIENCE* INC.
600 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710
WEIGHTING FACTORS
PHYSICAL IMPACTS: 100.%
RESOURCE IMPACTS: 55.%
ECONOMIC IMPACTS: 28.%
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS: 75.%
EIR SUBMISSION DATE: 8/22/75
SOURCE: URS PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
DATE: 7/19/75
NOTE 1- PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT SUBMITTED TO EPA FOR INTERNAL
REVIEW ON JULY 22, 1975.
c;
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.,CALIF. 1974
A-21
-------
*»««»««*««»»**»«»«*«««««««««»«****««*«»«»
» E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE »
« FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (lj{6>
»»«»»»»«»«*«***»»*«*»»«»«»«»»»»«*«»«**»»
DATE: 08/12/75
CODE: 75-2
PAGE: s deoii)
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
tUNweiGHTEo: J WEIGHTED:
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 2.0 : 100% : 2.0 :
RESOURCE IMPACTS I 10.7 : 55« : 5.9 !
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 16.7 : 28% : 4.7 !
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS : 5.8 : 75% : 4.4 :
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING**
PROJECT: 6.55
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: 0.00
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN *10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC.,CALIF. 1974
A-22
-------
E.I.R.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE
FOR! KITSAP WASTEWA1ER TREATMENT
DATE: 08/13/75
CODE: 75-2
PAGE: 6 (isoii)
CLIENT KEF! EPA-10
GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
RATING
ADVERSE
POSITIVE
c
SRICAL :0
IMPACT ITEM NAME :RATING:O
PHYSICAL IMPACTS ! 1.98:
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES : -1.67:
AIR QUALITY ! 0.00:
EXTERNAL NOISE : -5.00:
ODOR ! 0.00!
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT :-14.58:
WILDLIFE & ITS HABITATS - -5.00:
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY :- ! 25.00:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ! 25.00:
PARKS AND RECREATION : 0.00:
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM : 50.00:
NATURAL RESOURCES : 7.50:
POTABLE UNDERGRND WATER : 12.50:
QUALITY : 50.00!
QUANTITY :-25.00:
POTABLE SURFACE WATER : 5.00:
FAUNA : 5.00:
TERRESTRIAL I 0.00:
MARINE : 10. 00:
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 16.67:
DIRECT EFFECTS : 23.33:
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS: -1 0.00 !
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES : 90.00!
PROPERTY TAX !-10.00:
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES : -5.00:
CHANGES IN TAX RATES :-15.00:
INDIRECT EFFECTS ! 10.00:
PROPERTY VALUES ! 10.00:
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS : 5.83:
SOCIAL IMPACTS i 30.00!
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN: 10.00!
HEALTH AND SAFETY : 50.00!
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT:-18.33:
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL! 0.00:
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION! 5.00:
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION :-60.00:
7 5 2112 5 7
5 0 50005 0 5
tl
It
t
1 t
;
1 1 :
:
1 1 :
1 1 :
1 :
1 :
:
1 :
mill
:l II II 1 1 1 II
: 1 1
till
HIM:
:l II II 1 1 1 1 1
!
: 1 1 1
It
It
t
: III
: III
t
: 1 HI H 1 1
:
: I
: 1 1 1 1 1 II 1
1 1 II I:
: I
1 1
:
:l I
Hill
H 1 1 1 1
1 It
:l I) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 H 1 1 1
1 1:
I:
III:
tl 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
H Ml 1 1
1 1 1
tl II Mill 1 1
1 M 1 1
t
1 1
M 1 II II 1 1 II 1 :
1 :
o:
0:
:
:
i
:
:
:
i
:
s
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
8
*
:
t
5
t
:
:
:
:
5
:
:
i
:
i
'
:
:
:
:
i
:
t
!
:
:
t
t
i
i
t
t
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC.iCALIF.
A-23
-------
«*«»«»»«*««»«««««**«*»«»»«««»««»»«»««*»««
* E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (2) *
«*»««««»«««»««««««*»««»»«««»»»«»««««»««««
PROJECT NAME: KITSAP WASTEWATtR TREATMENT (2)
(18012) ALTERNATIVE PLANS (ALT. 2 OF 9)
ADDRESS:
CODE: 75-2
CLIENT REF:EHA-10
MAP REF.'(USGS)
KITS 0 NA- 0
PROJECT TYPE: PUBLIC-UTIL. MARKET VALUE: $ 0.
PROJECT SIZE: 0. SCI. FT. SITE SIZE: 0.00 ACRES
CURRENT ZONING:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
LEAD AGENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
EIR AUTHOR: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
APPLICANT: KITSAP COUNTY
DRAFT EIR
CONSULTANT: ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
600 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710
WEIGHTING FACTORS
PHYSICAL IMPACTS: 100.*
RESOURCE IMPACTS: 55.%
ECONOMIC IMPACTS: 28.%
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS: 75.%
EIR SUBMISSION DATE: 8/22/75
SOURCE: URS PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
DATE: 7/19/75
NOTE 1- PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT SUBMITTED TO EPA FOR INTERNAL
REVIEW ON JULY 22, 1975.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.,CALIF. 1974
A-24
-------
* E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
« FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (2) *
DATE: 08/12/7S
CODE: 75-2
PAGE: s U80i2>
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
:UNWEIGHTED: : WEIGHTED:
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
vnv_wWMWMw_WWflliMM«»wwwv^^«w«B**»«w*w**«i*r«_wM«>w«w.B.*ii»M»«*w*M*«»«>
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 2.0 : 100% ! 2.0 :
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 10.7 : 55* 3 5.9 :
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 17.1 : 28* : 4.8 :
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS 8 5.8 : 75% : 4.4 :
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING**
PROJECT:
6.59
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: 0.00
* WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
»* OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
A-25
-------
E.I.ft.S. *
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
FOR: K1TSAP WA5TEHATER TREATMENT <2> «
DATE: 08/13/75
CODE: 75-?
PAGE: 6 (18012)
CLIENT KEF: EPA-10
GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ADVERSE
RATING
POSITIVE
:NUME- :i
:RICAL :0
IMPACT ITEM NAME :RATING:0
PHYSICAL IMPACTS ! 1.98:
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES : -1.67:
AIR QUALITY : 0.00:
EXTERNAL NOISE : -5.00:
ODOR : o.oo:
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT :-14.58:
WILDLIFE «. ITS HABITATS -5.00:
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY :-20.00:
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES :-20.00:
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT : -1 3.33 :
BENTHIC :-15.00:
WATER COLUMN :-10.00:
SURFACE :-15.00:
WATER QUALITY : 2
-------
c
»****»»»»«»*»»»»»»*««««»«*««»««««««»»»»«»
* E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT <3}(4>
PROJECT NAME: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (3) CODE: 75-2
(18013) ALTERNATIVE PLANS (ALT. 3 OF 9) CLIENT REF:EPA-10
ADDRESS:
MAP REF: (USGS)
KITS 0 NA- 0
PROJECT TYPE: PUBLIC-UTIL. MARKET VALUE: $ 0.
PROJECT SIZE: 0. SO. FT. SITE SIZE: 0.00 ACRES
CURRENT ZONING:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
LEAD AGENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
EIR AUTHOR: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
APPLICANT: KITSAP COUNTY
DRAFT EIR
CONSULTANT: ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
600 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710
WEIGHTING FACTORS
PHYSICAL IMPACTS: 100.% SOURCE: URS PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
RESOURCE IMPACTS! 55.*
ECONOMIC IMPACTS: 28.*
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS: 75.% DATES 7/19/75
EIR SUBMISSION DATE: 8/22/75
NOTE 1- PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT SUBMITTED TO EPA FOR INTERNAL
REVIEW ON JULY 22, 1975.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
A-27
-------
«»»»«*»«*«*»»*»*»**«*«»»»»*»#««»**»»»***»
* E.I.R.S. *
» ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE »
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATEP TREATMENT
DATE: 08/12/75
CODE: 75-2
PAGE: s usois)
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
:UNWEIGHTED: : WEIGHTED:
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 3.1 : 100% : 3.1 :
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 11.2 : 55* : 6.2 !
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 16.3 : 28% : 4.6 :
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS : 14.2 : 75% : 10.6 :
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING**
PROJECT: 9.49
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: o.oo
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC.»CALIF. 1974
A-28
-------
/
E.I.R.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SEHVICt
FOR: K1TSAP WASTEWATEH TRtATMtNT <3>,W)»
DATE: OK/12/75
CODE: 75-?
PAGE: 6 <18013>
CLIENT KEF: EPA-IO
GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ADVERSE
RATING
POSITIVE
C
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
AIR QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOR
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
WILDLIFE S. ITS HABITAT;
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT
BENTHIC
WATER COLUMN
SURFACE
WATER QUALITY
SURFACE WATER
MARINE WATER
GPOUNOWATER
GROUNDWATER QUANTITY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNDERGRND WATER
DUALITY
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
FAUNA
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
PROPERTY TAX
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTOPJCAL
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
NUME- : 1
R1CAL :0
RATING:O
3.13:
-1.67:
o.oo:
-5.00:
0.00:
-15.00:
-10. oo:
-20.00:
-20.00:
-10.00:
-10. oo:
-10. oo:
-10. oo:
29.17:
50.00:
26.00:
12.50:
-25.00:
50.00:
0.00:
11.22:
-0.50:
-l.oo:
0.00:
25.00:
25.00:
o.oo:
50.00:
9.17:
12. SO:
50.00:
-25.00:
5.oo:
10. oo:
O.oo:
20.00:
16.25:
22.50:
-10. 00:
90.00:
-12.50:
s.oo:
-30.00:
10.00:
10. 00:
14.17:
30.00:
10.00:
50.00:
-1.67:
O.oo:
s.oo:
-10. oo:
7 5 2112 5 7 0:
5 0 50005 0 5 0:
:l :
i: :
: ;
: :
. :
1 :
: ;
II : :
1 1 : :
: :
: :
: :
: ;
:l 1 II II :
Hill II 1 III :
:l 1 1 1 1 :
: 1 1 1 :
Hill: :
:l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :
' '
Hit :
I: :
i: :
: :
: 1 1 1 1 :
Hill :
: :
: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
: I :
HI :
:l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :
Mill: :
: 1 :
:ll :
: ;
Hill :
Hill
HUH :
II: :
il 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 :
III: :
: 1 :
HUH: :
HI t
HI) :
H 1 1 III :
HI :
HIIIIIIIII :
II t
S i
1 1 :
1C :
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
A-29
-------
*«»«««««»««««»««»««»««««»**««»»«*«»*««««*
* E.I.R.S.
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW ScRVICE »
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (5) *
»»«««««»»»»«»*«»*»*»»»«*«»»*»* «»*««*»»*«*
PROJECT NAME: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (5^ CODE: 75-2
(18015) ALTERNATIVE PLANS (ALT. 5 OF 9) CLIENT REF:EPA-10
ADDRESS:
MAP REF:
-------
»»»»«»»»»»«»»»*«»*»»»»»««»»**»«»»**»»»»**
» E.I.R.S. *
» ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE »
« FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT <5) *
«»««««««*«»»«««««««««»«*««»«««««««»*«*«#«
DATE: 08/12/75 PAGE: 5 (18015)
CODE: 75-2 CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
:UNWEIGHTEO: : WEIGHTED:
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 5.5 : 100% : 5.5 :
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 11.2 : 55* : 6.2 :
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 17.1 : 28* : 4.8 :
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS : 14.2 : 75* : 10.6 :
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING*'
PROJECT: 10.50
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: o.oo
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.,CALIF. 1974
A-31
-------
E.I.k.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVItW SERVICE
FOW: KITSAP WASTEWATtR TREATMENT <5>
DATE: Ofl/12/75
CODE: 75-2
PAGE: 6
CLIENT KEF: EPA-10
GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
RATING
ADVERSE
POSITIVE
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL DUALITIES
AIR QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOR
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
WILDLIFE f. ITS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT
BENTHIC
WATER COLUMN
SURFACE
WATER DUALITY
SURFACE WATER
MARINE WATER
GROUMOWATER
GROUNOWATER QUANTITY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNDERGKND WATER
DUALITY
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
FAUNA
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
PROPERTY TAX
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS '
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTOR1CAL
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREAT ION
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
NUf-.E- :l
RICAL :o 7
RATING: o 5
5.53:
-1.67:
0.00:
-5.00:
o.oo:
-13.75:
-10.00:
-20.00:
-20.00:
-5.00:
-10.00:
-5.00:
0.00:
37.50:
50.00:
50.00:
12.50:
-25.00:
50.00:
o.oo:
11.22:
-0.50:
-1.00:
o.oo:
25.00:
25.00:
O.oo:
50.00:
9.17:
12.50:
50.00:
-25.00:
5.00:
10.00:
0.00:
20.00:
17.08:
24.17:
-10.00:
90.00:
-7.50:
5.00:
-20.00:
10.00:
10. oo:
U.17:
30.00:
10.00:
50.oo:
-1.67:
o.oo:
5.00:
-10.00:
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS.
* + *
5 2112 b 7
0 50005 0 5
:l 1
I:
:
t:
:
1 1 :
1 :
1 II :
III:
:
1 :
:
i
:ll 1 1 1 1 1 1
:l II 1 II II 1 1
: 1 1 1 1 II 1 H 1
: 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 :
: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
:
: 1 1
1 :
1 :
:
: I III
:i III
t
: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
: 1
: 1 1
:l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 :
: 1
:l 1
:
:l 1 1 1
: 1 1 1 1
: 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 :
: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 :
: 1
MIC
: 1 1
:ll
ill)
:l 1 1 1 1 1
:l I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 :
:
:i
1 1:
INC.»CALIF. 1974
i:
0:
0:
:
i
*
:
*
*
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
t
:
:
i
:
A-32
-------
c
****«*«»«*»«*««***«»««««*««*»«**»«»*»«««
* E.I.R.S. *
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE «
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (7) «
«*»**«»»»««**««««**«*»»«* »»*««**««»»»»»»»
PROJECT NAME: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (7) CODE: 75-2
(18017) ALTERNATIVE PLANS (ALT. 7 OF 9) CLIENT REF:£PA-10
ADDRESS:
MAP REFMUSGS)
KITS 0 NA- 0
PROJECT TYPE: PUBLIC-UTIL. MARKET VALUE: $ 0.
PROJECT SIZE: 0. SO. FT. SITE SIZE: 0.00 ACRES
CURRENT ZONING:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
LEAD AGENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
EIR AUTHOR: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
APPLICANT: KITSAP COUNTY
DRAFT EIR
CONSULTANT: ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
600 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710
WEIGHTING FACTORS
PHYSICAL IMPACTS: 100.% SOURCE: URS PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
RESOURCE IMPACTS: 55.*
ECONOMIC IMPACTS: 26.%
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS: 75.% DATE: 7/19/75
EIR SUBMISSION DATE: 8/22/75
NOTE 1- PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT SUBMITTED TO EPA FOR INTERNAL
REVIEW ON JULY 22, 1975.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.,CALIF. 1974
A-33
-------
«««»»«»«»»«»»«««««»«»»»«»»*««»*«»»»»»«*««
» E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE »
* FOP: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (7) *
»««*«««»«««««««««««»««««««»«««««««««»««««
DATE: 08/12/75 PAGE: 5 (18017)
CODE: 75-2 CLIENT HEF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
UNWEIGHTED: : WEIGHTED:
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 3.4 ! 100* : 3.4 :
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 10.7 : 55% : 5.9 :
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 16.7 : 28* : 4.7 :
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS : 14.2 : 75* : 10.6 :
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING«»
PROJECT: 9.53
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: o.oo
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC.»CALIF. 1974
A-34
-------
E.I.R.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE
FOR: MTSAP WAbTEWATfcR TREATMENT (7)
DATE! 08/13/75
CODE: 75-2
PAGE: f> U8oi7>
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
GRAPHIC DISPLAY! PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
RATING
ADVERSE
POSITIVE
c
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
AIR QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOR
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
WILDLIFE & ITS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT
BENTHIC
WATER COLUMN
SURFACE
WATER QUALITY
SURFACE WATER
MARINE WATER
GROUNDWATER
GROUNDWATER QUANTITY
GROUNOWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (II
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNOERGRNO WATER
RICAL !0 7 5 2
RATING:0 505
3.44:
-1.67:
0.00:
-5.00!
0.00:
-13.75: 1
-5.00!
-20.00: II
-80.oo: II
-10. oo:
-5.00:
-10. oo:
-15.00: 1
29.17:
50.00!
25.00!
12.50!
-25.00: III
50.00:
0.00:
10.67:
-0.50:
-1.00!
o.oo:
25.00:
25.00:
o.oo:
50.00:
7.50!
12.50:
QUALITY : 50.00:
QUANTITY 1-25.00! Ml
POTABLE SURFACE WATER : 5.00:
FAUNA > 5.00:
TERRESTRIAL : o.oo:
MARINE : 10.00:
ECONOMIC IMPACTS s 16.67:
DIRECT EFFECTS ! 23.33!
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS:-10 .00 :
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES ! 90.00!
PROPERTY TAX !-10.00!
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES ! 5.00!
CHANGES IN TAX RATES 8-25.00! Ill
INDIRECT EFFECTS ! 10.00:
PROPERTY VALUES ! 10.00:
SOCIO-CULTURAL 'IMPACTS ! 14.17:
SOCIAL IMPACTS ! 30.00:
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN! 10.00:
HEALTH AND SAFETY : 50.00!
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT! -1.67:
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL! 0.00:
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION! 5.00!
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION !-10.00:
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMSt INC., CALIF.
1 1 2 S 7
0005 0 5
!l
I!
!
I!
!
1 :
!
:
:
:
!
I:
I:
:ll! 1 II
il 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1
!l I 1 1 1
:l 1 1
1 1:
il 1 1 II 1 1 II I
till
l:
!
: 1 III
il III
:
! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(I
:l 1
:l 1 1 III 1 1 1
II:
!l
il
:
:ll
: II 1 1
nun
1 1:
: 1 1 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 1 :
! 1
II:
ill
il 1
HI)
:llllll
ill
tl 1 1 1 II II 1 1
1!
I
il
1 H
19/4 '
i:
0!
0!
:
:
t
i
i
:
:
i
i
:
i
i
i
i
t
i
:
i
:
i
:
i
i
i
i
:
i
:
j
:
:
;
!
i
i
i
:
:
I
I
:
!
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
A-35
-------
*»»««»»»*«»*»»»»«**»««*»*»»«»*»»»»»»»»»*»
« E.I.R.S. «
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (8) *
»»»»**»**»«»«**«»*»»«»*»»*»«»«»*«*«»»»»«»
PROJECT NAME: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT
-------
c;
*««*»«««»««»«*««**»«»«««««*««««««««««»*«*
* E.I.R.S. »
» ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
» FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT . <8) »
»»»»#»»»»**«*»»*»*»*»*»*#»»*»*«»*»*»*»«*»
DATE: 08/12/75
CODE: 75-2
PAGE: 5 ueois)
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
RESOURCE IMPACTS
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
UNWEIGHTED: : WEIGHTED:
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
: 3.4 : 100* : 3.4 :
: 10.7 : 55% : 5.9 :
: 17.1 : 28% : 4.8 :
: 11.7 : 75% : 8.8 :
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING**
PROJECT: a.SB
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: o.oo
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
C
A-37
-------
e.i.w.s.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE
FOR: KITSAP WASTfcWATER TREATMENT (8)
if
DATE: 08/12/75
CODE: 75-?
PAGE: 6 usois)
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
RATING
ADVERSE
POSITIVE
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
AIR QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOR
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
WILDLIFE & ITS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT
BENTHIC
WATER COLUMN
SURFACE
WATER QUALITY
SURFACE WATER
MARINE WATER
GROUNOWATER
GROUNDWATER QUANTITY
GROUNOWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNDERGRND WATER
QUALITY
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
FAUNA
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
PROPERTY TAX
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS.
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTURAL 'IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
NUMn " ! 1
RICAL :0
RATING:0
3.44:
-1.67:
0.00:
-5.00:
o.oo:
-13.75:
-10.00:
-20.00:
-20.00:
-5.00:
-10.00:
-5.00:
O.oo:
29.17:
so.oo:
25.00:
12.50:
-25.00:
50.00:
o.oo:
10.67:
-0.50:
-l.oo:
o.oo:
25.00:
25.00:
O.oo:
50.00:
7.50:
12.50:
50.00:
-25.00:
5.00:
5.00:
o.oo:
10. oo:
17.08:
24.17:
-10.00:
90.00:
-7.50:
5.00:
-20.00:
10. 00:
10.00:
11.67:
30.00:
10.00:
50.00:
-6.67:
0.00:
5.00:
-25.00:
7 5 a 1 1 2 5 7
5 0 50005 0 5
:l
1 :
:
1 :
II :
1 :
III :
III:
:
1 :
:
:
: 1 1 1 III
:l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
8 I 1 I
Mill:
: 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
'
:l 1 1
I :
I:
:
: 1 1 1 1 1
til 1 1 1
:
: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
: 1 1
: 1 1 1
:ll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 i
: |
: i
:
!l 1
: I 1 II
: 1 1 1 1 1
1 1:
:l 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 1 :
: I
III):
: 1 1
: 1 1
:l 1 1
:i 1 1 1 1 1
: 1 1
: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 C
:
: I
Mill:
i:
o:
0:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
!
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
!
:
;
:
j
:
i
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
S~"
A-38
-------
f
*»»****»*»***»«»»»»»»***»«»»»»«*«*«»»«**
* E.I.R.S. «
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (9> »
«*«««««»«#«**««»«««««««**««««««««<««#**««
PROJECT NAME: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT <9>
(18019) ALTERNATIVE PLANS (ALT. 9 OF 9>
ADDRESS:
CODE: 75-2
CLIENT REF:EPA-IO
MAP REFMUSGS)
KITS 0 NA- 0
PROJECT TYPE: PUBLIC-UTIL. MARKET VALUE: $
PROJECT SIZE: 0. SQ. FT. SITE SIZE: 0,00 ACRES
0.
CURRENT ZONING:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
LFAD AGENCY: FNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
EIR AUTHOR: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
APPLICANT: KITSAP COUNTY
DRAFT EIR
CONSULTANT: ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
600 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 9V710
WEIGHTING FACTORS
PHYSICAL IMPACTS: 100.*
RESOURCE IMPACTS: 55.%
ECONOMIC IMPACTS: 28.%
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS: 75.%
EIR SUBMISSION DATE: 8/22/75
SOURCE! URS PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
DATE: 7/19/75
NOTE 1- PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRAFT SUBMITTED TO EPA FOR INTERNAL
REVIEW ON JULY 22, 1975.
C
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.,CALIF.
A-39
-------
ft***************************************
* E.I.R.S. *
« ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE »
» FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT <9> *
ft****************************************
DATE: 08/12/75 PAGE: 5 (18019)
CODE: 75-2 CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
:UNWEIGHTED: : WEIGHTED:
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 9.7 : 100% : 9.7 :
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 11.2 : 55% : 6.2 :
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 16.7 : 26* : 4.7 :
»»^^""""-"'"""""^'"'""W «"»«*«»"»«"«>"
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS : 11.7 : 75% : 8.8 :
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING**
PROJECT: 11.35
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: 0.00
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT, HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
A-40
-------
c
F.I.R.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE
FO*: MTSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (9)
«#»#«****«»»**««***»»»«»#«*«****«»**
DATE:
CODE:
08/12/75
75-?
PAGE: 6 (18019)
CLIENT REF: EPA-IO
GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ADVERSE
RATING
POSITIVE
:NUKE- :l
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
AIR DUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOR
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
WILDLIFE 6. TTS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT
BENTHIC
WATER COLUMN
SURFACE
WATER QUALITY
SURFACE WATER
MARINE WATER
GROUNDWATER
GPOUNDWATER QUANTITY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS AND RECREATION
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNDERGRND WATER
QUALITY
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
FAUNA
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
PROPERTY TAX
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTOPICAI.
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
R1CAL :0
RATING:0
9.69:
-1.67:
o.oo:
-5.00:
0.00:
-13.75:
-10. 00:
-20.00:
-20.00:
-B.oo:
-10.00:
-5.00:
o.oo:
5
-------
-------
c
APPENDIX B
SOILS
The information presented on soils in the study area is largely
derived and/or quoted from the USDA-SCS Soil Survey and interpretation
(References 6 and 7 ) and from the USGS Water Supply Bulletin No. 18
(Reference 5 ). Soils in the study area portion of Kitsap County are
relatively immature from a soil genesis viewpoint. Most soils are de-
veloped on or from the mantle of glacial drift deposited during the
last glaciation period. Thus, the properties of these soils are still
largely those of the parent materials, which in turn were derived from
a number of geological formations. Many of the parent materials origi-
nated in igneous rocks and interbedded sandstone and shales from the
north during the flow of the last glacier into the Puget Sound Basin.
These materials are intermixed with granite, basalt, conglomerates,
sandstone, shales and other locally prevalent rocks.
The environmental factors which were of greatest importance in
contributing to soil formation in Kitsap County are rainfall and vege-
tation, mitigated in part or altered by the relative resistance offered
by poor drainage, unfavorable relief and the relative hardness of par-
ent material. These interactions have resulted in the formation of a
wide variety of soils in the study area.
General Soil Characteristics and Distribution
Two distinct groups of soils are recognized in the study area:
those with strongly hardened subsoils and those with only slightly
compacted or noncompacted subsoils. Soils of the first category (i.e.,
with a hard pan) usually occur on the broad, undulating or gently roll-
ing ridges and valley slopes; whereas the other soils are found almost
entirely on the smoother plains and lower valley slopes. In addition
to these two categories, organic soils and miscellaneous land types
(rough, mountainous land and steep, broken land) comprise the remainder
of the soils in the study area (Reference 6 ).
The soils underlain by cemented hardpan or bedrock substrate in-
clude soils of the Alderwood and Edmonds series. The presence of the
hardpan, even at varying depths, generally increases water-holding ca-
pacity and reduces deep seepage of water, sewage effluent, etc. applied
to the surfaces of these soils.
-"\
B-l
-------
The second group of soils, with permeable subsoils and substrata,
include the Everett, Indianola and Kitsap series as well as undiffer-
entiated alluvial soils. These soils generally have a coarser texture
than that of soils with hardpans. Drainage is good to excessive ex-
cept where a high water table is present.
The organic soils occur only in small, widely scattered areas and
are comprised of three types of peat and one muck. These soils have
developed through the growth, accumulation and decay of plant remnants
mixed with little or no mineral soil materials, under a high water
table or under intermittently submerged marsh and swamp conditions.
Soils in this category found within the study area include Rifle Peat
and Muck.
The distribution of soil series in the study area is shown on
Figure B-l.
Suitability of Soils for Septic Tank Filter Fields
Some of the important factors used in establishing the limita-
tions of a soil for a filter field are: (1) local experience of soil
scientists and records of performance of existing filter fields, (2)
permeability of the subsoil and substratum, (3) depth to consolidated
rock or other impervious layers, (4) flooding, (5) seasonal and annual
groundwater level and (6) soil slope. Coarse-textured soils (loamy
sand, sand and gravel) are rather poor filter field materials because
they allow sewage effluent from the septic tanks to travel unfiltered
for long distances and to contaminate nearby water supplies. Deter-
gents in solution are readily transmitted through some soils and may
pollute groundwater supplies. Sodium salts from water softeners and
other sources tend to disperse the clay particles in the soil and re-
duce its permeability, thus hampering the effectiveness of the filter
field.
B-2
-------
c
LEGEND
Ev
EVERETT GRAVELLY
SANDY LOAM
Is
INDIANOLA
LOAMY SAND
Ks
KITSAP
SILT LOAM
A
ALLUVIAL SOILS
(UNDIFFERENTIATED)
Mu
MUCK
As
ALDERWOOD
LOAMY SAND
Af
ALDERWOOD FINE
SANDY LOAM
Es
EDMONDS
LOAMY SAND
Es
EDMONDS FINE
SANDY LOAM
Eg
EVERETT GRAVELLY
LOAMY SAND
Ill
K-ttXv' Q'W'ff:*:
0.
Source: Reference 6
C
Figure B-l. Distribution of soils in the study area
B-3
-------
-------
r
C
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY
INTRODUCTION
The information presented in this section is a summary and re-
statement of existing air quality conditions prepared by Northwest
Environmental Technology Laboratories, Inc. for the URS Company under
Phase I of a two-phase study (Reference 1). The final phase will in-
clude additional computer modelling of existing air quality conditions.
Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations, wind speed and wind direction
were measured continuously in the vicinity of Silverdale from 25 April
1975 through 13 May 1975 at a selected location within the study area.
Following is a summary of the data and a description of the existing
conditions.
AIR QUALITY MONITORING
Site Selection
On the basis of a review of the project study area, a site was
selected at which CO concentrations are expected to be representative
of worst case concentrations. The criteria used to select the site
were based on existing traffic circulation patterns within the study
area. Figure C -1 indicates the site monitoring location. Wind speed
and wind direction measurements were taken at the location of the air
quality monitoring van at a height 15 feet above ground level. Moni-
toring commenced on 25 April 1975 and continued through 1 May 1975.
Carbon Monoxide Monitor
The carbon monoxide monitor (Ecolyzer) utilized in the measure-
ments is manufactured by Energetics Science, Inc. of New York and
measures CO through the principle of electrochemical oxidation. Full-
scale range is 50 parts per million (ppm). The instrument has been
modified to automatically establish the instrument's baseline once
C-l
-------
SILVERDALE
Source: Reference 1
Figure C-l. Location of carbon monoxide monitoring station
C-2
-------
per 40 minutes.
C
Several separate studies have shown the Ecolyzer to be an excel-
lent instrument for the purpose for which it was used. The large and
varied list of organizations that employ the Ecolyzer to monitor the
concentrations of CO attest to its acceptance in the field of air pol-
lution. In addition, several separate studies have indicated a very
high correlation between the Ecolyzer and the nondispersive infrared
(NDIR) CO monitor, which is the reference method specified by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
Wind Measurements
Low threshold wind speed and direction monitoring equipment manu-
factured by R. M. Yound Company of Traverse City, Michigan was utilized,
Wind speed and direction were recorded continuously on a dual channel
strip chart recorder. The wind speed indicator has a starting thresh-
old of about 0.75 miles per hour (mph), and the wind direction indica-
tor has an electronic accuracy of ± 1.5° azimuth.
Data Reduction
Average hourly values of wind speed, wind direction and CO concen-
trations were scaled from the strip charts. Span sensitivity and zero
level were carefully noted on the CO recordings and taken into account
during the data reduction process. The peak level of CO observed with-
in each hour was also recorded.
METEOROLOGY
The monitoring site was located just north of Dyes Inlet, 50 feet
east of Old State Route 3 and 300 feet south of Bucklin Hill Road. The
monitoring location was in a shallow north-south valley which inter-
sects with Dyes Inlet. This topography tends to channel the wind in a
north-south direction. Measurements commenced during a period of wea-
ther typified by scattered clouds and occasional sunshine. Stormy
conditions occurred during the mid-monitoring period. The latter
phase of the monitoring period experienced generally fair conditions
with low wind speeds.
C-3
-------
EXISTING CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY ON-SITE MONITORING
Figure C-2 shows a bar graph which indicates average hourly
values of CO during the course of the monitoring program. Referring
to the Ambient Air Quality Standards given in Table C-1, it is seen
that the observed values of CO concentration are well below the one-
hour and eight-hour values set by the standards.
C-4
-------
n
a
I
£.0
April 25
_3
I
1-1
I
r
§..0
May 6
I April 28
April 29
April 30
May 1
May 2
May 3
May 5
Source: Reference 1
May 7 iMay 8 May 9 I I j
Figure C-2. Average hourly values of carbon monoxide
-------
/**
Table C-l. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, WASHINGTON STATE
Constituent
Suspended particulate
Annual geo. mean
24-hr average
Sulfur dioxide
Annual arith. mean
24-hr average
1-hr average
Carbon monoxide
8-hr average
1-hr average
Standards b
ppm c
0.02
0.1
0.4
9
35
mg/m3
0.060
0.150
0.060
0.260
1.060
10
40
Emergency episode criteria a
Alert Warning
ppm mg/m3 ppm mg/m3
0.375 0.625
0.3 0.800 0.6 1.600
15 17 30 34
Emergency
ppa rng/m^
0.875
0.8 2.100
-40 46
Hydrocarbons (as
methane) d
3-hr average, 0.24 0.160
6-9 a.m.
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual arith. mean 0.05 0.100
24-hr average 0.15 0.282 0.3 0.565 0.4 0.750
1-hr average 0.6 1.130 1.2 2.260 1.6 3.000
Photochemical oxi-
dants
1-hr average 0.08 0.160 0.2 0.400 0.4 0.800 0.6 .1.200
In order to activate the emergency episode plan, the value indicated must be ex-
ceeded and expected to remain so for more than 12 hours.
All standards based on 24-hr or less averaging times are not to be exceeded more
than once per year.
Volume to mass conversion factors at 25°C and 760 mm Hg are:
Sulfur dioxide one part per million equals 2.620 mg/m3
Carbon monoxide 1.150
Hydrocarbons (methane) 0.655
Nitrogen dioxide 1.880
Oxidants 1.960
The hydrocarbon standard is a guideline, not a standard. More needs to be done
to establish background concentrations of methane in the ambient air. There
are no emergency eipsode standards for hydrocarbons.
C-6
-------
C
APPENDIX D
BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY
APPENDIX D-l
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Common name
Scientific name
Biotic
communities
4-1 -O
CO 4J to XI
Hi 01 o w
M Q) J-, 5 Jj
O VJ 03 O CO
h .o , ^ S
3^ C ^
o ca o
M tt) CJ
(U
01 l-i td O
21
-------
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
communities
Common name
Shrubs, cont'd
Oregon grape
Red currant
Red rhododendron
Redberry elder
Rose
Rose, wood
Salal
Salmonberry
Scotch broom
Swamp gooseberry
Thimbleberry
Twin-flower
Waxberry
Willow, Hooker
Willow, Scouler
Willow, Sitka
Herbs
Agoseris
Bedstraw
Bulrush
Bur-clover
Buttercup, creeping
Buttercup, western
Cat-tail
Chamomile
Clover
Common horsetail
Common St. Johns wort
Curly dock
Drummond rush
False Solomon's seal
Scientific name
Mahonia nervosa
Ribes sanguineum
Rhododendron macrophyllum
Sambucus callicarpa
Rosa sp.
Rosa gymnocarpa
Gaultheria shallon
Rubus spectabilis
Cytisus scoparius
Ribes lacustre
Rubus parviflorus
Linnaea borealis
Symphoricarpos albus
Salix hooker iana
Salix scouleriana
Salix sitchensis
Agoseris sp.
Galium boreal e
Scirpus sp.
Medicago hispida
Ranunculus repens
Ranunculus occidental is
Typha latifolia
Anthemis sp.
Trifolium sp.
Eguisetum arvense
Hypericum perforation
Rumex crispus
Juncus druinmondii
Smilacina amplexicaulis
4-1 T3
to 4-> co ^
HI 01 o tl
M Q> te J5 V
O t-i P3 O n
CK O 1 T3 S
fe CO
tn -H j 41 u 4) n
4J rH 1* 5
-------
c
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
Communities
Common name
Herbs, cont'd
Field mint
Firewood
Forget-me-not
Foxglove
Gumplant
Hairy cat's ear
Lupine
Morning glory
Mountain sweetroot
Ox-eye daisy
Pea, beach
Pea, purple
Pickleweed
Plantain, common
Plantain, English
Prickly lettuce
Self-heal
Siberian miner's lettuce
Silver beachweed
Skunk cabbage
Small-flower alumroot
Snakeroot
Spring gold
Starf lower
Stinging nettle
Thistle
Vetch
Violet
Watercress
Western trillium
Scientific name
Mentha arvensis
Epilobium angustifolium
Myosotis sp.
Digitalis pur pur ea
Grind el ja sp.
Hypochaeris radicata
Lupinus sp.
Convo 1 vulus sp .
Osmorhiza chilensis
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Lathyrus maritimus
Lathyrus nuttallii
Salicornia virginica
Plantago major
Plantago lanceolata
Lactuca serriola
Prunella vulgaris
ssp. lanceolata
Claytonia sibirica
Franseria chamissonis
Lysichitum americanum
Heuchera micrantha
Sanicula sp.
Lomatium utriculatum
Trientalis latifolia
Urtica lyallii
Cirsium sp.
Vicia sp.
Viola sp.
Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum
Trillium ovatum
4J T3
CO W to
-------
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
Communities
Common name
Scientific name
CO 4-J 0)
0) CD O
l-i 0> (-1
O M W
fe O
fti
CO
1
J3
CO
5 VJ
rt
HI M
0)
(3
H
t-l
CU
r-i M
tfl O
P M-l C S 0) -r) ^3
o J 3 0) 01
>*-l T3 13 3 .C -d C
^-1 C8 0) 4-1 CO -r)
o X co a) en
ni v< Q)
PL, fn pi
1234567
Herbs, cont'd
Wild Lily of the valley
Yarrow
Youth-on-age
Ferns
Bracken
Lady
Licorice
Sword
Maianthemum dilatatum
Achillea millefolium
Tolmiea menziesii
Pteridium aquilinum vai. pubescens
Athyrium filex-femina
Polypody sp.
Polystichum munitum
X X X X
X X
X X
X X X X
Grass
Alkali cordgrass
Bent grass
Bluegrass
Fescue
Fescue, western
Perennial ryegrass
Prairie wedgegrass
Wheatgrass
Wildrye, blue
Wildrye, dune
Spartina gracilis
Agrostis sp.
Poa sp.
Festuca sp.
Festuca occidental is
Lolium perenne
Sphenopholis obtusa
Agropyron sp.
Blymus glaucus
Elymus mollis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: References 1, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 22 and site visits
U-4
-------
APPENDIX D-2
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Biotic
communities
o
Common name Scientific name
CO
3
O
0)
M-l
H
C
3
i
&
&.-
U-4
CO
H)
I-i
a
CO
o
CO
2
(C
HI
CO
^^
C
to
^J
tfl
a*
H
ctf
3
0
^
(0
0)
s
1
0)
3
(D
ro
Hi
4
,c
EQ
H
U
CO
cc
j:
at
^i
E
5
r-l
to
H
C
"O
>H
X
01
CCi
6
-<
QJ
1-
O
01
c
>H
i_
CO
7
Water-associated birds
Common loon
Arctic loon
Horned grebe
Western grebe
Eared grebe
Pied-billed grebe
Red-necked grebe
Double-breasted cormorant
Brandt's cormorant
Pelagic cormorant
White pelican
Great blue heron
Green heron
Snowy egret
American bittern
Whistling swan
Canada goose
Black brant
White-fronted goose
Snow goose
Mallard
Pintail
Green-winged teal
Bluewinged teal
Cinnamon teal
European widgeon
American widgeon
Shoveler
Redhead
Canvasback
Greater scaup
Lesser scaup
Common goldeneye
Barrow's goldeneye
Bufflehead
Oldsquaw
. White-winged scoter
Surf scoter
Common scoter
Ruddy duck
Hooded merganser
Common merganser
Red-breasted merganser
American coot
Gavia immer
Gavia artica
Podiceps auritus
Aechmophorus occidentalis
Podiceps caspicus
Podilymbus podiceps
Podiceps giisegna
Phalacrocorax auritus
Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Pttslarocorax pelagicus
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Ardea herodias
Butorides virescens
Leucophoyx thula
Botaurus lentiginosus
Olor columbianus
Branta canadensis
Branta nigricans
Anser albifrons
Chen hyperborea
Anas platyrhyncos
Anas acuta
Anas carolinensis
Anas discors
Anas cyanoptera
Mareca penelope
Afareca amcericana
Spatula clypeata
Aythya americana
Aythya valisineria
Aythya marila
Aythya affinis
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala islandica
Bucephala albeola
Clangula hyemalis
Melanitta deglandi
Melanitta perspicillata
Oidemia nigra
Oxyura jamaicensis
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus merganser,
Mergus senator
Fulica americana
0
0
C
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
C
0
C
C
0
0
c
c
c
c
0
c
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
c
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
c
c
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
c
c;
D-5
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
communities
Common name
Scientific name
W
-------
c
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
communities
Jl
to
2
a>
cj
X
a
*i
c
CO
-H
M
CO
O.
H
OS
3
3
O
a
CO
01
IE
I
01
tj
3
4J
01
M
&H
A
_r"
CO
rt
.iS
CJ
CO
M
CO
r~
f.
U
CO
&
5
1-1
.3
jj
{2
O
"O
H
0)
31
a!
6
01
c
H
rH
01
14
_2
35
01
c
H
1-
3
7
Land-associated birds (cont'd)
Screech owl
Short-eared owl
Anna's hummingbird
Rufous hummingbird
Belted kingfisher
Red-shafted flicker
Hairy woodpecker
Downy woodpecker
Say's phoebe
Train's flycatcher
Western flycatcher
Olive-sided flycatcher
Horned lark
Violet-green swallow
Barn swallow
Cliff swallow
Steller's jay
Common crow
Black-capped chickadee
Chestnut-backed chickadee
Common bushtit
Red-breasted nuthatch
Brown creeper
Dipper
Bewick's wren
Robin
Varied thrush
Swainson's thrush
Townsend's solitaire
Golden-crowned kinglet
Water pipit
Cedar waxwing
Button's vireo
Warbling vireo
Orange-crown-d warbler
Yellow warbler
Myrtle warbler
Audobon's warbler
Black-throated gray warbler
Townsend's warbler
MacGillivray's warbler
Wilson's warbler
House sparrow
Western meadowlark
Red-winged blackbird
Otus asio
Asio flanuneus
Calypte anna
Selasphorus rufus
Megacergle alcyon
Colaptes cafer
Dendzocopos villosus
Dendxocopos pubescens
Sayornis sayos
Empidonax traillii
Empidona difficilis
Nuttallornis boreal is
Eremophila alpestris
Tachycineta thalasslna
Hirundo rustica
Petrochelidon pyrrbonota
Cyanocitta stelleri
Corvus caurinus
Parus atricapillus
Parus rufescens
Psaltriparus minimus
Sitta canadensis
Certha familiar is
Cinclus mexicanus
Thryomanes bewickii
Turdus migratorius
Ixoreus naevius
Hylocichla ustulata
Myadestes townsendi
Regulus satraps
Anthus spinoletta
Bombycilla cedrorum
Vireo huttoni
Vireo gilvus
Vermivora celata
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica audonboni
Dendroica nigrescens
Dendroica townsendi
Oporornis tolmiei
ffilsonia pusilla
Passer domesticus
Sturnella neglecta
Agelaius phoeniceus
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
0
0
0
c
c
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0 0
c
0
c
c
0 0
c
0
0
c
c
c
c
0
C 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
ceo
0 C
0
0 0
c
c
0
00
c c
c
c
c
c
0
0
c
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
c
c
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
c
c
D-7
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
communities
Common name
Scientific name
01
3
O
tJ
01
CO
01
o
a
o
u
«
O
a
ra
u
i
at
0) -i-l
^ tn
-------
c
APPENDIX D-3
MAMMALS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Biotic
communities
Common name
Dusky shrew
Vagrant shrew
Water shrew
Marsh shrew
Masked shrew
Trowbridge shrew
Town send mole
Coast mole
Shrew-mole
Little brown myotis
Keen myotis
California myotis
Hairy-winged myotis
Long-eared myotis
Yuma myotis
Silvery-haired bat
Big brown bat
Hoary bat
Lump nosed bat
Snowshoe hare
Eastern cottontail
Mountain beaver
Hoary marmot
Towns end chipmunk
Merriam chipmunk
Long- eared chipmunk
Douglas squirrel
Western gray squirrel
Northern flying squirrel
Mazama pocket gopher
Beaver
Deer mouse
Scientific name
Sorex obscurus
Sorex vagrans
Sorex palustris
Sorex bendirii
Sorex cinereus
Sorex trowbridgii
Scapanus townsendii
Scapanus orarius
Neorotrichus gibbsii
Myotis lucifugus
Myotis keenii
Myotis californicus
Myotis volans
Myotis evotis
Myotis yumanensis
Lasionylteris noctivagans
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasiurus cinereus
Plecotus townsendii
. Lepus americanus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Aplodontia rufa
Marmota caligata
Eutamias townsendii
Eutamias merriami
Eutamias guadramaculatus
Tanuasciurus douglasii
Sciurus griseus
Glaucomys sabrinus
Thomomys mazama
Castor canadensis
Peromyscus maniculatus
4.J
W 4J .C
J
CO O
H J3
JJ CO
c
CU CD
73 C
H -H
CO M
01 CO
OS S
6 7
X
X
X
X
c
D-9
-------
MAMMALS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Blotic
communities
Common name
Scientific name
01 4J
01 01
M 41 C
O M
-------
IT-a
o
I-i
o
ni
* *
?^
(13
rri
CD
i-i
ro
3
*T»
CD
CO
M
oo
M
Ui
§
t-0
*d *o
O OQ
H* ID
HI rt
H-
O C/l
O
f"t C
C 3
0* O.
tr
ID 11
ft ID
CL
cr i
O CO
B> H-
Cu
(D
ex.
00
01
rt
ID
>1
CD
3
B>
rT
0 4
a* a*
Bj Bl
'i 3
>-. a
a o
Bi 'O
b* M.
O to
rt
rt to
Bl I-'*
ID H
rt
0 &-*
rt M.
rt tn
Bi
(D «
M.
O
ID
H
M.
a
..
X X
X X
X X
X
X
25
fT
3-
s;
tn
rt
ID
n
j3
OQ
H
rt
ID
pf
01
3
£
^
I
fj.
tn
O
a,
a"
o
i-.
a
ID
to
o
h
a.
t-.
a
o
ni
to
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kyt
n
ET
ID
3
Bl
H"
H-
00
rt
0
H
H'
H-
N
01
11
Cu
Cl
Hj
hj
|
rt
c
to
8
t^
c
i«j
ID
C
tn
tl
h
a'
o
a'
M.
01
X
X
X
s:
ID
01
ID
1
3
CO
a
o
it
rf
ID
CL
Hl
H
O
OQ
»
Bl
a
Bl
(D
rt
K".
O
CO
Bl
|M
h{
ID
rt
o'
Co
Bl
X
X
X
03 ^
o o
ft ft
m p^
Bl ET
r-1 (D
H
rt 3
O
Bl H
d. ID
D.
1
(1
ID
00
00
ID
f\-
H>
11
O
OQ
to M
C Bl
HI a
O Bi
ty fli
ss
ID O
Bi H
01 Bl
to- fli
O c
H H
(D O
fli h
tn fli
X
X X
X
X
X
H t» fa
Bl C B>
H- M n
ID Hi Hi
CL H H-
0 0
HiOQ
1 rt
O 11
OQ ID
ID
Hi
ft
O
OQ
fc. S3 03
tn Bi (D
^
fi>
a
*c
iv
ID
1-..
X X
X X
X X
X
3 ^3
ID Bl
01 O
ID Hi
ft H-
3 0
H 00
ID H-
CL Bl
1 3
O"1 rT
Bl
O CO
7f to
ID M
CL Bl
0
CO Bl
01 3
I-1 CL
0> ID
3 n
Bl
3
CL
ID
ii
*U t)
1-^ {!
ID 0
rt fl)
O iQ
C3u rt
O O
a a,
0
<: a
ID
a- it
f-. 3
O tn
C tti
1- rt
C C
3 tn
X X
X X
X X
Z Z!
0 0
ft ft
31 3"
(D £
ft ro
3 CO
rf
O ID
M <1
^ 3
3
O co
H. 01
0 M
Bl
to 3
p) Qj
I-1 3
01 CL
3 ID
Bl 1
B.
ID
S3 H*
a- a
flj 1C
0 tn
O rt
rt 0
1 3
l->. Bl
rt
O ^
a M
Bl
o o
K* f-i.
\C KJ
3 It
)-. «5
0 H
C Bi
CO O
O l~^
K. (D
«
*D
o'
c
0!
X X
X X
X X
E
TO
01
rt>
rl
3
1 '
O
3
00
1
rt
O
(D
CL
01
01
t->
CU
3
Bl
3
CL
ID
i-l
Ss
^
{y
1C
CO
rt
i
Bl
3
fii
%
O
a
O
rt
h*
|
3
&i
O
a
Cj
o
rt
1C
c
3
X
X
X
(-
to
W
*
0.
*
o
3
B!
ID
CO
O
ID
3
ID
Coniferous Forest
Broadleaf Forest
Mixed/Riparian
Pasture-Meadow
Freshwater Marsh
Residential
Marine Shoreline
o
o
c o
3 rr
(D
CO
H
M
f1
W
-------
APPENDIX D-5
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA
Common Name
Scientific Name
Central
Port
Puget Sound Orchard
Seattle
River lamprey
Sixgill shark
Basking shark
Salmon shark
Brown cat shark
Pacific sleeper shark
Spiny dogfish
Pacific angel shark
Pacific electric ray
Big skate
Longnose skate
Ratfish
White sturgeon
American shad
Pacific herring
Pacific sardine
Northern anchovy
Pink salmon
Chum salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon
Chinook salmon
Cutthroat trout
Rainbow trout
Dolly Varden
Surf smelt
Longfin smelt
Eulachon
Longnose lancetfish
California headlightfish
Northern lampfish
Plainfin midshipman
Northern clingfish
Pacific cod
Pacific hake
Pacific tomcod
Walleye pollock
Red brotula
Pallid eelpout
Shortfin eelpout
Black eelpout
Wattled eelpout
Blackbelly eelpout
Tube-snout
Threespine stickleback
Bay pipefish
Shiner perch
Striped seaperch
White seaperch
Pile perch
Lampetra ayresi
Hexanchus griseus
Cetorhinus maximus
Lanina ditropis
Apristurus brunneus
Somniosus pacificus
Squalus acanthias
Squatina California
Torpedo California
Raja binoculata
Raja rhina
Hydrolagus c'olliei
Acipenser transmontanus
Alosa sapidissima
Clupea harengus pallasi
Sardinops sagax
Engraulis mordax
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus tshawytseha
Salmo clarki
Salmo gairdneri
Salvelinus malma
Hypomesus pretiosus
Spirinchus thaleichthys
Thaleichthys pacificus
Alepisaurus ferox
Diaphus theta
Stenobrachius leucopsarus
Porichthys natatus
Gobiesox maeandricus
Gadus macrocephalus
Merluccius productus
Miorogadus proximus
Theragra chalcogramma
Brosmophycis marginata
Lycodapus mandibularis
Lycodes brevipes
Lycodes diapterus
Lycodes palearis
Lycodopsis pacifica
Aulorhynchus flavidus
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Syngnathus griseolineatus
Cymatogaster aggregata
Embiotoca lateralis
Phanerodon furcatus
Rhacochilus vacca
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
H-
*
0
*
D-12
-------
c
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA (cont'd)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Central
Port
Puget Sound Orchard
Seattle
Pacificbarracuda
Northern ronquil
High cockscomb
Mosshead warbonnet
Decorated warbonnet
Daubed shanny
Snake prickleback
Ribbon prickleback
Bluebarred prickleback
Whitebarred prickleback
Black prickleback
Penpoint gunnel
Crescent gunnel
Saddleback gunnel
Rockweed gunnel
Wolf-eel
Quillfish
Giant wrymouth
Dwarf wrymouth
Pacific sand lance
Arrow goby
Blackeye goby
Bay goby
Pacific bonito
Pacific pompano
Ragfish
Brown rockfish
Copper rockfish
Darkblotched rockfish
Splitnose rockfish
Greenstriped rockfish
Puget Sound rockfish
Yellowtail rockfish
Quillback rockfish
Black rockfish
Tiger rockfish
Bocaccio
Canary rockfish
Redstripe rockfish
Yelloweye rockfish
Stripetail rockfish
Sharpchin rockfish
Shortspine thornyhead
Sablefish
Kelp greenling
Rock greenling
Whitespotted greenling
Lingcod
Painted greenling
Longspine combfish
Sphyraena argentea
Ronquilus jordani
Anoplarchus purpurescens
Chirolophis nugator
Chixolophis polyactocephalus
Lumpenus maculatus
Lumpenus sagitta
Phytichthys chirus
Plectobranchus evides
Poroclinus rothrocki
Xiphister atropurpureus
Apodichthys flavidus
Pholis laeta
Pholis ornata
Xererpes fucorum
Anarrhichthys ocellatus
Ptilichthys goodei
Delolepis gigantea
Lyconectes aleutensis
Ammodytes hexapterus
Clevelandia ios
Coryphopterus nicholsi
Lepidogobius lepidus
Sarda chiliensis
Peprilus simillimus
Icosteus aenigmaticus
Sebastes auriculatus
Sebastes caurinus
Sebastes crameri
Sebastes diploproa
Sebastes elongatus
Sebastes emphaeus
Sebastes flavidus
Sebastes maliger
Sebastes melanops
Sebastes nigrocinctus
Sebastes paucispinis
Sebastes pinniger
Sebastes proriger
Sebastes ruberrimus
Sebastes saxicola
Sebastes zacentrus
Sebastolobus alascanus
Anoplopoma fimbria
Hexagramnos decagrammus
Hexagrammos lagocephalus
Hexagrammos stelleri
Ophiodon elongatus
Oxylebius pictus
zaniolepis latipinnis
*
*
c
D-13
-------
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA (cont'd)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Central
Puget Sound
Port
Orchard
Seattle
Padded sculpin
Scalyhead sculpin
Smoothhead sculpin
Puget Sound sculpin
Rosylip sculpin
Silverspotted sculpin
Roughback sculpin
Sharpnose sculpin
Calico sculpin
Mosshead sculpin
Spinyhead sculpin
Buffalo sculpin
Soft sculpin
Red Irish lord
Northern sculpin
Threadfin sculpin
Spotfin sculpin
Longfin sculpin
Pacific staghorn sculpin
Great sculpin
Sailfin sculpin
Tidepool sculpin
Saddleback sculpin
Tadpole sculpin
Slim sculpin
Grunt sculpin
Cabezon
Manacled sculpin
Roughspine sculpin
Ribbed sculpin
Northern spearnose poacher
Sturgeon poacher
Smooth alllgatorfish
Gray starsnout
Spinycheek starsnout
Bigeye poacher
Blackfin poacher
Pygmy poacher
Tubenose poacher
Blacktip poacher
Bluespotted poacher
Ribbon snailfish
Marbled snailfish
Tidepool snailfish
Slipskin snailfish
Showy snailfish
Tadpole snailfish
Pacific sanddab
Speckled sanddab
Arrowtooth flounder
Petrale sole
Rex sole
Flathead sole
Pacific halibut
Artedius fenestralis
Artedius harringtoni
Artedius lateralis
Artedius meanyi
Ascelichthys rhodorus
Blepsias cirrhosus
Chitonotiis pugetensis
Clinocottus acuticeps
Clinocottus embryum
Clinocottus globiceps
Dasycottus setiger
Enophrys bison
Gilbertidia sigalutes
Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus
Icelinus borealis
Icelinus filamentosus
Icelinus tennis
Jordania zonope
Leptocottus armatus
Myoxocephalus
polyacanthocepha1us
Nautichthys oculofasciatus
Oligocottus maculosus
Oligocottus rimensis
Psychrolutes paradoxus
Radulinus asprellus
Rhamphocottus richardsoni
Scorpaenichthys marmoratus
Synchirus gilli
Triglops macellus
Triglops pingeli
Agonopsis emmelane
Agonus acipenserinus
Anoplagonus inermis
Asterotheca alascana
Asterothsca infraspinata
Asterotheca pentacanthus
Bathyagonus nigripinnis
Odontopyxis trispinosa
Pallasina barbata
Xeneretmus l&tifrons
Xeneretmus triacanthus
Liparis cyclopus
Liparis dennyi
Liparis florae
Liparis fucensis
Liparis pulchellus
Nectoliparis pelagicus
Citharichthys sordidus
Ci thari ch thys s ti gmaens
Atheresthes stomias
Eopsetta jordani
Glyptocepbalus zachirus
Hippoglossoides elassodon
Hippoglossus stenolepis
D-14
-------
c
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA (cont'd)
Common Name
Butter sole
Rock sole
Slender sole
Dover sole
English sole
Starry flounder
C-0 sole
Sand sole
Ocean sunfish
Scientific Name
Isopsetta isolepis
Lepidopsetta bilineata
Lyopsetta exilis
Microstomus pacificus
Parophrys vetulus
Platichthys stellatus
Pleuronichthys coenosus
Psettichthys melanostictus
Mola mola
Central
Puget Sound
+
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
+
Port
Orchard
' +
0
0
*
0
0
0
0
Seattle
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
Source: Reference 1
Legend;
+ = fewer than 10 reports
* = 10 to 49 reports
0 = 50 or more reports
C
D-15
-------
-------
c
APPENDIX E
BIOLOGICAL TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Coniferous Forest
The Coniferous Forest unit on the Kitsap Peninsula is dominated
by Douglas-fir, primarily because of climate and human activity in
Puget Sound. Although western hemlock is considered to be the climax
species in this coastal vegetation zone, Dougles-fir is better adapted
to local climatic conditions such as less precipitation, hotter sum-
mers (and thus more evaporative stress) and a shorter growing season
(because of colder winters). Additionally, Douglas-fir is a pioneer
species, becoming established in open conditions after logging, fire,
land-clearing or other land disturbances. Other major tree species
found within this unit are western hemlock, western redcedar, western
white pine and red alder. Salal, ocean spray and evergreen huckle-
berry are among the major shrubs, with shade-tolerant herbs and ferns
comprising the understory. Animal life in this community is abundant,
harboring many nut- and insect-eating birds such as chickadees, nut-
hatches, creepers and jays. Larger birds include the blue and ruffed
grouse and predators such as Cooper's hawk and screech owls. Mammals
include several species that occur in more than one habitat, such as
the black bear, coyote, raccoon and red-backed vole.
Broadleaf Forest
The growth and development of deciduous hardwood forests is gen-
erally limited by climatic conditions. The mild Washington coastal
winters enable coniferous species to continue tissue growth at a time
when the deciduous trees are dormant. The relatively dry summers are
also unfavorable to broadleaf trees, which must channel large amounts
of energy and nutrients toward foliage production at a time when evap-
orative stress is high. Consequently, within Kitsap County, deciduous
trees and shrubs are more common in lowland areas which retain higher
soil moisture. The impact of human activities over the years has
stimulated and broadened the range of the Broadleaf Forest. Fast-
growing deciduous vegetation invades and successfully competes with
E-l
-------
conifers in recently cleared areas, second-growth zones and urban and
auto traffic areas. Deciduous vegetation is also aided and stimulated
by human activities such as irrigation and on-site disposal systems.
Red alder is a pioneer species on moist, disturbed land, and big-
leaf maple is a major component of the Broadleaf Forest unit. Other
tree species include cascara, Pacific willow, madrona, western hem-
lock and Douglas-fir. Understory species are salmonberry, blackcap,
red elderberry and sword fern, as well as common herbaceous species.
The Broadleaf Forest habitat generally has a lower tree canopy
and more intermittent open areas than does the Coniferous Forest. The
thicker understory of flowering vines, berries and shrubs in the Broad-
leaf Forest is attractive to many fruit- and seed-eating birds, such
as mourning doves, juncoes, migratory warblers, thrushes and sparrows.
In addition to the larger mammals mentioned in the discussion of the
Coniferous Forest, smaller fruit- and seed-eating mammals such as
striped skunk, cottontail rabbit, townsend chipmunk and deer mouse are
prevalent. Under rocks and rotting logs are found several salamander
species: rough-skinned newt, northern alligator lizard and north-
western garter snake.
Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest
Much of the forested land within the study area contains a mix-
ture of the major coniferous and broadleaf species found in each of
those respective units. Soil moisture and human activity are the pri-
mary factors allowing the establishment of hardwoods among conifers.
Major tree species are Douglas-fir, western redcedar, bigleaf maple,
Pacific dogwood, red alder and western hemlock. This unit contains
some open upland areas that are being invaded by Scotch broom, red
alder, willow, madrona and Douglas-fir. The understory is lush, con-
taining thick growths of salal, red elderberry, Indian plum, swamp
gooseberry, blackcap, salmonberry, sword fern and common herbaceous
species. The fire potential in this unit is extremely high since in
many areas there is a continuous layer of fuel from ground to canopy.
Riparian vegetation along perennial creeks and watercourses can
be considered a sub-unit within the Mixed Coniferous-Broadleaf Forest.
This vegetation has a continuous supply of water that supports thick
vegetative growth and moisture-loving species. Major tree species
found in riparian zones are western redcedar, vine maple, red alder,
bigleaf maple and western hemlock. Dense growths of shrubs and herbs,
such as devil's club, blackcap, thimbleberry, stinging nettle, skunk
cabbage, sword fern and bracken fern, are found along with other char-
acteristic species. Birds particularly favoring the riparian habitat
are mourning dove, olive-sided and Traill's flycatchers, Bewick wren,
E-2
-------
c
all vireos, song sparrow and many warblers. Amphibians such as boreal
toad, rough-skinned newt and salamander, which occur seasonally in
many habitats, all return to the water habitat to mate and spawn.
Mammals frequenting the riparian habitat include the raccoon, woodrat,
deer mouse, all shrews and most bats.
Pasture/Meadow
The pastures and. meadows within the study area are fairly open
areas primarily under agricultural use. Woody vegetation scattered
throughout and on drier margins includes red alder, willow, Douglas-
fir and western white pine. The meadow species include a variety of
grasses, salmonberry, blackcap, ox-eye daisy, sword fern, rushes,
self-heal, buttercup and other common species. Land areas utilized
as rural residences and developments are also included within this
unit. Grazing, agriculture and residential activity serve to check
the invasion of the drier areas by brush and woody species.
The Pasture/Meadow habitat generally is favored by seed-eating
birds such as western meadowlark, mourning dove, Brewer's blackbird
and savannah sparrow. Secretive and burrowing mammals such as white-
footed mouse, Pacific jumping mouse and pocket gopher would be common.
Varying with the degree of moisture, the boreal toad and garter snake
are also found.
Freshwater Marsh
An upland marsh area, as reported in Reference 1, may be found
along a broad swale between ridges in the northeastern section of the
study area. The marsh is probably associated with the Alderwood soil
series, which is characterized as a soil with a cemented hardpan in
the lower part of the soil profile. This hardpan is impervious, pre-
venting penetration by plant roots and water. Since it is an area of
subdued gradient, a temporary or perched water table exists, to create
marsh conditions. This wet lowland area supports a variety of grasses,
rushes, cattails, horsetails, skunk cabbage and watercress, with occa-
sional red alder, willow and Douglas-fir in the drier areas.
Marsh habitat animals may include red-winged blackbird, killdeer,
barn and cliff swallows, fox and song sparrows, vagrant and other water
shrews, raccoon, Pacific treefrog and red-legged frog.
E-3
-------
Residential
The area in the vicinity of Silverdale is characterized as resi-
dential and/or urban. Vegetation within this unit consists of native
and exotic species growing in lawns, gardens and orchards and along
roadsides and other locales. Common animals include the robin, mock-
ingbird, house sparrow, house finch, barn and cliff swallows, boreal
toad, garter snake and-occasional raccoon and black-tailed deer.
Marine Shoreline
Sand-gravel-cobble beaches are typical of most shorelines in
Puget Sound. The extend of the beach area is dependent upon the
amount of beach drift material, current strength and degree of wave
action. Minimal or no back beach areas on eroded shores occur along
segments northwest of Tracyton. These shorelines have steep slopes
and bluffs resulting from a constant undercutting wave action. Vege-
tation may hang over the water, or slides may occur that expose the
underlying soil. On the other hand, accreted shorelines with moderate
to extensive back beach areas are divided into two zones: the upper
zone, generally consisting of heavier materials, with moderate to
steep slope; and the lower zone, generally consisting of lighter
materials and a shallow slope.
Shore vegetation found on the beach and upper beach areas is ex-
posed to the air but requires a saline water environment. Pickleweed,
cord grass, cat's ear, rush and bulrush are common in the shore area.
These beach plants are often found on protected accreting shorelines
which provide a gravel back beach area of sufficient width for the
plants to survive and germinate. Cord grass, rush and pickleweed help
to stabilize accreted shorelines and act as a barrier system against
severe storms which erode shorelines. This shore vegetation also pro-
vides food and shelter for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and other
shoreside animals, as well as for juvenile fish (Reference 22).
The predominant wildlife covers a wide range of shorebirds and
waterfowl. Resident species include killdeer; great blue heron; sand-
piper; yellowleg; dabbling ducks such as mallards, green-winged teal,
American widgeon; diving ducks such as bufflehead, goldeneye and red-
breasted merganser; and various gulls. The primary food items for
these birds are the associations of small crustaceans, worms and mol-
luscs in the interstices of gravel, cobble and sand.
E-4
-------
c
APPENDIX F
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (WAC)
CHAPTER 173-201 WAC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Effective July 19, 1973 (Docket 73-4)
Amended Effective August 20, 1973 (Docket 73-22)
WAC 173-201-010 Purpose
173-201-020 Water Use and Quality Criteria
173-201-030 , General Water Use and Criteria Classes
173-201-040 , General Considerations
173-201-050 , Characteristic Uses to be Protected
173-201-060 Water Course Classification
173-201-070 , General Classifications
AMD 173-201-080 , Specific Classifications
173-201-090 Achievement Considerations
173-201-100 , Implementation
173-201-110 , Surveillance
173-201-120 , Enforcement
173-201-130 Definitions
173-201-140 Miscellaneous
F-l
-------
NEW WAG 173-201-010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is
to establish water quality standards for waters of the State
of Washington pursuant to the provisions of chapter 90.48 RCW
and the policies and purposes thereof.
NEW WAG 173-201-020 WATER USE AND QUALITY CRITERIA. The water
use and quality criteria set forth in sections 030 through 050
are established in conformance with present and potential water
uses of said waters and in consideration of the natural water
quality potential and limitations of the same. Nonetheless,
the dynamic nature of the process is also recognized. Hence,
frequent review of these uses and criteria are anticipated and
revisions will be undertaken as additional information is
developed.
NEW WAG 173-201-030 ------- GENERAL WATER USE AND CRITERIA
CLASSES. The following criteria shall be applicable to the
various classes of waters in the State of Washington:
(1) Class AA (Extraordinary) .
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this class
shall markedly and uniformly exceed the requirements for all
or substantially all uses.
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses shall
include, but are not limited to the following:
(i) Water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural).
(ii) Wildlife habitat, stock watering.
(iii) General recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (pic-
nicking, hiking, fishing, swimming, skiing, and boating).
(iv) General marine recreation and navigation.
(v) Fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing, and har-
vest.
(c) Water quality criteria.
(1) Total collform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 50 (fresh water) or 70 (marine water) with less than
10% of samples exceeding 230 when associated with any fecal
source.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg/1 (fresh
water) or 7.0 mg/1 (marine water).
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any point
of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - water temperatures shall not exceed
60° F. (fresh water) or 55° F. (marine water) due in part to
measurable (0.5° F.) increases resulting from human activities;
t = 75/(T-22) (fresh water) or t = 24/(T-39) (marine water);
for purposes hereof "t" represents the permissive increase and
"T" represents the water temperature due to all causes combined.
F-2
-------
(v) pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 (fresh
water) or 7.0 to 8.5 (marine water) with an induced variation
of less than 0.1 units.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 JTU natural
conditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material
concentrations shall be less than those which may affect
public health, the natural aquatic environment, or the desir-
ability of the water for any usage.
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be impaired by the
presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of
natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch
or taste.
(2) Class A (Excellent).
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this class
shall meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially
all uses.
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural).
(ii) Wildlife habitat, stock watering.
(iii) General recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (pic-
nickingj hiking, fishing, swimming, skiing and boating).
(iv) Commerce and navigation.
(v) Fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing and harvest.
(c) Water quality criteria.
(i) Total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
value of 240 (fresh water) with less than 20% of samples
exceeding 1,000 when associated with any fecal sources or 70
(marine water) with less than 10% of samples exceeding 230
when associated with any fecal sources.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 8.0 mg/1 (fresh
water) or 6.0 mg/1 (marine water).
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any point
of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - water temperatures shall not exceed
65° F. (fresh water) or 61° F. (marine water) due in part to
measurable (0.5° F.) increases resulting from human activities;
nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t =
90/(T-19) (fresh water) or t = 40/(T-35) (marine water); for
purposes hereof "t" represents the permissive increase and "T"
represents the water temperature due to all causes combined.
(v) pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 (fresh
water) or 7.0 to 8.5 (marine water) with an induced variation
of less than 0.25 units.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 JTU over natural con-
ditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material
F-3
-------
concentrations shall be below those of public health signifi-
cance, or which may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions
to the aquatic biota, or which may adversely affect any water
use.
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be impaired by the
presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of
natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch,
or taste.
(3) Class B (Good).
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this class
shall meet or exceed the requirements for most uses.
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Industrial and agricultural water supply.
(ii) Fishery and wildlife habitat.
(iii) General recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (pic-
nicking, hiking, fishing, and boating).
(iv) Stock watering.
(v) Commerce and navigation.
(vi) Shellfish reproduction and rearing, and Crustacea
(crabs, shrimp, etc.) harvest.
(c) Water quality criteria.
(i) Total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 1,000 with less than 10% of samples exceeding 2,400
when associated with any fecal source.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 6.5 mg/1 (fresh
water) or 5.0 mg/1 (marine water), or 70% saturation, which-
ever is greater.
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any
point of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - water temperatures shall not exceed
70° F. (fresh water) or 66° F. (marine water) due in part to
measurable (0.5° F.) increases resulting from human activities;
nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t =
110/(T-15) (fresh water) or t = 52/(T-32) (marine water); for
purposes hereof "t" represents the permissive increase and "T"
represents the water temperature due to all causes combined.
(v) pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 (fresh
water) or 7.0 to 8.5 (marine water) with an induced variation
of less than 0.5 units.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 10 JTU over natural
conditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material
concentrat ions shall be below those which adversely affect
public health during the exercise of characteristic usages,
or which may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions to the
aquatic biota, or which may adversely affect characteristic
water uses.
F-4
-------
C
c
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be reduced by dis-
solved, suspended, floating or submerged matter not attri-
butable to natural causes, so as to affect water usage or
taint the flesh of edible species.
(4) Class C (Fair).
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this
class shall meet or exceed the requirements of selected
and essential uses.
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Cooling water.
(ii) Commerce and navigation.
(iii) Fish passage.
(iv) Boating.
(c) Water quality criteria.
(i) Total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 1,000 when associated with any fecal source.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 5.0 mg/1 (fresh
water) or 4.0 mg/1 (marine water), or 50% saturation, which-
ever is greater.
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% saturation at any point
of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - water temperatures shall not exceed
75° F. (fresh water) or 72° F. (marine water) due in part to
measurable (0.5° F.) increases resulting from human activities;
nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t =
125/(T-12) (fresh water) or t = 64/(T-29) (marine water); for
purposes hereof "t" represents the permissive increase and "T"
represents the water temperatures due to all causes combined.
(v) jpH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 (fresh
water) or 7.0 to 9.0 (marine water) with an induced variation
of less than 0.5 units.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 10 JTU over natural con-
ditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive or deleterious material
concentrations shall be below those which adversely affect
public health during the exercise of characteristic usages, or
which may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions to the aqua-
tic biota, or which adversely affect characteristic water
uses.
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be interfered with
by the presence of obnoxious wastes, slimes, or aquatic
growths or by materials which will taint the flesh of edible
species.
(5) Lake Class.
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this class
shall meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially
all uses.
F-5
-------
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses for waters
of this class shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(i) Water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural).
(ii) Wildlife habitat, stock watering.
(iii) General recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (pic-
nicking, hiking, fishing, swimming, skiing, and boating).
(iv) Fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing, and harvest
(c) Water quality criteria.
(i) Total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 240 with less than 20% of samples exceeding 1,000
when associated with any fecal source.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen - no measurable decrease from
natural conditions.
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any point
of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - no measurable change from natural
conditions.
(v) pH - no measurable change from natural conditions.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 JTU over natural con-
ditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material
concentrations shall be less than those which may affect public
health, the natural aquatic environment, or the desirability of
the water for any usage.
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be impaired by the
presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of
natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch,
or taste.
NEW WAG 173-201-040 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. The follow-
ing general guidelines shall be applicable to the water quality
criteria and classifications set forth in WAG 173-201-020
through WAC 173-201-080 hereof:
(1) At the boundary between waters of different classi-
fications, the water quality criteria for the higher classifi-
cation shall prevail.
(2) In brackish waters of estuaries, where the fresh and
marine water quality criteria differ within the same classifi-
cation, the criteria shall be interpolated on the basis of
salinity except that the marine water quality criteria shall
apply for dissolved oxygen when the salinity is one (1) part
per thousand or greater and for total coliform organisms
when the salinity is ten (10) parts per thousand or greater.
(3) Except for the aesthetic values and acute biological
shock conditions the water quality criteria herein established
shall not apply:
F-6
-------
C
(a) Within immediate mixing zones of a very limited size
adjacent to or surrounding a wastewater discharge;
(b) In the case of total dissolved gas, when the stream
flow exceeds the 10-year, 7-day average flood;
(c) In a manner contrary to the applicable conditions of
a valid discharge permit.
(4) The total area and/or volume of a receiving water
assigned to a mixing zone shall be as described in a valid
discharge permit and limited to that which will: (a) not
interfere with biological communities or populations of impor-
tant species to a degree which is damaging to the ecosystem;
(b) not diminish other beneficial uses disproportionately.
(5) The criteria established in WAC 173-201-030 through
WAC 173-201-050 for any of the various classifications of this
regulation may be modified by the director for limited periods
when receiving waters fall below their assigned water quality
criteria due to natural causes or if in the opinion of the
director the protection of the overall public interest and
welfare requires such modification.
(6) Except where the director determines that overriding
considerations of the public interest will be served, wherever
receiving waters of a classified area are of a higher quality
than the criteria assigned for said area, the existing water
quality shall constitute water quality criteria.
(7) Whenever the natural conditions are of a lower qual-
ity than the criteria assigned, the natural conditions shall
constitute the water quality criteria.
(8) Due consideration will be given to the precision
and accuracy of the sampling and analytical methods used in the
application of the criteria.
(9) The analytical testing methods for these criteria
shall be in accordance with the most recent editions of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water,
and Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA
16020), and other or superceding methods published or approved
by the department following consultation with adjacent states
and concurrence of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(10) Deleterious concentrations of radioactive materials
for all classes shall be as determined by the lowest practicable
concentration attainable and in no case exceed: (a) 1/3 of the
values listed in WAC 402-24-220 (Column 2, Table II, Appendix
A, Rules and Regulations for Radiation Protection), or (b) the
1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards as
revised, or (c) the Radiation Protection Guides for maximum
exposure of critical human organs recommended by the former
Federal Radiation Council in the case of foodstuffs harvested
from waters for human consumption.
(11) Deleterious concentrations of toxic, or other non-
radioactive materials shall be as determined by the department
F-7
-------
in consideration of the Report of the National Technical Advi-
sory Committee on Water Quality Criteria, 1968, and as revised,
and/or other relevant information.
NEW WAG 173-201-050 CHARACTERISTIC USES TO BE PROTECTED.
The following is a noninclusive list of uses to be protected by
the various classifications in fresh and marine waters:
USES
WATERCOURSE CLASSIFICATION
LAKE AA A B C
M
M
M
F M
FISHERIES
Salmonid
Migration F F M F M
Rearing F F M F M
Spawning F F F
Warm Water Game Fish
Rearing F F F
Spawning F F F
Other Food Fish F F M F M
Commercial Fishing F F M F M
Shellfish F M M
WILDLIFE F F M F M
RECREATION
Water Contact F F M F M
Boating and Fishing F F M F M
Env ironment al
Aesthetics F F M F M
WATER SUPPLY
Domestic F F
Industrial F F M
Agricultural F F
NAVIGATION F F M
LOG STORAGE & RAFTING F F M
HYDRO-POWER F F
F M
F M
F
F
F M
F M
M
F M
F M
F M
F M
F
F M
F M
F
F M
F M
F M
F
F M
F M
F
NEW
WAC 173-201-060 WATER COURSE CLASSIFICATION. The
various waters of the State of Washington are classified as
follows, except as noted herein:
F-8
-------
c
NEW WAG 173-201-070 GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS. (1) All
surface waters lying within the mountainous regions of the state
assigned to national parks, national forests, and/or wilderness
areas, are hereby designated Class AA or Lake Class.
(2) All lakes and their feeder streams within the state
are hereby designated Lake Class and Class AA respectively.
(3) All reservoirs with a mean detention time of greater
than 15 days are classified Lake Class.
(4) All reservoirs with a mean detention time of 15 days
or less are classified the same as the river section in which
they are located.
(5) All reservoirs established on preexisting lakes are
classified as Lake Class.
(6) All other waters within the state are hereby desig-
nated Class A.
AMD WAG 173-201-080 SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATIONS. Various
specific waters of the State of Washington are classified as
follows:
(1) Dyes and Sinclair Inlets west of Class A
longitude 122°37' W. Special conditions -
Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows
West of longitude 122°37' W. and south of lati-
tude 47°35'20" N. Total coliform organisms -
shall not exceed median values of 1,000 with less
than 20% of samples exceeding 2,400 when associ-
ated with any fecal source.
(2) Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Class AA
Sound through Admiralty Inlet and South Puget
Sound, South and West to longitude 122°52'
30" W. (Brisco Point) and longitude 122°51'W.
(northern tip of Hartstene Island), Hood Canal,
Possession Sound south of latitude 47°57' N.
(Mukilteo) and all North Puget Sound west of
longitude 122°39' (Whidbey, Fidalgo, Guemes
and Lummi Island) except as otherwise noted.
F-9
-------
NEW WAG 173-201-090 ACHIEVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS. To fully
achieve and maintain the foregoing water quality in the State
of Washington, it is the intent of the department of ecology
to apply the various implementation and enforcement authorities
at its disposal including the development and implementation of
the continuing planning process required under section 303(e)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
and applicable federal regulations thereunder. It is also the
intent that cognizance will be taken of the need for information
as contemplated under section 304 of the federal act with
emphasis on silviculture and agriculture, and for participation
in cooperative programs with other state agencies and private
groups with respect to the management of related problems. The
Washington department of ecology's planned program for water
pollution control will be defined and revised annually in
accordance with section 106 of said federal act and regulations.
Further, it shall be required that all activities which dis-
charge wastes into waters within the state or otherwise adverse-
ly affect the quality of said waters be in compliance with the
wastes treatment and discharge provisions of state or federal
law.
NEW WAG 173-201-100 IMPLEMENTATION. (1) Discharges
from Municipal, Commercial and Industrial Operations. The
primary means to be utilized for controlling municipal, com-
mercial and industrial waste discharge shall be through the
issuance of waste disposal permits as provided for in RCW
90.48.160 and following.
(2) Miscellaneous Waste Discharge or Water Quality Effect
Sources. The director shall, through the issuance of regula-
tory permits, directives, and orders as are appropriate, con-
trol miscellaneous waste discharges and water quality effect
sources not covered by subsection (1) hereof. It is noted that
from time to time certain short-term activities which are
deemed necessary to accommodate essential activities or to
otherwise protect the public interest may be specially author-
ized by the director under such conditions as the director may
prescribe even though such activities may result in a reduction
of water quality conditions below those criteria and classifi-
cations established by this regulation.
NEW WAG 173-201-110 SURVEILLANCE. A continuing sur-
veillance program to ascertain whether the regulations, waste
F-10
-------
disposal permits, order, and directives promulgated and/or
issued by the department are being complied with, will be con-
ducted by the department staff as follows:
(1) Inspecting of treatment and control facilities.
(2) Monitoring and reporting of waste discharge charac-
teristics.
(3) Monitoring of receiving water quality.
NEW WAG 173-201-120 ENFORCEMENT. To insure that the
provisions of chapter 90.48 RCW, the standards for water qual-
ity promulgated herein, the terms of waste disposal permits,
and other orders and directives of the department are fully
complied with, the following enforcement tools will be relied
upon by the department, in cooperation with the attorney gen-
eral as it deems appropriate:
(1) Issuance of regulatory notifications, orders, and
directives as provided for in RCW 90.48.120. Under this
section, whenever it is the department's opinion that a person
is polluting or is about to pollute the state's waters, the
department shall notify said person of the department's deter-
mination. Within thirty days said person shall notify the
department of the action he has taken with regard to said
notification, whereupon the department shall issue such order
or directive as it deems appropriate. Thereafter any person
feeling aggrieved may request a department hearing relating to
said order or directive; the same being conducted in accord-
ance with chapter 43.21B RCW, and chapter 371-08 WAG. Any
party to the hearing may request review of the department's
order issued after said hearing in a superior court of this
state, if the hearing is informal, or to the court of appeals
if the hearing is formal.
(2) Initiation of actions requesting injunctive or other
appropriate relief in the various courts of the state as pro-
vided for in RCW 90.48.037.
(3) Levying of civil penalties as provided for in RCW
90.48.144. Under this section, the director of the department
may levy a civil penalty up to five thousand dollars per day
against a person who violates the terms of a waste discharge
permit, or who discharges without such a permit when the same
is required, or violates the provisions of RCW 90.48.080. If
the amount of the penalty, which is subject to mitigation or
remission by the department, is not paid within fifteen days
after receipt of said notice, the attorney general, upon
request of the director, shall bring an action in superior
court to recover the same.
(4) Initiation of a criminal proceeding by the appropri-
ate county prosecutor, as provided for in RCW 90.48.140.
-------
(5) Issuance of regulatory orders or directives as pro-
vided for in RCW 90.48.240.
NEW WAG 173-201-130 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this
chapter, the following definitions are applicable:
(1) "Natural condition" means the resulting water quality
in the absence of any measurable pollutional effect due to
human activities excepting only the effects of depth, volume,
surface area or shoreline configuration resulting from the
legal physical alteration of a water body.
(2) "Acute biological shock condition" means that dose or
circumstance which has been demonstrated by field or laboratory
observations to directly result in mortalities of food, game,
or commercial fish species.
(3) "Permit" means a document issued for a wastes source
specifying the wastes treatment and control requirements and
wastes discharge conditions.
(4) "Total coliform organisms" mean total coliform organ-
isms per 100 milliliters.
(5) "Temperature" means temperature expressed in degrees
Fahrenheit.
(6) "pH" means the negative logarithm of the hydrogen-ion
c one ent rat ion.
(7) "Turbidity" means the optical property of a sample
demonstrating the scattering and absorption of light caused by
suspended material as expressed in Jackson Turbidity Units
(JTU).
(8) "Mean detention time" means the time obtained by
dividing a reservoir's mean annual minimum total storage by
the 30-day ten-year low-flow from the reservoir.
NEW WAG 173-201-140 MISCELLANEOUS. (1) The water quality
criteria adopted in this chapter shall be the sole criteria for
the various waters in the State of Washington.
(2) The criteria, classifications and achievement consid-
erations established by this chapter shall be reviewed from
time to time by the department to insure that the quality of
the waters of the state may be enhanced wherever possible
through appropriate modifications of this chapter.
(3) These rules contemplate and it is the specific intent
of the department of ecology to evaluate the watercourse
classifications under WAC 173-201-060 through 080 hereof in the
near future, with special emphasis placed on those waters con-
stituting reaches of streams in nonurban areas, and, if deemed
appropriate, initiate rule-making proceedings by September 1,
1973, as to any needed changes in classification. Addition-
ally, the department shall, in light of concerns expressed
F-12
-------
c
both for high water quality and for the carrying on of activi-
ties on land which have an effect on certain water reaches,
continue with expedition to examine all waters of the state,
the needs for the protection of the same and related concerns,
and if after such evaluation, it appears appropriate, initiate
rule-making procedures to modify this chapter.
(4) Chapters 372-12 and 372-64 WAG are repealed.
F-13
-------
c
APPENDIX B
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE IN THE CLEAR CREEK DRAINAGE,
EASTERN KITSAP PENINSULA
by
Charlotte L. Benson
prepared for URS/Hill, Ingman, Chase & Co.
and the Kitsap County Commissioners
in support of the environmental impact statement
for the Brownsville Silverdale Meadowdale
Sewerage Facilities and the Clear Creek
Sewer Interceptor System
University of Washington
Office of Public Archaeology
Reconnaissance Reports No. 3
Seattle
February 3, 1975
G-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
In anticipation of the proposed construction of sewage treatment and transmission
facilities in the Brownsville Silverdale vicinity (Kitsap County, Washington), an archaeo-
logical survey was conducted to determine the nature and extent of cultural resources
which might be adversely affected by construction activities. The scope of this investigation
was developed through conversations between Messrs. Larry Sullivan and Steve Fusco, of
URS/Hill, Ingman, Chase & Co., and Mr. Jerry Jermann of the University of Washington's
Office of Public Archaeology; formal contractual arrangemnets between these two parties
being initiated on December 1, 1975.
Installation of the proposed sewer system involves the construction of sewage treatment
facilities, trunk lines, and associated pump stations in An area which involves the lower
Clear Creek Valley .iorth of Silverdale, the north beach of Dye's Inlet, the north side of
Bucklin Hill Road between Silverdale and Brownsville, and the waterfront in thy vicinity of
the Brownsville Marina on Burke Bay. A preliminary review of both the National Register
of Historic Places and the University of Washington's Site Survey Records for Kitsap
County revealed an absence of any known sites of archaeological, historical, or architectural
significance within the immediate project area. However, further documentation was deemed
necessary, as this area had not been the subject of any prior systematic cultural resource
inventory.
In mid-December, 1974, the area to be directly impacted by the proposed construction
was intensively scrutinized by a reconnaissance archaeologist for evidence of any significant
cultural resources. The resulting survey of all available horizontal and vertical surface
exposures resulted in the: locating of but a single archaeological site (formally designated as
sits 45-Kp-17); a shell midden near the Brownsville Marina on Burke Bay. Modern use of
this area (e.g. road construction, historic occupation, and dredging operations) has resulted
in the removal of so much cultural material from the site that its potential to contribute
significantly to the area's prehistory has been considerably diminished. Based upon these
findings, further archaeological work is deemed unnecessary at this time; both in the
immediate vicinity of the shell heap and elsewhere in the surveyed area.
PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Kitsap Peninsula is part of the glacially-scoured Puget Trough, a large partially-
submerged depression owing much of its present topography and geology to an extension
of the Cordilleran ice sheet into northwestern Washington during the late Pleistocene. In
particular, the large moraine of which Kitsap Peninsula is a part slopes towards the Sound,
containing many lakes and poorly-drained depressions underlain by glacial drift.
The Kitsap Peninsula has a long irregular coastline serrated by bays and inlets; the
present survey area lying between two such features, Burke Bay and Dye's Inlet (see Fig.
1). Overall relief in the area is characterized by rolling uplands and flat to slightly
depressed areas. The latter is exemplified in the project area by the Clear Creek Valley (see
Fig. 2).
Clear Creek is one of the few perennial streams on the peninsula, where a prominent
feature of the drainage system is a lack of developed lateral or tributary watercourses.
Clear Creek is fed by several short intermittent tributaries flowing down the gentle valley
slopes.
G-2
-------
c
Fig. 1. Project area vicinity showing location of proposed sewer system
with respect to eastern Kitsap Peninsula.
C
G-3
-------
The general topography of the eastern peninsula consists of broad ridges rising between
main stream valleys. However, there is no evidence to suggest the kind of dissection
characteristic of a dendritic drainage system. In fact, the properties of the main stream
valleys and the absence of an established network of tributary streams are probably the
result of prior glacial agencies.
The depth, slope, meanders, and irregular width of valleys (which do not conform to
their occupant streams) all suggest that the valleys antedate their associated streams (U.S.
Soil Conservation Service 1939). In this regard Clear Creek apparently shifts its channels
and varies in volume dramatically, since it was observed during this survey to flow around
large trees that obviously had not always been in the main channel.
Taken as a whole, the project area includes a transect of the longitudinal ridge and
valley system that so characterizes the eastern Kitsap Peninsula area. Thus results obtained
as a direct result of the present survey should be somewhat indicative of what could be
expected in the immediate vicinity.
SOILS
The soils of Kitsap Peninsula and of the Puget Sound Basin in general were derived
from glacial materials under the influence of a coniferous forest vegetation and a humid
temperature climate; being most commonly ofthe brown podzolic type (Franklin and
Dyrness 1973). The parent material consists of unconsolidated glacial debris (largely outwash
sands and gravels) that were deposited over Miocene age formations during late Pleistocene
glacial episodes.
Soils in the project area are of two distinct types: those that overlie a ftardpan or
bedrock substrata and those developed on permeable subsoils. Representatives of the former
include soils of both the Alderwood and Edmond series, while the latter includes represen-
tatives of the Everett, Indianola, and Kitsap series.
Indiancla loamy sand and Everett gravelly loam predominate both in the Silverdale
vicinity and along Bucklin Hill Road. The most striking features of these soils are their
porosity and mildly acidic surface horizons. The small arcus of Edmonds fine sandy loam
found in the project area are characterized by high organic content and an associated high
water table; those Edmonds loams occurring near Silverdale' also contain a large amount of
gravel which results in further poor drainage.
Alderwood loamy sand is found in the Brownsville area around the margins of Burke
Bay. It is characterized by a top layer composed largely of decayed forest litter which
overlies an indurated (hardpan) sandy subsoil.
The channel of Clear Creek and its immediate drainage margins (100 200 feet wide)
consists of undifferentiated alluvium; Kitsap silt loam being represented in the lower valley.
In several areas a layer of muck or peat overlies these alluvial soils, resulting in further
poor drainage. At present the alluvium is thickly forested in alder, willow, and conifers, as
well as dense understory comprised of grasses and hydrous plants. The accumulation of
decayed plant matter derived from this vegetative cover has resulted in a layer of woody
peat as much as 8 feet thick in parts of the Clear Creek drainage; the largest bed of this
type being the Rifle peat found at the headwaters of the stream.
G-4
-------
c
VEGETATION
The project area is located within the Tsuga heterophylla zone (Franklin and Dymess
1973), or the Coastal Western Hemlock zone of Krajina (1965). Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii), however, is the dominant species of the climax forest, and not the western
hemlock.
Much of the surveyed land, specifically the Clear Creek Valley and broad areas be-
tween Silverdale and Brownsville, have been cleared for pasturage and other agronomic
pursuits (see Fig. 2).
The virgin forest, was dominantly Douglas fir interspersed with western hemlock,
spruce, western red cedar, willow, alder, Oregon maple, vine maple, and madrona (U.S. Soil
Conservation Service 1939). Virtually all the original timber has been removed in historic
times by lumbering practices or fire. The conifers and deciduous trees both have reseeded
in most cut-over or fire-scarred areas, and second growth is relatively rapid.
The thick understqry is comprised of a variety of plants, many of which grow to four
or six feet in height (see Fig. 3). Commonly found in the project area are salal, ferns,
huckleberry, Oregon grape, rhododendron, various vines, and coarse grasses. Fireweed thrives
in cleared and burned areas.
Many marshy areas on the Kitsap Peninsula are treeless, but the marsh of the lower
Gear Creek supports both arboreal and herbaceous vegetation. Common marsh plants
include mosses, cranberry bushes, wire grass, reeds, rushes, sedges and ferns.
Generally, conifers dominate the growth on the deep sandy soils of the Everett and
Indianola series, and deciduous trees are dominant on the soils with a higher water reten-
tion capacity (e.g., the Kitsap and Alderwood series). In wetter sections such as the lower
Clear Creek alder grows among evergreens, and in some such locales second growth alder is
actually the dominant species.
CLIMATE
The climatic regime of the Kitsap Peninsula is temperate and oceanic; modified by the
Puget Sound, the Pacific Ocean, and the Olympic Mountain Range.
Annual precipitation on the eastern side of the peninsula ranges from 30 40 inches,
which distributed annually would be sufficient for most agricultural purposes. However, the
uneven distribution of rainfall (average summer rainfall is 2.5 inches) renders it inadequate
for many crops. Pasturage like that in the survey area is likely to dry out in the summer.
The possible benefits accruing from the inordinately long growing season (216 days) are
negated by a disproportionate number of cloudy days, which affects crop growth.
The pastures of Clear Creek area are located on bottomlands where moisture condi-
tions are most favorable in the summer for grasses.
The stump land adjacent to cleared fields is often used for grazing. Herbage includes
native grasses and legumes as well as coarse grasses, weeds, reeds, and sedges.
In the survey region (T.25N., R.1E.) timbered areas are larger than cleared and culti-
vated areas, and much of the land is reverting to second growth forest.
C
G-5
-------
Fig. 2. Valley of the Clear Creek, looking west.
Fig. 3. Vegetation of project area - lower Clear Creek.
G-6
-------
c
ETHNOHISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The first white man known to have arrived on the Kitsap Peninsula was the English
explorer Captain George Vancouver in 1772. Homesteading of the area began some 50
years later. The earliest settlements were along the coast, leaving the interior and upland
areas only sparsely settled.
The selection of sites for historic settlement often seem to have been conditioned by
the same variables that determined the locations of prehistoric settlements. Evidence suppor-
tive of this postulate is seen in the project area. Prehistoric population centers were
generally located along major waterways and at the heads of bays and inlets; areas now
overlain by more recent cultural material.
The survey area is often not included within any of the specific tribal boundaries of
ethnographically known Puget Sound native groups. It lies just east of the Twana area
which centered around Hood Canal, and south of the Sn.uamish tribal lands. Previously
recorded sites in the area have been assigned a Suquamish affiliation (Kitsap County Site
Survey Records, Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Washington), and all are shell
middens located on major waterways.
The aboriginal subsistence system in the area can best be described as a seasonal
pattern; i.e. summer dispersal to fishing stations, hunting camps, and root and berry gather-
ing stations, and winter clustering into larger and more permanent villages. Summer houses
were temporary, while the structures occupied in winter were more substantial (Haeberlin
and Gunther 1930). Villages were invariably located on the coast or along rivers and
streams. The nature of these winter sites (e.g. longer duration of occupation, frequent
reuse, and larger size) render this type of site more readily observable than the smaller
more transitory camps associated with food accumulating operations.
The abundant wild food resources of the coastal and estuarine environment provided a
large and diverse subsistence base for prehistoric as well as historic inhabitants of the
region. Communities were able to lead a semi-sedentary existence relying wholly on procure-
ment of foodstuffs without food production.
Major utilized resources included fish, sea mammals, molluscs, waterfowl, land game,
roots, and berries. Economic differences between tribal groups often involved only the
proportion of seafood to meat in the diet; the inland groups evidencing a heavier reliance
on land game.
The seasonal pattern included shellfish gathering in the spring, gathering of roots and
berries by women and hunting by men in the summer, fishing in the fall, and spending a
sedentary winter in the village, with occasional forays for waterfowl (Elmendorf 1960,
Haeberlin and Gunther 1930).
Four species of Pacific salmon were utilized, as well as smelt, herring, flounder, and
trout.
Land game included blacktail deer, elk, black bear, raccoon, otter, beaver, mountain
marmot, muskrat, hare, and mountain beaver. Sea mammals sought were seal and harbor
porpoise.
C
G-7
-------
Roots commonly used were those of the braken fern, wood fern, dandelion, wild
sunflower, and cattail. Camas and tiger lily bulbs were also dug.
Berries commonly gathered included the salmonberry, huckleberry, blackberry, rasp-
berry, salalberry, serviceberry, wild strawberry, and blackcaps. Occasionally gathered were
wild carrots, acorns, hazelnuts, green shoots, mushrooms, and seaside anowgrass.
Shore-gathered food included oysters, crabs, geoducks, littleneck or rock clams, and
butter clams.
Most of the kinds of resources used by prehistoric and ethnographic groups are still
available in the area. Changes that have taken place in the availability of resources were
culturally induced and include such factors as depletion of clam beds by over-exploitation,
the retreat of land mammals to more inaccessible areas, and changes in vegetation caused
by deforestation and the introduction of weeds by farming.
The archaeological and ethnographic evidence indicates that if prehistoric material were
to be found in the project area it would include functionally distinct sites used in the
exploitation of specific microenvironments (e.g. alluvial bottomlands, bogs, and upland
forests), and winter villages which are manifest as shell mounds. The shell middens as the
larger, more permanent, and more durable features will be more likely to have weathered
the natural and cultural degradation that is expected to have accrued since deposition.
Based upon extant ethnographic and archaeological information concerning the nature
and distribution of aboriginal settlements on the Kitsap Peninsula, we would expect at least
two such shell middens to occur in the immediate project area - one on Burke Bay neav
Brownsville, and one on Dye's Inlet near Silverdale.
RECONNAISSANCE TECHNIQUES
Since there has been little modification of the landscape in the study area since the
deposition of glacial material, derivation of its soils, and the formation of present surfaces,
evidence of aboriginal utilization was expected to be visible on the surface of the ground.
Consequently the assessment of the potential adverse impact that might accrue to the area's
cultural resources through the implementation of the proposed sewer system could best be
accomplished by an on-foot investigation of the surface (and subsurface exposures) over the
project area.
The corridor for the proposed sewage system was surveyed by a reconnaissance
archaeologist in December of 1974. If individual, isolated artifacts were located they were
to be collected, plotted on a 7.5 minute USGS map, and catalogued. Clusters of artifacts
or sites were to be plotted on existing maps and assessed in terms of their potential for
contributing to the knowledge of the prehistory of the area. Recommendations were then
to be formulated regarding the value of further testing, surface collection, or excavation of
such sites to assure the preservation of this nonrenewable resource.
RECONNAISSANCE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The project area is here divided into four sectors to facilitate discussion of reconnais-
sance results, as the logistics involved in each were somewhat different. The sectors are:
G-8
-------
1) Gear Creek, 2) the Silverdale waterfront, 3) the Silverdale Brownsville corridor, and 4)
the Brownsville waterfront.
1) The banks of the Clear Creek were examined from several access points for
approximately two miles of its lower extent. The creek is fast-flowing and has a
swampy area surrounding the main stream in the lower reaches, and more
heavily-wooded banks as one moves northward. The stream presently does not
flow in precisely the same channel as previously, as evidenced by large trees
growing in the current flow.
The tendril-like conformation of the stream flowing through marshy and heavily-
wooded areas may have prohibited occupation on its shores; i.e. swampy
conditions, varying (though adjacent) channels, and flooding, as well as dense
vegetation are inconducive to any but sporadic and temporary use of the banks.
If these conditions obtained prehistorically, they would have rendered aboriginal
occupation unlikely. If, on the other hand, the vicinity of the stream was more
hospitable in the past, then any evidence of occupation or utilization has been
eradicated by the current characteristics of the creek.
2) Examination of the Dye's Inlet beach where the smaller fork of Clear Creek
enters the bay showed evidence of considerable fill and dredging, and no
aboriginal material was visible. Where the main stream of Clear Creek enters the
inlet the stream is ponded and conducted by pipe under Bucklin Hill Road. Again
filling and/or dredging operations have erased any evidence of prehistoric activities.
3) Survey of the Silverdale Brownsville corridor involved the inspection as an
existing ditch that parallels the Bucklin Hill Road on its north side. The trench
proposed for implantation of the sewer line presently contains a water main as
well as buried cable, and thus yielded only modern debris.
4) Inspection of the Brownsville waterfront resulted in the location of a shell heap
on Burke Bay (site 45-Kp-17) in the vicinity of the existing marina. Historic and
modern activities have all but obliterated the mound, and only a thin layer of
shell and fire-cracked rock is visible. This material is scattered over the beach
front and into the water. A test pit of approximately 1.5 meters square was
previously dug in the midden, and investigation of this pit revealed the vertical
extent of the debris to be shallow (less than .5 m). The upper part of the
mound is reported to have been bulldozed. The horizontal extent of the site is
indeterminate, as the inland side has been obscured by modern dwellings and road
building and the bay side has been dredged and/or aggraded.
The judgement of the investigating archaeologist is that the value of cultural informa-
tion forthcoming from further work on 45-Kp-17 is dubious, and such investigation is not
recommended at this time. It is suggested, however, that an archaeologist be present at any
future dredging operations in the vicinity of the site.
It is further judged that implementation of the proposed sewer line will have no
negative effects on cultural resources in the project area. If artifactual material is encounter-
ed during the course of the construction, personnel should contact the Office of Public
Archaeology in Seattle, Washington to insure proper documentation and disposition of arti-
facts.
c
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hmendorf, W.W.
1960 The Structure of Twana Culture. Washington State University Research Studies,
Monographic Supplement No. 2. Vol. XXVIII. No. 3.
Franklin, Jerry F. and C.T. Dyrness
1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report PNW-8.
Gunther, Ema
1973 Ethnobotany of Western Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle and
London. Revised Edition.
Haeberlin, Hermann and Ema Gunther
1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press. Seattle and London.
United States Soil Conservation Service
1939 Soil Survey for Kitsap County, Washington. Series 1934,'No. 12.
G-10
-------
APPENDIX H
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SHEET FOR PROPOSED
HANSVILLE ROAD SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Title of Proposed Action
Nature of Report;
Sponsor:
Type of Action;
Summary of Action;
Summary of Impacts;
Land Form:
Soils:
Water Resource:
Vegetation:
Proposed Hansville Road Solid Waste
Disposal Site
Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment
Board of Commissioners
Kitsap County
Kitsap County, Courthouse
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Administrative
Construction, maintenance and oper-
ation of the existing Hansville
Road disposal site and proposed ex-
pansion as a sanitary landfill to
serve northern Kitsap County. Pro-
posed action includes existing 60-
acre site plus proposed 20-acre
expansion.
Alteration of existing topographic
features to provide ultimate grade
of three percent.
Disturbance of existing soil with
reuse as compacted cover for land-
fill operations.
Potential impact from leachate to
be mitigated through collection and
disposal.
Removal of existing, on-site vege-
tation consisting of second growth
conifers, deciduous varieties and
c
H-l
-------
Wildlife & Habitat:
Air Resource:
Land-Use:
Noise:
underbrush and grasses indigenous
to the local area to be mitigated
through application of a new vege-
tative cover upon completion of
landfill operations.
Conversion of the existing natural
habitat with native fauna to a man-
made habitat. Ultimately, new bio-
logical regime will develop if
filled area is not used for human-
use activities.
Use of a sanitary landfill opera-
tion reduces potential for fire and,
therefore, potential impact on air
quality.
Use of the proposed site is compat-
ible with the existing on-site zon-
ing (agriculture). Property acqui-
sition of the additional 20 acres
finalized and may not be necessary.
Potential acoustical impact from
on-site machine noise to be miti-
gated through both distance to clos-
est receptor and provision for a
timbered buffer zone at site bound-
aries.
Aesthetics:
Health and Safety:
Area-wide Effects:
Potential visual impact to be miti-
gated through use of a timbered
buffer zone at site boundaries. In
addition, conversion of existing
modified landfill operation to san-
itary landfill will reduce air-
borne material and litter on-site.
Conversion of existing modified
landfill operation to a sanitary
landfill will minimize potential
health and safety problems associa-
ted with solid waste disposal.
Project will tend to concentrate
traffic on nearby roadways, though
this impact is expected to be minor.
H-2
-------
Project will allow for orderly de-
velopment through provision of a
needed public service, solid waste
disposal.
Implementation of County-wide Com-
prehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan will increase the cost of ref-
use disposal to the public.
H-3
-------
c
APPENDIX I
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT
The combination of climate and soils in the study area makes the
possibility of land disposal of wastewater effluent rather restrictive.
In the main, this is due to the water budget which prevails in the
area, as shown on Table I -1 with data pertaining to Grapeview, whose
natural setting is somewhat similar to that of the study area. The
root zone water-holding capacity of the soil-vegetation groupings in
the study area falls largely in the mid-region between the two extremes
shown on Table 1-1. Thus, the amount of wastewater effluent that can
be applied to the soil for disposal by evapotranspiration is only about
seven inches per year, requiring over 8,000 acres for the projected 4.3
mgd of wastes generated in the area in the year 2000. Furthermore, the
effluent would need to be stored during the period of water surplus, in
structures with adequate capacity (nearly one billion gallons). For
this type of disposal, nearly all soils in the area except for those
with steep slopes, poor drainage and high erosion hazard can be util-
ized.
Another possibility worthy of consideration is year-round disposal
of wastewater effluent at higher rates than can be absorbed and consump-
tively used in the water deficit period. Depending on application
rates and scheduling, a portion of the wastewater effluent, filtered
through the soil and treated by the biological, chemical and physical
reactions in the soil, accrues to the groundwater. The level of ground-
water tableboth perched and confinedis rather high in many parts of
the study area. In the southern extremity of the area confined ground-
water is under artesian pressure, and in the northern parts static
water depths in some of the drilled wells exceed 100 feet. There are
great variations in groundwater depth due to the rather uneven dis-
tribution of the various layers of glacial till aquifers in different
parts of the study area. Hence, the importance of the existence of an
adequate thickness of unsaturated materials in the land disposal area
should be borne in mind in the selection of a site for land disposal
of wastewater effluents.
As far as soil properties are concerned, those without a hardpan
can generally be considered to be suitable, as long as application
rates, scheduling and irrigation method used are adapted to the exist-
ing soil and vegetation requirements. Soils that can be utilized for
land disposal of effluents include Indianola loamy sand (Is) , Kitsap
silt loam (Ks), Everett gravelly sandy loam (Ev), Everett gravelly
1-1
-------
Table 1-1. MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND
WATER BALANCE WITHIN SOIL ROOT ZONE 3>
(cumulative depth of water per year)
D Soil (root zone) water-holding capacity c
Ir3.ir3.ni6t QIC * r\ / r* r* \ r\ * /i- \
10 in. (25 cm) 2 in. (5 cm)
Precipitation, in. 51.98 132 51.98 132
Potential evapotranspira- 26.48 67 26.48 67
tion, in.
Actual evapotranspira- 21.77 55 16.93 43
tion, in.
Soil moisture recharge/ 6.83 17 1.99 5
utilization, in.
Water deficit d, in. 4.71 12 9.55 24
Water surplus e, in. 30.21 77 35.04 89
a Adapted from "Water Supply Bulletin No. 18," Division of Water Re-
sources, State of Washington, 1965.
Data relate to Grapeview, Mason County, with similar natural setting
to that of the study area.
Q
Water-holding capacity for a given soil is mainly a function of soil
texture, soil depth limitations, plant rooting depth, soil structure
and organic matter content. In the study area, water-holding capa-
city varies between 4 and 8 in. in most areas. Extremes are pre-
sented for ready application to all soil-vegetation combinations.
This is the amount of water which plants could consumptively use in
addition to the amount naturally available during May, June, July,
August and most of September.
This is the amount of water which exceeds the ability of plants to
transpire and soils to absorb from late September through April.
1-2
-------
r
loamy sand (Eg) and the undifferentiated alluvial soils (A), as shown
in Figure I -1. Correlation of these soil types with connections to
aquifers and groundwater was not made.
Soils as a Natural Resource
Soils in the study area presently support a vast variety of
natural vegetation, including evergreen and deciduous forests, meadows
and pastures, as well as Christmas tree farms and a minor area of other
agricultural activities (poultry and dairy farms, etc.). The soils
with hardpans are somewhat less productive than those with friable
subsoils due to the restrictions that the former soils impose upon
root penetration. Generally, most of the soils are of limited agri-
cultural value. Soils in the study area are classed into standard
productivity or capability units, briefly described in Table I -2.
1-3
-------
-------
Table 1-2. LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED SOILS IN KITSAP COUNTY
1-1
n
m
Soil Series
Alderwood
Alderwood
Alderwood
Everett
Everett
Edmonds
Edmonds
Indianola
Kit sap
Alluvial
Muck
Rifle Peat
Surface Map
texture symbol
loamy sand
fine sandy loam
loam
gravelly sandy loam
gravelly loamy sand
loamy sand
fine sandy loam
loamy sand
silt loam
(undifferentiated)
organic
organic
As
Af
Al
Ev
Eg
Es
Ef
Is
Ks
A
Mu
Rp
Capability Agricultural
class b value
Vile
IVe
Vile
Vis
Vis
IIIw
IIIw
Vis
Hie
-
IIw
IIw
very poor
fair
very poor
poor
poor
potentially
high
potentially
high
fair to poor
generally
high
variable
potentially
high
potentially
high
Agricultural Portion of study
limitations area, %
severe erosion
hazard
moderate erosion
hazard
severe erosion
hazard
soil infertility
soil infertility
moderate
erosion hazard
moderate
erosion hazard
variable
severe flooding
hazard
severe flooding
hazard
15
35
1
13
5
2
1
15
6
5
1
< 1
a Adapted from USDA-SCE "Interpretation of Soils for Land Use Planning," January 1972.
USDA-SCS's standard classes and subclasses, briefly interpreted in the next two columns.
------- |