\ 9
910976021A
EPA-IO-OR-LINCOLN-SWLC -WWTW-76
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Statement
Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District
*5,
\
UJ
a
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Statement
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
FOR THE
SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
EPA-10-OR-Lincoln-WWTS-76
By
U. S, Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, WA 98101
W>itk 1'ichyiLdat hAA-L&tcincz By
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 835
Sacramento, CA 95814
In
Don Owen & Associates
and
Gruen Gruen + Associates
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
. Smith,"Jr., Ph.J/.^P.E.
gional Administral
2 0 1976
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Objectives 1
Background of Past Events 2
Important Issues and Considerations 4
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 7
Physical and Biological Features 7
Location 7
Climate 7
Air Quality 7
Topography and Drainage 10
Edaphic Features 10
Geology 14
Geologic Hazards 15
Bio tic Resources 18
Aesthetic Values 22
Water Resources and Water Quality 24
Existing Sewage Disposal Conditions 25
Archeological-Historical 28
Socio-Economic Features 31
Population 31
Economy 3 6
Future Trends in Population Growth 44
Land Use 46
Land Use Planning 51
Future Land Use 52
III. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 55
Introduction 55
Constraints on Alternative Development 56
Regionalization 58
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures 59
Wastewater Management Options 60
Possible Alternatives 60
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives 61
The Activated Sludge Process 62
Septic Tank Treatment 62
-------
Treatment Plant Site Options 63
Implementation Options—Financing and
Organization 64
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 66
Proposed Facilities Common to All Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives 67
Population Capacity of Project Facilities 67
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives 68
Alternative 1 - Waconda Beach-San Marine 68
Alternative 2 - Waldport-Yachats 70
Alternative 3 - Big Creek 71
Alternative 4 - Yachats 75
Alternative 5 - Waldport 77
Alternative 6 - No Action 79
Alternative 7 - District Maintenance of
Septic Tanks 80
Sewage Sludge Handling and Disposal Options 81
Cost Comparison and Summary 84
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE ALTERNATIVES' 87
Introduction 87
Impacts Common to All Alternatives 87
Short-Term Impacts 87
Long-Term Direct Impacts 87
Social Features 104
Financial Impacts 113
V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 119
VI. LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VS.
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
P RODUC TIVIT Y 123
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES 125
VIII. UNRESOLVED ISSUES 127
BIBLIOGRAPHY 129
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION 133
APPENDICES 135
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary Estimates of Emissions in Lincoln
County 11
2 Characteristics of Soil Associations of
the Study Area 13
3 Recorded Earthquakes in the Lincoln
County Area 17
4 Vegetation and Land Use - Southwest Lincoln
County Sanitary District 21
5 Rare, Endangered and Threatened Vertebrate
Species Whose Distribution Includes the
Southwest Lincoln Study Area 23
6a Regional Population - 1970 and 1960 32
6b I'lxisting and Projected Nontransient Population 32
7 Historical Average Annual Daily Traffic
U.S. 101: Yaquina Bay to Yachats 37
8 Average Daily Traffic by Month: 1974
U.S, 101: Yaquina Bay to Yachats 37
9 Average Daily Tourist Traffic 1969-1974
U.S. 101: Yaquina Bay to Yachats 37
10 State Park Usage: 1971-1975 39
11 Annual Average Unemployment Rate Lincoln
County, 1960-1971 " 43
12 Source of Income - Lincoln County, 1970 43
13 Real Property Valuation 45
14 Subdivisions in Southwest Lincoln Sanitary
District 48
15 Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District
Wastewater Project - 20-Year Comparison of
Local Costs 85
-------
Table Page
16 Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District
Wastewater Project - EPA Cost-Effectiveness
Comparison of Costs 86
17 Short-Term Impacts - Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District 88
18 Urban and Non-Urban Runoff Emission Rates 92
19 Emission Factors for Sewage Sludge
Incinerators 96
20 Energy Requirements 105
21 Projected Air Emissions from Local and
Tourist Traffic - Yachats to Yaquina Bay 109
22 Comparison of Population Projections 111
23 Projected Cost to Property Owners for
Implementation of Alternative 4 116
24 Family Incomes in 1970 of Lincoln County
as Compared to State and Nation 118
25 Environmental Summary of Adverse Impacts of
Project Alternatives for the Southwest
Lincoln County Sanitary District 120
^v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Location of Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District 8
2 Mean Monthly Precipitation and Temperature
in Newport, Oregon 9
3 Soil Associations Present in Southwest
Lincoln County Sanitary District 12
4 Geologic Hazards of the Study Area 16
5 Vegetation and Land Use 19
6 Land Use - Southwest Lincoln County-Waldport
to Yachats 49
7 Alternative 1 - Waconda Beach-San Marine 69
8 Alternative 2 - Waldport-Yachats 72
9 Alternative 3 - Big Creek 74
10 Alternative 4 - Yachats 76
11 Alternative 5 - Waldport
12 Location of Starr Creek Archeological Site 98
-------
-------
SUMMARY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT — WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEMS FOR THE SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
1. Type of Statement: Draft (X ) Final ( )
2. Type of Action: Administrative (X ) Legislative ( )
3. Description of Action;
The objective of this project is to provide a wastewater
treatment and disposal program for the Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District, located between the Cities of Waldport and
Yachats, Lincoln County, Oregon. This Draft Environmental
Impact Statement identifies alternatives for providing the
district with wastewater facilities designed to meet the needs
of the residents of the district and maintenance of environ-
mental quality. The district covers approximately 3,000 acres
and has a population of 2,024 permanent residents and approxi-
mately 660 seasonal residents.
Much of the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District is
underlain by impermeable soils and a high groundwater table.
Such conditions have created periodic sewage waste disposal
problems causing septic systems to fail and sewage to appear
in surface drainage areas and on beaches. Surveys conducted
by the Lincoln County Health Department and the Oregon Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality during 1968, 1972 and 1974 docu-
mented several cases of septic system failures and sewage on
surface areas throughout the district.
During 1973 and 1974, the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District was formed and a facilities plan was developed identi-
fying a variety of alternative means of providing sewage service
to the district.
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse
Environmental Effects;
The impacts and magnitude of those impacts will vary
according to the alternatives proposed. Alternatives 1 through
5 represent alternative treatment facilities while Alternatives
6 and 7 represent no action and septic tank maintenance.
v^^
-------
Short-term impacts such as temporary loss of vegetation,
disruption of wildlife, traffic congestion, utility service
disruption/ soil erosion, safety hazard, aerial pollutant,
visual impact, noise, spoil disposal and water quality impair-
ments will occur with Alternatives 1 through 5. No short-
term impacts will be associated with Alternatives 6 and 7.
Long-term impacts of Alternatives 1 through 5 will in-
clude protection of groundwater, minor effects on stream water
quality and biota, possible minor geologic hazards, air
quality changes, possible disturbance of archeological sites,
impacts on vegetation, wildlife and marine biota, changes in
visual character, increases in energy consumption, impact on
parks, land use patterns and planning, increased traffic,
changes in population, and the economic ramifications on the
local economy and the private landowner.
Major impacts associated with Alternatives 6 and 7 will
be the likely periodic problem of groundwater and ground
surface contamination by sewage, the potential for a health
hazard, and effects on land use patterns and state park
operations.
5. Alternatives Considered;
Alternative 1 - Waconda Beach/San Marine treatment
facilities with ocean outfalls. Both plants would be 350,000
gallons per day capacity (gpd). Capital cost - $6,506,100.
Alternative ^2 - Waldport/Yachats. This alternative would
utilize existing ^treatment plants but would be upgraded to
handle added sewage flows. Outfalls would be in the Alsea Bay
channel and off of a rocky shore at Yachats. Capital cost -
$5,678,600.
Alternative 3 - Big Creek alternative. Sewage would be
disposed of at one treatment facility at Big Creek. The plant
would have a 750,000 gpd capacity. Capital cost - $5,518,000.
Alternative 4 - Yachats alternative. Wastewater would
flow south to a new Yachats plant having a capacity of 750,000
gpd. Effluent disposal would be to the ocean. Capital cost -
$5,154,200.
Alternative 5 - Waldport alternative. All wastewater in
the district would flow northward to a new 750,000 gpd capa-
city plant in Waldport. The effluent outfall would be to the
channel in Alsea Bay. Capital cost - $5,140,400.
v^^^
-------
Alternative 6 - No action alternative. This alternative
would involve the continuation of existing conditions of
installing septic tanks and leach fields to handle individual
home sewage. Associated with this alternative would be the
continuation of periodic septic system failures and surfacing
sewage wastes. The present practice of retrofitting or re-
placing failing systems would continue.
Alternative 7 - District maintenance of septic tanks.
The district would purchase a septic tank pumping truck,
would periodically inspect all septic systems within the
district, and as required, pump the tanks and convey pumpage
to an aerobic digester at the Yachats treatment plant.
Capital cost - $310,000,,
6. The following State, Federal and local agencies and interested groups
were invited to comment on the Environmental Impact Statement.
^x
-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL ENERGY OFFICE
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
FWERS OF CONGRESS
...K 0. HATFIELD LES AuCoiN
,S, SENATE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ROBERT W. PACKWOOD
U.S. SENATE
STATE
GOVERNOR OF OREGON
MAX C. RIJKEN - REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 38
OREGON STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
-------
REGIONAL AND LOCAL
LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LINCOLN COUNTY PERMITS, UTILITIES S RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
LINCOLN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
LINCOLN COUNTY LIBRARY
SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
INTERESTED GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
ROBERT E, MEYERS, ENGINEERS INC,
OREGON WILDLIFE FEDERATION
1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON
NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER
OSPIRG
OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
WILLIAM E, WARE
THOR H, MORK
THOMAS GANATT
JEAN DUCKETT
CHRISTOPHER MINOR
RICHARD BENNER
THIS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY (CEO) AND THE PUBLIC ON APR a Q
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Objectives
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires that all agencies of the federal government prepare
a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposals
for projects that may significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. NEPA requires that agencies (in this case
the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) include in their
decision-making process all considerations of environmental
aspects of proposed actions, the environmental impacts of the
proposed project and its alternatives, and a discussion of
ways to avoid or minimize adverse effects. The EIS is to be
a "full disclosure" document and must follow specific regula-
tions of the EPA as contained in 40 CFR, part 6, as published
in the Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 72, April 14, 1975.
Because the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District
project can be 75 percent funded by the EPA, as a part of
Construction Grants Program authorized by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), it
requires NEPA action. After reviewing the proposed wastewater
facilities plan for the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District, it was decided by the EPA that an EIS was needed.
This decision was based on the likely changes in land use
patterns as determined by such factors as vacant land subject
to increased development pressure, the increase in population
which may be induced, the faster rate of population change,
changes in population density, the extent to which landowners
may benefit from the areas subject to increased development
and the. nature of land use regulations in the affected area,
and their potential effects on development. Of equal importance
were the likely effects of the project on "parklands, other
public lands or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archeological or historic value" (40 CFR, part 6).
Data for this EIS were compiled from various existing
studies of the southwest Lincoln County area, field reconnais-
sance and numerous personal contacts with involved individuals.
A complete listing of references is in the Bibliography.
The EIS process encourages public input into the decision-
making process„ This EIS is prepared in draft form to be
widely circulated for public comment. Announcements in the
local press and a public hearing will be held to solicit
responses„ After a 45-day public comment period, all replies
will be addressed and the EPA decision recommending a grant
fundable project will be published as the Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Following a 30 day comment period on the
Final EIS, the EPA Regional Administrator will announce his
decision concerning a grant award for the district.
-------
Background of Past Events
Problems associated with sewage and inadequate waste dis-
posal were present in southwest Lincoln County some time before
September 1974 when the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District first submitted a facilities plan to the State of
Oregon.
In 1968 the Lincoln County Health Department conducted a
beach survey to determine the extent of sewage disposal
problems on the coastal strip of Lincoln County. In the
course of the 1968 survey, approximately 50 problem sources of
sewage were located and described, eight of which were within
the boundaries of the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District (Oregon State Health Division, 1973).
In April 1970, the Lincoln County Regional Water and
Sewerage Plan was prepared for the County Board of Commissioners.
The purpose of the study was to determine existing conditions
and needs within the county, sufficient to serve as the basis
for a comprehensive sewer and water plan.
At the request of Governor Tom McCall in late 1972, the
Oregon State Health Division and the Department of Environmental
Quality, conducted a review of the water, sewer and septic tank
problems in Lincoln County. The general intent of the study
was to develop a comparison between 1972 sewage conditions and
the situation as it existed in 1968. The survey results indi-
cated a continuation of sewage problems in Lincoln County, and a
compounding of the problem because of additional subdividing
and commercial and residential development along the coast.
The study recommended the formation of sanitation districts,
among those communities having sewage problems, to establish a
means of alleviating sewage disposal problems.
In 1973 several residents of southwest Lincoln County
founded a group to create a sanitary district. Shortly
thereafter, the residents voted and approved the formation of
the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District which
thereafter developed a wastewater facilities plan for the
district.
In January 1974, a comprehensive water, sewerage, and
solid waste management plan was prepared for the Lincoln County
Board of Commissioners. That plan identified a variety of
alternative means of providing sewerage service to the south-
west Lincoln County Area.
By September 1974 the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District had submitted its facilities plan to the Department
of Environmental Quality.
-------
The following is a summary of events from 1974 leading to
this required EIS.
Date
September 1974
June 27, 1975
June 28-July 10, 1975
July 11, 1975
July 11, 1975
July 22, 1975
July 31, 1975
August 21, 1975
September 3, 1975
Event
Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District
(S.W.L.C.S.D.) Facilities Plan submitted to DEQ.
Public Hearing on proposed fiscal year 1976
Priority List. Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District was below the expected
funding level. Lincoln County made a pre-
sentation challenging the low ranking of
the project.
DEQ revised Priority List, resulting in
the elevation of the project to a fundable
level.
Environmental Quality Commission adopted
Revised Priority List, placing the project
within funding range.
EPA's Oregon Operations Office (Project
Engineer) recommended to the EPA
Region 10 office of Seattle that an EIS
be prepared on the project
EPA approved Oregon's fiscal year 1976
Priority List.
EPA completed its environmental review of
Southwest Lincoln County proposed project.
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was
prepared, but delayed at request of
S.W.L.C.S.D.
Letter to Henry F. Baldwin, Jr. (President,
Board of Directors, Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District) from Regional Admini-
strator notifying district of an EIS require-
ment on their proposed project.
Southwest Lincoln County Board requests
further delay of Notice of Intent in order
to appeal EIS decision.
-------
September 4, 1975
September 12, 1975
September 12, 1975
September 25, 1975
September 30, 1975
December 8, 1975
through
January 9, 1976
January 20-22, 1976
January 9
Letter from Environmental Impact Section
to Southwest Lincoln County Board of Commis-
sioners granting extension from September 5
to September 12 before release of Notice of
Intent. Delay was granted to allow time
for S.W.L.C.S.D.
EPA received letter from S.W.L.C.S.D.
requesting additional 3-week delay of
Notice of Intent,
Regional Administrator grants 2- to 3-jweek
delay on Notice of Intent
Meeting with S.W.L.C.S.D. officials. Tour
of district*
EPA's Notice of Intent released.
Headquarters Washington, D.C., awards
contract to Jones & Stokes Associates,
Inc. to assist EPA in preparation of EIS.
Meeting at project area with EPA's consulting
team and Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District Board o
Preparation of preliminary draft EIS.
Important Issues and Considerations
In the course of preparing this EIS, it became clear that
there were several key issues relating to the proposed sewerage
system. These issues became evident after discussions with
involved Lincoln County residents and personnel of various
state and federal agencies having interest in the project.
The issues listed below are to be identified and evaluated
in the Environmental Setting and Environmental Impact sections
of this report. Those issues remaining unresolved and/or of
greater scope than covered in this EIS will be discussed in
Chapter VI - Implementation and Issues to be Resolved. Of
particular importance are the following questions:
1. Present and projected land use and the relationship
of such use to Lincoln County and Oregon State Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)
planning goals, guidelines and regulations.
-------
2. The rate and distribution of future construction on
vacant land that can be tied to the sewerage project
as compared to retention of the present situation.
3. Patterns of land ownership and level of monetary
benefit to be derived by landowners from a sewerage
project.
4. Response of traffic and circulation patterns to growth
in relation to present and planned roads, streets and
highways.
5. The cumulative impact of district growth and activities
on surrounding lands and their relationships to
possible "carrying capacity".
6. Possible interrelationships between district develop-
ment and general tourism.
7„ Possible direct impacts of projects on parks and
public use lands, and the impacts of public use on
residential and commercial uses.
8. General level of hazard to public health and
aesthetics of using septic tanks.
9. The financial impact of capital and operating costs
on present and future residents in the district.
10. The purpose and objectives of doing an EIS.
-------
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physical and Biological Features
Location
The Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District study
area is located along a 7-mile segment of the central Oregon
coast, between the Cities of Yachats and Waldport. Waldport
is approximately 94 miles northwest of Eugene, 85 miles from
Salem and 114 miles from Portland. The area is bounded on the
west by the Pacific Ocean and the east by private land holdings
and the Siuslaw National Forest (Figure 1). Most residential
and commercial development within the district is within a one
quarter to one half mile strip bordering U. S. Highway 101.
The sanitary district encompasses 3,000 acres of land
along a narrow strip varying in width from a maximum of 1-1/2
miles in the north to less than one half mile in the south.
Climate
The central coastal region of Oregon has a maritime
climate, with high humidity and moderate temperatures the entire
years Average annual precipitation in the Newport area is 66
inches; however, it varies substantially along the Coast Range.
Approximately 86 percent of the precipitation falls during the
months of October through April (Figure 2).
Due to the maritime influence, temperatures vary only
slightly between seasons, with a daily average temperature of
58°F in summer and 44°F in winter.
Fog commonly occurs along the coast during the warmer
summer months, particularly during the morning and evening
hours. Winds characteristically blow from the northwest during
the periods of high barometric pressure and from the southwest
during the stormy winter months.
Air Quality
Coastal Lincoln County area has excellent air quality and
ventilation due to the oceanic influence, area topography and
favorable wind conditions. The low population and general lack
of industrial development result in few air quality problems.
-------
WALDPORT
ALSEA BAY.
WACONDA
BEACH
YACHATS
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
SAN MARINE
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
RGURE I. LOCATION OF SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
-------
TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
o
—i 1_
o
8
w — Q
T~
00
~r
oc.
$*t
LM_ED
S3HONI Nl NOIlVildlOBdd
-------
A few monitoring studies have been done on air quality in
Lincoln County; however, the Department of Environmental Quality
is in the process of preparing profiles for each of the air
quality control regions of the state (Johnson, pers. comm.).
Estimates of pollutant emissions in Lincoln County show
the Georgia Pacific plant in Toledo to be the major source of
particulate and sulfur dioxide pollutants in the county
(Table 1). Other major sources include automobiles and trucks,
controlled open burning and forest fires. However, Federal and
State air quality standards have not been exceeded.
Topography and Drainage
The southwest Lincoln study area lies along the coastal
margin of the western flank of the Coast Range. Virtually
all of the sanitary district is located on marine terraces
ranging from 10 to 80 feet above mean sea level. These
terraces form a narrow shelf which gradates eastward to the
more steeply sloped uplands of the Coast Range.
The study area is bisected with numerous small coastal
streams originating in the coastal mountains and flowing west-
ward to the Pacific Ocean. Those creeks include Patterson,
Little, Reynolds, Big, Vingie, Starr, Michell, and Agency
Creeks and Dicks Fork. Virtually all of these creeks could
represent flood threats during periods of heavy rain? however.
Big Creek (drainage area 2.7 square miles) represents the only
creek in the study area having substantial flood hazard (State
of Oregon, 1973). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not
conducted any flood hazard studies in the area to date (Akre,
pers. comm..) .
Edaphic Features
According to the U. S. Soil Conservation Service study (1972)
conducted in Lincoln County, much of the southwest Lincoln study
area is underlain by three major soil associations — Nelscott-
Depoe Association, Ferrelo-Lint Association and Netarts-Yaquina
Association, However, the area is covered predominantly by the
Nelscott-Depoe Association (Figure 3). The pattern of distri-
bution of the soil association is strongly influenced by parent
material and physiographic location.
Virtually all of the soils making up the three major
associations have severe restrictive features for septic tank
absorption field use (Table 2). These restrictions are due to
high water table, cemented sands restricting permeability, or
rapid percolation and potential for groundwater contamination.
10
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY ESTIMATES OF EMISSIONS IN LINCOLN COUNTY
Tons/Year Pollutant Emissions
Source Particulates Sulfur Dioxide'
Georgia Pacific - Toledo 2,000 389
Motorized vehicles
Light duty 149 36
Heavy duty 21 30
Slash burning 374
Forest fires 64
Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Johnson, pers.
comm.
11
-------
WALDPORT
ALSEA BAY.
WACONDA
BEACH
YACHATS
SAN MARINE
LEGEND
AREAS DOMINATED BY WELL TO POORLY DRAINED SOILS OF THE
NEARLY LEVEL TO STEEP COASTAL TERRACES AND DUNES:
2. Nelscott'-Depoc* association
3. Ferrelo*-Lint* association
4. Netarts-Yaquina association
• •Southfcest Lincoln County Sanitary District boundaries
IMs map is intended for general planning. Each
delineation rwy contain soils different ^mn those
shown en the map. Use detailed soil mnps for opera-
tional planning, and on-site inspection for mre
detailed decisions.
* Tentative name subject to change in correlation.
Source: U. S. Soil Conservation Service, 1972.
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE 3. SOIL ASSOCIATIONS PRESENT IN SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY
SANITARY DISTRICT
12
-------
Table 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL ASSOCIATIONS OF THE STUDY AREA
* 2 Nelscott-Depoe Association
Nelscott Soils - Deep loam over clay loam, soils formed on
water deposited or stabilized dune material. These soils
occur on marine terraces above the ocean beaches. Perme-
ability is moderately slow. There is a severe limitation
in septic tank and absorption field use of the soil because
of the moderately slow permeability.
Depoe Soils - Poorly drained clay loam soils formed in
water deposited materials. The soil has 0 to 3 percent
slopes and a slightly concave position on marine terraces.
Subsoil layers contain alternating layers of clay loam and
hard cemented iron pans. Permeability is slow and there
are severe limitations for dwellings, septic tanks and
absorption fields and numerous other uses. Water table is
seasonally high — from 4 to 12 inches below the surface.
3 Ferrelo-Lint Association
Ferrelo Soils - This loamy soil phase is generally found on
5 to 30 percent slopes. There are generally severe restric-
tions for septic fields, sewage lagoons and moderate limi-
tations for building construction. The soix is found on
marine terrace deposits.
Lint Soils - This soil phase is a silty clay loam usually
found on 3 to 25 percent slopes in the study area. There
are moderate limitations for building sites and severe
restrictions for septic fields and sewage lagoons because
of contamination to groundwater.
4 Netarts-Yaquina Association
Netarts Soils - Well drained soils formed on old stabilized
sand dunes.Slopes are 7 to 30 percent. The surface layer
is fine sandy loam and the subsoil is fine sand about
40 inches thick. Permeability is moderately rapid. There
is a slight to severe limitation of use of this soil for
septic tanks, absorption fields and sewage lagoons due to
the rapid percolation and potential for pollution of
groundwater. Depth to water table usually greater than
6 feet.
Yaquina Soils - This soil series is poorly drained and
formed on an interdune position and old stabilized dunes.
Slopes are 0 to 3 percent. Permeability is moderately
rapid. Elevation is 10 to 50 feet. Water table is
seasonally high (November through April) and at the surface
or to 2 feet below it. There are severe limitations to
septic tank, absorption field and dwelling use,
* Represents major soil association within the study area.
13
-------
High water tables and poor drainage are common throughout
the area since most of the soils are old dune sand, overlying
marine terrace deposits and are at low elevation (less than 80
feet above sea level).
"Septic tanks are often ineffective, and without proper
storm drainage and sewer installations even low-density
development is impractical. When terrace soils become
permeated by solutions containing soaps, detergents, water
softeners and other substances found in septic tank effluent,
oxidation ponds, sanitary landfills, or other waste dis-
posal facilities, the result is an increased soil sensitivity
and reduction of strength" (State of Oregon, 1973).
However, there are locations where septic tank disposal systems
may be used efficiently, but these locations must be determined
by case study.
Geology
The geologic composition of the southwest Lincoln study
area is relatively uniform. Virtually the entire area consists
of Quaternary marine terrace deposits and old dune sands.
Marine terrace deposits are "predominantly massive, fine- to
medium-grained, friable sandstone of beach origin" (State of
Oregon, 1973). Most of the terrace deposits are 20 feet or
less in depth in the Waldport area, with surface elevations
from sea level to 80 feet. The semiconsolidated and old
stabilized dunes overlying these marine terraces deposits range
in thickness from a few feet to more than 20 feet.
Small portions of the study area near Big Creek are uncon-
solidated surficial deposits -- both floodplain alluvium (Qal)
and beach sand and primary dunes (S) (Figure 3). The flood-
plain alluvium is a mixture of sand, silt, clay and organic
matter, underlain by gravel. Lower floodplain areas around
Big Creek are of sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay
composition. The thickness of the deposits ranges from 10 to
40 feet.
The beach sand and primary dunes are unconsolidated and
susceptible to wave and wind erosion. These dune deposits
occur west of Highway 101 and south of Big Creek State Park.
Areas of Alsea siltstone (Toa) are scattered throughout
the study area. This geologic unit is predominant to the east
of the marine terrace deposits.
14
-------
Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazards in the study area consist of coastal
erosion of marine terraces and sand areas, fault zones, high
groundwater tables, flooding, and landslides and slumping.
Erosion. Erosion of marine terraces, sediments, sand
spits" and dune areas is a critical concern along all of the
coastal portion of the study area. The State of Oregon (1973)
in its report entitled the Environmental Geology of Lincoln
County, Oregon, identified the entire coastal reglcm of sand
dunes and marine terraces from Waldport to Yachats as having
critical erosion potential. Changes in the profile of the
shore occur constantly as a combination of natural forces act
to erode and deposit sand and sediments. In general, the
terrace margins are retreating at the rate of one foot per
year due to wave erosion and sloughing of sand on steep cuts
(State of Oregon, 1973). Human alterations of the beachline
greatly affect these natural erosions sometimes in an unpre-
dictable manner.
Earthquake faults. The southwest Lincoln study area is
intersected by six concealed earthquake faults, all trending in
a northwest or northeast direction. Each fault is concealed in
the semiconsolidated dune sands on the marine terrace deposits
indicating that fault movement is at least 0.5 million years
old. Figure 4 shows the estimated locations of those faults.
Historical earthquake data show that seven seismic events have
occurred in Lincoln County since 1897 (Table 3). All were of
a III or IV Mercalli intensity (approximately 3.5 to 4 on the
Richter scale). During an earthquake event, ground motion is
generally magnified in areas of unconsolidated or semiconsoli-
dated deposits. Saturated lowland soils may result in landslides
and liquefaction.
High groundwater. High groundwater tables underlie
virtually The entire study area. Such a condition is due to
the thin layers of cemented sands in the marine terraces which
restrict the downward percolation of water. The problem of
high groundwater in the area from Yachats to Waldport appears
due to a downwarping, hillside seepage and saturated soils from
high rainfall.
Flooding. Flooding can be caused by heavy rainfall,
melting snow, high ocean tides and strong winds and a number of
other factors. Stream flooding is a potential hazard along
virtually all streams in the study area and particularly along
Big Creek — the largest stream within the study area. Flood
damage from high tides and/or storms is possible along the
entire coast of the study area (State of Oregon, 1973). Such
an event occurred during December 1967 when the entire Lincoln
County coastline was battered by high storm waves.
15
-------
YACHATS
I—WACOND
BEACH
LEGEND
•• Fault (Dotted where concealed)
Flood area
X\\V High ground-water table
Coastal Erosion:
• • • • Erosion of thin marine terraces
over basalt
. Critical erosion of marine terraces
and sediments
Critical erosion of sand spits and
dune areas
Data from: State of Oregon (1973)
CALE IN MILES
NORTH
16
FIGURE 4. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS OF THE STUDY AREA
-------
Table 3
RECORDED EARTHQUAKES IN THE LINCOLN COUNTY AREA
Intensity
Year
1897
1902
1916
1928
1940
1941
1957
Date
January 26
June 14
January 4
September 4
May 25
October 19
March 22
Location
Newport
Newport
Newport
Newport
(44.7° N-124.1°W)
Waldport
Seal Rock
Alsea
(Modified Mercalli)
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
III
Remarks
Felt for radius
of 10 miles
Felt at Toledo and
Depoe Bay; small
objects were moved
at Waldport
Source: State of Oregon, 1973.
-------
Landslides and slumping. The hazard of landslides and
land slumping is generally slight within the study area.
Areas of hazard occur just to the north of Alsea Bay in the
upper Buckley Creek watershed and in slope areas greater
than 50 percent.
The hazard of landslides along the shoreline is slight
since most of the shoreline of the study area consists of
low terrace deposits. The erosion hazard is generally high,
however.
Biotic Resources
The coastal location of the study area provides for a
variety of habitats and biotic life forms. The biotic resources
consist of three major groups — marine, freshwater and
terrestrial. Each has its own characteristic flora and fauna.
Mar ine env ironment. Marine life occurs along the entire
beach shoreline of the study area and in Alsea Bay to the north
of Waldport. By far the most abundant marine habitat within
the study area is the open-coast sandy beach which extends from
Waldport to just north of Yachats. Sandy beaches are sparsely
populated in comparison with rocky shores and mudflats of
estuaries and bays. Appendix A-3 lists the life forms most
commonly found in the marine environment — in the bays, on the
beaches and immediately offshore. The marine environment repre-
sents an important economic feature of the central Oregon coast.
Freshwater environment. A majority of the streams within
the study area originate in the nearby coastal mountains and
enter directly into the Pacific Ocean. As a result, most
streams support anadromous fish populations and few resident
species. Small coastal ponds and marshes are scattered through-
out the district. Appendix A-4 lists those fish species most
common to the streams of the study area.
Terrestrial environment. The flora of coastal south-
west Lincoln County is characterized by vegetative forms
varying from the prostrate pioneering sand binders (such as Poa
macrantha and Festuca rubra) to the later successional species
such as beach pine (Pinus contorta), Sitka spruce (Picea
sitchensis) and red cedar (Thuja plicata). The beach pine is
the most common vegetative species of1 the stabilized sand dune
and strand communities.
Appendix A-l identifies the more common vegetation of the
study area, while Figure 5 and Table 4 show the present
vegetative cover types of the study area.
18
-------
WALDPORT
WACONDA
BEACH
LEGEND
R Residential or Commercial
SM Salt Marsh
B Barren
W Water
SB Sandy Beach
RC Rocky Coast
D Sand Dunes
P Park
G Grasslands
BP Beach Pine
SS Sitka Spruce
S Scrub
BP/SS Beach Pine/Sltka Spruce
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
AIRPORT
FIGURE 5 VEGETION AND LAND USE-SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY
SANITARY DISTRICT (SECTIONI)
1 Q
-------
SB
BP
M
SS
SAN MARINE
SB
BP/£
BP/SS
LEGEND
M Fresh Water Marsh
R Residential or Commercial
SM Salt Marsh
B Barren
W Water
SB Sandy Beach
RC Rocky Coast
0 Sand Dunes
P Park
6 Grasslands
BP Beech Pine
SS Sitka Spruce
S Scrub
BP/SS Beach Pine/Sitka Spruce
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
RC>
YACHATS
FIGURE 5 VEGETATION AND LAND USE-SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY
SANITARY DISTRICT(SECTION2)
20
-------
Table 4
VEGETATION AND LAND USE - SOUTHWEST
LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
Approximate
Land Use or Vegetative Type
Residential
Beach Pine and Sitka Spruce
Sandy Beach
Rocky Coast
Parks*
Total Acreage
Acres
1,286
1,441
352
17
43
3,139
Percent
41
46
11
1
1
100
* Represents only developed areas - natural vegetation on
parklands is included in other categories.
21
-------
A wide variety of wildlife species are associated with the
coastal dune and strand communities. Common birds, reptiles,
amphibians and mammals arc identified in Appendix A-2.
The black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemiones Columbians) is
the most common of the big game mammals in southwest Lincoln
County. Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis), black bear (Ursus
americanus) and mountain lion (Felis concolor) occur in the
more remote portions of Lincoln County.
Band-tailed pigeon (Columba fasciata), mountain quail
(Oreortyx picta) and blue grouse (Dendra'g'apus obscurus) are
found in varying numbers throughout the region. The band-
tailed pigeon is the most common game bird and nests in the
coastal Sitka spruce zone (Smith and Lauman, 1972) .
Rare and endangered wildlife. Nine species of wildlife
identified by the U. S. Department of Interior (1973) and
the Oregon State Game Commission (1973) as rare, endangered
or possibly threatened with extinction could occur within
the project area. Those animals are listed in Table 5.
Among the nine species, the white-footed vole, northern
spotted owl and flammulated owl are likely to be found in the
study area. The other listed species could occur in the study
area for at least part of the year. One amphibian - the
tailed frog (Ascaphus truei), is deemed a rare species in part
of its range (WaiIowa Mountains), yet is a common species
within the study area (Storm, pers. comm.).
Aesthetic Values
Much of the ocean, beach and forest lands surrounding the
sanitary district are in their natural status, thus providing
a scenic environment encompassing exposed rocky coast, sandy
beaches, coastal sand dunes, shore pine vegetation and spruce-
cedar forests on the higher inland slopes.
Alsea Bay directly to the north of the study area provides
additional natural scenic values. Although the coastal region
often has periods of rain, clouds and fog, the area is nonethe-
less highly attractive to tourists and seasonal residents.
When traveling Highway 101 from Yachats to Waldport, the
landscape is dominated by beach pine vegetation and scattered
residential-commercial development. Many structures throughout
the district are in a state of disrepair and probably detract
22
-------
Table 5
RARE, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED VERTEBRATE SPECIES WHOSE
DISTRIBUTION INCLUDES THE SOUTHWEST LINCOLN STUDY AREA
Present Status1
Common Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
FR T
State2
R E
Fisher
White-footed vole
Brown pelican
Northern bald eagle
MAMMALS
Martes pennanti
Phenacomys (Arborimus)
albipes
BIRDS
Pelecanus occidentals
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
alascans
Aleutian Canada goose Branta canadensis
leucopareia
Falco peregnnus
Strix occidentalis
Peregrine falcon
Northern spotted owl
Flammulated owl
Western snowy plover
caurina
Otus flammeolus
Charadrius alelcahdrinus
nivosus
x
x
x
SU x
x
x
X
SU
AMPHIBIANS
Tailed frog
Ascaphus truei*
Status
FR Federal Register - Species is on the official endangered
species list, Federal Register, June 4, 1973.
T Those species identified by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States.
SU Status Undetermined - A status undetermined species or
subspecies is one that has been suggested as possibly
threatened with extinction, but about which there is not
enough information to determine its status. More infor-
mation is needed.
R Rare
E Endangered
2 State of Oregon - Information from the Oregon State Game Commission
Bulletin, January 1973, Vol. 29, No. 1.
* Tailed frog population not considered rare within study area
(Storm, pers. comm.).
23
-------
from the scenic beauty. However, the aesthetic qualities of
the area attract large numbers of summer residents and
vacationers. The beauty of the coastline and associated
recreational facilities represent positive aesthetic values in
the Yachats/Waldport area.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Surface water. Surface water resources are plentiful
within the study area. Nine streams originating in the coastal
mountains flow through the study area to the ocean. The Alsea
and Yachats River represent major surface water sources to the
north and south of the study area. The Alsea River, with a
watershed covering 743 square miles (234 square miles in Lincoln
County), is one of the largest river systems in Lincoln County.
The Yachats River has a watershed of approximately 61 square
miles (Clark and Groff Engineers, Inc., 1970).
With the abundant rainfall and runoff in Lincoln County,
surface water supply is maintained in most streams throughout
the entire year.
The water quality of most surface streams is generally
good. The water quality standards for surface waters of the
State of Oregon are located in Appendix C-l.
Groundwater. Virtually all of the southwest Lincoln
County study area between Waldport and Yachats has been identi-
fied as an area having a high groundwater table. Much of the
problem with high groundwater in the area is due to perched
water tables created by impermeable soils and lateral and down-
slope movement of water from upland areas.
The marine terrace area (Qmt) and some dune areas (S)
offer the greatest potential for providing large quantities
of water for domestic purposes. Existing wells in marine
terrace deposits have the highest average yield (19 gallons
per minute) of any of the geologic formations in Lincoln
County.
Contamination from septic tanks and leach fields constitutes
the major problem associated with use of dune and marine terrace
groundwater resources for domestic supply.
The quality of groundwater in areas free of contamination
is usually good and suitable for most purposes. Some wells in
dune or marine terrace deposits have iron and manganese content
in excess of 0.3 ppm (parts per million).
24
-------
Water use and supply. The Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District boundaries are essentially the same as the
coundaies for the Southwest Lincoln County Water District.
Existing water facilities consist of two diversion dams on Big
Creek and Starr Creek. The combined low summer flows of the
two sources range between 0.6 and 1.1 million gallons per day.
A 200,000 gallon storage tank is located at the north end of
the district near Waldport.
According to a Lincoln County Regional Water and Sewerage
plan prepared by Clark & Groff Engineers, Inc. (1970), the
present system at a maximum daily demand of 300 gallons per
capita per day would be sufficient to support a population of
2,000. The use of 300 gallons of water per capita per day
(gpcd) appears unnecessarily high as the national average rate
of consumption is estimated to be 150 gpcd. According to
Robert E. Meyer Engineers, Inc. (1974), the annual average rate
of water consumption in the Southwest Lincoln County Sani-
tary District is 150 gpcd. At such an average rate of con-
sumption, the existing water system would be sufficient to
support a population of 4,000.
The water district has considered Vingie Creek as a future
source of water. It has water rights for 0.3 cubic feet per
second (0.19 mgd) of flow. It is projected that an additional
320,000 gallons of reservoir storage will be needed in the
district to meet 1990 population needs. The combined water
supply from the three creeks would supply a summer population
of 3,000 people. The quantity of water available to the dis-
trict is sufficient to meet the needs of all projected growth
in the area, assuming that storage and transfer facilities are
constructed as necessary.
The physical and chemical water quality standards and
recommendations of the Public Health Service and the Oregon
Board of Health appear in Appendix C-2.
Existing Sewage Disposal Conditions
Septic tanks with subsurface leach fields are the major
means of treating and disposing of sewage in the Southwest
Lincoln County Sanitary District. Virtually all residences
and commercial buildings have horizontal leachfields or
vertical seepage pit disposal systems, although seepage pits
are no longer allowable under Department of Environmental
Quality requirements. The Camp Angell Job Corps Center and
25
-------
Tillicum Beach maintain a small (0.02 mgd capacity) sewage
treatment plant which discharges secondary treated waste-
water to Big Creek.
Portions of coastal Lincoln County have sewage disposal
problems. During 1968 and again in 1972, these problems
along county beaches were surveyed by the Lincoln County
Sanitation Department, the Oregon State Health Division and
the Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon State Health
Division, 1973). In southwest Lincoln County, eight problem
sources of sewage were conclusively identified during the
1972 survey. Tests on eight other dwellings were inconclusive
and two dwellings were found to have satisfactory disposal
systems. Those problem sources appeared clustered in two
major areas — from Yaquina John Point south to Waconda Beach
and at San Marine.
Soil conditions within Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District greatly influence the performance of septic tank
systems. The sedimentary substratum is often overlain by
layers of impervious sandstone, blue clays or silt which
appear as alternating bands. These impervious layers cause
water to accumulate and form a perched water table which
typically flows laterally westward, breaking to the surface
on cliffs, cut banks and beaches. Under Lincoln County regu-
lations, septic systems cannot be installed wherever the depth
to this perched water table is less than two feet from the
surface during any season of the year.
The problems of impervious soils and high groundwater
are compounded by the fact that many dwellings are located in
dense clusters and on small lots (sometimes as small as 3,750
square feet). Such small lots are of inadequate size to support
a septic tank, leachfield plus full replacement area in case
the existing septic system fails. While many homes in the past
were constructed on small lots, in the future (after July 1,
1976) septic system approvals must be based on a minimum lot
size of 7,500 square feet. It is quite possible that 7,500
square feet may not be adequate for proper sewage disposal,
and that a lot size on the order of 15,000 square feet would be
more suitable (Oregon State Health Division, 1973; Dobey, pers.
comm.; Osborne, pers. comm.). According to the subdivision
evaluation in the Oregon State Health Division report (1973),
"on all lots examined the biggest limiting factor for the proper
installation of a subsurface sewage disposal system is the lot
size. The average size of the 1,005 lots examined was approxi-
mately 85 by 100 feet. Even in ideal situations, it is impossible
to place a house, driveway, garage and septic tank drainfield
with full repair area on this sized lot". Even with larger lot
sizes, approval of a septic system may not be possible if the
groundwater is too close to the surface, the slope is great
or percolation is inadequate. Septic systems on large lots
have been disapproved in the past in southwest Lincoln County
(Lincoln County Health Department, individual site evaluations
for subsurface sewage, 1971-1974).
26
-------
The presence of a possible health hazard in southwest
Lincoln County has been documented in the 1968 and 1972
beach surveys and during a 1974 Department of Environmental
Quality field survey in the Yaquina John Point area. Those
septic systems found in violation during the 1972 survey have
been for the most part corrected by pumping out the septic
wastes and/or relocating seepage pits or adequate leachfields.
However, because of the inherent soils and groundwater problems,
most corrections have been considered as "stop-gap" measures
(Dobey, pers<; comm.; Osborne, pers. comm.).
In March 1975 the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality prepared an Area Review Report - Waldport to Yachats.
This report reviewed past surveys done in southwest Lincoln
County and summarized the documented septic system problems
and possible health hazards in the area. Examples of sewage
problems from the report are as follows:
"1. Beachside State Park has had problems continually.
Systems have failed in the past and 12 dry wells
were installed in 19'72 and these failed within
two weeks.
"2. The Special Services Division conducted a house-
to-house survey in July 1974 on Seabrook Lane and
found many sewage system failures. One man inter-
viewed said that 'most of the septic tanks run into
the streams mostly through springs which erupt along
the canyon...'.
"3. Twenty unit trailer park at Yaquina John Point has
had sewage in ditches.
"4. Wakonda Beach - Center Street - some sewage problems
but low use homes.
"5. Big Creek area - homes south of Big Creek have
failed because of high water table sewage.
"6. Failures have occurred at Sea Shore Cottages."
(Department of Environmental Quality, 1975)
Although most of the documented septic system failures
and problems in southwest Lincoln County have been in the area
west of Highway 101, septic system denials have been spread
throughout the district, indicating that the problem of high
groundwater and impermeable soils is general to the study area
rather than of a localized nature. This is verified by
Figure 4, Geologic Hazards of the Study Area.
27
-------
In all likelihood, high groundwater in some parts of the
southwest Lincoln County study area is in contact with sewage
effluent from septic systems. During the rainy winter months
and in very wet years, sewage and groundwater contact probably
becomes more prevalent. Since a majority of the residences
of the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District are on a
district water supply, the documentation of well contamination
is nonexistent (Dobey, pers. comm.).
Archeological - Historical
Cultural background. When the first Europeans arrived
on the Oregon coast, two groups of people, the Alsea and the
Yaquina, occupied the coast between the present Towns of
Newport and Yachats. Historically the Yaquina were restricted
to Yaquina Bay and the lower 30 miles of the Yaquina River
(Dorsey, 1890). The majority of known Alsea sites were situated
on Alsea Bay and the Alsea River. Unlike the Yaquina/ several
coastal sites were reported for the Alsea. The northernment
village, Ku-tau-wa, was situated at Seal Rock. The southern-
most village, Ya-qai-yak, underlies the modern Town of Yachats
(Dorsey, 1890) .
The Yaquina and Alsea were linguistically classified as
Penutian-speaking people (Schaeffer, 1959) and, along with the
Siuslaw, further subdivided into the Yakonan stock (Swanton,
1952). Dorsey (1890) noted that the Yaquina and the Alsea
spoke the same dialect but could be "distinguished by a few
provincialisms". Lacking any other distinction, the Yaquina
are often lumped with the Alsea and discussed as a single group
(Beckham, 1973) .
Mooney (1928) estimated the pre-contact (1780) Alsea,
Yaquina, and Siuslaw population to be around 6,000 individuals.
The 1910 census lists 29 Alsea and 19 Yaquina (Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1915). By 1930 only nine Alsea
remained (Swanton, 1952). Numerous diseases introduced by
Europeans were responsible for most of the population decline.
Displacement of native groups by Euro-Americans and the resultant
increased pressure on limited natural resources accelerated the
rate of decline.
With the establishment of the reservation system in 1856,
the Yaquina-Alsea were placed under the jurisdiction of the
Alsea subagency. Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Alsea populations
were concentrated in several villages, the largest at Yachats,
and encouraged to become agriculturalists. Most attempts at
agriculture failed.
The Alsea subagency was opened for Euro-American settlement
in 1876. Those Yaquina-Alsea who had not already done so were
moved to the Siletz or Grande Ronde reservations (Beckham, 1973).
28
-------
Our knowledge of the native cultures of the central Oregon
coast is tragically deficient. The more affluent and colorful
peoples to the north and south monopolized the interest of
earlv coastal observers. The coastal peoples of Oregon, re-
moved from the main line of communication, were viewed as "an
eddy in the swirling current of North Pacific culture"
(Drucker, 1939). When the deficiency was recognized, it was
too late. All that remained were a few scattered elderly
individuals, several generations removed from a now extinct
cultural system. From these informant's vague images were re-
surrected of several lesser-known coastal cultures, included
among them the Alsea (Drucker, 1939). Unless otherwise cited,
the following brief outline of Alsea culture was gleaned from
Drucker"s 1939 monograph.
The Alsea (including the Yaquina) had developed an
adaptive strategy designed to exploit four generalized habitat
types: (1) intertidal zones; (2) estuaries; (3) coastal streams;
and (4) upland meadows. East-west flowing river systems bound
these exploitative zones together. The importance of the river
systems in Alsea-Yaquina sites were located on the Yaquina River
or the estuary near its mouth. Seventeen of 20 Alsea sites were
similarly located on the other Alsea River system (Dorsey, 1890).
The river systems supplied the Alsea-Yaquina with their
primary resource, salmon. From midsummer to late fall the
rivers were choked with runs of chinook, silver and dog salmon.
Salmon were netted, speared, or caught in weirs. Some meat
was eaten fresh, but most was dried or smoked and stored for
winter consumption. Other economically important fish included
smelt, herring, flounder, perch, and lamprey eels. Fishing was
confined to rivers, estuaries, and intertidal pools. The Alsea
were not known to have fished offshore.
Land mammals were rarely exploited. Deer were taken in
the summer and elk in the fall. Fur-bearing mammals, such as
beaver and sea otter, were frequently killed. Very little
information exists on how these mammals were procured.
The only consistently hunted sea mammals were seals and
sea lions which were clubbed or harpooned on offshore rocks.
Sea mammals were not pursued on the open ocean. Whaling was
not practiced although, beached whales were utilized.
Birds were occasionally exploited. Quail, grouse, sea
gulls, and various waterfowl were the most actively pursued.
While the above resources were collected by males, females
added molluscs, tide-pool species of plants and animals, roots,
berries, and other vegetable foods to the diet. One of the more
important root crops was camas collected in upland meadows.
Acorns were also commonly collected in the uplands.
29
-------
Permanent winter villages were usually established in a
protected location near the forest-littoral ecotone and salt-
freshwater ecotone. These criteria generally fit only one
habitat, an estuary.
Winter dwellings were large, rectangular, semisubterranean
plank houses with gabled roofs and vertical plank walls.
Smaller rectangular, gabled roof structures were erected at
temporary summer camps. The covering was grass thatch instead
of planks.
Transportation was by foot or canoe. Three kinds of
canoes were employed historically. Ocean-going Nootka canoes
were highly prized and occasionally purchased from northern
groups. A similar but smaller Chinookan canoe was manufactured
locally, and a shovel-nosed river canoe was also of local
origin. The lack of locally manufactured ocean-going canoes
emphasizes the relative unimportance of the open ocean in Alsea-
Yaquina culture.
The Alsea-Yaquina were patrilineal and patrilocal. They
did not have a ranked, hereditary social system. A man rose
to prominence by accumulating wealth and gained prestige by
distributing his wealth. The wealthiest man in a village was
generally the headman, but several lineage heads could jointly
assume this role. Villages were politically autonomous. The
only bonds between villages were kinship and a shared language.
Polygamy was allowed although rarely practiced. Slaves were
often purchased, but slave raids were not undertaken.
Archeological background. Since 1951 three systematic
surveys and one major excavation have occurred on the Oregon
coast between Newport and Yachats. The pioneering survey was
accomplished by Lloyd Collins in 1951. He recorded three
sites within the confines of the proposed impact area. These
sites were 35LNC14, 35LNC15, and 35LNC16 (site files, Museum
of Natural History, University of Oregon).
In 1968 Wilbur Davis identified 78 sites along the central
Oregon coast. Only one new site, at the mouth of Deer Creek,
was added to the inventory in our study area (field notes on
file, Oregon State University). Many of these sites have yet
to be recorded on the state inventory.
Extensive excavation of the Seal Rock midden (35LNC14)
was begun by Oregon State University under the direction of
Richard Ross in 1972. A second field season at the same site
was completed in 1974. Analysis of the Seal Rock data is still
in progress.
30
-------
The Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department, Oregon
State Highway Division, authorized an archeological survey of
state parks along the coast beginning in 1975. The survey is
being accomplished by Oregon State University under the direc-
tion of Richard Ross. Although sites have been found between
Newport and Yachats, they are well beyond the impact area for
the sewage lines (field notes on file, Oregon State University)
Federal and state inventory of historic sites. According
to the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places (February, 19, 1976), only one site is listed
in Lincoln County — the old Yaquina Bay lighthouse, Yaquina
Bay State Park.
The Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites maintained at
the Historic Preservation Office, Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment, Oregon State Highway Division, lists two historic prop-
erties within the impact area which may be eligible for in-
clusion in the National Register — the Oregon Coast Highway
and the Seal Rock midden.
Socio-Economic Features
Population
Existing conditions. The Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District population fits into three distinct analytical cate-
gories: (1) permanent year-round residents; (2) vacation summer
home occupants; and (3) transient tourist population. Both the
vacation and transient population components have contributed
most to recent population increases, while the permanent
component has increased very slowly and, in various surrounding
cities, actually declined between the last two census periods.
During the period between 1960 and 1970, Lincoln County
population increased much more slowly than the State of Oregon,
while the population in Waldport City, north of the district
increased only slightly faster than the County of Lincoln.
These data are presented in Table 6a.
The median age of residents of Lincoln County in 1970
was 38 years, while the median for the Waldport Statistical
Division was 42.7 years. This indicates a greater concentra-
tion of retirement age residents in the project area. Lincoln
County as a whole contains the largest concentration of retired
persons among all Oregon counties. In 1970, 18.7% of its total
population were age 65 or older.
31
-------
Table 6a
REGIONAL POPULATION - 1970 AND 1960
1970
1960
% Chg
Waldport City
Lincoln County
Oregon
700 667
25,755 24,635
2,091,385 1,768,687
4.9
4.5
18.2
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census.
U)
N)
Table 6b
EXISTING AND PROJECTED NONTRANSIENT POPULATION
Year-Round
Part-Time
Total
Persons
Housing
Units
Persons
Housing
Units
Persons
Housing
Units
Present (1975)
population
Historical
annual
absorption
Projected
815
340
1,225
510
14
2,040
850
23
1985
1995
2025
1,030
1,260
1,920
430
520
790
1,560
1,885
2,880
650
790
1,210
2,590
3,145
4,800
1,080
1,310
2,000
Sources: Present housing unit count from Southwest Lincoln Water District
(Campbell); the district has about 900 current users of which 50 are non-
residential. Present population from County Sewerage and Solid Waste
Management Study via Robert E. Meyers. The total estimate was about 2,700,
-------
Permanent residents. The lack of a stable employment and
economic base has inhibited the formation and growth of a
population base in the typical labor force participation age
range. The approximate permanent population in the District
based on Lincoln County Water, Sewerage and Solid Waste
Management population studies and EPA surveys, is currently
over 816 persons.
The rate of population growth, 4.9% from 1960 to 1970, as
indicated in Table 6a, may be considered an accurate reflection
of the population growth in the study area, but a more impor-
tant aspect of the district's population characteristics is the
age distribution mentioned above. During the early 1960's,
several small wood-processing and logging operations in the
area ceased operations, adversely affecting the employment
possibilities for local residents. A concentration of timber-
related industry formed in and around the City of Toledo,
approximately 35 miles to the northeast. Hence, an out-
migration of permanent resident labor force participants,
coupled with an in-migration of permanent retired residents,
has tended to result in a nearly stable population level.
Although growth in numbers of permanent residents has been very
slow, the age composition of the population has been changing.
Vacation summer home occupants. In 1970, 12,521 housing
units existed in Lincoln County, of which 3,014 were vacant yet
not for sale; 94%, or 2,386 of these units, were located along
the coastal strip of Lincoln County from Lincoln City to
Yachats. The actual number of these coastal units located
within the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District has not
been accurately tabulated.
Using Southwest Lincoln County Water District connections
of approximately 850 residential service units, and assuming
a persons-per-unit factor of 2.4, a district population esti-
mate of 2,040 persons is obtained. A survey of subdivisions
within the district indicated a housing ownership pattern of
approximately 40 percent permanent residents and 60 percent
seasonal residents. Assuming a 60 percent seasonal occupancy
of structures served by the water district, a seasonal popu-
lation of 1,224 persons is estimated. This added to the 8.6
estimated permanent residents yields a total of 2,040 non-
transient residents (i.e., permanents plus part-time residents).
Transient Population. The firm of Robert E. Meyer Engi-
neers, Inc., estimated the current peak Southwest Lincoln
County population at 2,700 persons, 660 of which are designated
tourist. A tourist is generally one who stays overnight in
the project area in other than a permanent or seasonal residence.
33
-------
The tourist industry is very widely discussed and little
understood; no attempt was made to arrive at an alternative
projection. Extensive data were reviewed on the use of area
tourist facilities such as motels, state parks and campsites.
It appears that steady increases in tourist traffic are
occurring especially during the peak season and that esti-
mates of 660 tourists may be too low. Tourist estimates for
future years (HGE, January 1974) would be 760 in 1980, 914
in 1990 and 1,063 in 2000.
Population project-ions. Some units in the Southwest
Lincoln County Sanitary District appear to pre-date 1920,
the year in which the district's first six subdivision recordings
took place. By using an estimate of 850 housing units within
the district, it appears that the annual absorption of housing
units has been around 23 since 1920. Between 1920 and 1959,
only three additional subdivision maps were filed; the bulk
of subdividing has taken place since 1960. Construction activity
in the district appears to have been more active from the 1950's
to the present than at any time since the 1920's. Records on
building permits go back only to 1972. However, field inspec-
tions, independent estimates of buildout by subdivision
and of recent and current second-home ownership in Lincoln County
suggest that a range of 20-24 units/year is appropriate for pro-
jection purposes. In Table 6b, an annual increase of 23 housing
units is applied to the estimate of the current housing stock
to result in projection of future housing in 1985, 1995 and 2024
(10, 20 and 50 year projections). These have been broken down
into two components, year-round and part-time, to reflect the
addresses of the present owners of existing units (about 60
percent out-of-town and 40 percent local owners, based on a
sample compiled by GG+A).
The population increases implied by the figures presented
in Table 6b represent a more rapid rate of growth than has been
experienced by Waldport recently (Table 6a). This would not be
unexpected, since there is more vacant land available in the
more open and rural areas outside the towns.
The population projections presented in Table 6b corre-
spond closely to those provided by HGE Engineers and Planners
in Volume 1 of the Lincoln County Comprehensive Water, Sewerage
and Solid Waste Management Plan. HGE projects a 1995 peak popu-
lation of 4,118 which includes transients who would amount to
about 24 percent of the total peak season population. Deducting
24 percent from the 1995 total estimate of 4,118 for the
district leaves 3,130 year-round and part-time residents as the
1995 HGE estimate, as compared with the projection of 3,145
presented in Table 6b based on historic absorption of 20-25
housing units per year.
34
-------
The projections in Table 6b are somewhat lower than those
presented in the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District
Sewerage Study (Meyer, 1974). The peak population in 1995
would bo 4,300 compared wJ th 3,145 in Table 6b, while by 202rj
the difference would be 6,000 (Moyer, 1974) vs. 4,800 (Table fib).
The Meyer report takes into consideration what the project
engineer believes to be the stimulating effect of provision of
sewerage in the area on growth, while the figures in Table 6b
represent simply a continuation of existing trends. Table 6b
figures also assume a household size of 2.4 (from 2,040 year-
round plus part-time residents divided by 850 housing units)
which is slightly lower than Meyer's 2.5 persons-per-household
(drawn from census data reflecting only the permanent population)
In evaluating the projections, the reader should keep in
mind the distinction between a projection and a forecast. A
projection is an extrapolation into the future of existing
trends. A forecast involves the application of additional
information and judgment to adjust a projection with a view
toward making it more accurate.
The figures presented in Table 6b have not been adjusted.
Although many variables may well alter over time, there is not
enough information available to translate the projection into
an informed forecast. For example, the housing recession of
recent years may be protracted and projected new construction
in the project area may therefore be overstated. The historic
division between local, permanent residents and out-of-town,
second-home owners may not persist into the future and the
growth rate for one group may turn out to be faster (or slower)
than for the other. A full market study would be necessary
to pin down this variable more accurately. Demographic var-
iables may also alter: average household size can change over
time; the exodus of the permanent population in the older
teenage and young adult years could slow down (or speed up);
the second home market could be reduced by saturation or by
the prior absorption of the most desirable building sites;
changes in preference among consumers affecting the disposition
of recreational expenditures; or decelerating advances in real
income. While these and other contingencies have not been
taken into account, it is hoped that the figures presented will
suffice for the purpose of considering environmental impacts.
35
-------
Economy
The economy of Lincoln County is driven by three primary
activities: (1) tourism, (2) fishing and fish processing, and
(3) forest products. All three basic industries are highly
seasonal and susceptible to cyclical variations generated by
the state and national economy and natural phenomena. This
economic instability is a major contributing factor to the slow
population growth in the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District.
Tourism. Tourism appears to be the fastest growing
economic benefit within the study area and the second largest
source of revenue for the county as a whole. A good index of
tourist activity in the project area is the average daily
traffic flow on Highway 101. This flow is tabulated and pre-
sented in Table 7. A substantial 22 percent increase in traffic
volume is shown for the five-year period between 1969 and 1974.
The decrease shown between 1973 and 1975 is considered a
reflection of both the temporary gasoline shortage and the
generally depressed economic condition at that time, which
resulted in fewer vacation trips to the Oregon coast. The
recession years of 1970 and 1971 are also reflected in the
traffic volume data by a smaller than usual increase in traffic
flow.
Tourism in the county, however, is not only susceptible
to cyclical movements, but is characterized by wide seasonal
variations in level of activity. Table 8 lists the monthly
average daily traffic in the study area by percentage of 1974
annual average daily traffic.
The tourist season for Oregon extends between the months
of May through August and is most intense during the month of
August, dropping sharply after the Labor Day weekend. This
pattern is clearly demonstrated by the Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) data in Table 8 which shows traffic flows well in excess
of 100 percent of the annual average during these months.
Examination of the distribution of traffic flow from 1969 to
1974 indicates that 1974 was a typical year.
Estimates of the number of tourist vehicles passing through
the study area on a yearly basis from 1969 to 1974 were also
calculated and are presented in Table 9.
A comparison of percentage increases in Table 7 and 9,
indicates that tourism is most responsible for overall increases
in traffic flow throughout the study area. Although tourism is
not significant during the winter months, local residents and
business operators in the area, when questioned, all indicated
36
-------
TABLE 7
Historical Average Annual Daily Traffic
U.S. 101: Yaquina Bay to Yachats
Average Daily
Year Traffic
1969 4,188
1970 4,615
1971 4,870
1972 5,303
1973 5,409
1974 5,106
% Increase
1969-1974 22%
Source: Oregon State Highway Division
Traffic Volume Tables, 1974
TABLE 8
Average Daily Traffic by Month: 1974
U.S. 101: Yaquina Bay to Yachats
% of 1974 ADT Volume of Traffic
Month (5106) Experienced per Month
January 56.7 2,895
February 62.4 3,188
March 82.8 4,227
April 92.7 4,734
May 107.4 5,486 ~
June 124.4 6,350
July 147.2 7,516
August 162.8 8,315
September 122.2 6,241
October 90.1 4,599
November 78.9 4,031
December 72.2 3,687
Source: Oregon State Highway Division
Traffic Volume Tables, 1974
TABLE 9
Average Daily Tourist Traffic 1969-1974
U.S. 301: Yaquina Bay to Yachats
Average Daily
Tourist Traffic
1969 1,379
1970 1,532
1971 1,603
1972 1,745
1973 1,800
1974 1,680
% Increase 22%
1969-1974
Source: Grucn Gruen + Associates; compiled from
Oregon State Mighv.oy Division
Traffic Volume Tables, 1974
Tourist
Season
37
-------
that weekend traffic throughout the year had increased substan-
tially in recent years. The relationship between weather in the
Willamette Valley and along the coast during the winter can
greatly influence a winter tourism. The percentage increase in
average daily tourist traffic increased by 30% between the
1969 through 1973 period.
The many coastal state parks and campsites which are
located along Highway 101 have, no doubt, had a salubrious
effect on the travel industry in recent years. Table 10
contains data on the usage of these facilities during recent
years as compared with that of all similar state facilities.
Some interesting comparisons result from this data which seem
to set this area apart from the rest of Oregon in terms of its
tourist industry. Between the years of 1971 and 1975, a 33.3%
increase in campernights spent in the study area was observed,
while only a 2.4% increase in usage was observed for all state
facilities.
The divergence between state-wide and study area use is
explained by the accessibility advantages which the facilities
in the study area have over the majority of the facilities in
the state. Campsites in the study area are located adjacent
to U.S. 101 which is a major Oregon coast tourist route, but
many of the camping facilities throughout the state are located
off lesser traveled roads. Coastal campsites and particularly
those in the project area therefore tend to capture a larger
amount of the tourist traffic than the less accessible inland
facilities. It is significant to note that these data were
compiled from counts of incoming vehicles to the project area
facilities, and many of the parks in Oregon do not have traffic
counters. Where they are lacking, park attendants usually
estimate usage on a weekly or monthly basis. Thus, the project
area usage data will generally be more accurate than that of
the state as a whole.
When compared with similar facilities throughout the state,
day use facilities in the area showed a smaller increase in
usage. Again, accessibility differences may be responsible
for this divergence. Day use sites tend to be visited more
steadily on a year-round basis by local residents than by
seasonal visitors. The permanent population of the area is,
of course, very small compared to that of more developed areas
within the county and state and, therefore, local day use
facilities received less usage than those in heavily populated
areas. The day use and overnight camper data seems consistent
with a slow permanent population growth rate and a relatively
fast increase in tourist population.
38
-------
Fiscal Year
1970-1971
1974-1975
% Increase
1970-1971
1974-1975
% Increase
TABLE 10
State Park Usage: 1971-1975
Project Area Campsites
69,639
92,831
33.3
Day Use Facilities
Project Area Parks
1,277,124
1,462,905
14.5
All State Campsites
1,578,173
1,616,645
2.4
All State Parks
22,325,353
27,160,202
21.6
Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates; compiled from
Oregon State Highway Dept., Parks &
Recreation Division raw park usage data
39
-------
The travel industry is a difficult one to analyze statis-
tically; however, the tourism data indicate a strong growth
potential for the area. In order to gauge its importance, a
motel survey of seven establishments in and around the study
area from Yaquina Bay to the northern border of Yachats was
conducted. The results of that survey follow: (1) motels
ranged in size from seven to ninety-two units and tended
to average between 16 to 20 units; (2) all motels were open
year-round; (3) occupancy varied seasonally and August was
cited as the busiest month, with 90% to 100% occupancy. All
noted December and January as the slowest months when occupancy
ranged from 25% to 40%; (4) all motels indicated that their
occupants were almost exclusively tourist, except for one
near Waldport which reported only a 75% tourist market, the
remainder being business, government and forest services
occupancy; (5) rates varied between summer and winter for all
except one of the motels; (6) owners and operators reported
that their visitors came from all over the United States and
Canada. Those visitors from Oregon come primarily from the
Willamette Valley Region; (7) six of the seven owner/operators
indicated that they felt tourist activity in the vicinity was
increasing; (8) four of the seven outlined plans for upgrading
and improving their facilities within the next two years; and
(9) three owner/operators said they considered a new motel in
the area would be a good investment. Two said they wouldn't
build a new motel, one said motels tie you down too much, and
one talked about high taxes and minimum wage laws.
No projections were attempted as to the magnitude of
future employment or sales resulting from this industry. But
in 1973, over 1,200 persons were employed in various jobs
related to the travel industry in Lincoln County (1974 OCCDC,
p. B20). In 1972, about 465 persons were employed in hotels
and other lodging places in Lincoln County (Census, County
Business Patterns, 1972), a tripling of the 1962 persons so
employed.
Seasonal ygct-ioners. A second component of the tourist
industry is the seasonal resident population which increases
substantially during the summer months. The bulk of this
population owns property in the area on which they may have
constructed summer homes or set mobile homes. The District
seasonal resident population consists of approximately 1,225
persons and real estate activities point to a steady future
growth of this component.
A survey of the study area residential ownership.patterns
was conducted. The study was conducted by randomly selecting
127 lots from various subdivisions within the Sanitary District,
of which 100 had dwelling units. The incidence of nonresident
40
-------
ownership of all property sampled was 61.1%, while residents
owned 38.9%. It was further discovered that approximately
60% of dwelling units (not including trailers) were owned by
non-residents, while 40% were owned and occupied by residents.
Lincoln County building permit records further indicate that
of all building permits granted for housing construction
within the Sanitary District boundaries (since 1972 when
permits became mandatory), over 70% of new home construction
was by non-residents. The residence addresses of these new
builders ranged throughout the United States and Canada, but
the bulk of them were in the Willamette Valley fifty to
eighty miles east of the study area. Present trends indicate
that future building in the area will be mostly second homes
for persons having permanent residences in other parts of
Oregon. This growth will add further to the seasonal popu-
lation and retirement economy base that typifies the Sanitary
District.
Forest jxroducts. Forest products, as a major component of
the Lincoln County economy, still play an important role in
providing employment income to the area. Peak employment was
reached in 1960, with a level of 2,019 forest product-related
jobs. That number has been steadily decreasing, and in 1973,
forest products accounted for only 609 jobs in Lincoln County.
Forest products in the project area appears to have diminished
more quickly since 1960 than for the County of Lincoln in
general. A number of small mills cloaed because of their
inability to compete with larger scale operations based in
Toledo and other areas. The Siuslav National Forest is the
largest potential timber resource near the project area, but
it holds little potential for bolstering the local forest
product economy. Kuch of the timber harvested is shipped to
larger processing plants in surrounding Lincoln County and
other communities.
Fishing. In 1973, Lincoln County accounted for approxi-
mately 20% of the Oregon coast total fish catch. About 475
persons in Lincoln County were employed in the fishing industry
in 1967 (Clark and Groff, 1970) . Newport, north of the study
area, is the major fishing and fish-processing center in
Lincoln County, but its growth potential is inhibited by the
lack of adequate port and processing facilities. Recent
estimates indicate that over 90% of the Newport salmon and
albacore catch and 30% of the crab catch is shipped elsewhere
for processing. This catch constitutes the bulk of the Yaquina
Bay fishery. Experimental wor?c in aqur. culture and clam
harvesting in the Yaquina Bay area may eventually enhance the
commercial fishery. Although an important component of the
41
-------
overall Lincoln County economic base, fishing and fish proces-
sing offer little potential for economic growth in the project
area.
Employment. Although study area specific data on employ-
ment were not available, existing county-wide data and exten-
sive tours of the area enable one to make some general conclu-
sions about its employment characteristics. The relatively
high proportion of population over the age of 65 serves to
support the assumption that self-employment and retirement
benefits constitute a major source of income for district
residents. U.S. 101, which runs the length of the district,
is dotted with a number of small gift shops, garden and flower
shops, and small item grocery stores, not to mention the motels
discussed earlier. Real estate is also to be an important
employment category with employment in that sector showing
an increase of 70 percent between 1962 and 1972 (Census,
County Business Patterns). Over half of the buildable area
in the district has been subdivided since 1960 (County Assessor's
records). Additionally, Lincoln County had a rate of self-
employment in 1970 of 16.6% of its labor force, while the nationa
average is about 9% self-employed. Nearly 6% of those in the
labor force were past the normal retirement age of 65 and 40%
of this group was self-employed (Lincoln County Planning Depart-
ment, 1973). In 1973, Lincoln County had 5,050 recipients of
Social Security retirement benefits (of the coastal counties,
only Coos County had a greater number) or 18% of total popu-
lation, which was the largest percentage of all coastal counties
in Oregon.
The three major employment sources for Lincoln County
constitute a relatively unstable and seasonal economic base.
This fact is reflected in the unemployment rates experienced
in Lincoln County since 1960, as presented in Table 11.
Income. In 1970, the annual family income for the majority
of Lincoln County families was between $5,000 and $10,000
(1970 U.S. Census). The average family income was $9,031.00
per annum which was lower than that of all the surrounding
counties as well as that of the state.
Given the importance of self-employment and retirement
benefits as a source of income in this district, the mean
income levels by source in Table 12 are illuminating in terms
of the study area income level.
42
-------
TABLE 11
Annual Average Unemployment Rate
Lincoln County, 1960-1971
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Labor
Force
8,100
7,740
7,640
7,470
7,850
8,400
8,550
8,950
9,100
9,140
9,400
9,420
Unemployed
560
800
590
510
530
530
560
630
520
570
740
740
% of Labor Force
Unemployed
6.9
10.3
7.7
6.8
6.8
6.2
6.5
7.0
5.7
6.2
7.9
7.8
Source: Research & Statistics, State of Oregon,
Employment Division, Corvallis; January,
1972. In: Lincoln County Planning Depart-
ment, 1972; overall economic development
plan, Lincoln County, Oregon.
TABLE 12
Source of Income
Lincoln County: 1970
Source
Wage and Salary
Non-Farm, Self-Employed
Social Security
Mean Income
$7,868
6,585
1,793
Source: 1970 U.S. Census of Population
43
-------
Because of the higher-than~average concentration of
retired and self-employed residents in the district it appears
likely that income in the area is well below that of the
county and the state for the bulk of the permanent population.
Future Trends in Population Growth
Factors affecting future population growth. The popula-
tion growth of the project area is at best difficult to predict
because of the changing character of the community. Generally,
increased employment prospects tend to result in population
growth within a given area.
Since the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District
population consists of such a large proportion of individuals
who are non-participants in the labor force, other factors such
as property values, availability of tourist accommodations and
natural environmental amenities may become more important
forces in shaping the future character and size of the South-
west Lincoln County community.
Future employment prospects. The forest products indus-
try and the fishing and the fish-processing industry are not
likely to result in significantly increased future employment
opportunities for residents of the community. To the contrary,
increased mechanization in both of these industries could
appreciably diminish already existing opportunities.
The tourist industry appears to hold the greatest potential
for the area in terms of employment prospects. Presently, the
privately owned and operated motels, gift shops, restaurants
and small grocery stores cater to this market. It is the
largest source of self-employment presently in the community.
Because of the seasonal character of this market, it appears
that additional proprietor participation will take the form of
expansion of existing facilities before new entries of a signi-
ficant level are realized. This industry also furnishes a
source of seasonal employment for the retirement aged residents.
Retirement and vacation population growth. This has been
the largest source of population growth in recent years. It
is of course highly dependent on land availability and prices.
Assessed valuation trends of the Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District are presented in Table 13 and provide a
comparison with trends in property valuation at the county
and state level. The present total property tax rate in the
Waldport-Tidewater section of Lincoln County is $19.73 per
$1,000 of assessed valuation.
44
-------
TABLE 13
Real Property Valuation
Southwest Lincoln County
Year State of Oregon Lincoln County Sanitation District
1969 13,215,725,797 281,526,299 9,374,690
1975 26,190,390,714 568,637,940 17,521,722
% Increase 98% 102% 87%
Source: Gruen, Gruen + Associates
45
-------
Table 13 indicates that property values within the South-
west Lincoln County Sanitary District have not been increasing
as fast as all property within the State of Oregon, and an
increase at a rate well below that of the rest of Lincoln
County. The relatively slow growth in Southwest Lincoln
County District property values may be explained in part by
restrictions placed on property owners in the area during
recent years. In an effort to preserve the environmental
quality of the area and comply with State Department of
Environmental Quality regulations and directives, Lincoln
County Sanitary officials have disallowed a number of requests
for building permits on the basis of inadequate soil conditions
for septic tanks. The bulk of property in the district is
zoned for residential usage and held by individuals with
intentions to build retirement or second homes. Many of the
building lots, however, are smaller than the minimum size
eligible for septic tank usage and therefore cannot be
developed for their intended purpose. This has probably been
a factor in holding property values down within the district
and may account for some of the divergence between district
and county assessed value trends.
Future growth of the retirement population will depend
not only on the level of land prices in the district but on
the tax and service rates resulting from providing the necessary
sewerage facility and other utilities which will enable the
building of retirement and second homes. Large increases in
property values may discourage newcomers to the area and
inhibit anticipated buildout while excessive sewer district
costs may actually depress property values and thus discourage
future growth.
Tourist population. The management of state parks and
recreation facilities within the district will be a key ele-
ment determining future growth of the area transient popula-
tion. Further acquisitions of beach property are not presently
planned by the State of Oregon. However, the development of
two coastal parks in Southwest Lincoln is planned. Smelt Sands
and San Marine will be developed for tourist usage within the
coming years and should therefore accommodate a larger peak
tourist population. Any expansion of motel facilities or
additional entries to the industry will surely result in an
increased peak population during the summer months.
Land Use
The Southwest Lincoln County Sanitation District extends
south along the Oregon coast from Yaquina John Point to Mitchell
Creek north of Yachats. Existing development in the District
46
-------
has tended to hug the coastal strip and concentrate itself on
embayments and on either side of U.S. Highway 101. The devel-
oped areas to the west of the highway provide easy access to
the sandy beaches and rocky coastal sites which abound in the
project area. Because of steep and rugged terrain to the east
of and in places along Highway 101, development has tended to
occur in clusters which afford the greatest highway access and
ocean view. General land use in the area is shown in Figure 5
The inland boundary of the district lies one to two miles
east of the coast. Approximately 3,000 acres of land are
contained within the district boundaries, the distribution of
which is indicated in Table 4.
Residential. The Sanitary District contains 20 legal sub-
divisions^However, it is not known how many lots within these
subdivisions are actually buildable. A substantial portion
date back to the early 1900's when streets in some instances
were dedicated yet no rights-of-way have been granted, only
from 20 to 30 feet has been set aside for roads. Many of these
dedicated streets end at the beach front and provide public
access to the beach. The topography and soil conditions of
some areas make it very unlikely that streets or utilities will
ever be installed in some of the platted subdivisions.
The newer subdivisions (those established since 1950)
are more likely to have streets which have been designed in
conformance with the physical conditions of the land. An
examination of the actual sites and subdivision area maps, as
well as county assessment records, indicates that approximately
30% of the subdivision lots have been built upon. Table 14
lists the district subdivisions and indicates the age and level
of present development, as well as the percentage of buildings
owned by local residents. These dates and percentages are
rough estimates compiled from extensive tours of the area and
conversations with county assessor's office officials.
Recreation. There are four developed and operating state
parks and recreation facilities in the district. The state
has plans to develop two others, Smelt Sands and San Marine, as
indicated on the land use map, Figure 6. In addition to the
state parks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains the
Siuslaw National Forest and the Tillicum Campgrounds for
vacation use. These federal and state parks and recreation
areas offer beach access and wilderness areas for many users
each year and demand for these facilities is expected to
increase during the coming years.
47
-------
Table 14
SUBDIVISIONS IN SOUTHWEST LINCOLN SANITARY DISTRICT
Subdivision
Yaquina John Point
Seawood Parks
Sea Brooks
Rolling Hills
Pine Crest
Big Stump
Edgewater Shores
Pacific Sands
Wakeeturn Green
Surf Pines
Wakonda Beach
Big Creek Estates
Tillicum Beach
San Marine
Shore Pine Crest
Crab Apple Hill
Raymondville
Aqua Vista
Ocean Crest
Fairway Heights
Year
Subdivided
1930
1945
1950
1964
1960
1968
1970
1960
1970
1970
1920
1971
1920
1920
1969
1965
1920
1920
1920
1970
Approx .
Number
of Lots
Current
250
26
90
58
18
25
15
15
6
9
300
16
35
500
17
750
36
200
40
32
Estimated
Current
Build Out
85%
30%
70%
50%
50%
95%
95%
80%
80%
1%
70%
50%
50%
30%
75%
30%
75%
70%
60%
10%
% Local
Owners
75%
10%
75%
50%
40%
10%
10%
50%
20%
0
50%
70%
50%
40%
25%
20%
20%
60%
50%
80%
Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates from estimates by Miller, pers
comm. Acreage figures not available. It should be noted that
the number of lots given is only for the plotted sections of
subdivisions, some of the subdivisions can expand to adjacent
lands, thereby increasing the number of lots.
48
-------
PACIFIC OCEAN
WACONDA BEACH/
P
WALDPOPT
RR
SAN MARINE!
LEGEND
R RESIDENTIAL
RR RECREATION RESIDENTIAL
I INDUSTRIAL
P PARK OR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
RR
FIGURE 6 LAND USE-SOUTHWEST LINCOLN
COUNTY-WALDPORT TO YACHATS
(FROM: LINCOLN COUNTY, LAND USE PLAN, 1970)
R
YACHATS
I
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
49
-------
A golf course is also located in the district which serves
the seasonal and vacation population of the area and receives
its heaviest usage during the months of May through September.
Highways and roadways. U.S. Highway 101 is the major
arterial which links the town Yachats in the south to Waldport
in the north. Currently, Highway 101 receives its heaviest
usage between May and August. Most other roadways are not
surfaced and not maintained by any governmental authority;
consequently, their conditions range from fair to poor.
Commercial. Tourism is the largest category of commercial
activity in the southwest Lincoln County district. A number
of motels and cottages located along Highway 101 provide easy
access to the sandy beaches along the coast.
A number of small grocery stores and gift shops, located
along the coast highway, capture the bulk of their business
from the seasonal tourist traffic. Also located within the
district are a few small greenhouse and bedding plant businesses
which serve the local as well as the tourist population.
Airport. The Wakonda Beach Air Strip is located south of
Waldport between U.S. 101 and the western boundary of the
Siuslaw National Forest. Currently, the facility serves
resident private aircraft and a number of vacation aircraft.
During the last few years, the airport has received increased
usage by seasonal residents and tourists.
Educational facilities. School-age children residing in
the Sanitary District attend schools in Yachats (one elementary
school with a 1975 enrollment of 63), Waldport (one high school,
one junior high school and one elementary school; 1975 enroll-
ment at the three schools totaled 667), and Newport (one high
school, one junior high school and three elementary schools;
1975 enrollment at all five totaled 1,463). The future enroll-
ment of the schools is expected to decline, but not as sharply
as in the decade between 1965 and 1975 when enrollment fell
almost 20% (Neubauer, pers. comm.).
Other uses. In conjunction with the operation of Siuslaw
National Forest, a Federal Job Corps center, maintained within
the study area at Big Creek, accommodates 150 students on a
year-round basis.
50
-------
Land Use Planning
Land use planning in the southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District is undertaken by the county level planning authority.
The local planning authorities in the State of Oregon are
established by the 1973 Land Use Act. By the provisions of
this act, all local city or county planning jurisdictions are
required to develop and maintain comprehensive land use plans
which conform with adopted statewide planning goals.
State authority. The 1973 Land Use Act established the
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
The commission consists of seven members appointed by the
Governor and subject to approval by the legislature. Each
commissioner is appointed to a four-year term of office but
may be removed for cause by directive of the Governor. No
member is allowed to serve on the commission for more than two
full terms (SB 100, 1973, ORS, Ch. 197.5).
Following its creation in 1973, LCDC began the task of
formulating a series of comprehensive statewide planning goals
to be used in coordinating local planning efforts throughout
Oregon. After conducting a series of public hearings and
reviewing existing state land use planning goals, a series of
14 goals with accompanying guidelines for compliance were
adopted by the commission on January 1, 1975. All local
planning authorities were then directed to produce comprehen-
sive land use plans and to submit them to LCDC by January 1,
1976, for commission review. By law, local planning authori-
ties who fail to meet the required deadline can have their
planning responsibilities carried out for them, at local expense,
by the LCDC planning staff. Those local authorities unable
to meet LCDC's deadline may be allowed extensions, provided
that evidence of satisfactory progress in completing their
comprehensive plans is provided. By January 1, 1976, only five
planning jurisdictions in the State of Oregon had submitted
complete comprehensive plans to LCDC for their review. Lincoln
County was not among them.
The extent to which LCDC will be effective in centralizing
and directing land use in Oregon is a subject which has
received wide discussion in recent months. Many argue that the
powers intended for LCDC are merely to insure a coordinated
statewide planning effort through adherence to its adopted
goals. But a second authority of LCDC's is to grant planning
and siting permits to individuals or public agencies for land
use activities of statewide significance. Activities of state-
wide significance are defined in the 1973 Land Use Act as
51
-------
follows: (1) the planning and siting of public transportation
facilities; (2) the planning and siting of public sewerage
systems, water supply systems and solid waste disposal sites
and facilities; and (3) the planning and siting of public
schools (Oregon statutes related to comprehensive land use
planning, ORS, Chapter 197.4).
It would appear that this permit authority broadens the
powers of LCDC considerably beyond the coordinating level.
By controlling the planning and siting of public services,
such as sewerage systems, LCDC in effect could become the
authority in determining community growth policy. This
authority could have significant effect on the SWL County
Sanitary District.
Local planning authority. A planning commission consist-
ing of nine members from various geographic locations in
Lincoln County is appointed by the County Board of Commissioners,
each to serve a four-year term. The Planning Commission has
authority to adopt comprehensive planning and zoning ordinances
for its jurisdiction. A County Planning Director is designated
by the commission to oversee the operations of the Planning
Department and serve as the chief administrative arm of the
County Planning Commission.
A series of preliminary land use plans have been formulated
for areas within Lincoln County including the Alsea Bay Plan-
ning Area, which includes part of the Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District. A comprehensive land use plan for Lincoln
County has yet to be completed and an extension has been
applied for to allow additional time to comply with LCDC
goals. Zoning will have to conform to the comprehensive land
use plan, and this may require significant zoning changes for
some properties. The current schedule for completion of the
comprehensive plan is January, 1978 (per conversation, J. Webb).
Future Land Use
Residential. The present acreage distribution among
various uses is not expected to alter appreciably in the future.
The bulk of acreage in the district is currently zoned for
residential-commercial use and very little property remains
which would be suitable for subdivision into building lots.
Currently, the district subdivisions are approximately 40%
built-out.
52
-------
The land which is currently zoned for residential use on
the western side of Highway 101 is likely to receive pressure
in the future to accommodate additional multi-family, condomin-
ium or motel usage. This land has direct access to the highway
routes and beach frontage and is generally more sought after
for intense public and private usage than parcels to the east
of Highway 101. Substantial changes, however, in land use and
zone classification of the area are not expected to occur in
the future. An intensification of almost all present uses is
to be expected, particularly the development of additional
seasonal and retirement homes.
Land ownership. Land absorption in the study area has
been taking place faster by non-residents than by residents.
This trend is unlikely to continue at its present rate. Non-
resident lot owners in the study area are by and large non-
speculative property holders. Many people have purchased a
lot or two with future expectations of constructing a vacation
or retirement home on the property and eventually becoming
residents of the area. They tend to seek rural coastal locations,
such as the project area, which afford them easy beach access
and relatively low density use. Thus, as the area becomes
further developed, beach access will, to some degree, diminish
and open space will be used up. The result will be fewer non-
resident purchases. The economic base of the area is not
adequate to support large scale in-migration of a working
population.
Commercial. Commercial land use in the study area is
concentrated mainly along U.S. Highway 101 at the Waldport and
Yachats ends of the district. Although some additional popula-
tion-serving commercial facilities may be expected to enter the
area as population growth proceeds, expanded land use of this
type will develop very slowly. The seasonal nature of the
market makes locations closer to the population centers of
Newport and Waldport more attractive.
Public. The Parks and Recreation Division of the State of
Oregon is a significant land owner in the study area. In
addition to the three facilities, encompassing about 55 acres,
currently being operated, plans exist to develop two additional
sites: the Smelt Sands and San Marine properties. The develop-
ment of these two facilities will result in additional summer
time tourist population and could encourage the expansion of
existing commercial usage.
53
-------
-------
III. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Introduction
Environmental Protection Agency rules and regulations for
the preparation of an EIS (CFR 40, part 6) require that alter-
natives to a proposed project be developed, described, and
objectively weighed when significant resource trade-offs are
involved. In a project report prepared for SWCC by Robert E.
Meyers Engineers, Inc. (1974) a project was prepared for the
district which is included as an alternative among alternatives
treated in this chapter. In this draft Environmental Impact
statement analyses are performed to allow an independent
comparison of the environmental and financial cost differences
among the available alternatives without nominating one alter-
native for implementation. The reasons why a proposed alter-
native is selected as the best must be objectively determined
and stated in detail.
At the present time, construction within the District is
somewhat restricted by the inability of many property owners
to obtain permits for utilization of septic tanks. The denial
of permits has been based upon high groundwater conditions,
unsuitable soil characteristics, small lot sizes, steepness
of land slopes, or a combination of these factors. In December
of 1972, the Oregon State Health Division conducted a survey
of existing septic tanks in Lincoln County, using both dye
and bacteriological testing. This study also summarized the
denial of new permits in the District between 1970 and 1972.
Within the District, out of 18 septic tank systems tested for
contribution of raw sewage to the beach, eight were found in
violation, two were found to be performing satisfactorily, and
the remaining systems showed inconclusive results. Based on
the Health Division survey, an evaluation of subdivision appli-
cations for septic tank permits between 1970 and 1972 showed
that out of 211 parcels applying for permits, 173, or 82%,
were denied permits. The primary, if not sole, cause for these
denials was either a high groundwater level or unacceptable
soils. Although detailed information is not available, numerous
applications by single lot property owners have also been denied
in the past years because of high groundwater and poor soils.
Problems have also been experienced at Beachside State Park,
where septic tanks were pumped daily during part of the summer
of 1974. After a threatened shutdown by DEQ, the park considered
installing a small package plant, with disposal of effluent
by spraying in a fenced area of the Siuslaw National Forest.
However, this project was never carried out.
55
-------
Until this draft EIS, the alternatives for wastewater
management in the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District
were described in "Sewerage Study, Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District, Lincoln County, Oregon", prepared by Robert
E. Meyer Engineers, Inc., and dated September 1974 (hereafter
referred to as the Sewerage Study). Prior to this detailed
Sewerage Study, the principal planning efforts had centered
around the "Sewerage Facilities Development Plan" prepared as
a portion of the Comprehensive Water, Sewerage, and Solid Waste
Management Plan for Lincoln County, dated March 1, 1974.
The conclusion of the September 1974 Sewerage Study was
that all sewage within the District should be conveyed to the
existing Yachats treatment facility, which would be expanded
accordingly. To transport sewage to the Yachats plant, a
single interceptor would be constructed northward, terminating
at the Yaquina John Point area. This interceptor would be over
seven and one-half miles in length and require twelve separate
pumping stations. This Statement includes as alternative 4
the project recommended in the September 1974 report.
Constraints on Alternative Development
In the development of project alternatives, there are
certain institutional constraints imposed upon facility selec-
tion and cost of implementation. The principal constraints
influencing the development of alternatives within the Southwest
Lincoln County Sanitary District are:
1. PL 92-500 - Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972.
2. EPA Secondary Treatment Information, Federal Register/
Vol. 38, No. 159, August 17, 1973.
3. EPA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines, Federal
Register, Vol. 39, No. 29, February 11, 1974.
4. Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality,
Water Quality Standards.
5. Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality and
EPA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit.
6. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 7 -
Subsurface and Alternative Sewage Disposal, Subdivision
1 - Standards for Subsurface and Alternative Sewage
and Nonwater Carried Waste Disposal.
56
-------
Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, give EPA the responsibility for estab-
lishment of waste discharge criteria for all federally-funded
wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, PL 92-500
provides three dates by which wastewater treatment facilities
must meet certain effluent quality criteria. By July 1, 1977,
all municipal treatment facilities should be capable of pro-
ducing an effluent which meets EPA secondary treatment require-
ments. By July 1, 1983, all municipal treatment facilities
should be providing treatment to a level referred to as "Best
Practicable Waste Treatment Technology" (BPWTT). By July 1,
1985, municipal wastewater treatment facilities should have
reached a condition of zero discharge of pollutants. Although
this latter requirement is generally undefined and the nature
of any future actions uncertain, the general definition of
pollutant should be considered as any material in a discharge
which adversely affects the beneficial uses of receiving body
of water.
The EPA "Secondary Treatment Information" defines effluent
quality requirements for achieving secondary treatment and thus
compliance with PL 92-500. The requirements for secondary
treatment stipulate concentration limits for effluent biologi-
cal oxygen demand, suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria,
and pH.
The EPA "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines" provide a
uniform method for calculating cost of wastewater treatment
projects, and they have been used as a portion of 'the cost
evaluation in this EIS. These guidelines delineate the planning
period to be utilized in alternative evaluation, the elements
of cost which must be included, the method of handling prices
for various components of the system, the interest rate which
must be utilized, the service life of various facilities, and
salvage value to be utilized for the proposed works. The
guidelines provide a uniform method for comparing the cost of
various alternatives for a given project, as well as the cost
of any given project in the State. Therefore, while the
monetary costs developed in the Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines
may not always represent the "true cost" of a project, they do
approximate the cost and present a uniform method for compari-
son of alternative projects.
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) has established minimum water quality requirements for
receiving waters in this portion of the Oregon Coast. These
criteria are contained in Section 11—010 of OAR Chapter 334,
and they state, in general, that the highest and best waste-
water treatment should be provided and that the control of
waste discharge shall in every case be the best practical
method. In 1973, the DEQ completed a "Draft Development
Document for Water Quality Management for the Mid-Coast of Oregon",
57
-------
to comply with EPA requirements (PL 92-500, 303) for performing
comprehensive basin planning for all river basins in the State.
This document summarized and discussed existing water quality
data, water quality standards, and nutrient problems, among
other subjects. The document did not, however, discuss alter-
natives for wastewater management nor recommend a wastewater
management plan. Because of this, the EPA rejected the docu-
ment, and the document is presently being revised by DEQ to
fully comply with EPA requirements.
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality and
the EPA must review and certify all National Pollution -Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permits for wastewater discharge. The
purpose of an NPDES permit is to establish specific effluent
and receiving water quality requirements which must be met by a
treatment plant. In formulating alternatives, only those that
will meet the probable NPDES requirements are considered
feasible. It should be noted that each wastewater discharger
must possess an NPDES permit prior to discharge, and each
permit is prepared to respond to the particular discharge
situation.
The Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 7
prescribe requirements for construction and operation/mainten-
ance of septic tank systems. Any alternatives which do not
provide 100% sewering of the District would permit new develop-
ment in unsewered areas only in conformance with these state
requirements for septic tanks.
Regionalization
The objective of a regionalized system is to provide the
most cost-effective method for collection, treatment, and
disposal of wastewater. It should be understood that regional-
ization does not imply or require that only one treatment
facility be utilized, or that an entire area must be sewered,
but rather that planning must be done for an entire region
and not on a piece-meal basis. The term "cost-effectiveness"
is comprised of three very important costs: monetary or dollar
costs, environmental costs, and social costs. Within this
chapter, only monetary costs are considered, since subsequent
chapters describe the environmental and social impacts of the
project alternatives. Typically environmental and social costs
are not monetary but judgmental. The cost-effective project
is that project which is judged to have the lowest overall
monetary, social and environmental cost.
58
-------
Soveral advantages can be attained by regionalization --
economy of scale in construction, operation and maintenance,
wider distribution of costs, one operating authority for treat-
ment facilities, treatment process efficiency control, easier
inclusion of new residential and commercial developments into
the system, and ability to plan for a basin or area as a whole.
The principal disadvantage of regionalization is that local
governments or agencies often must enter into joint powers
agreements that extend local responsibilities beyond indivi-
dual member control.
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
At the present time, water consumption within the South-
west Lincoln County Water District (which has the same boundary
as the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District) is about
150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), as compared to a national
average of about 200 gpcd. In most areas of the United States,
roughly one-half of the water served to consumers is utilized
indoors, and ultimately results in production of about 90-100
gpcd of sewage. In the study area, due to small amount of
outdoor lawn irrigation, a higher percentage of delivered water
is probably utilized indoors, and a sewage production of 110
gpcd (as utilized in the Sewerage Study) is considered a good
estimate for planning purposes. In addition to sewage, community
sewerage systems also pick up additional water by infiltration/
inflow. Infiltration is groundwater which seeps into pipes
due to poor joint construction, and inflow enters through man-
hole covers, ground drains and house roof drains connected to
the sewer. Infiltration/inflow is usually highest during rainy
seasons and/or when the groundwater level is high. In areas of
a perched water table infiltration problems can be burdensome.
The quantity of infiltration/inflow depends to a large extent
on the "tightness" of the collection system, and whether house
drains and other water drains are connected to the sanitary
sewer system. The amount of infiltration/inflow will probably
be less than 10 gpcd initially, and will gradually increase
through the years, as coupling materials deteriorate, perhaps
ultimately reaching 30 gpcd. It is recommended that roof drain
connections to the sewer be prohibited by District ordinance,
in order to keep inflow as low as possible. Because infiltration
and inflow will not occur during the peak tourist season, which
is the period of projected peak flow, the Sewerage Study esti-
mate of 30 gpcd for infiltration/inflow seems high and should be
documented by comparing the proposed system with existing
systems having similar tourist peaking problems prior to EPA
approval.
59
-------
Reducing the quantity of sewage produced would be one
method of reducing the existing septic tank problems, the size
of major interceptors, and the construction and operation/
maintenance costs of sewage treatment facilities. One method
of reducing wastewater production within sewage systems is the
installation of water meters on all water connections, and
making a portion of the monthly sewer service charge a function
of water usage; however, the installation of water meters is an
expensive action. Wastewater flow can also be reduced by an
enforced District ordinance prohibiting the connection of roof
drains and other storm water collection facilities to the
sewer system. There should be no major problems with infiltra-
tion of groundwater into the collection system and interceptors,
as proper engineering design and materials selection coupled
with proper inspection during pipeline construction should
keep infiltration to a minimum. No further flow reduction
measures are proposed.
Wastewater Management Options
Possible Alternatives
During the preliminary analysis of wastewater treatment/
disposal alternatives, a number of wastewater facilities
alternatives were considered and some were not considered
viable for the District. The alternatives that were screened
out, and the reasons for doing so, are discussed:
1. Land disposal of effluent. A requirement of EPA's
Construction Grants Program is that land application of effluent
must be considered as a means of meeting the 1983 and 1985
goals of PL 92-500. Possible means of land disposal include
percolation ponds and spray application to the land. Percola-
tion ponds are not considered feasible because of the relative
impermeability of the soil and the localized high groundwater
conditions. Spray application to the land surface was also
dropped from additional consideration because of the above
two reasons, as well as the extremely high cost of storing
effluent during the winter rainy months and/or the cost of
containing surface runoff within a spray disposal area.
2. Reuse of effluent for industry and/or agriculture.
Another requirement of the Construction Grants Program is that
reuse of the treated effluent must be considered in the formula-
tion and screening of alternatives. Reuse of effluent, as a
combined means of effluent disposal and water resource
60
-------
conservation, was dropped because there is presently no signifi-
cant water using agricultural or industrial operations within
or adjacent to the District. The more than ample supplies of
water within the District make effluent reuse unnecessary and
inappropriate at the present time.
3. Trickling filter and aerated lagoon treatment. These
two methods of wastewater treatment were dropped from further
consideration either because of high construction costs or
because they are not capable of consistently producing an
effluent in compliance with the probable NPDES requirements
unless land disposal of the final effluent is used, at which
time no NPDES requirements would be needed. A more satisfactory
effluent could be produced with this method if filters were
added for algae control; however, such additional treatment
requirements would substantially increase the cost of facilities
and treatment.
4. Joint district and city sewerage systems. This
alternative would include combining the facilities and sewerage
needs of the City of Newport, Bay to Bay Sanitary District,
City of Waldport, Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District
and the City of Yachats. This alternative was not considered
further because of the difficulties of coordinating such an
alternative and hurdling the political obstacles while at the
same time meeting the sewerage needs of each of the cities and
districts. Virtually all of the cities and districts have
sewage problems and needs specific to their own situations --
Newport, Waldport and Yachats represent high density development
clusters (cities) while the Bay to Bay and Southwest Lincoln
County Sanitary Districts are more lightly populated areas with
problems not paralleling those of the cities.
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives
Each of the treatment and disposal alternatives selected
as feasible is described to acquaint the reader with their
general characteristics. The two treatment alternatives being
considered are activated sludge treatment and individual septic
tank systems, or a combination of the two. Three separate
disposal alternatives are considered feasible — discharge to
the ocean, discharge to Alsea Bay, or subsurface discharge to
the ground in the case of septic tanks.
61
-------
The Activated Sludge Process
This treatment process uses bacteria to decompose the
organic matter in sewage. During this process, the bacteria
convert sewage into more bacteria, i.e., multiply in number
and mass, and some mass must be removed from the process in a
form called sludge. Following removal from the liquid portion
of the process, sludge is first treated by maintaining it for
a lengthy period without a food supply in order to reduce its
volume; it is then dewatered using a filter press and trans-
ported to disposal. Disposal can be either through utilization
as a soil conditioner or by sanitary landfill.
Septic Tank Treatment
This type of treatment consists of two components: (1)
the septic tank and (2) the leach field or other subsurface
land disposal method. Both components must operate satisfac-
torily, or they will adversely affect the operation of each
other. In the septic tank, solid materials settle and grease
and oil rise and the organic matter is then biologically broken
down by bacteria. Following settling of solid matter and
biological breakdown, the liquid portion passes out of the
septic tank to a subsurface ground disposal system. This
disposal system may consist of (1) absorption trenches—
perforated drain tiles laid in a trench on top of about one
foot of gravel; (2) seepage beds—wide trenches (greater than
three feet across) filled with gravel; and (3) seepage pits—
large circular holes that are drilled or dug into the ground,
often to depths of 20 feet or greater. This third method is
often used where downward percolation is retarded or prevented
by layers of clay or cemented aggregate. The purpose of the
disposal system is to spread treated sewage and to allow it to
percolate downward into the soil.
The reasons why septic tank treatment systems generally
fail are:
1. Inadequate maintenance of septic tank - The tank
must be pumped every few years to remove inert
material and sludge that accumulates at the bottom and
sometimes top of the tank. If this is not done, much
of the volume of the septic tank becomes useless, and
sewage passes through the septic tank untreated,
carrying solid material into the ground disposal
system. These solids clog the soil, and treated
liquids can no longer percolate.
62
-------
2. Poor soil - Soils which contain large amounts of clay
or are underlain by clay, will percolate water very
slowly. Such soils generally require large drainfields
because of this slow percolating capability.
3. High groundwater - If the groundwater is less than
several feet below a tile drainfield, the amount of
unsaturated soil available for percolation is too
small, and the rate of percolation is either slowed
or stopped.
Regardless of the cause of failure, partially treated sewage
begins to rise to the ground surface, and/or back up into the
home, necessitating pumping of the tank. In both cases, a
public health hazard results. Assuming adequate or nearly
adequate soils and proper system design and construction, the
most important factor in maintaining satisfactory performance
is routine pumping of accumulated sludge from the septic tank.
Treatment Plant Site Options
Five locations were considered feasible for the location
of sewage treatment facilities. Two of these sites are presently
used for sewage treatment.
Site A - The City of Waldport treatment plant. This
site, bordered by Alsea Highway, Lint Slough, and the Waldport
High School, is too small for the needed plant expansion, and
some land would have to be acquired from the adjacent high
school athletic grounds. The new facilities would be con-
structed to the west of the existing facilities. The athletic
fields of the school are between the proposed expansion and
the school, thus acting as somewhat of a buffer.
Site B - Waconda Beach. This plant would be located
on the inland side of the Highway, but a specific location
has not been selected.
Site C •- Big Creek. The plant would be located on
the inland side of the Highway and the south side of the
creek, but a specific location has not been selected.
Site D - San Marine. The plant would be located on
the inland side of the Highway, but a specific location has not
been selected.
63
-------
Site E - The City of Yachats treatment plant. No new
land area will be required for the treatment processes, and the
new facilities will be located on the southwest portion of the
property. The purchase of two lots on the northeast corner of
the site has been recommended by the engineer as a means of
keeping residential development from encroaching further on
the plant site.
Implementation Options — Financing and Organization
A variety of facilities are required for project implemen-
tation: treatment plant(s), Ocean or Bay outfalls, intercep-
tors, and local collection sewers. The questions listed below
are as important to District residents as the technical and
environmental aspects of the project.
1. How will the facilities be paid for?
2. How will the cost of required facilities be allo-
cated to residents within the District?
3. How will the facilities be operated?
Various methods of accomplishing the above actions are
available, and they must be dealt with before a project becomes
operational. Consequently, these subjects are discussed in the
following text and should be kept in mind while reviewing the
alternatives and their environmental and social impacts.
First, how will the facilities be paid for? This project,
as a part of EPA's Construction Grants Program, is eligible for
75% Federal funding of treatment facilities, pumping stations/
and interceptor pipelines. The remaining 25% is the local share
and would have to be paid for by the District. Collection
systems are not eligible for Federal Grants and must be
financed 100% with local dollars. It should also be noted that
land and right-of-way purchase is not an eligible cost and would
not be paid for with EPA grant funds.
The 25% local share of treatment, interceptor, and pumping
facilities will probably be financed by general obligation
bonds sold by the District, bonds which would be repaid by
money collected from ad valorem (property) taxes, and a monthly
sewer service charge. Oftentimes, however, a lower interest
rate can be obtained if the bonds are repaid by only ad valorem
taxation. General obligation bonds must be approved by voters
64
-------
within the District and are limited by Oregon State Statute
to ]3 percent of the assessed valuation of the District.
Because state and federal agencies within the District are
exempt from property tax, they will pay an initial, one-time
cash payment to help offset facilities construction, a payment
that would probably be based on the value of the properties,
determined in a manner similar to that used by the county
tax assessor. In addition, state and federal agencies would
pay a monthly sewer service charge.
The collection system must be financed by District resi-
dents and governmental agencies holding land within the District,
The Engineer has recommended that the District form one Local
Improvement District (LID), encompassing the entire District,
be formed to finance the necessary collection system. A 2/3
remonstrance of affected property owners is required before a
LID can be stopped. The purpose of the LID is to collect
money from those who could benefit from the proposed facilities.
Assessments can be paid either in cash or through a process
known as Bancroft Bonding, which allows assessments to be re-
paid in semi-annual payments at an interest rate of seven
percent over periods of 10 and 20 years.
Secondly, how will the cost of required facilities be
allocated? As discussed, the 25% local share of treatment,
outfall, interceptor, and pumping facilities is allocated
according to the assessed valuation of in the District
properties. Allocation of the cost of the collection system to
benefitting property will probably be accomplished using a
procedure referred to as the area/benefit method. This method
assesses a percentage of the cost over the entire District
area that is sewered, and the remainder only to property that
receives a direct benefit from sewer facilities. Normally,
all benefitted property is assessed equally whether developed
or undeveloped. A draft financial Plan for the District has
proposed that 50% of the cost be allocated to area and 50%
to benefitted property. Typically a connection fee and
inspection fee are also charged when a property owner connects
to the sewer. The possible charges to individual property
owners is discussed further in a latter section of this report.
Thirdly, how will the District's proposed facilities be
operated? The basic question is whether the District should
have fulltime operation/maintenance personnel, or should they
have only one or two employees and issue contracts for other
work. The District will probably begin with only a Superin-
tendent and a bookkeeper because the number of connections will
be relatively small and the system will be relatively new.
All services required, beyond the capabilities of these people,
would probably be done by contract. This approach could only be
utilized if treatment is done at Waldport and/or Yachats. If
65
-------
Waconda Beach, Big Creek, or San Marine are locations selected
for treatment, the District would likely have to hire two
operators for the treatment facilities. The money to operate
and maintain the District will come primarily from a monthly
sewer service charge, which will probably be between three and
six dollars per month per connection.
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The only existing treatment facility within the District
is located at the Camp Angell Job Corps Camp. Constructed in
1966, it is operated by the U. S. Forest Service and serves
both Camp Angell and the Tillicum Beach campground. Treatment
is provided by a 20,000 gallon per day package treatment plant,
followed by sand filtration and effluent discharge to Big Creek.
Present plans are to shut down this plant when the District's
proposed regional system becomes available.
There are two treatment facilities outside of, but rela-
tively close to, the District boundaries. The facilities are
owned by the City of Waldport and the City of Yachats. The
Waldport plant was constructed in 1953 as a primary treatment
plant and converted in 1973 to a secondary treatment plant with
a rated capacity of 300,000 gallons per day (gpd). This contact
stabilization plant, a modification of the activated sludge
process, discharges through an outfall in to Lint Slough. One
full-time operator is required, although other City Maintenance
personnel occasionally work on the system. The plant was
financed by local residents, with the help of an EPA grant.
The City of Yachats plant, constructed in 1974, has a
treatment capacity of 150,000 gpd and uses a process called
extended aeration which is also modification of the activated
sludge process. Discharge is to the ocean. Sludge produced
is dried on sand beds and/or applied to farm land for disposal.
This method of sludge drying has not proven entirely satis-
factory due to the climate of this portion of the Oregon Coast.
One full-time operator is required. The plant was financed
by local residents, with the help of an EPA construction grant.
Because both the Waldport and Yachats plants were partially
financed by EPA, they have been designated as "regional plants"
by DEQ. This designation means that logically related drainage
areas, or adjacent areas, should consider contributing their
flow to these plants. There was not, however, any require-
ment imposed by EPA during the grant funding of these plants
that would require either the City of Yachats or Waldport to
accept sewage from the District. If an agreement is reached
between the District and either City, EPA has regulations
which require that all costs arising from facility construction
66
-------
and operation/maintenance be distributed among participants
on a "fair and equitable basis". Thus, if Southwest Lincoln
County Sanitary District sewage is contributed to either plant,
the District would be responsible for all capital costs incur-
red due to their contribution, and would be required to pay a
"fair and equitable" percentage of total plant operation. The
EPA would approve the District's user charge system prior to
the final step 3 grant payment.
Proposed Facilities Common to All Treatment and Disposal
Alternatives
With the exception of two alternatives, Alternatives 6 and
7, a sewage collection system is common to all alternatives.
Although there are some minor deviations between alternatives,
the pipe length and total collection system cost are almost
identical in Alternatives 1 to 5, and are roughly approximated
by the collection system described in the Sewerage Study,
pages IV-10 to IV-13. The system would consist of about 89,750
feet of pipe and three small pumping stations, with an esti-
mated total 1974 cost of $2,001,000, which would probably
escalate to about $2,401,000 by early 1977, the earliest
anticipated date that construction could start.
Population Capacity of Project Facilities
All treatment facility alternatives have essentially
equivalent capacities, which would handle flow from a popu-
lation substantially greater than the present population.
Within each alternative, various facilities are sized for
various capacities, the sizing depending principally on the
case of facility expansion.
The following tabulation shows the year various project
facilities are proposed to be sized for.
Facility
Capacity Provided for
Population to Year
Collection system
Interceptors
Pumping stations —
Wet well
Pumps
Sewage treatment plant
2025
2025
2025
1990
2000
67
-------
Based upon the year these facilities are planned to, the
population each could accommodate can be calculated. For the
collection system, interceptor, and pumping stations (excluding
pumps) a total population, including tourists, of 6,700 could
be accommodated. The pumps in the pumping stations could
accommodate a total population of 3,900. In the case of the
treatment facility, it is best to start with the proposed size,
as treatment facilities are normally constructed in only
certain sizes, and a certain amount of capacity increase is
often required as a result. In Alternative 4, a capacity of
750,000 has been recommended by the Sewerage Study. The
Sewerage Study also utilized a per capita sewage generation
rate of 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), which consists
of 30 gpcd infiltration/inflow and 110 gpcd sewage generated
within the home. This results in a proposed treatment capacity
capable of handling 5,357 people, a population which is expected
to be reached in approximately 2005.
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives
Alternative 1 - Waconda Beach - San Marine Alternative
In this alternative, all flow north of Big Creek would be
transported to a new treatment plant at Waconda Beach, and all
flow south of Big Creek would be transported to a new treat-
ment plant at San Marine. The Waconda Beach treatment plant
would be a package activated sludge plant with a capacity of
350,000 gallons per day (gpd) and the plant at San Marine would
be identical, with a 350,000 gpd capacity. Both treatment
plants would dispose of effluent to the Ocean, using new ocean
outfalls, approximately 1000 feet long. Each treatment plant
would require approximately one acre of land.
Interceptor sewers would contribute flow to these treat-
ment plants as show on Figure 7. The interceptors contributing
flow to the Waconda Beach plant would have a total length of
about 20,100 feet and would vary in diameter from four and 12
inches. Five pumping stations would be required for the Waconda
Beach interceptor. The interceptors which would transport
sewage to the San Marine plant would total about 16,000 feet
in length, varying in diameter from four to 12 inches. Five
pumping stations would be required for the San Marine inter-
ceptor.
The costs of implementing Alternative 1, assuming that
construction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
68
-------
WALDPORT
ALSEA BAY.
WACONDA
BEACH
YACHATS
SAfTWSR
LEGEND
$ SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
— INTERCEPTOR
NEW OCEAN OUTFALL
I
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE 7. ALTERNATIVE I-WACONDA BEACH-SAN MARINE ALTERNATIVE
69
-------
Capital Costs
Collection System $ 2,401,000
Interceptors and Pump Stations $ 1,497,100
Treatment Plant and Outfall $ 2,538,000
District Headquarters and Vehicles $ 70,000
$ 6,506,100
Local Share* $ 3,479,800
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share** $ 306,500/year
Interceptor System $ 8,000/year
Treatment Plants $ 30,800/year
District Administration & Operation j> 33 , OOP/year
$ 378,300/year
* Local Share taken as 25% of interceptor, pump station,
treatment plant, and outfall costs plus 100% of
collection system and District Headquarters and
vehicle cost.
** Interest rate — Bonds at 6-1/8% for 20 years.
Alternative 2 - Waldport-Yachats Alternative
In this alternative, all flow north of Big Creek would be
transported to a treatment facility to be constructed on the
present site of the City of Waldport treatment plant. All flow
south of Big Creek would be transported southwards to a new
treatment facility to be constructed on the present site of
the City of Yachats treatment plant. The plant on the City of
Waldport site would be a package activated sludge plant with a
capacity of 350,000 gpd and the plant at the City of Yachats
site would be identical with a 350,000 gpd capacity. Discharge
from the plant at Waldport would be through a new outfall into
the main channel of Alsea Bay. This new outfall would be about
2,200 feet long, running through the city to the north and into
the main channel. Discharge from the new plant at Yachats would
be through the existing City of Yachats ocean outfall. Addi-
tional land requirements would be minimal, a small amount of
land would be required from the high school athletic field at
Waldport, and the additional facilities at Yachats could be
located on the existing plant site. The Sewerage Study has
recommended that two lots be purchased on the northeast corner
of the existing Yachats plant site to avoid further encroach-
ment of residential dwellings.
70
-------
Interceptor sewers would contribute flow to these treat-
ment plants as shown on Figure 8. The interceptor contri-
buting flow to the Waldport Plant would have a total length of
about 26,600 feet and would vary between four and 12 inches in
diameter. Six pumping stations would be required for the
Waldport interceptor. The interceptor which would transport
sewage to the Yachats plant would total approximately 20,500
feet in length, vary in diameter from four to 12 inches. Six
pumping stations would also be required for the Yachats inter-
captor .
The costs of implementing Alternative 2, assuming that
construction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
Capital Costs
Collection System
Interceptors and Pump Stations
Treatment Plants and Outfalls
District Headquarters and Vehicles
Local Share*
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share**
Intercerceptor System
Treatment Plants
District Administration & Operation
$ 2,401,000
$ 1,725,600
$ 1,482,000
$ 70,000
$ 5,678,600
$ 3,272,900
$ 288,200/year
$ 8,000/year
$ 30,800/year
$ 33,OOP/year
$ 360,000/year
* Local Share taken as 25% of interceptor, pump station,
treatment plant, and outfall costs plus 100% of
collection system and District Headquarters and
Vehicles costs.
** Interest rate — Bonds at 6-1/8% for 20 years.
Alternative 3 - Big Creek Alternative
In this alternative, all flow north of Big Creek would be
transported southwards towards a new treatment plant to be
located at Big Creek, and all flow south of Big Creek would be
transported northwards to the same plant. The plant at Big
Creek would be a package activated sludge plant with a capacity
71
-------
WALDPORT
ALSEA BAY.
WACONDA
BEACH.
YACHATS
SAN MARINE
LEGEND
9 SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
. V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
1
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE 8. ALTERNATIVE 2-WALDPORT-YACHATS ALTERNATIVE
72
-------
of 750,000 gpd. The treatment plant would dispose of effluent
to the ocean, using a new outfall approximately 1,000 feet
long. Land area required for the treatment plant would be
approximately one acre. The interceptor sewers required to
convey flow to the Big Creek treatment plant are shown on
Figure 9. The interceptor running from the north District
boundary to the treatment plant would have a total length of
about 20,100 feet and would vary in diameter from four to 12
inches. Five pumping stations would be required on the north
interceptor. The south interceptor which would transport
sewage from the south District boundary to the new treatment
plant would have a length of about 16,000 feet and would vary
in diameter from four to 12 inches. Five pumping stations
would also be required for the south interceptor.
The costs of implementing Alternative 3, assuming that
construction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
Capital Costs
Collection System
Interceptors and Pumping Stations
Treatment Plants and Outfall
District Headquarters and Vehicles
Local Share*
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share**
Interceptor System
Treatment Plant
District Administration & Operation
$ 2,401,000
$ 1,497,100
$ 1,550,000
$ 70,000
$ 5,518,100
$ 3,232,800
$ 284,700/year
$ 8,000/year
$ 24,000/year
$ 33,OOP/year
$ 349,700/year
* Local Share taken as 25% of interceptor, pump stations,
treatment plant, and outfall costs plus 100% of
collection system and District Headquarters and
Vehicle costs.
** Interest rate — Bonds at 6-1/8% for 20 years.
73
-------
WALDPORT
ALSEA BAY
WACONDA
BEACH
YACHATS
SAN MARINE
LEGEND
® SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
NEW OCEAN OUTFALL
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
RGURE 9. ALTERNATIVE 3-BIG CREEK ALTERNATIVE
74
-------
Alternative 4 - Yachats Alternative
In Alternative 4, all flow from the north District
boundary would be conveyed south to a new treatment plant to
be constructed on the existing City of Yachats treatment plant
site. The plant would be a package activated sludge plant
with a capacity of 750,000 gpd. Effluent disposal would be to
the ocean, using the existing City of Yachats outfall.
Although no new land is required, as previously discussed, any
expansion on the City of Yachats site should also consider
acquisition of the two lots at the northeast corner of the
existing site.
The interceptor sewer which would contribute flow to the
treatment plant is shown on Figure 10. This interceptor would
have a total length of about 41,050 feet and would vary in
diameter from four to 18 inches. It would require a total of
12 pumping stations.
The costs of implementing Alternative 4, assuming that
construction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
Capital Costs
Collection System
Interceptor and Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
District Headquarters and Vehicles
Local Share*
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share**
Interceptor System
Treatment Plant
District Administration & Operation
$ 2,401,000
$ 1,765,200
$ 918,000
$ 70,000
$ 5,154,200
$ 3,141,800
$ 276,700/year
$ 8,000/year
$ 24,000/year
$ 33,OOP/year
$ 341,700/year
* Local Share taken as 25% of interceptor, pump stations,
and treatment plant, plus 100% of collection system
and District Headquarters and Vehicle costs.
** Interest rate — Bonds at 6-1/8% for 20 years.
-------
WALDPORT
ALSEA BAY.
WACONDA
BEACH
YACHATS
SAN MARINE
LEGEND
0 SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE 10. ALTERNATIVE 4-YACHATS ALTERNATIVE
76
-------
A1 to rnn t j vo 5 - Wa 1 dpojrt Alternative
I n Alternative r>, all flow from th<; south portion of I ho
District would bo transported northward to a now troatmont
facility to be constructed on the present site of the City of
Waldport treatment plant. The new treatment plant would be a
package activated sludge plant with a capacity of 750,000 gpd.
Discharge would be through a new outfall approximately 2,200
feet long, into the main channel of Alsea Bay.
The interceptor sewer and locations of the pumping stations
which would be required are shown on Figure 11. The inter-
ceptor sewer would have a total length of 42,600 feet and
would vary in diameter from six inches to 15 inches. For the
entire interceptor, a total of 12 pumping stations would be
required, to locations as shown on Figure
The costs of implementing Alternative 5, assuming that
construction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
Capital Costs
Collection System
Interceptors and Pump Stations
Treatment Plant and Outfall
District Headquarters and Vehicles
Local Share*
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share**
Interceptor System
Treatment Plant
District Administration & Operation
$ 2,401,000
$ 1,793,400
$ 1,026,000
$ 70,000
$ 5,290,400
$ 3,175,900
$ 279,700/year
$ 8,000/year
$ 24,000/year
$ 33,OOP/year
$ 344,700/year
* Local share taken as 25% of interceptor, pump stations,
treatment plant and outfall, plus 100% of collection
system and District Headquarters and Vehicle costs.
** Interest rate — Bonds at 6-1/8% for 20 years.
77
-------
WALDPORT
ALSEA
WACONDA
BEACH
YACHAT3
SAN MARINE
LEGEND
0 SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
I
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE II. ALTERNATIVE 5-WALDPORTALTERNATIVE
78
-------
Alternative 6 - No Action Alternative
In this alternative, no action would be taken to change
the present county controlled program for using septic tanks
for wastewater treatment and disposal. No treatment plants,
sewers, interceptors, or pumping stations would be construc-
ted within the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District.
The general condition of sewage treatment and disposal
using septic tanks was described in Chapter II (ENVIRONMENTAL
SETTING). As discussed, numerous applications for permits to
utilize septic tanks have been denied, amounting to a denial
of 23 percent out of 293 applications. It is understood that
almost all those existing systems found to be in violation of
county requirements have been modified and upgraded, either
by the addition of new leach lines, by the expansion of septic
tank capacity, or by a combination of the two (Dobey, pers.
comm.).
The ability to modify and upgrade existing septic tank
systems, as well as to construct a new system in some situations,
is the principal reason that the No Action Alternative must be
considered. Many existing systems were constructed prior to
the adoption of existing Oregon state standards for subsurface
sewage disposal, resulting in some cases in installation of
systems with inadequate leach line and/or septic tank capacity.
Thus, many systems failed as they grew older and their capa-
city decreased at the same time that the quantity of sewage
increased due to a greater domestic use of water. Although a
potential public health hazard can exist when septic tank
systems fail and sewage rises to the surface of the ground,
the situation can often be eliminated by repositioning or
expanding the leach line length and/or expanding septic tank
capacity. This has been adequately demonstrated by the up-
grading of existing systems that have failed in the past.
The principal impediments to the use of septic tanks have
been inadequate lot size, too steep a lot slope, too high a
groundwater table, impervious soil, or a combination of these
conditions. The adequacy of any lot greater than 7,500 square
feet must be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, in
cases where permits were denied, approval may have been
obtained if the lot size was larger, a condition which could
in many cases be solved during the subdivision of acreages.
The compilation of two or more lots into one of a size permit-
ting the use of a septic tank is possible. While these actions
represent an economic impact, they could allow the continued
utilization of septic tanks within the District. It should be
recognized, however, that some properties would still be denied
septic tank permits, even if adjacent lots were purchased or
property were subdivided into larger lots.
79
-------
Another factor which should be considered is the presently
used percolation test which is designed to test the lot for
the use of horizontal leach line fields and not vertical
seepage pits. While there are a number of restrictions on the
utilization of seepage pits, and they are discouraged by the
County Health Department and usually disallowed by the State,
they nonetheless should be considered for subsurface disposal
if County and State regulatory conditions can be met. In areas
where there are impervious layers interspersed among aquifers
and where there is no present or foreseeable use of the
regional groundwater for domestic supply, septic tank disposal
using vertical seepage pits should be given consideration.
Any evaluation of the continued or expanded use of septic tanks,
as previously described, requires considerable investigation of
each parcel of land to determine the cost impacts on individual
landowners.
In summary, based upon the above discussion, relating to
both existing systems and proposed new systems, the No Action
Alternative is described, and one may conclude that some
existing systems can be upgraded to avoid public health
problems, and adequate new systems can probably be built on
many of the larger lots. Quantification of the situation
would require an extensive evaluation of lots. Thus, while
the No Action Alternative may have direct adverse economic
impacts on some lot owners, it would allow continued growth
within the District.
Alternative 7 - District Maintenance of Septic Tanks
In Alternative 7, no sewers, interceptors, or pumping
stations would be constructed. The District would purchase a
septic tank pumping truck and be responsible to maintain all
septic tanks in satisfactory operating condition. To accomplish
this, the District would periodically inspect all septic
tanks within the District, and as required, pump the tanks and
convey the pumpage to aerobic digestion facilities to be con-
structed at the existing City of Yachats treatment plant.
The new treatment facilities would consist of aerobic digestion
facilities and sludge dewatering facilities. The liquid portion
from aerobic digestion of the sludge would be pumped to the
City of Yachats plant for additional treatment. The digested
sludge would be dewatered and hauled to a sanitary landfill.
This alternative is considered less satisfactory than
sewering of the District. The basic problem with the alterna-
tive lies not with the maintenance of existing septic tanks,
but primarily with the maintenance of tanks which could be
constructed in areas presently prohibited for septic tank use
80
-------
by the County Health Department. In those areas which are
presently denied septic tank permits, it has normally been
found that a combination of high groundwater and poor soil
conditions have led to the rejection. In essence, this condi-
tion indicates that operational problems will not be with the
septic tank design or with poor maintenance of the septic tank,
but rather lie with effluent disposal (percolation). Tanks
under such conditions would be operated as storage vaults. It
should be noted that Alternative 7 only solves a septic tank
maintenance problem, not present a solution for effluent
disposal problems. Alternative 7, to some extent, represents
the cost that could be borne by local residents for maintenance
of their septic tanks. The alternative in this context can be
compared to the other alternatives, and therefrom District
residents can achieve an estimate for how much their present
sewerage is costing as compared to a complete sewer system.
Capital Costs
Collection System
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Facilities
District Headquarters and Vehicles
Local Share*
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share**
Interceptor System
Treatment Facilities
District Administration & Operation
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 220,000
$ 90,000
$ 310,000
$ 145,000
$ 12,800/year
$ 0.00/year
$ 15,000/year
$ 53,OOP/year
$ 60,800/year
* 25% of treatment facility plus 100% of District
Headquarters and Vehicle cost.
** Interest rate — Bonds at 6-1/8% for 20 years.
Sewage Sludge Handling and Disposal Options
In all of the alternatives described except no action,
sewage sludge from the treatment processes or septic tank
maintenance must be disposed of. The existing Waldport and
81
-------
Yachats sewage plants have aerobic digesters and sludge drying
beds to dewater the sludge prior to disposal at a land site.
The drying bed method of sludge dewatering has not been particu-
larly effective in Lincoln County because of the inherent high
humidity, rainfall and cool temperatures of the coastal region
(Peer, pers. comm.)„
A number of disposal options are possible for the various
project alternativeso
* Direct land disposal of sewage sludge. This option
would involve disposing of a large volume of sludge
directly onto a land area. Such a disposal method
would require a large amount of land having proper
topographic, soils and water quality aspects. The
sludge is usually plowed under when dried. Land
disposal would only be suitable for Alternatives 1
through 5. The wastes from Alternative 7 (septic
tank maintenance) would be partially digested and
unsuitable for direct land disposal. Dewatering
sludge can be easily applied to farmlands and plowed
under periodically. This method is now used at the
Yachats treatment plant; however, there is no established
disposal site.
• incineration. Sludge incineration is a means of
reducing the volume of sewage sludge to an ash or
small volume of. sludge. The residue must ultimately
be disposed of in a landfill or onto farmland* There
are several methods of incineration -- multiple hearth,
flash-drying and fluidized bed. With adequate dewater-
ing (to approximately 30 percent solids) the process
can be self-sustaining, without the need for supple-
mental fuel except for warmup and heat control (Metcalf
and Eddy, Inc.., 1972) „ When using raw sludge in. a
multiple hearth or fluidized bed system, the heat
necessary for incineration can be obtained from com-
bustion of volatile matter in the sludge.
* Sludge dewatering _and drying.
1) Drying beds, This dewatering method is presently
utilized at Waldport and Yachats treatment facilities.
The dried sludge is transported to a farmland dis-
posal site and spread on the surface. As mentioned
earlierr this method of drying has proved unsatis-
factory in the past.
2) Vacuum filtration.. With this method the sludge must
be conditioned before filtering. A dewatered sludge
cake is produced which must be hauled to a sanitary
82
-------
landfill, disposed of on farmland or sold or given
away. The sludqo yield is typically 4-5 pounds
per square foot of filter per hour (Metcalf and
Eddy, Inc., 1972).
3) Centrifugation. This dewatering method requires
a significant amount of electricity and noise
control. A major problem is that the liquid
residues are high in nonsettling suspended solids
which could affect effluent quality.
4) Pressure filtration. With this dewatering method,
a chemically conditioned sludge is pumped between
rectangular plates and 60-180 pounds per square
inch of pressure applied. The end product is a
sludge cake with a moisture content from 55-70
percent. The sludge can then transported to a
suitable disposal site.
Lagooning. Raw sludge or digested sludge may be
deposited in lagoons where aerobic and anaerobic decom-
position takes place. This method of disposal could be
satisfactorily used for Alternative 7 (septic tank
maintenance). A major problem is the lack of adequate
land for a lagoon system. Lincoln County is presently
faced with a problem of finding a suitable site for the
disposal of pumped septic tank wastes as the city treat-
ment facilities can no longer handle septic system
wastes (Dobey, pers. comm.).
The quality of septic tank pumpage is such that it
cannot be disposed of on farmland without further
aerobic or anaerobic decomposition. The sludge may,
however, be disposed of at a sanitary landfill site
so long as groundwater or surface water quality are
not adversely impacted. Adequate sites for a sanitary
landfill in Lincoln County are scarce, and the county
is in the process of implementing a regional resource
recovery program at Agate Beach which is designed to
significantly reduce the volume of solid waste requiring
landfill disposal.
Landfill disposal. A sanitary landfill can be used for
the disposal of stabilized or unstabilized sludge. The
future county landfill site will be located at Agate
Beach, approximately 27 miles from Yachats and 19 miles
from Waldport. The costs of hauling such a distance
would dictate that the sludge be dewatered for volume
reduction.
83
-------
Cost Comparison and Summary
Three separate methods can be utilized to compare the
overall costs of the proposed alternatives:
1. Total cost to construct and operate over 20 years
2. Local cost to construct and operate over 20 years
3. Total cost using EPA Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines
Table 15 summarizes the first two of these methods and
shows that Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are the least costly of
the viable alternatives, from both local cost and total cost
standpoints, and all have essentially equal costs. It should
be noted that in each of these three alternatives, only one
treatment facility would be constructed, whereas in Alternatives
1 and 2, there are two separate treatment facilities.
The third method of comparing costs utilizes the EPA
Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines. Briefly, these guidelines
establish a number of criteria, such as interest rate, planning
period, service life, and a number of other factors, which
allow EPA to compare all projects in Oregon and in the United
States on essentially a uniform cost basis. In evaluating the
Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District project according
to Guidelines, the following deviations from all previous cost
estimates should be noted:
1. EPA requires a 20-year period for comparison, rather
than the 25 year period utilized in the Sewerage Study
and the previously discussed cost estimates. The
EPA does not require that facilities actually be
sized for a 20-year capacity, but leaves the decision
of actual cost-effective sizing to the Regional
Administrator.
2. EPA does not allow annual costs to be escalated with
time.
3. EPA requires that salvage values at the end of 20
years must be subtracted from the total cost.
84
-------
Table 15
SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT WASTEWATER PROJECT
20-YEAR COMPARISON OF LOCAL COSTS*
(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
COSTS ELIGIBLE FOR
75% FEDERAL GRANT **
ALTERNATIVE
1
oo
01 2
3
4
5
6
7
PUMP STA. &
INTERCEPTOR
1,497.1
1,725.6
1,497.1
1,765.2
1,793.4
.-
—
TREATMENT
PLANT
1,638.0
1,374.0
1,100.0
918.0
918.0
-
220.0
OUTFALL
900.0
108.0
450.0
-
108.0
-
—
25% LOCAL
SHARE OF
GRANT
ELIGIBLE
COSTS
1,008.8
801.9
761.8
670.8
704.9
-
55.0
SEWAGE
COLLECTION
SYSTEM, DIST.
HEADQUARTERS
VEHICLES
2,471.0
2,471.0
2,471.0
2,471.0
2,471.0
-
90.0
LOCAL
OPERATION &
MAINTENANCE
COSTS FOR A
20-YR PERIOD***
815.1
815.1
737.9
737.9
737.9
-
510.9
TOTAL LOCAL
PRESENT WORTH
COST FOR A
20-YR PERIOD
4,294.9
4,088.0
3.910.7
3,879.7
3,913.8
-
655.9
TOTAL
PRESENT WORTH
COST FOR A
20-YR PERIOD
7,321.3
6,493.7
6,256.1
5,892.1
6,028.3
820.9
* Assuming construction begins in early 1977.
** 75% of estimated grant eligible costs will be funded by EPA.
*** Assumes interest rate of 6-1/8% and inflation rate of 6-1/8%. Includes operation of interceptor
system, treatment plant, and district administration and operation.
-------
Based upon these differences, costs derived using the
EPA Guidelines are lower than the previous costs estimates for
this project. Contained in Appendix A is an explanation of
facility sizing and an analysis of the Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District using the EPA Guidelines. Costs determined
using the EPA Guidelines are summarized in Table 16. It should
be noted that these costs are only for interceptor, treatment,
and outfall facilities and do not include collection system
costs or costs of normal District operation. As shown, Alter-
natives 3, 4, and 5 again are the lowest cost alternatives.
Table 16
SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT WASTEWATER PROJECT
EPA COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF COSTS*
1977 PRESENT WORTH
ALTERNATIVE OF CAPITAL & ANNUAL COSTS
1 $ 3,943,800
2 $ 3,208,100
3 $ 2,971,700
4 $ 2,654,900
5 $ 2,793,200
6
7 $ 705,800
* Costs are for interceptors, pumping stations, treatment
plants, and outfalls only.
86
-------
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
Central to the evaluation of the proposed viable alterna-
tives are the varying environmental impacts that result. In
this chapter, both beneficial and adverse impacts are identi-
fied. Primary attention is given to those factors most evi-
dently affected by the proposed actions.
The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for the
preparation of environmental impact statements (40 CFR, Part 6,
c 6.304(C) require that primary and secondary environmental
impacts, of short and long term duration, be evaluated. This
draft EIS identifies the short-term, long-term direct and long-
term secondary impacts related to all project alternatives.
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Many of the impacts of the wastewater treatment and
disposal project occur regardless of choice of any particular
alternative plan. These common impacts come about as the result
of general construction and development activities and opera-
tion of the system.
Short-Term Impacts
Short-term impacts are, as the name implies, a short and
definite period of impact, usually from the start of construc-
tion until completion of the project. Such impacts can
usually be effectively mitigated. Common short-term impacts
and mitigation measures are presented in Table 17.
Long-Term Direct Impacts
Long-term direct impacts result from the construction,
location and/or operation of the facilities and generally
remain in force for the life of the project or longer. The
time span may be 20 to over 50 years. These impacts tend to
be on or near a facilities site or pipeline route or in the
area of wastewater disposal. Some are generally common to all
alternatives in that the magnitude of variation in degree of
impact among alternatives is small. These impacts do not
87
-------
Table 17
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS — SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
The direct short-terra impacts of this project are related to construction activities.
These impacts are relatively minor in effect and magnitude and in most cases the adverse
impact can be effectively mitigated. The impacts considered, their mitigation and our
judgment of the relative positive or negative merit are given in the following matrix.
Short-Term Impacts
Alternatives
12345 6 7
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Temporary loss of
vegetation
0 0
• Replant after construction or allow for
natural regrowth of shrubs and trees.
• Vegetation adjacent to pipelines should be
flagged or fenced to keep vegetative
destruction to a minimum.
Disruption of
wildlife
0 0
Vegetation stripping for the pipelines should
occur during the late summer or fall months
when nesting birds are not present.
Construction-related
traffic
0 0
Construction should occur, if possible,
during the fall periods when traffic volume
is lower.
Utility service
disruption
00 • Advance notice of anticipated utility dis-
ruption should be given.
• If a lengthy period of disruption is neces-
sary, utility bypasses should be provided.
Disruption of
through and local
traffic
0 0
Barricades and flagmen should be posted as
necessary to guide traffic through construc-
tion zones, residents in area should be
notified as to location, nature and duration
of construction.
Dust
0 0
Keep soil wetted down in construction area.
Increased potential
soil erosion
00 • If possible, construction should be done
during the drier months of the year.
• After construction, exposed soil areas should
be reseodod using grasses native to the area.
Employment
• None necessary.
Economic activity
+ + + + + 00
None necessary.
Safety hazard
0 0
All open trenches should be covered or fenced
at the end of each work day.
All construction equipment should be secured
against unauthorized use.
88
-------
Alternatives
art-Term Impacts
Hecorrunended Mitigation Measures
rial pollutants
• All vehicles and equipment should b-3 fitted
with appropriate pollution control devices
that are properly maintained.
sual impact of
nstruction equipment
d construction site
0 0
Equipment should be stored in a designated
area. All litter should be picked up.
Fence or otherwise -screen construction
maintenance area.
oil disposal
0 0
Disposal of spoil material from the pipeline
should be coordinated with other ongoing
projects needing fill material.
ockpiling and storage
spoil
00 *> All spoil material not needed for backfilling
should be removed from the pipeline route or
spread over the surface and seeded.
creased noise
0 0
iter quality (streams)
0 0
ly and ocean
iter quality (outfall
instruction)
0 ,..
All equipment should have mufflers, properly
installed and maintained.
Construction activities should be limited to
daylight hours.
* Construction activities in streamw^ys should
be limited to low flow periods.
« Care should be taken not to dischaj
-------
greatly influence the selection of a recommended plan from
among the alternatives even though the impact may be signfi-
cantly adverse. For case of understanding, the following
long-term impacts have; been divided according to major aroas
of concern — physical and biological resources, social foatureH
and financial considerations.
Physical and Biological Resources
The following list indicates those physical and biological
resource impacts to be discussed in the subsequent text.
- Water resources - quality and quantity
- Geologic hazards
- Air quality
- Archeological and historical
- Vegetation and terrestrial wildlife
- Marine biota
- Aesthetics
- Energy
Water resources - quality and quantity.
o The construction and hookup of a sewerage system
will protect the groundwater from sewage con-
tamination.
Under present conditions, septic tank systems periodically
fail in southwest Lincoln County due to high groundwater levels,
impermeable soils, poor tank design, construction and mainte-
nance and inadequate lot size. Under such conditions, ground-
water resources and sewage often come in contact, and may move
laterally along a cemented soil layer until surfacing in down-
slope areas. Even though most of the residents of the sanitary
district are not dependent on groundwater as a potable source,
any contamination of the water table by sewage would be unaccept-
able and a violation of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) (Sections
449.105 and 449.150).
The construction and operation of a sewerage system would
generally alleviate potential groundwater pollution and prevent
its occurrence as the area is more densely populated in the
future. This protection of the local groundwater resources
would represent a beneficial impact.
90
-------
o The elimination of sewage effluent on the
beaches, drainways and other ground surfaces
and a reduction in potential public health
hazards; and nuiuancen.
The presence of sewage wastewater was clearly evident at
locations on the beach and on some other ground surfaces of
southwest Lincoln County during 1968, 1972 and 1974 surveys.
Such conditions were in violation of ORS Sections 449.105 and
449.150 and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Section 41-015.
The treatment facility and interceptor system (assuming
mandatory hookup as required by Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District ordinances) will greatly reduce and eventually
eliminate the discharge of sewage wastewater to beaches and
ground surfaces. This action will reduce the likelihood of
public exposure to direct contact with raw sewage, and greatly
improve the aesthetic quality of use of the beaches and drain-
ages in southwest Lincoln County.
o Impact on stream biota and water quality.
Since none of the alternatives would discharge wastewater
to streams in the project area, there will be no direct long-
term impact on stream biota or water quality. A beneficial
impact will be realized from eliminating the present discharge
of 0.02 mgd of wastewater to Big Creek from the Camp Angell
sewage treatment facilities.
The impacts on streams instead relate to secondary effects
to be brought about by increased development in the southwest
Lincoln County area. The conversion of land from natural vege-
tative to impermeable surfaces will affect runoff patterns and
rates. Human activity in the area will change the quality
characteristics of the receiving waters and thus affect stream
biota. Residential or commercial development in poorly drained
or flood hazard areas often times results in the need or desire
for flood protection and control resulting in stream channeli-
zation projects. Table 18 gives an indication of the changes
in runoff water quality associated with various land use types.
Under existing conditions, the southwest Lincoln County area
probably represents the non-urban land use type shown on
Table 18. The reader can then see what projected emission
rates would be if land uses were to change to primarily resi-
dential/commercial or industrial use types.
91
-------
TABLE 18
URBAN AND NON-URBAN RUNOFF EMISSION RATDS
Land Use Typos
Constituent
COD
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
BOD5C
Ibs/acre/in of rainfall
mg/1
Suspended Solids
Ibs/acre/in of rainfall
mg/1
Nitrogen
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
Phosphorous
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
Oil and Grease
Ibs/acre/in
W3/1
Cadmium
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
Chromium
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
Copper
Ibs/acre/in
mgA
Load
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
Mercury
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
Nickel
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
Zinc
Ibs/acre/in
mgA
DDT corrpounds
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
PCB's
Ibs/acre/in
mg/1
a Source: Sartor J. D. , and
Residential ard
Commercial3
25
110
5
22
40
180
0.8
3.5
0.14
0.62
2.9
13
0.001
0.0049
0.041
o.ie
0.074
0.33
0.21
0.93
0.027
0.12
0.018
0.080
0.24
1.1
0.000047
0.00021
0.00041
0.001R
G. B. Boyd, Water
Industrial13
38
170
7.5
33
60
270
1.2
5.3
0.21
0.93
4.4
19
0.0017
0.0074
0.062
0.27
0.11
0.50
0.32
1.4
0.041
0.18
0.021
0.12
0.36
1.7
0.000071
0.00032
0.00061
0.0027
Pollution A5?-oct^ of
Non-Urban
NA
0.5
2.2
150
670
0.4
1.8
0.03
0.13
0.34
1.5
0.00010
0.00045
0.015
0.068
0.0050
0.022
0.0082
0.036
0.000014
O.OOOOC
0.0068
0.030
0.011
0.047
0.0000035
0.000015
0.0000045
O.OOOC20
Strrot Surface
Contaminants. EPA Import EPA- 112-7^-081, Novcnlx-r 1972; averaqe values
used in basin plan calculations except mercury, wMch was ansurnocl as one-
tenth the value listed.
" Value as residential and contnc'rcial increased 50 percent.
c UOO:BOL>5 = 5.0
Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, 1974
92
-------
o Operational reliability of pumping and treatment
facilities in protection of the environment.
The alternatives proposed for this project include between
10 and 12 pumping stations, depending upon the alternative
implemented. Each pumping station would be equipped with a
backup pump-motor combination which would be utilized in the
event of pump-motor failure. Each pump and motor combination
would be capable of pumping the entire flow through the pumping
station by itself. There will be no standby electrical power
provided at the pumping stations, although each will be
equipped with an alarm system that will signal to an operator
either a mechanical or electrical malfunction. In the event
of a sustained electrical outage, a portable electric generator(s)
would be utilized to provide power for pumping the raw sewage
through the various pumping stations.
With the exception of the no-action alternative, all of
the six viable alternatives would have sufficient operational
reliability to meet anticipated waste water treatment and
disposal requirements. The activated sludge process is a
well-proven process, one which has worked more than adequately
in this general area along the Coast and one which would pro-
vide sufficient operational reliability to protect the
environment. No mitigation measures are proposed.
Geologic hazards.
o Damage to facilities and disruption of operations
due to geologic hazards.
The waste treatment facilities, interceptors, pump
stations and treatment plant would be subject to disruption of
operations or physical damage from earthquakes, high ground-
water and surface flooding. Catastrophic coastal erosion also
represents a physical hazard in some locations.
Although earthquakes have occurred in central and south-
west Lincoln County, the known fault lines transecting the
study area are concealed and reported to be inactive. Based on
the history of seismic activity in the area, the probability
of a major earthquake (Mercalli magnitude VII or larger) is
judged to be low. However, if such an event did occur, the
rupture of lines and tanks could cause raw sewage to enter
drainageways and affect the surrounding environment.
93
-------
The problems of high groundwater and flooding seem more
likely to occur than seismic events. For example, high
groundwater and heavy rains have caused problems with infiltra-
K°noin ™!*aldp°rt sewera
-------
an odor-producing situation. Thus, the proximity of the plant
to residential or commercial developments will influence the
degree to which complaints may be received. Expansion of
facilities at the City of Waldport site could represent an
adverse impact due to the proximity of commercial developments
and a school. Also potentially adverse, would be the expansion
of the City of Yachats plant due to the close proximity of
residences. There should be no overall impact of odor produc-
tion from treatment plants at Waconda Beach, Big Creek, or
San Marine because sufficient land could be purchased to pre-
vent the encroachment of residential development.
The alternative of sewage sludge incineration could cause
the emission of air pollutants. The primary end products of
sludge combusion are carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and ash.
The particulates are potentially the major emission problem
because of the violent upwards movement of combustion gases.
However, particulate control can be achieved using wet
scrubbers. Table 19 shows the likely emission factors from
sewage sludge incinerators.
One means of reducing the likelihood of odors resulting
from sewage treatment, is to utilize air injection in all
force mains conveying raw sewage to the treatment plant.
This air injection should guarantee that sewage influent will
not be in a septic condition and therefore will not release
odors upon entering the treatment plant.
A secondary impact on air quality, associated with pro-
viding sewerage facilities, will result from increased socio-
economic development in the sanitary district. Added popula-
tion growth will increase highway vehicular emissions, off-
highway sources (utility engine and construction equipment
emissions) and open burning of such things as wood and land-
scape refuse (some of this growth will occur without a project
but at a slower rate)„ While such development will increase
virtually all forms of pollutants (particulates, sulfur oxides,
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides) the natural
ventilating capabilities of the coastal area are expected to
limit the degree of impact to an acceptable level.
Archeolog i ca1-his to r i c a 1.
o Impact on federally or state recognised
historic places.
95
-------
TABLE 19
EMISSION FACTORS FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Emissions3
Uncontrolled0
Pollutant
Particulate
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides (as NO )
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen chloride gas
Ib/ton
100
1
Neg
6
1.5
1.5
kg/MT
50
0.5
Neg
3
0.75
0.75
After scrubber
Ib/ton
3
0.8
Neg
5
1
0.3
kg/MT
1.5
0.4
Neg
2.5
0.5
0.15
a Unit weights in terms of dried sludge.
k Estimated from emission factors after scrubbers.
From: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
96
-------
Only one site in Lincoln County is listed in the National
Register o_f Historic Places. That one site, the old Yaquina
Bay lighthouse, will not be impacted by any of the alternative
sewage systems.
One historic property of statewide value, the Oregon
Coast Highway, is within the study area. Although much of
the construction would parallel the highway, the road would
not be destroyed nor would its historic integrity be harmed.
o Impact on archeological resources.
Only one archeological site is threatened by the construc-
tion of alternatives 1 through 5. That site is located near
the mouth of Starr Creek.
Starr Creek (site designation pending) (Figure 12). This
is a midden site situated near Starr Creek at its confluence
with the Pacific Ocean. A pumping station is proposed on
this site as well as a sewer line which would transect the site,
If the pumping station were located north of the gravel road
and beach access, it will not impact the site. The sewer line
running south from this pumping station, unless relocated
approximately 100 feet east of its proposed location, will cut
through the site requiring salvage excavation.
Although an initial field reconnaissance has been conduc-
ted, buried cultural materials may well be encountered during
the construction of facilities for alternatives 1 through 5.
In order to reduce the likelihood of cultural resource distur-
bance, the consulting archeologist should be sent copies of
final construction plans and the professional archeologist
should be "on call" in the event a buried site is encountered
during construction. This will require an open line of communi-
cation between the archeologist and the principal contractor.
The end result will be the potential salvage of invaluable
information and the least possible delay in construction.
Vegetation and terrestrial wildlife.
o The construction of sewage facilities will impact
vegetation and attendant wildlife.
Sewage facilities require land and the removal of native
vegetation and wildlife. This removal of habitat will affect
wildlife, both directly and indirectly. Subsurface dwelling
and sedentary mammals, amphibians and reptiles at facilities
locations will be destroyed by construction activities. Some
birds, mammals and reptiles that periodically use facilities
sites will be excluded from this use.
97
-------
Starr Creek
BH I
BM (7P».
~lf
* /D^l^
8M
_-••- • » K • * »*-^
^°"_> */*ru ic \ • *""
33f,/-w^;.
rr ~ ... •-"• \AO 7—- - "~ • \
*—" ~s- »O *p;
-------
The proposed interceptor system will, for the most part,
parallel existing roadways — U. S. Highway 101 and the numerous
streets connecting to the main highway.
The construction of the pipeline in other than roadways
will eliminate vegetation, wildlife habitat and some local
populations of animals. Ground-dwelling mammals such as
moles and shrews will be destroyed and populations of above-
ground fauna reduced from loss of habitat. Birds, mammals,
reptiles and amphibians utilizing the habitat will be indirectly
affected. Since most pipeline construction will be in roadways
this impact is expected to be intermittent.
Under the no action alternative (no. 6), there will be no
impact on terrestrial vegetation and wildlife resources re-
sulting from project implementation. The population growth
and home development secondary impacts would be of a lesser
magnitude with no action than those secondary impacts resulting
from alternatives 1 through 5 and 7. Home development is
expected to continue with all alternatives however at a slower
rate with no action. That continued development will result
in the loss of vegetation and many associated wildlife species.
o Bare and endangered species.
Several vertebrate species deemed rare, endangered or
possibly threatened occur within the study area. Four of
the species — the northern bald eagle, Aleutian Canada goose,
peregrine falcon and western snowy plover — are seasonal
visitors to the study area and may occur in the study area at
least part of the year. Neither the sewage treatment plant nor
the interceptor system will adversely affect those species.
The fisher, white-footed vole, northern spotted owl
and flammulated owl are species of the higher elevations and
dense sitka spruce, western red cedar and western hemlock
forest. The spotted owl and flammulated owl may forage through-
out the study area and would be indirectly affected by the
project. The white-footed vole represents the only rare or
endangered species likely to be directly impacted by inter-
ceptor or treatment plant construction. Virtually all of the
white-footed vole habitat directly adjacent to the U. S. High-
way 101 is of marginal quality because of disturbance from
previous road and water main construction activities.
The greatest impact on rare or endangered wildlife is most
likely to result from the future residential development in
the sanitary district. Residential and commercial structures
with their attendant roadways, service rights-of-way and other
99
-------
facilities, will cause a greater loss of wildlife habitats
than will occur from the sewage treatment plant, pumps and
the interceptor system. Beach pine-sitka spruce habitat that
now supports spotted owls, flammulated owls and the white-
footed vole, will be reduced as development increases. The
more substantial impact on rare and endangered wildlife will
be most likely to occur with full sewering of the sanitary
district as provided for in Alternatives 1 through 5.
The impacts on rare and endangered species can be
mitigated by 1) constructing the interceptor system and sewage
treatment facilities on previously disturbed sites and 2)
regulating the density and distribution of residential and
commercial buildings within the District. The implementation
of the latter mitigation measure would be dependent on Lincoln
Countv and LCDC decisions on land use.
Marine biota.
o Impact on marine biota.
Of the seven possible project alternatives, five would
discharge wastewater into an estuarine or marine receiving
water.
Eatuarine outfall. Alternatives 2 and 5 would involve
the Waldport sewerage treatment plant and the discharge of
treated wastewater into Alsea Bay. Under Alternative 2, 0.19
mgd of wastewater flow (1975 population) would be added to the
existing 0.1 mgd discharge, while Alternative 5 would add
0.38 mgd to the 0.1 mgd discharge. Presently the Waldport
sewerage treatment plant discharges into Lint Slough; however,
expansion of these facilities would necessitate an extension
of the outfall into the main Alsea Bay channel. The present
dispersion and dilution qualities of Lint Slouqh were determined
by DEQ to be insufficient to handle the additional treated waste-
water without causing degradation of the receiving water quality.
To take advantage of the bay's natural ability to assimi-
late wastewater, the location of an outfall in the Alsea
estuary is important to the maintenance of estuarine biota
and water quality. Improper placement of an outfall could
result in a number of adverse affects; for example, a reduction
of dissolved oxygen, the deaths of some biota, an accumulation
of heavy metals in the substrate or shellfish, increased
turbidity and biostimulation (leading to growth of algae).
100
-------
The placement of an outfall in an area having a good exchange
of water and good dispersion greatly reduces the likelihood of
adverse effects such as those previously mentioned. As a
general rule, the nearer the main channel and the closer to
the ocean one places the outfall the less the risk to water
quality and biota.
Under existing conditions, the Waldport treatment facility
cannot exceed a monthly average of 25 pounds per day BOD or a
daily maximum of 56 pounds. The anticipated NPDES requirements
for Alternatives 2 and 5 discharge to Alsea Bay would vary
depending upon the season of the year. Between June 1 and
October 31, a 20 milligram per liter biological oxygen demand
and 20 milligram per liter suspended solids limitation are
expected. Between November 1 and May 31, it is expected that
these limits would be increased to 30 milligrams per liter
for each.
With stringent NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) requirements for fecal coliform bacteria
(presently 70 MPN for 100 ml) there should not be a health
hazard through shellfish harvesting associated with sewage
discharge to the estuary.
The malfunction of the sewerage facilities or accidental
discharge of untreated waste into Alsea Bay would constitute
a threat to estuarine biota and to public health.
One additional adverse impact may result from the addi-
tion of phosphates to Alsea Bay. Phosphates may create
localized algae growth problems.
Ocean outfall. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would discharge
to the ocean with Altez-natives 1 and 3 requiring outfalls off
open sandy beaches. Alternatives 2 and 4 located at Yachats
would discharge through an existing outfall off the rocky
shore. As with any wastewater discharge, the important con-
cerns for ocean wastewater discharge are the quality of the
effluent, the dispersion capacity of the receiving water and
the sensitivity of the receiving environment to wastewater
discharge.
The location and length of a beach outfall are important
factors relative to the impact on water quality, the marine
biota and beach recreation. The combination of tidal currents,
on-shore winds, water depth and volume of discharge usually
determine the location and the length of the outfall needed
to prevent adverse effects.
101
-------
Alternative 1 (Waconda Beach/San Marine sewerage treatment
plants) would each support half of the district population, or
1,350 people in 1975 and 2,350 for the year 2000. Discharge
volume at each plant for 1975 and 2000 populations, would be
0.19 mgd and 0.33 mgd respectively. Alternative 3 (Big Crook
sewerage treatment plant) would require a wuBtewuter flow of
0.38 mgd at 1975 population levels and 0.66 mgd for a year
2000 population. The length of outfalls for Alternatives 1
and 3 would have to be sufficient to place the top of the out-
fall 10 feet below mean low lower tide level. It is estimated
that this would require an outfall about 1000 feet in length.
It is felt that NPDES permits for those outfalls would stipulate
a 50-foot radius mixing zone as similar for the existing City
of Yachats outfall.
Whatever effects sewage effluent would have on marine
biota would probably be restricted to very near the point of
discharge. Combinations of factors such as wind and tides
could cause effluent to be driven on-shore, having localized
effects on intertidal biota such as shellfish (razor clams)
and other benthic fauna and on recreation uses of the beach.
If the contamination of shellfish or the water is severe
enough, the beach areas can be closed due to a health hazard.
Such events seem unlikely because the amount of wastewater
discharged is relatively small, and the levels of treatment
required by the EPA and DEQ for the NPDES waste discharge
permit are designed to meet the water quality standards for
marine waters of Oregon (OAR Chapter 334 [Section 11-010;
11-205; 11-070]).
The discharge of wastewater off of rocky coastline, as
in Alternatives 2 and 4, is thought to have less potential
for adverse impact than would discharging off of a sandy beach
or into an estuary. The combination of good dispersion
capacities, aeration, sufficient water depth and little
recreational use level ensure the lesser potential for adverse
impact. However, a long term malfunction of sewage facili-
ties, thus discharge of untreated waste, onto a rocky shoreline
would likely have a greater impact on marine biota than would
a like discharge onto a sandy beach. This is because there is
a greater diversity of marine species inhabiting a rocky shore.
The NPDES water discharge permit will establish required
effluent quality conditions to ensure compliance with state
water quality standards.
102
-------
Aesthetics.
o Aesthetics impaai.
The sewerage facilities, with the attendant pump stations
along the interceptor line, will cause changes in the aesthe-
tic condition of the area. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would
require the expansion of existing treatment facilities at
Waldport and Yachats, while Alternatives 1 and 3 would require
new treatment plants, either at Waconda Beach, San Marine or
Big Creek.
Construction of these treatment facilities would impact
the existing aesthetic quality of their locations in a variety
of ways. The existing Yachats and Waldport sewage treatment
plants (Alternatives 2, 4 and 5) are located adjacent to
residential development and to school property. Treatment
facility expansion would probably include some of the school
land. The location of both plants within the Cities of Wald-
port and Yachats could create a visual impact greater than
will new treatment plants at Waconda Beach, Big Creek or San
Marine. At new locations a treatment plant site may be
selected which would be removed from the visual range of the
Coast Highway, and a buffer area could be purchased to prevent
the encroachment of residential development within close visual
range of the treatment facility. A mitigation measure common
to all treatment facility locations would be the provision of
sufficient landscaping to provide a pleasing foreground to the
treatment facility. In addition, any buildings which are con-
structed should be architecturally blended with the existing
architecture of the area.
The aesthetic impact of no action (Alternative 6) would
be the continuation of periodic septic tank overflow into
surface drainages and onto beaches resulting in the aesthetic
unpleasantness associated with raw sewage in public and
private use areas. Those problem areas are likely to be
throughout the sanitary district because high groundwater and
impermeable soils conditions are prevalent over a wide area.
Pumping stations would be necessary for 5 of the 7 alter-
natives. All pumping stations would be buried except for a
2-foot high manhole extending above the ground.
A major secondary impact on the aesthetic quality of the
area could be created by future residential and commercial
development of the district. The magnitude of that impact
would be dependent on the extent to which the area is built
out, the size and location of residential lots, the quality of
residential development and the measures taken by homeowners to
build and maintain structures that fit the natural coastal
setting.
103
-------
In order to minimize the visual impact of any of the alter-
native facilities the treatment plants should be constructed
using local building materials as much as possible and screen-
ing the plant by landscaping or wood fencing.
Pump stations should be constructed to conform with
topographic profiles where possible and any exposed portions
should be painted or landscaped to blend with the surrounding
natural setting.
Energy.
o Impact of consumptive use of energy.
All alternatives will, in varying degrees, have an impact
upon energy consumption. Alternatives 1 through 5 will require
the greatest energy requirements, while Alternative 6, no action,
will have no energy requirements unless mitigation measures such
as septic tank repair or installation of storage vaults are
enacted. The degree to which the six alternatives consume
energy is presented in Table 20. Of the five treatment facility
alternatives, the least energy-consuming is Alternative 3,
principally because this alternative pumps all raw sewage
towards the middle of the District, eliminating multiple
pumping of sewage as is required in other alternatives. In
addition to the electrical energy requirements shown in this
table, Alternative 7 also has a requirement for diesel fuel for
operation of the septic tank pumper truck. Estimates indicate
that 91,200 gallons of diesel fuel would be required for a
20-year period of operation. There are no proposed mitigation
measures to lessen the requirement for energy.
Social Features
The following list indicates those social impacts discussed
in the subsequent text.
- Parks and natural areas
- Land use
- Land use planning
- Traffic
- Population characteristics
- Sewage facility management
- Cumulative effects
104
-------
TABLE 20
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
KILOWATT-HOURS/20 YEARS
ALTERNATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
TREATMENT
6,876,000
6,876,000
3,986,000
3,986,000
3,986,000
-
.600,000
PUMPING
1,410,000
2,116,000
1,788,000
3,606,000
4,268,000
-
0
TOTAL
8,286,000
8,992,000
5,774,000
7,592,000
8,254,000
1,600,000
* Alternative 7 also requires about 91,200 gallons of diesel fuel
for the septic tank pumper truck every 20 years.
105
-------
Parks and natural areas.
o Impact on parks and natural areas.
Five state and federal parks and campgrounds are in the
Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District. The five areas
total 39 acres and contain 126 overnight campsites and numerous
day-use picnic areas. Two areas — San Marine State Wayside
and Blodgett recreation site (U. S. Forest Service) — are
undeveloped and have no facilities. The remaining three areas
contain day use or overnight facilities with toilet buildings
and/or showers. All three areas have sewage disposal problems.
Sewage from Tillicum Beach is presently pumped to the Camp
Angell Job Corps Center for disposal (Collett, pers. comm.).
Beachside State Park was closed during part of 1974; however,
was reopened when a daily septic tank pumping program was
undertaken. Waste pumped from the campground was disposed of
at the Waldport sewage treatment plant.
Alternatives 1 through 5 would eliminate the septic tank
failure problems now associated with the park and campground
areas. Alternatives 6 and 7 (no project and septic tank
maintenance) would be unacceptable (no project) or expensive
(approximately $31,000 per camping season per park for Alter-
native 7) .
Continued sewage disposal problems at the parks could
result in the Department of Environmental Quality ordering
closure of the facilities or prompting each park to install
separate sewage treatment plants.
Land use.
o Impact on land use patterns.
None of the alternatives can be expected to alter the
existing land use patterns of the district. The intensity
of present uses, however, can be expected to vary according
to alternatives selected. Generally, the no project alterna-
tive would result in a stagnation of property values and a
slowing of real estate sales. Build-out levels below current
expectations could result with the no project alternative.
Difficulties may also be anticipated with overloading of exist-
ing on-site facilities during peak population months of the
year.
106
-------
In terms of secondary impacts, it appears unlikely that
any change in current pattern of land use would result from
the project. The present mix of public, private and commercial
use is likely to be maintained. The no project alternative,
however, would cause a decrease in the rate of vacation and
retirement home construction as well as after property values
in areas where septic tanks are prohibited.
Land use planning.
o Impact on land use planning,
No changes are anticipated in current zoning or land use
plans as a result of any of the sewerage alternatives. The no
project alternative, however, could result in substantial
inconsistencies between current zoning and actual use. If
Department of Environmental Quality and county criteria for
soil and water table conditions suitable for septic tank use
are adhered to then substantial portions of the district zoned
residential, may in the absence of public sewerage facilities,
be unusable in that classification, however other land uses
would be allowed to occur.
The planning and siting of sewerage facilities has been
deemed an activity of statewide significance, requiring a
planning and siting action on the part of LCDC to determine
whether or not the project conforms with statewide land use
planning goals and, in this case, coastal zone management
goals. Also a determination of compliance with the local
comprehensive land use plan is required. Since neither the
coastal zone management goals of the State of Oregon nor the
Comprehensive Plan for Lincoln County have been adopted by
LCDC, the intended state forum is not operating for the review
of the proposed sewerage plans and their relationship to land
use. LCDC officials have stated in a letter to the EPA that
they, in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Environ-
meantal Quality, will oversee the planning and siting of this
project and thereby insure that no hook-ups will be allowed
until a comprehensive plan addressing land planning issue has
been filed with LCDC. Whether LCDC has the authority to
impose such restrictions on local residents is a matter which
has yet to be resolved and, no doubt, will require a legal
interpretation of the applicable statutes before a resolution
is reached. The designation of urban growth boundaries surround-
ing the population center of Waldport and Yachats on either end
of the district and comprehensive land use plans have not been
made; thus, a determination of the orderliness of urbanization
within the area cannot be made in conformance with the state-
wide adopted planning goals.
107
-------
Traffic.
o Impact from traffic,
A secondary impact of sewerage facility development and
subsequent residential development, will be an increase in
traffic loads on all roads within the Southwest Lincoln area.
Projected emissions generated from local and tourist traffic
between Yachats and Yaquina Bay are presented in Table 21.
Daily traffic loads on Highway 101 are often at the
capacity of the highway (about 8,000 ADT) during the summer
months of June through August (Schwab, pers. comm.). At
the present time there are no plans to increase the highway
capacity of Highway 101, either by roadway improvement or
construction of a new highway.
Given this information, it is likely that future develop-
ment in Southwest Lincoln County will add to the existing
seasonal traffic congestion problem. Local streets, which
are unimproved, will degrade further and some may become
impassable during the wet season.
Population characteristics.
o Impact of permanent vs. transient use.
In addition to the two state parks currently being operated
in the district, the State intends to develop for park use
its properties at Smelt Sands and San Marine (pers. comm.,
Larry Jacobson). These developments would surely add to the
peak tourist population which has been steadily increasing in
recent years. Commercial facilities which cater primarily to
the tourist traffic will, of course, benefit from this
expansion. Tourists who partake of the natural amenities of
the area gain benefits from having sewered camping and pic-
nicing facilities available to them.
An issue is whether a mechanism can be devised which
insures that the small group of permanent residents is not
adversely impacted by subsidizing the non-resident, non-tax-
paying transient population as well as commercial proprietors
who benefit from the increased tourist traffic. If no method
is developed to insure that transient populations bear their
share of the sewerage cost; permanent residents will be trans-
ferring their income to transient, non-residents who are pri-
marily responsible for the peak capacity needs which influence
the capital cost.
o The population impact of a sewerage system.
108
-------
Table 21
PROJECTED AIR EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) FROM LOCAL AND
TOURIST TRAFFIC — YACHATS TO YAQUINA BAY
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen
Particulates
Year
1974
1975
o 1980
VO
1990
2000
2010
2020
2025
Carbon
Monoxide
Local
2,960
2,749
1,501
1,000
1,216
1,433
1,650
1,750
Tourist
1,452
1,348
692
433
505
570
650
698
Hydrocarbons
Exhaust
Local
290
275
157
108
131
155
178
189
Tourist
142
135
72
47
58
62
70
76
Crankcase &
Evaporation
Local
106
82
35
32
39
45
52
55
Tourist
52
40
16
14
16
21
21
22
Oxides
(N0x_as N02)
Local
275
275
202
150
182
215
248
263
Tourist
135
135
93
65
76
87
98
105
Exhaust &
Tire Wear
Local
31
32
38
48
59
69
79
85
Tourist
15
16
17
21
25
28
31
34
Sulfur Oxides
(S02)
Local
11
11
13
17
20
24
28
29
Tourist
5
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
Source: Data projected from Oregon State Highway Division Traffic Volumes tables; population projections;
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/ 1975.
-------
Recent experience suggests that approximately 23 percent
of current permit applications are being denied (Postle,
reported in Meyer, April 1975); the fact that some permits
are being refused is already reflected in the estimate of
20-25 units per year absorbed. It is this estimate which is
used to approximate growth under the no project alternative.
The implementation of a sewerage system would facilitate
future growth in the area. A number of the permits denied in
the past might be resubmitted once wastewater problems of
particular sites are solved, and a spurt of development re-
flecting the backlog of denied permits may be experienced.
The magnitude of this "catch-up" component of future growth
cannot easily be estimated, as some of those to whom a permit
was denied may have found other acceptable properties in the
interim.
In the period following the completion of a regional
sewerage facility, annual growth would probably take place
at a higher rate than the historical experience of 20-25
units. If 23 units were built when 23 percent of permit
applications were rejected, then the total demand must have
been in the vicinity of 30 units per year. Projecting this
absorption forward, 20-year growth would result in a 1995
population of 3,480 non-transient persons, as is presented in
Table 22. Population projections of the facilities engineer
are presented in the same table for comparative purposes.
Over time, the annual growth increment is likely to
decline from 30 units per year to some lower figure. This
will happen because the remaining sites in any given year
will be less desirable than in earlier years, the higher
amenity (coast access and water view) sites having been
absorbed first. Also, the level of urbanization itself may
make the area less desirable from the viewpoint of a house-
hold in the market for a recreation home. Even in the recent
past, there has been a decline in the numerical increase in
the number of second homes in Lincoln County. That number
rose by 377 between 1950 and 1960, but by 347 between 1960
and 1970. The realization of the higher growth figures pre-
sented in Table 22 probably depends on a shift in ownership
patterns toward permanent, year-round occupancy, which in turn
would require expansion of employment opportunities in the
region.
Sewage facility management.
o Personnel needed to operate the treatment
110
-------
Table 22
COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Source of Projection
Historical
Housing Unit
Year
1975
1985
1995
2025
Absorption1
2
2
3
4
,040
,590
,145
,800
Future
Without
Absorption
Sewer Constraint
(30 units/year)
2,
2,
3,
5,
040
760
480
640
Sewerage Study2
Total
Peak
2
3
4
6
,700
,500
,300
,700
Loss
Transient
600
825
975
1,450
Non-
Transient
Total
2,
2,
3,
5,
024
675
325
250
See Table 6b.
See Meyer, September 1974, Table I.
-------
All of the treatment alternatives proposed will require
a District staff comprised of a superintendent and a bookkeeper.
In addition to this, operators will be required for the treat-
ment plant. Projections at this time indicate that Alterna-
tives 1 and 2 will require a total of 3-1/2 people; Alternatives
3, 4 and 5 will require 3 people, and Alternative 7 will
require 2-1/2 people. Alternative 6 requires no personnel,
as this is a no-action alternative, and no facilities will be
constructed or maintained.
Cumulative effects.
o Cumulative impact of sewering two sanitary
districts.
Although the southwest Lincoln County and Bay to Bay
Sanitary Districts are considered as separate legal entities,
the effects of sewering each district will not be limited
just to the district boundaries, but instead will have an
impact on surrounding communities and on each other.
The sewering of each district will provide a catalyst
for residential and commercial development from Yachats to
Newport. This increased growth will have a particularly
profound impact on U. S. Highway 101, the only major transpor-
tation route along the coast. Traffic congestion under pre-
sent conditions occurs in Waldport and Newport during the
summer months. As with many cities and towns along the coast,
the Highway 101 runs directly through the centers of Newport and
Waldport, creating a mix of local and through traffic. The
increased local population (that portion of the population
owning homes or businesses in the area) and expected increases
in tourist traffic, will create more traffic congestion
throughout both sanitary districts and in nearby cities.
The increase in local population and home development
will cause an increased demand in utilities -- electricity,
water and natural gas and in community services in the area --
police and fire protection, street maintenance, and solid
waste collection. It is unlikely that there will be a signifi-
cant increase in school enrollment because of the summer resi-
dent and retirement nature of the community.
The sewering of the two sanitary districts will cause
changes in land use along a 21-mile strip of coast. Land now
as open space and covered with natural vegetation and supporting
wildlife species, will be changed to a rural residential land
use. Other areas of open lands may become commercial.
112
-------
Financial Impacts
The following list indicates those financial impacts to
be discussed in the subsequent text.
- Local economy
- Cost to property owners
- Property values
Local economy.
o Impact on local economy.
The project's impact will be felt as an injection to the
local economy for expenditures on new and additional services.
Some jobs may be created for the duration of the project.
Approximately 1,308 man-days of labor will be necessary to
complete the collection system and another 2,500 man-days
necessary for treatment facilities and pumping stations.
Approximately 20% of this labor may be supplied locally
resulting in a total of approximately $60,928.00 of employment
income. All of the necessary materials for the project are
expected to be purchased outside the area.
The ability to expand existing commercial tourist facili-
ties will have a salubrious effect on the local retail trade
and service industry. Accelerated growth in residential
building and real estate sales is expected regardless of which
viable project alternative is selected. These long-term
effects are difficult to quantify but the general pattern of
development appears to be one of continued growth in residential
housing with new motels and stores.
Costs to property owners.
o Financial impact on local property owners for
project implementation and operation.
The total cost of implementing any alternative appears as a
number of separate buildings to the user. The purpose of this
section is, to approximate the separate costs which could be
incurred and then to estimate example total costs for various
lot sizes. Although no alternative is recommended by EPA to this
113
-------
time, Alternative 4 - Yachats Alternative - is utilized to
calculate these example user costs. Alternative 4 was selected
because it represents one of the lowest cost alternatives and
has been represented locally as an acceptable alternative.
Six different costs comprise the total implementation
cost, and these are discussed in the following sections.
Initial costs.
- Connection cost - this is a one-time payment by
property owners for connection to the public sewerage
system. The District's Engineer has recommended an
initial connection cost of $100.00, and a $500.00 cost
for property connected more than 90 days after sewer
availability.
- Inspection cost - This is a one-time payment to cover
the District's cost of inspecting new service connec-
tions to their system. The District Engineer has
recommended an inspection cost of $15.00.
- Lateral to public sewer - The sewer collection system
to be constructed will include laterals to the indi-
vidual property lines. The property owner is respon-
sible for extending the lateral from the property line
to his house connection. The cost of this extension
will vary with distance and lot topography, but will
probably fall between $100 and $500 per lot. A "middle
of t;he road" cost of $250 has been utilized in this
analysis. Based on sanitary district figures for the
number of existing dwellings having water service, it
is likely that there will be approximately 850 initial
sewer hookups.
Annual costs.
- Local Improvement District (LID) assessment - This
assessment is comprised of two costs:
1. An area cost of $0.0264 per square foot assessed
against all property within 300 feet of a pro-
posed sewer.
2. A benefit cost of $0.0395 per square foot assessed
against the first 150 feet of property depth.
114
-------
The assessment can be paid as an initial cash payment
or can be financed at a rate of 7% over a 10 or 20-year
period. Payments are made semi-annually.
- Sewer service charge - This is a monthly charge assessed
against each connection to pay for sewage transportation,
treatment, disposal and a portion of the bond payment.
The District's Engineer has recommended a charge of
$5.0 0/month/connection.
- Ad valorem taxes - These are property taxes that are
calculated according to the assessed value of the various
properties within the District. The rate of taxation
was estimated to be $1.66 per $1,000 of assessed
valuation in 1980, $1.07 per $1,000 in 1990, and $0.82/
$1,000 in year 2000. The rate of taxation decreases
with time principally because the District's assessed
valuation is rising, and bond payments remain constant.
These taxes are not a part of operation and maintenance
costs for the sewerage system, but rather represent property
taxes designed to pay off bonds for treatment facilities.
Summarized in Table 23 are the intial and annual estimated
costs for four different lot sizes. The assumptions made in
the development of this table were:
1. L.I.D. assessments were financed over a 20-year period
2. Assessed valuation of lots was:
60' x 100' lot - $15,000
75.0' x 100' lot - $21,000
100' x 200' lot - $30,000
200' x 200' lot - $50,000
The table shows that an initial cost of about $365 would
be required to hook up to the sewer and annual costs would
range from about $122 to $353 in 1980 (depending on lot size),
decreasing to about $109 to $311 per year (depending on lot
size) in year 2000.
o Ability to pay.
The Southwest Lincoln area is characterized by compara-
tively low incomes, higher than average median age and relative-
ly low residential property values. These are all indicators
of possible difficulties in supporting a major public capital
investment.
115
-------
Table 23
PROJECTED COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE 4
LOT!/
SIZE
60x100
X5xlOO
100x200
200x200
INITIAL COSTS I/
CONNECTION
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
INSPECTION
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
FROM HOUSE -1
TO
PUBLIC SEWER
LATERAL
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
TOTAL
355 y
365
365
365
ANNUAL COSTS -*
L.I.D. ASSES-
MENT - 20-YR
FINANCING
PERIOD - $/YR
36.99 -/
46.27
104.99
209.89
SEWER
SERVICE
CHARGE
$/YR
60.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
AD VALOREM TAXES - $/YR-/
1980 1990 2000
24.90 16.05 12.30
34.86 22.47 17.22
49.80 32.10 24.60
83.00 53.50 41.00
TOTAL
ANNUAL COST - $/YR
1980 1990 2000
121.89 113.04 109.29
141.13 128.74 123.49
214.79 197.09 189.59
352.89 323.99 310.89
V 1st dimension is street frontage
2/ Varies with distance between house and property line as well as
property topography. Expected range is $100 to $500.
3/ May be paid by initial cash payment, which would be from top of
table to bottom: $395.00; $494.00; $1121.00; and $2241.00. May
also be paid in semi-annual payments over a 10-year period,
which would be from top to bottom: $55.59/year; $69.52/year;
$157.75/year; and $315.36/year.The 20-year financing can also
be paid in semi-annual payments.
V Tax rates were estimated to be: 1980-$! .66/1000; 1990-$!. 077
1000; and 2000-$0. 82/1000. Assessed valuations used to
compute taxes were:
60x100' lot
75x100' lot
100x200' lot
200x200' lot
$15,000
$21,000
$30,000
$50,000
ji/ This total initial cost would increase by
$400 for a cost of $765 for connections
made after the 90-day availability period.
6/ Total first year costs include the total
initial costs plus total first year annual
costs.
Source: Modified from financial plan prepared
by Robert Meyer Engineers.
-------
The two major sources of income for tax-paying residents
of the area are retirement benefits and self-employment
earnings. These sources tend to yield mean incomes well below
that of median family income levels in the county as a whole,
even though the county is below that of the State of Oregon.
Table 24 presents 1970 median family incomes for the United
States, Oregon and Lincoln County.
This low income factor must be taken into consideration
when deciding the appropriate sewerage facility financial
scheme.
It should also be recognized that the median age of the
population in southwest Lincoln County is well above that of
the county as a whole. This area is recognized as a retire-
ment center. Retired and inadequately employed persons typi-
cally live on incomes which do not keep pace with inflation
and, therefore, must be given adequate consideration lest they
be displaced from the community as a result of unusually
great utility and tax costs.
Property values.
o The impact of a sewerage system on property values,
Property values have tended to increase more slowly in
southwest Lincoln County than in the county and the State.
There may be a number of forces responsible for this lag,
among which is the absence of adequate sewerage facilities.
The provision of such facilities may cause property values
to increase at a faster rate which could result in higher
property taxes for residents. The State of Oregon has enacted
legislation which provides for a homeowner's and renter's
property tax refund applicable on a graduated scale for
households earning $15,000 or less incomes per year which
could mitigate the impact of increased taxes on many of the
permanent residents. While the provision of sewer facilities
may cause property values throughout the district to increase
somewhat, Alternatives 1 and 3 which call for the location of
treatment facilities at Waconda Beach, San Marine and Big
Creek locations, may tend to have adverse impacts on property
values immediately adjacent to the plants and outfalls. Alter-
natives 2, 4, and 5 would locate the treatment facilities out-
side the district boundaries and hence, would have no
depressing effect on property values within the district. In
the long term properties adjoining the plants in Yachats and
117
-------
Waldport may decrease as the treatment plants enlarge, age and
reach their treatment capacities, Alternative 6, the no project
alternative, can be expected to result in diminished property
values in residential zones which are deemed unsuitable for
septic tank usage by the County. Alternative 7, which calls
for a program of septic tank maintenance, would be an improve-
ment over the no project alternative, however, would still
result in property value losses to property owners who are
unable to obtain septic tank facilities.
TABLE 24
Family Incomes in 1970 of Lincoln County
as Compared to State and Nation
Median Family Income
United States $9,590
Oregon 9,489
Lincoln County 7,909
118
-------
V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The unavoidable adverse impacts of all alternatives are
presented in Table 25. While most of the sewage facilities
projects have similar impacts, there is a market difference
between impacts of alternatives 1 through 5 and 6 and 7. The
following is a summary of the adverse impacts of each of the
alternatives.
1 Waconda Beach/San Marine Alternative. The impacts on
groundwater, beaches,geologic hazards,air quality, vegetation
and wildlife, marine biota, aesthetics, parks and land use
patterns will be minor. Of major consequence are the impacts
on land use planning, traffic, energy consumption, property
owners and permanent vs. transient use. This alternative
represents one of the more costly alternatives for local
property owners.
2 Waldport/Yachats Alternative. The impacts of this
alternative would be similar to those of the Waconda Beach/
San Marine alternative except chat there would be a minor
impact to both estuarine and ocean biota because of the two
outfall locations. There would be a major financial impact
on the local property owners and on the consumptive use of
energy.
3 Big Creek Alternative. The impacts on groundwater,
beaches,public health hazard, operational reliability,
geologic hazards, air quality, vegetation and wildlife, marine
biota, aesthetics, parks and land use patterns will be minor.
There is a potential for a moderate adverse impact on archeo-
logical resources, land use planning, traffic, permanent vs.
transient use and cost to property owners. Energy consumption
would be less than alternatives 1 or 2.
4 Yachats Alternative. The adverse impacts associated
with this alternative would be the same as those associated
with alternative 3.
5 Waldport Alternative. The adverse impacts of this
alternative are basxcally the same as those of alternative 4
except that effluent discharge will be into the Alsea estuary
rather than as an ocean discharge. This alternative would
also consume more energy than will alternative 4.
119
-------
Table 25
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS OF
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SOUTHWEST
LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
Impacts
1
fi i
U 41
a m
0) 01 0) -P
CQ C M G
•H EH Id
(8 M e-t
*O (0 CJ &4
cs: cr
0 13 -P
O G & C
•0 10 0) Q)
2
4J
a
-a oi
H 4J
(0 10
u
T3 Id
C *
a-a
X G
w id
3
4J
0) 4J
AS Wi C
0) H HJ
01 •-!
M ID &,
u o-.
id -P
cr> > c
•H 0) tt)
co cn e
4
jj
o
1-1
D)
id
a
CO V)
•H 4J
W 4J O
-P C-H
« W to
£ -P
u u to
Id O-rH
X
-------
6 No Project. The major adverse impacts of this
alternative will be associated with qroundwatcr deqradation,
sewage on beaches and a qrcater potential for a public health
hazard. The periodic outflow of sewaqe onto beaches, ditches
and cut banks will create a major adverse impact on aesthetic;
quality. Those state parks having sewage disposal problems
will continue to be adversely impacted. The impact on land
use patterns will be moderately adverse. No action will
allow existing discharge of sewage effluent to Big Creek
from Camp Angell.
7 Septic Tank Maintenance Alternative. Moderately
adverse impacts associated with this alternative will be con-
tinued degradation of groundwater and potential for sewage
on beaches and a potential health hazard. Even with septic
tank maintenance, groundwater will continue to move laterally
along cemented soil layers and thence out of cutbanks and
beaches. Groundwater will continue to outcrop regardless of
whether or not a septic tanJ~ and leachfield is used. Because
of the inherent impermeable soils and high groundwater through-
out the study area, the operational reliability of a septic
tank maintenance program will be poor. Some state parks will
continue to have periodic problems and landowners will likely
continue to have septic system denials.
121
-------
-------
VI. LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VS.
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
All alternative wastewater treatment and disposal systems
including no action involve the acceptance of trade-offs among
beneficial and adverse project impacts. Selection of the most
"cost effective" alternative is promulgated to result in the
greatest beneficial effects obtainable at the least possible
environmental, social and monetary costs.
The principal beneficial effects of alternatives 1
through 5 are the alleviation of adverse environmental effects
related to the periodic malfunctioning of septic systems
throughout the district, and the potential contamination of
groundwater resources. These periodic malfunctions, have in
the past, resulted in sewage on beaches, cut banks and in
ditches and a maladorous and unsightly aesthetic situation.
Alternative 6 (no action) would allow Icr the continuation
of such problems while alternative 7 (septic system maintenance)
would reduce tha incidences of malfunctions but would iiot
alleviate the problem due to the inherent high groundwater and
impermeable soils present throughout the district.
While alternatives 1 through 5 would remove the adverse
community lev^l impact? associated with the use of septic tanks,
new impacts, probably seen as adverse oy many local citizens
will be engendered. These impr.cts relate to increased taxes
and service charges, and the likelihood of a great population
in the service area in the future.
Throughout much of the Southwast Lincoln County Sanitary
District, the present means of sewage disposal can be considered
a short-term une of the environment which has periodic adverse
effects on the water resources and aesthetic quality of the area.
The proper treatment of wastownter will beconva a long-term
benefit to the cirea by eliminating the potential for groundwater
contamination and reducing the likelihood of violations of
state water quality regulations.
123
-------
-------
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Depending on which alternative is chosen, there will be
minor and major irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
renewable and non-renewable resources. Significant commitments
of general irrecoverable resources, i.e., time, building
materials and energy, will be required during construction of
any of the treatment alternatives.
After construction, operation of the treatment plant will
require irrecoverable resources such as time, chemicals, energy
and maintenance materials.
The secondary effects of population growth will result in
the conversion of open, natural land to urban development,
reduction in air quality, increased use of water, electricity,
petroleum products, timber and food, and increased demand for
social services. If growth occurs in a reasonably well con-
ceived manner, none of these effects are forecasted to be
significantly adverse. However, much of the area is not plan-
ned to obtain the best foreseeable growth uses and unless this
situation is altered, adverse impacts are more likely to occur.
125
-------
-------
VITI. UNRESOLVED ISSUES
During the course of report preparation, it became clear
that there were numerous questions and issues relative to a
district sewerage project. Several of those issues were iden-
tified in the introduction of this draft impact statement and
were further discussed throughout the report. The resolutions
to several of the issues are institutional problems that must
await further political and social actions. The following
important issues must be dealt with by constituents of the
sanitary district, county officials and state agencies having
responsibilities in Lincoln County.
• How will the approval and construction of the sewerage
facilities relate to the Coastal Goals finally estab-
lished by the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission (OCCDC) and Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC), particularly as these
goals relate to those coastal environments to be most
affected: a) estuarine resources, b) shore]ands and
shorelands boundaries, and c) beaches and dunes.
• Should the subdivision and degree of development of
land, secondary to the construction of a sewerage
system, be allowed to preclude the implementation of
planning options by Lincoln County? For example, if
a particular area is subdivided prior to completion of
the County Comprehensive Plan, this would effectively
eliminate some potential management classification of
the land such as natural resource conservation areas,
etc.
• In order to assure a more orderly planning process in
the project area and conformance with the future Compre-
hensive Plan, should Lincoln County choose to exercise
its option of establishing Interim Zoning Ordinances as
allowed under Oregon Statutes (ORS 215.104) related to
comprehensive land use planning?
• Should LCDC designate the planning and siting of a
sewerage system in the project area, a matter of state-
wide significance as allowed for in ORS 197.400?
127
-------
An unresolved question relates to the designation of
urban growth boundaries in southwest Lincoln County.
The LCDC guidelines require local planning authorities
to distinguish between urban and rural lands in the
county planning effort.
There may be an inequity of cost distribution based on
lot size. Sanitary district ordinances favor small,
single-family residence lot owners over large, single-
family residence lot owners, which increases density
and may be contrary to the preservation of open space
values on the coast and to any attempt to zone areas
with a large minimum lot size, i.e., AG-1 or 5.
While it has been recognized in the EIS that landowners
should achieve some level of monetary benefit resulting
from increases in property value, the actual degree of
benefit to be derived is unknown. Numerous factors,
including the demand for property, will dictate the
degree of benefit. At present, only those lots which
have failing septic tanks or cannot obtain permits for
septic tanks are strongly disadvantaged and would
obviously benefit monetarily from a common sewerage
system. Other considerations in the pricing of property,
make any determination of monetary benefits for the
majority of district property unestimateable.
What legal assurance will there be from LCDC that no
new sewer hookups will take place prior to the comple-
tion of a Comprehensive Plan for the southwest Lincoln
County area?
128
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Birds. 1975. The seventy-fifth Christmas hire1
count, vol. 29, no. 2.
Battellc, Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1973. The impact
of travel on the Oregon economy and visitor use of tourist
serving facilities. Prepared for the Bureau of Municipal
Research and Service.
Beckham, Stephen D. 1973. Historical and archeological site
inventory: preliminary report. Oregon Coastal Conservation
and Development Commission.
Clark and Groff Engineers, Inc. 1970. Lincoln County regional
water and sewerage plan. Prepared for Lincoln County
Board of Commissions.
Dorsey, F. Owen. 1890. The gentile system of the Siletz
tribes. Journal of American Folklore, 3: 227-237.
Drucker, Philip. 1939. Contributions to Alsea ethnography.
University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology, 35(7): 81-102.
Federal Register. 1975. Environmental Protection Agency -
preparation of environmental impact statements, final
regulations. April 14, 1975, 40(72): 16815-16827.
Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1969. Vegetation of Oregon
and Washington. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper
PNW80. 216 pp.
Goumer, Thomas, D. Demorg and L. Osis. 1973. 1971 Alsea River
estuary resource use study. Oregon Fish Commission. 29 pp.
HGE, Inc. 1974. A comprehensive water sewerage and solid waste
management plan, Lincoln County Oregon, vol. 1, introduction
and projected development, vol. 2, water facilities develop-
ment plan, vol. 3, sewerage facilities development plan.
Ingles, Lloyd G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific states. Stanford
University Press. 506 pp.
Lincoln County. 1965. Economic trends and population changes.
Prepared by the Bureau of Muricipal Research and Service.
1969. Lincoln County long range planning report.
129
-------
Lincoln County. Health Department. 1971-1974. Individual
site evaluation for subsurface sewage.
Lincoln County. Planning Commission. 1964. Land use plan
for the Lincoln County coast. A preliminary report.
Lincoln County. Planning Department. 1967. A preliminary
comprehensive plan for the Lincoln County coast.
1971. Transportation plan.
1972. Alsea Bay regional land and water use plan.
1973. Overall economic development plan, Lincoln
County, Oregon, 1973.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater engineering - collection,
treatment, disposal. McGraw-Hill. 782 pp.
Robert E. Meyer Engineers, Inc. 1974. Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District, financial plan, December, 1974.
1974, Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District,
sewerage study, September, 1974.
. 1975. Supplemental appendix to the facilities
plan - southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District, April,
1975.
Mooney, James. 1928. The Aboriginal population of America
north of Mexico. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections
80: 7.
State of Oregon. 1973. Environmental geology of Lincoln County,
Oregon. Department of Geology and Mines Industries Bulletin
#81. 171 pp.
Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission.
1974. Economic survey and analysis of the Oregon coastal
zone.
1974. An identification of areas suitable for
urbanization in the coastal zone.
Oregon. Department of Environmental Quality. 1975. Area review
report - Waldport to Yachats. 3 pp. + attachments.
1975. Regulations relating to water quality control
in Oregon. Oregon Administrative Rules, chapter 340.
130
-------
Oregon Employment Division, Department of Human Resources.
1974. Occupational manpower trends in the State of
Oregon, 1970-1980.
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. 1974.
Oregon land use handbook.
Oregon State Game Commission. 1973. Oregon State Game Commission
Bulletin, January 1973, 29(1).
Oregon State Health Division. 1973. Lincoln County survey.
University of Oregon. Bureau of Governmental Research and
Service. 1965. Economic trends and population changes.
1969. Preliminary land use plan for the Yaquina
Bay area, 1969.
Peterson, Roger T. 1961. A field guide to western birds.
Houghton-Mifflin Company, Boston. 309 pp.
Schaeffer, Claude. 1959. Indian tribes and languages of the
old Oregon country. Map prepared for the Oregon Historical
Society.
Sharp, W. C. and T. E. Adams, Jr. 1974. Erosion control
symposium proceedings. U. S. Soil Conservation Service.
134. pp.
Smith, A. K. and J. E. Lawman. 1972. Fish and wildlife resources
of the middle coast basins and their water requirements.
Oregon State Game Commission. 98 pp.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP).
1973. The ecology of the southern California bight -
implications for water quality management. SCCWRP TR104.
531 pp.
Stebbins, R. C. 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and
amphibians. Houghton-Mifflin Company, Boston. 279 pp.
Swanton, John R. 1952. The Indian tribes of North America.
Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 145.
UMA Nortec, Inc. 1974. Solid waste management plan, Lincoln
County, Oregon.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1915. Indian population in the
United States and Alaska, 1910.
131
-------
1950, 1960 and 1970. Decennial census reports,
Oregon.
1962 and 1972. County business patterns.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 1974. Climatological data -
Oregon, annual summary 1974, 80(13).
U. S. Department of Interior. 1973. Oregon, population,
employment and housing units projected to 1990.
1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States.
Resource Bulletin 114. 286 pp.
1974. Agriculture and food processing, Pacific
Northwest, projections of production, employment and
energy consumption to 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Compilation of
air pollutant emission factors. U. S. E.P.A. AP-42.
U. S. Soil Conservation Service. 1972. General soil map -
Lincoln County, Oregon.
Yocom, C. and R. Dasmann. 1965. The Pacific coastal wildlife
region. Naturegraph Company. 117 pp.
132
-------
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
ALERE, WILLIAM. Floodplain Management U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland, Oregon
BALDWIN, HENRY, JR. President, Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitation District, Yachats, Oregon
BROOKHYSER, PAUL. Lincoln County Planning Department,
Newport, Oregon
CARTER, GLEN. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, Oregon
CLEMENS, GENE. Lincoln County Sanitarian, Newport, Oregon
COLLETT, LLOYD. U. S. Forest Service, Waldport Ranger
Station, Waldport, Oregon
DEMORY, DARRELL. Oregon State Fish Commission, Newport, Oregon
DENNISON, DENNIS. Planner, Lincoln County Planning Department,
Newport, Oregon
DOBEY, EMMETT. Lincoln County Sanitarian, Newport, Oregon
DOWNS, STEVE. Water Quality Specialist, Department of Environ-
mental Quality, Salem, Oregon
DUCKETT, JEAN. Secretary, Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District, Yachats, Oregon
FORTUNE, JOHN. Oregon State Fish Commission, Newport, Oregon
CONOR, SUSAN.
HANKS, JOHN. Traffic Department Planner, Oregon State Highway
Division, Salem, Oregon
JACOBSON, LARRY. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, Oregon
JOHNSON, JAMES. Planner, Lane County Planning Department
LOFQUIST, ED. Water Coordinator, Newport, Oregon
LONG, EDWARD. State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon
MCDUFFY, RAY. Private citizen
MILLER, JOE. Chief pilot, Newport Airport, Newport, Oregon
MILLER, ROSS. Chief Appraiser, Lincoln County Assessors
Office
NEWBAUER, EUGENE. Assistant Superintendent, Lincoln County
School District
OLIVER, LEON. Real Estate Salesman, Cox Realty
PEER, RON. Sanitation Engineer, Yachats, Oregon
POWELL, LEWIS. Robert E. Meyer Engineers, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
POWERS, DAVID. Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation,
Salem, Oregon
RIGDON, MELVIN. District Conservationist, U. S. Soil Conservation
Service, Newport, Oregon
RILEY, HERBERT. Deputy Director, Oregon Land Conservation and
Development Commission
ROSS, RICHARD, Ph.D. Anthropologist, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon
ST. LOUIS, DAVID. Noise and Air Quality Specialist, Department
of Environmental Quality, Salem, Oregon
133
-------
SCHWAB, TOM. Planner, Oregon Department of Highways, Salem, Oregor.
STORM, ROBERT, Ph.D. Oregon State University (amphibians/
reptiles), Corvallis, Oregon
STRAND, ALBERT. Commissioner, Lincoln County Board of
Commissioners
STURGIS, HAROLD. Oregon State Wildlife Commission, Corvallis,
Oregon
SWAN, ELIZABETH. Proprietor, The Three Swans Gift Shop
WATT, PETER. Land Conservation and Development Commission,
Newport, Oregon
WEBB, JAMES. Lincoln County Planning Director, Newport, Oregon
YOSHINAKA, MARV. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,
Oregon
134
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A — BIOTIC RESOURCES
A-l Common Vegetation of the Biotic Environment
A-2 Terrestrial Vertebrates of the Southwest
Lincoln County Study Area
A-3 Common Biotic Resources of the Marine Environment
A-4 Common Freshwater and Anadromous Fish of the
Study Area Streams
A-5 Correspondence from the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife
APPENDIX B — ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
B-l Correspondence from Oregon State Highway
Division
B-2 Correspondence from Richard E. Ross, Oregon
State University
APPENDIX C — WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
C-l Water Quality Standards of Surface Waters of
Oregon
C-2 Drinking Water Quality Standards and
Recommendations
APPENDIX D — EPA COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS
135
-------
APPENDIX A
BIOTIC RESOURCES
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A-l
COMMON VEGETATION OF THE TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
Common Name
Scientific Name
Beach pine
Bearberry
Sand strawberry
Sand verbena
Sitka spruce
Douglas fir
Rhododendron
Cascara
Western red cedar
Black huckleberry
Salal
Oregon grape
Alder
Salmonberry
Sand binders
Pinus contorta
Arctostaphylos" uva-ursi
Frageria chiLensis
Abronia latifolia
Picea iitchensis
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Rhododendron macropfiylum
Rhamnus purshiana
Thuja plicata
Vaccinium ovatum
Gaultheria shallon
Mahonia nervosa
Alnus rubra
Rubus spectabilis
Poa macrantha
Festuca rubra
Source: Franklin and Dyrness, 1969.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A-2
TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES OF THE SOUTHWEST
LINCOLN COUNTY STUDY AREA
Common Name
Scientific Name
Mammals
Dusky shrew
Pacific shrew
Vagrant shrew
Townsend mole
Little brown bat
California myotis
Striped skunk
Spotted skunk
Snowshoe hare
Brush rabbit
Mountain beaver
Douglas squirrel
Beaver
Deer mouse
Oregon meadow mouse
Black-tailed deer
Bobcat
Roosevelt elk
Black bear
Mountain lion
Sorex obscurus
S. paclficus
S_. yagrans
5capanus townsendii
Myotis lucifugus
M. californicus
Mephitis mephitis
Spilogale putorius
Lepus americanus
Sylvilagus bachmani
Aplodontia rufa
Tamiasciurus douglasii
Castor canaderisis
Peromyscus maniculatus
Microtus oregoni
Odocoileus hemoinus columbianus
Lynx rufus
Cervus canadensis
Ursus americanus
Felis concolor
Common loon
Horned grebe
Double-crested cormorant
Brandt's cormorant
Great blue heron
American wigeon
Pintail
Lesser scaup
Surf scoter
Red-tailed hawk
Marsh hawk
Black oystercatcher
Surfbird
Black-bellied plover
Black turnstone
Least sandpiper
Dunlin
Birds
Gavia immer
Ppdiceps au'ritus
Phalacrocorax auritus
P. penicillatus
Ardea herodias
Anas americana
Anas acuta
Aythya affinis
MelanTtta perspicillata
Buteo jamaicensis
Circus ayaneus
Haematopus bachmani
Aphriza vTrgata
Pluvialis squatarola
Arenaria melanocephala
Calidrfs" minutilla
C. alpina
A-3
-------
Common Name
Scientific Name
Birds (continued)
Sanderling
California gull
Band-tailed pigeon
Steller's jay
Common crow
Chestnut-backed chickadee
Golden-crowned kinglet
Starling
Brewer's blackbird
Dark-eyed junco
White-crowned sparrow
Mountain quail
Blue grouse
Crocethia alba
Larus californicus
Columba fasciata
Cyanocitta stelleri
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Parus rufescens
Regulus satrapa
Sturnus vulgaris
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Junco hyemalis oreganus
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Oreortyx picta
Dendragapus obscurus
Amphibians
Pacific giant salamander
Olympic salamander
Brown salamander
Rough-skinned newt
Ensatina
Dicamptodon ensatus
Rhyacotriton~olympicus
Ambystoma gracile
Taricha granulosa
Ensatina eschscholtzi
Western red-backed salamander Plethodon vehiculum
Tailed frog Ascaphus truei
Pacific treefrog Hyla regilla
Northern red-legged frog Rana aurora
Bullfrog R. catesbeiana.
Reptiles
Northern alligator lizard
Pacific rubber boa
Red-spotted garter snake
Northwestern garter snake
Gerrhonotus coeruleus
Charina bottae
Thamnophis sirtalis
T. ordinoides
A-4
-------
APPENDIX A-3
COMMON BIOTIC RESOURCES OF THE MARINE ENVIROMMENT
Common Name
Scientific Name
Sandy Beaches - Exposed and Protected
Razor clam
Beach hopper
Sand crab
Polychaete worms
Surf smelt
Redtail surfperch
Siliqua patula
Orchestoidea sp.
Emerita anal'oga
Nainereis sp.
Nereis sp.
Hypomesus pretiosus
Amphistichus rhodoterus
Softshell clam
Piddock clam
Littleneck clam
Gaper clam
Cockle
Butter clam
Dungeness crab
Staghorn sculpin
Shiner perch
Starry flounder
Rock greenling
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Bay mussel
Ghost shrimp
Mud shrimp
Walleye surfperch
Bays and Estuaries
Mya arenaria
Zirfaea pilsbryi
PeniteTla penita
Venerupis staminea
Tresus capax
Clinocardium nuttallii
Saxidomus giganteus
Cancer magister
Leptocottus armatus
Cymatogaster aggregata
Platichthys stellatus
Hexagrammos lagocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
O. kisutch
Mytilus edulis
Callianassa californiensis
Upogebia pugettensis
Hyperprosopon argenteum
Source: Gaumer, et.al., 1973.
A-5
-------
APPENDIX A-4
COMMON FRESHWATER AND ANADROMOUS FISH
OF THE STUDY AREA STREAMS
Common Name Scientific Name
Pacific lamprey* Lamptera tridentata
Black-nosed dace Rhinichthys atratulus
Long-nosed dace R. sp.
Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus
Squawfish Ptychocheilus oregonensis
Coho salmon* Oncorhynchus kisutch
Cutthroat trout* Salmo clarki
Steelhead trout* Salmo gairdneri
Buffalo sculpins Enophrys bison
Staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus
* Anadromous
Source: Smith and Lauman, 1972,
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A-5
DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE
NORTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE
ROUTE 5, BOX 325, CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330 PHONE 757-1186
ROBERT W. STRAUB
COVI RNOR
February 24, 1976
Jonathan Ives
Jones k Stokes Assoc.
453 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Ives:
My apologies for the delay in responding to your request. The
comments that follow are general in some respects, but do reflect
the current status of wildlife in the area of the project you're
dealing with, from Newport to Yachats, and attempt to portray
some possible consequences.
Wildlife-oriented recreational values are substantial in this
coastal strip. The chief "uses" of wildlife are viewing, bird-
watching, and photography. The abundant birds, in particular, add
much to the experience of the recreationist and traveler. Hunting
is a minor use. Occasional clearouts which lie east of Hwy 101
short distances do provide some deer hunting, but in the zone
immediately adjacent to the highway there is little to attract
hunters and few areas in which hunting is an appropriate activity.
The Beaver Creek marsh may be lightly hunted for waterfowl.
Some 145 species of birds,- mammals, reptiles, and amphibians share
the shorepine-spruce vegetation of the coastal strip, making it
the richest of all coastal vegetation types in total species
present. An additional 20 species of shorebirds occur on the
adjacent beaches numbering many thousands of individuals during
the wintering period.
Unique or "sensitive" habitats and animal populations are few,
but merit protection where they occur. The following have been
identified:
- saltmarsh present along lower Beaver Creek
- an active heronry in SW^ NE% Sec.l, T14S, R12W, in Reynolds
Creek
- two nesting populations of the rare Snowy Plover, one at
South Beach, south of the south jetty at Newport, and one
at Bayshore, on the north spit of Alsea Bay.
A-7
-------
Ives
Page 2
2/24/76
A precise evaluation of the impacts of the proposed project is not
possible, as the degree of change which may result cannot be
determined, but somo general observations may be made, assuming
tli.it the trend toward increasing development will continue.
- impacts on hunting will be negligible near Highway 101;
if development progresses inland, some deer-hunting
opportunities may be reduced or eliminated.
- a certain amount of clearing in the dense shorepine -spruce
vegetation can baiefit wildlife — principally song birds and
small mammals--by creating an artificial meadow-forest edge;
this is evident in may low-density residential areas along
the coast; benefit can be assumed only if stands of native
vegetation remain interspersed.
- development densities comparable to the residential and
commercial patterns seen in and near the communities of
Yachats, Waldport, and Newport are obviously inimical to
maintaining abundant wildlife; substantial areas of native
vegetation are sacrificed, and with it, adapted species;
particularly vulnerable are large conifers which in a deca-
dent condition provide essential habitat for the cavity-
nesting birds and mammals and the raptors, as these are
rarely left standing where they are a potential danger to
life or property.
- harassment of nesting Snowy Plovers during the April-June
period probably occurs at current levels of beach use and
can be expected to intensify with increases in human activity,
I hope this will be of use to you in your evaluation. If we can
provide more assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely Yours,
Harold Sturgis
District Wildlife Biologist
A-i
-------
APPENDIX B
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
B-l
-------
ROBERT W. STRAUB
GOVERNOR
f B KLABOE
Administrator and
State Highway Engineer
APPENDIX B-l
OREGON STATE
HIGHWAY DIVISION
300 HIGHWAY BUILDING
SALEM, OREGON 97310
February 10, 1976
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Suite 835 - 455 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Ives:
The proposed sewage systems along the Lincoln County
coast between Newport and Yachats, Oregon will be likely
to encounter archeological sites. I am, therefore, for-
warding a copy of the EIS Task Order with maps to Prof.
Richard Ross of Oregon State University. Dr. Ross has been
conducting a survey of coastal sites for this office and
his input will be valuable. In addition, I am sending a
second copy of the Task Order and maps to Prof. David Cole
of the Oregon Museum of Natural History in Eugene. The
Museum is the repository of official site surveys and reports
and should also provide valuable input.
I am enclosing a copy of all listings on the Statewide
Inventory for Lincoln County. I have marked the sites located
within the survey area with a red check. There may be other
sites affected which are not on this list. There are at
present no sites in the project area which are listed on the
National Register.
Our office would like to suggest that Archeological and
Historical sites be located by hiring competent professionals
to do ground surveys.
B-2
Form 81-734-3122
-------
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
February 10, 1976
Page 2
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to
contact us.
Sincerely,
^n
EL:ko
Enc.
Edward T. Long
Preservation Specialist/Archeologist
State Historic Preservation Office
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B-2
Department of
Anthropology
Oregon
. .State .
University
CorvalliG, Oregon 97331
18 February 1976
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Suite 835 - 455 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Ives:
Edward Long has forwarded a copy of your EIS Task Order on the sewage
systems between Newport and Yachats, Oregon. This part of the coast
line includes several areas that are sensitive in terms of archaeological
resources. As a rule of thumb for the Oregon Coast, the estuaries and
the area at the mouth of major rivers and streams, usually include a
high percentage of archaeological sites. In the designated area of the
EIS, several rivers and streams have their outfall. The Yaquina estuary
has known sites around the edges, and several are known from the southern
bank. The Waldport area at the mouth of the Alsea has been known for
quite some time as having quite a number of sites. The Yachats area
is also known to have a large number of sites. One of the most important
areas, particularly in view of the alternative plan #4 (proposed project)
is the area around Seal Rock. Ethnographic sources suggest that Seal
Rock was the northernmost village of the Alsea Indians. Oregon State
University has conducted archaeological excavations in the vicinity, and
we have reports of several other sites in the area located on private
property. This would be a very sensitive area for archaeological re-
sources. There are several other individual sites located between New-
port and Yachats which are fairly large and important but are not part
of a cluster.
Once the site of the plant and the route of the lines has been decided
on I would suggest an intense survey of the right of way be done by an
archaeologist. In terms of planning it might be more feasible to survey
before final plans are made since the location of sites influence the
placement of the lines themselves.
If you need other information please contact me.
Sincerely, ,
Rfchard E. Ross
Associate Professor
c: Ted Long
Dave Cole
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
C-l
-------
APPENDIX C-l
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OF SURFACE WATERS OF OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CH. 340
Division 4
WATER POLLUTION
Subdivision 1
STANDAHDSOFQUALITY FORPUBLIC
W ATERS OF OREGON AND DISPOSAL
THEREIN OFSEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL
WASTES
[ED. NOTE: Unless otherwise speci-
fied, sections 41-005 through 41-070 of this
chapter of the Oregon Administrative
Rules Compilation were adopted by the
Sanitary Authority June 1, 1967, and filed
with the Secretary of State June 1, 1967
as Administrative Order SA 26. Repeals
Administrative Order SA 8.]
Statutory Authority: ORS 449.080; 449.
086
[NOTE: Effective July 1, 1969, theSani-
ta ry Authority was replaced by the Depart-'
ment of Environmental Quality, consisting
of a Department and of a Commission,
known as the Environmental Quality Com-
mission. Where Sanitary Authority is pre-
sently used in these regulations, it should
be noted by readers of these rules that
Department of Environmental Quality
should be substituted unless the context
or statutes clearly require the use of
Environmental Quality Commission.]
41-005 DEFINITIONS. As used in this
subdivision unless otherwise required by
context:
( 1 ) "Sewage" means the water-carried
human or animal waste from residences,
buildings, industrial establishments or
other places together with such ground
water infiltration and surface water as
may be present. The admixture with
sewage as above defined of industrial
wastes or wastes, as defined in sub-
sections ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of this section, shall
also be considered "sewage" within the
meaning of this division.
( 2 ) ' Industrial waste" means any liq-
uid, gaseous, radioactive or solid waste
substance or a combination thereof re-
sulting from any process of industry,
2-15-70
manufacturing, trade or business, or from
the development or recovery of any nat-
ural resources.
( 3 ) "Wastes" means sewage, indus-
trial wastes, and all other liquid, gaseous,
solid, radioactive, or other substances
which will or may cause pollution or tend
to cause pollution of any waters of the
state.
(4) "Pollution" means such contam-
ination or other alteration of the physical,
chemical or biological properties of any
waters of. the state, including change in
temperature, taste, color, turbidity, silt
or odor of the waters, or such discharge
of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive
or other substance into any waters of
the state which either by itself or in
connection with any other substance pre-
sent, will or can reasonably be expected
to create a public nuisance or render
such waters harmful, detrimental or in-
jurious to public health, safety or welfare,
or to domestic, commercial , industrial,
agricultural, recreational or other l'.-fni.-
mate beneficial uses or to livest >. K,
wildlife, fish or other aquatic life or th^
habitat thereof.
( 5 ) "Waters ofthe state" include lal-es.
bays, ponds, impounding reservoirs,
springs, wells, rivers, streams, creeks,
estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the
Pacific Ocean within the territorial limits
of the State of Oregon and all other bodies
of surface or underground water s, natural
or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh or
salt, public or private (except those pri-
vate waters which do not combine or
effect a junction with natural surface or
underground 'waters), which are whollv
or partially within or bordering the state
or within its jurisdiction.
(6) "Marine waters ' means all oce-
anic, offshore waters outside of estuaries
or bays and within the territorial limits
of the state of Oregon.
(7) "Estuarine waters" means all mix-
ed fresh and oceanic waters in estuaries
or bays from the point of oceanic water
intrusion inland to a line connecting the
outermost points of the headlands or
protective jetties.
( 8 ) "Standard" or ' standards ' means
such measure of quality or purity for any
waters in relation to their reasonable and
C-2
-------
5 10
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
use as may be established by
the Sanitary Authority pursuant to ORS
' -. .;,t>-r 44V.
( V ) "Fish and other aquatic life" means
all beneficial fishes, Crustacea, mollusks,
plankton, higher aquatic plants, and water-
fowl.
41-010 HIGHEST AND BEST PRACTI-
CABLE TREATMENT AND CONTROL
REQUIRED. Notwithstanding the general
and special water quality standards con-
tained in this subdivision, the highest and
bes>t practicable treatment and/or control
oi wastes, activities and flows shall in
every case be provided so as to maintain
dissolved oxygen and overail water quality
at the highest possible levels and water
temperatures, coliform bacteria concen-
trations, dissolved chemical substances,
toxic materials, radioactivity, turbidities,
color, odor and other deleterious factors
-------
I.M-.PAI' I'MKN'l OK r.NVIKONMK.N F Al. QU Al.l I' V
I list: (• ili-fl S-2-1-71
Amended '(-15
DKQ 2K
I by DEQ 4f>
•11-023 MIXING ZONES.(1) The Depart-
ment may suspend the applicability of all
or part of the. water quality standards
set forth in this subdivision, except those
standards relating to ae sthetic conditions,
withu. a defined immediate mixing zone of
very limited size adjacent to or sur-
round ing the point olwaste wate r discharge.
(2) The sole method of establishing
such a mixing zone shall be by the De-
partment defining same in a waste dis-
cha rge pc rrnit.
(3) In establishing a mixing zone in a
waste discharge permit the Department:
(a) May define the limits of the mixing
zone in terms of distance from the point
of the waste water discharge or the area
or volume of the receiving water or any
combination thereof,
(b) May set other less rest rictive wate r
quality standards to be applicable in the
mixing zone in lieu of the suspended
standards; arid
(c) Shall limit the mixing zone to that
which in all probability, will
(A) not interfere with any biological
community or population of any important
species to a degree which is damaging
to the ecosystem; arid
(B) not adversely affect any other bene-
ficial use disproportionately.
Hist: Filed 7-2-73 as DEQ 55
41-(V.4 TESTING METHODS. The analyt-
ical testing methods for dete rmining com-
pliance with the water quality standards
contained in this subdivision shall be in
accordance with the most recent edition
of Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Waste Wate r published joint-
ly by the American Public Health Associ-
ation, American Water Works Association,
and Water Pollution Control Federation,
unless the Department has published an
applicable superseding method, in which
case testing shall be in accordance with
the superseding method ; provided however
that testing in accordance with an alter-
native method shall comply with this
H-15-73
section if tlii Department has publ i sh'.'fl
the method or h.is approver! the method
in writing.
Hist: Filed 7-2-73 as DEQ 55
41-025 GENERAL WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS, The following General Water
Quality Standards shall apply toallwaters
of the state except where they are clearly
superseded by Special Wmte r Quality Stan-
dards applicable to specif ically designated
waters of the state. No wastes shall be
discharged and no activities shall be con-
ducted which eithe r alone o r in combination
wi^h other wastes or activities will cause
in any waters of the state:
(1) The dissolved oxygen content of
surface waters to be less than six ( 6)
milligrams per liter unless specified
otherwise by special standard.
(2) The hydrogen-ion concentration
(pH) of the waters to be outside the range
of 6.5 to 8.5 unless specified otherwise
by special standard,
(3) The liberation of dissolved gases,
such as carbon-dioxide, hydrogen sulfide
or any other gases, in sufficient quantities
to cause objectionable odors or to be
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life,
navigation, recreation, or other reason-
able uses made of such waters.
( 4 ) The development of fungi or other
growths having a deleterious effect on
stream bottoms, fish or other aquatic life,
or which are injurious to health, recreation
or industry.
( 5 ) The creation of tastes or odors
or toxic or other conditions that are
deleterious to fish or other aquatic life
or affect the potability of drinking water
or the palatability of fish or shellfish.
( 6) The formation of appreciable bottom
or sludge deposits or the formation of any
organic or inorganic deposits deleterious
to fish or other aquatic life or injurious
to public health, recreation or industry,
( 7 ) Objectionable discoloration, tur-
bidity, scum, oily sleek or floating solids,
or coat the aquatic life with oil films.
( 8) Bacterial pollution or other con-
ditions deleterious to waters used for
domestic purposes, livestock watering,
irrigation, bathing, or shellfish propaga-
C-4
-------
CH. 340
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
tion, or be otherwise injurious to public
health.
( 9 ) Any measurable increase in tem-
perature when the receiving water tem-
peratures are 64°F. or greater; or more
than 0.5 F. inc rease due to a single-source
discharge when receiving water temper-
atures are 63.5°F. or less; or more than
2"F. increase due to all sources combined
when receiving water temperatures are
62 F. or less.
(10) Aesthetic conditions offensive to the
human senses of sight, taste, smell or
touch.
(11) Kadioisotope concentrations to ex-
ceed Maximum Permissible Concentra-
tions (MFC's) in drinking water, edible
fishes or shellfishes, wildlife, irrigated
crops, livestock and dairy products or
pose ,m external radiation hazard.
(12) The concentration of total dissolved
gas relative to atmospheric pressure at
the point of sample collection to exceed
one hundred and five percent (105%) of
saturation, except when stream flow ex-
ceeds the 10-year, 7-day average flood.
Hist: Amended 4-5-72 by DEC 39
Amended 7-2-73 by DEQ 55
41-030 BENEFICIAL USES OF WATERS
TO BE-; PROTECTED BY SPECIAL WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS. The Special Water
Quality Standards contained in this sub-
division are adopted for the purpose of
protecting, together with pe rtinent general
water quality standards, the beneficial
uses of specified waters of the state as
set forth in Table A and to conserve the
waste assimilative capacity of the waters
so as to accommodate maximum develop-
ment and utilization of the resources of the
state.
41-035 SPECIAL WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WATERS OF
GOOSE LAKE IN LAKE COUNTY. The
provisions of this section shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of the General
Water Quality Standards contained inSec-
tion -11-025, except where this section
imposes .1 conflicting requirement with
tin provisions of Section 41-025, this
section shall govern. No v.astes shall be
discharged and no activities shall be
conducted which either alone or in com-
bination with other wastes or activities
will cause in the waters of Goose Lake:
(1) Dissolved Oxygen (DO). DO con-
centrations to be less than 7 milligrams
per liter.
( 2 ) Organisms of the Coliform Group
Where Associated with Fecal Sources.
(MPN or equivalent MF using a repre-
sentative number of samples) Average
concentrations of coliform bacteria to
exceed 1000 per 100 ml, with 20% of
samples not fo exceed 2400 per 100 ml.
(3) Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH).
pH values to be outside the range of
7.5 to 9.5
(4) Temperature. Daily average tem-
peratures to exceed 70° F. or the daily
mean ambient air temperature, which-
ever is greater.
41-040 SPECIAL WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WATERS OF
THE MAIN STEM KLAMATH RIVER. The
provisions of this section shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of the General
Water Quality Standards contained in Sec-
tion 41-025, except where this section im-
poses a conflicting requirement with the
provisions of Section 41-025, this section
shall govern. No wastes shall be dis-
charged and no activities shall be con-
ducted which either alone or in com-
bination with other wastes or activities
will cause in the waters of the Klamath
River:
( 1 ) Dissolved Oxygen (DO).
(a) (Main stem Klamath River from
Klamath Lake to Keno Regulating Dam
located approximately 16 river miles above
the Oregon-California border). DO con-
centrations of surface waters to be less
than 5 milligrams per liter unless caused
by natural conditions.
(b) (Mam stem Klamath River from
Keno Regulating Dam to Oregon-Califor-
nia border). DO concentrations to be
less than 7 milligrams per liter.
( 2 ) Organisms of the Coliform Group
Where Associated with Fecal Sources.
(MPN or equivalent MF using a reare-
sentative number of samples). Average
concentrations of coliform bacteria to
8-15-73
-------
APPENDIX C-2
DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
USPHS OSBH AWWA
Color (units) 15 15 3
Turbidity (jtu) 5 5 0.1
Total Solids (mg/1) 500 500 200
Hardness (mg/1) - - 8P
Bicarb. Alkalinity (mg/1) - 120
Sulfate (mg/1) 250 250 250
Nitrates (mg/1) 45 45 -
Iron 0.3 0.3 0.05
Fluoride (mg/1) »* 1* l
Chloride (mg/1) 250 250
Magnesium (mg/1) — 125 —
Manganese 0.05 0.05 0.01
Aluminum (mg/1) - °-05
USPHS U. S. Public Health Service (standard)
OSBH Oregon State Board of Health (standard)
AWWA American Water Works Association (recommendation)
* Varies with temperature.
** Hot to change more than 1.0 mg/1 in distribution system or in
12 hours at 130°F in closed plastic bottle.
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
EPA COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS
D-l
-------
APPENDIX D
To compare the monetary cost of project alternatives, EPA requires
that costs be compared using the EPA Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines, as
published in the "Federal Register", Vol. 39, No. 29, February 11, 1974.
These guidelines have been utilized in the following cost-effectiveness
guidelines, with the exception that an interest rate of 6-1/8% was utilized,
per EPA instructions.
According to these guidelines, a 20-year planning period must be
utilized for sizing of interceptor, treatment, and outfall facilities.
This criteria does not, however, restrict the actual sizing of facilities to
only that required for a 20-year population growth if the EPA Regional
Administrator approves a larger size as being more cost effective.
To determine treatment capacity for the 20 year period from 1977
(the probable year that construction would be initiated) to 1997, the estimated
1997 peak population of 4460 was multiplied by 140 gallons per capita per day.
This resulted in a required 1997 capacity of 625,000 gallons per day, which
was rounded off to 650,000 gallons per day. Treatment capacities used in
the cost calculations were:
Alternative 1 - Waconda Beach 0.35 mgd
San Marine • 0.30 mgd
Alternative 2 - Waldport 0.35 mgd
Yachats " 0.30 mgd
Alternative 3 - Big Creek 0.65 mgd
Alternative 4 - Yachats 0.65 mgd
D-2
-------
Alternative 5 - Waldport 0.65 mgd
Alternative 6 - No action alternative, i.e., no facilities
Alternative 7 - Aerobic Digestion facilities only
Interceptor costs were based upon costs presented in the Facilities
Plan. Interceptors were sized according to DEQ requirements of 250 gallons
per capita per day, a minimum velocity of 2 feet per second, and a minimum
diameter of 8 inches.
D-3
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
CAPITAL COSTS
COST OR VALUE
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Sta. $1,497,100
Treatment Plants $1,619,000
Outfalls $ 900,000
1997 Salvage Value $1,708,500
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$1,497,100
$1,619,000
$ 900,000
- $ 520,300
$3,495,800
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Sta.
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 8,000/yr
$ 30,000/yr
$ 30,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 90,800
$ 340,600
$ 16,600
$ 448,000
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$3,943,800
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
D-4
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Sta.
Treatment Plant
Outfal1
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$ 1,725,600
$ 1,328,400
$ 108,000
$ 1,317,800
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$1,725,600
$1,328,400
$ 108,000
- $ 401,300
$2,760,700
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Sta.
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 8,000/yr
$ 30,000/yr
$ 30,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 90,800
$ 340,600
$ 16,000
$ 447,400
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$3,208,100
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
D-5
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Sta.
Treatment Plant
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$1,497,100
$1,011,600
$ 450,000
$1,255,700
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$1,497,100
$1,011,600
$ 450,000
- $ 382,400
$2,576,300
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Sta.
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 8,000
$ 26,000
$ 17,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 90,800
$ 295,200
$ 9,400
$ 395,400
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$2,971,700
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
D-6
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Sta.
Treatment Plant
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$1,765,200
$ 828,000
$1,095,900
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$1,765,200
$ 828,000
- $ 333.700
$2,259,500
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Sta.
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 8,000
$ 26,000
$ 17,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 90,800
$ 295,200
$ 9.400
$ 395,400
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$2,654,900
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/85
D-7
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
CAPITAL COSTS
• Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Sta.
Treatment Plant
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$1,643,400
$ 828,000
$ 108,000
$1,089,000
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$1,643,400
$ 828,000
$ 108,000
$ 331.600
$2,247,800
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year •- 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Sta.
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 8,000
$ 26,000
$ 17,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 90,800
$ 295,200
$ 9,400
$ 395,400
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$2,643,200
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/83
D-8
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 7
1977
PRESENT WORTH
CAPITAL COSTS COST OR VALUE FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
Initial 1977 Costs
Treatment Plant (Aerobic
digestion and sludge dewatering) $ 220,000 $ 220,000
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value $ 82,500 $ 25.100
SUBTOTAL $ 194,900
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Pumper Truck & Driver $ 30,000/yr $ 340,600
Sludge Treatment Facilities $ 15,000/yr $ 170,300
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
SUBTOTAL $ 510,900
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH $ 705,800
D-9
------- |