EPA 910/9-76-022
EPA-IO-OR-LINCOLN-BAY TO BAY-WWTW-76
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
AUGUST 1976
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
FOR THE
BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
LINCOLN COUNTY, OREGON
EPA-10-OR-Lincoln-WWTS-76
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, WA 98101
With Technical Assistance By
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
, 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 835
Sacramento, CA 95814
In Association With
Don Owen & Associates
and
Gruen Gruen + Associates
ESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Jnald P. Dii&oTs
Regional Administrator
Dat
-------
PREFACE
On May 7, 1976 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
released for public review a draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on a proposed action for the Bay to Bay Sanitary District,
located in Lincoln County, Oregon. The decision to write a draft
and final EIS by EPA was based on an expected grant application
from the District for Step 2 construction grant funding in which
EPA would provide 75% of the funds for design of the grant eligible
components required to construct a sewerage system. This grant award
would also provide reimbursement funds for Step 1 planning which is
presently underway by the District. To complete the environmental
impact evaluation of the proposed action, EPA has prepared this
final EIS, which is the result of EPA's consideration of the comments
received on the draft EIS, public hearing testimony, additional evalua-
tion of the alternatives, and a review of existing state and county
documents dealing with sanitary surveys.
Based upon the information developed in the draft and final EIS's,
EPA recommends that the "no action" alternative be selected for the
Bay to Bay Sanitary District until such time as development warrants
construction of a sewerage system. The District does not appear to
have a demonstrated need for the expenditure of funds for wastewater
treatment facilities.
EPA's recommendation is based on an evaluation of the environ-
mental impacts associated with the alternatives evaluated in the
draft statement and an extensive review of the Lincoln County Sani-
tary survey conducted by the Oregon State Health Division dated
January 15, 1973. The following discussion summarizes salient
points identified in the above reports.
Between June 1968 and September 1968, the Lincoln County Health
Department conducted a sanitary survey of the beaches of Lincoln
County. Numerous discharges containing sewage were noted as a result
of this survey.
On November 13, 1972 a letter from Governor Tom McCall to the
Lincoln County Board of Commissioners directed the Oregon State
Health Division and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
to review the water, sewer and septic tank situation in Lincoln
County. In response to that directive, the Oregon State Health
Division set out to re-investigate the problem areas pointed out in
the 1968 county survey to determine whether any remedial action
had been taken, and to attempt to locate and document any new problems
that had occurred since the 1968 survey was conducted. The 1972
survey also evaluated the subdivision applications for septic tank
permits between 1970 and 1972. The results of the 1972 survey as
presented to Governor McCall were as follows:
-------
Bacteriological tests on two point discharges in the Bay to
Bay Sanitary District were performed as a result of the 1972 Survey.
Only one test (Ocean West Apartments) confirmed the presence of
sewage. A review of 253 applications for septic tank permits in
5 subdivisions indicated 173 approvals (112 approved conditional
upon adequate lot sizes) and 80 (31%) disapproved, primarily be-
cause of high water table and impervious soil conditions.
The 1972 Survey concluded that future problems in the District
regarding sewage problems should be remedied on an individual basis
rather than on a community basis due to the distance between deve-
lopments. The draft EIS concludes, from this survey and further
evaluation, that the Bay to Bay Sanitary District is essentially
free from septic tank failures and that the District has substan-
tially less of a sewage problem than other areas in Lincoln County.
There are no known water quality standards violations occurring at
present.
In addition, the draft EIS evaluated eight alternatives for
providing wastewater facilities in the District along with the no
action alternative. The environmental impacts associated with those
alternatives providing sewerage facilities (Alternatives 1-6) are
similar. Impacts associated with Alternative 7, (septic tank
maintenance program) are comparatively minor. Of particular concern
to those individuals commenting on the draft EIS are the costs in-
volved in constructing, operating and maintaining a sewerage facility.
The EIS identifies significant impacts associated with these costs
and the ability of homeowners to pay them.
EPA financial assistance for wastewater treatment projects is
primarily intended to eliminate existing water quality problems on
a priority basis. Interceptor sewers which do not result in the
abatement of major or significant water quality problems but, in-
stead, are planned to accommodate future development should receive
funding only after projects which do actually eliminate water
quality problems have been funded. One of the limitations on award
of EPA grant funds is that the design, size, and capacity of the
treatment works are cost-effective and relate directly to the needs
to be served (40 CFR 35.925-7). Also, the project when constructed
must be operable; that is, it must treat or transport and dispose of
wastewater in a manner that will significantly improve an objection-
able water quality related situation or health hazard in existence
prior to construction (40 CFR 35.905-15).
The EIS has shown that few known existing and immediate water
quality problems would be solved by construction of the proposed
project. In fact, the potential exists for water quality to actually
be impaired by sewer construction if the provision of sanitary
sewers removes the last constraint on development of an area already
being supplied with urban services, and if the area has been designated
as being an appropriate area for suburban or urban development by
^^
-------
local elected government officials. Such development could adversely
affect water quality by increasing sediment loads while site clearing
and construction occurs; by contributing pollutant - laden urban
run-off; and by changing the hydrologic characteristics in the af-
fected drainage basins. Water quality issues are, therefore, of
paramount importance when evaluating the appropriateness of EPA
assistance in financing treatment works.
During the 45 day review period on the draft EIS, EPA received
significant comments from Oregon State's Land Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission (LCDC). EPA noted in the draft EIS that the relation-
ship between a proposed treatment system and LCDC's planning goals,
guidelines and regulations is a significant issue. LCDC's comments
on the draft EIS include a recommendation that EPA delay its
selection of an alternative to provide sewerage service to the Dis-
trict until Lincoln County completes a preliminary comprehensive
plan for the area consistent with the provisions of the Statewide
planning goals. Lincoln County would be given until July 31, 1977
to complete this plan. LCDC's purpose in proposing the delay is to
insure that the selected alternative is consistent with the revised
comprehensive plan and that further complications and delays in
solving sewage disposal and water pollution problems are avoided.
LCDC's comments do not conflict with EPA's recommendation of "no
action" until need is better demonstrated.
A new addition to the text of this final EIS is the inclusion
of a chapter entitled "Comments and Responses to the Draft EIS".
In this chapter, EPA has reprinted letters providing substantive
comments on the draft EIS and has attempted to respond to all ques-
tions and requests for explanation, correction or revision where
additional evaluation proved the draft statement to be in error.
Letters voicing opinions on the proposed project but not
commenting on the EIS were also received by EPA. While these letters
are not reproduced in this final statement, a summary of them is
provided illustrating the major concerns raised. All letters, along
with the Public Hearing Record, have been considered in EPA's de-
cision making process.
The Environmental Protection Agency submits this final EIS
for a public review period of 30 days. Following this review period
the Regional Administrator of EPA will make his final determination
concerning a grant for the Bay to Bay Sanitary District.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE l
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
SUMMARY ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Objectives 1
Background of Past Events 2
Important Issues and Considerations 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 5
Physical and Biological Features 5
Location 5
Climate 5
Air Quality 8
Topography and Drainage 8
Edaphic Features 10
Mineral Resources 10
Geology 14
Geologic Hazards 14
Biotic Resources 18
Archeological-Historical 24
Aesthetic values 28
Water Resources and water Quality 28
Existing Sewage Disposal Conditions 30
Social Environment 31
Population 31
Economy 36
Land Use 47
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 62
Treatment Plant Site Options 63
Implementation Options - Financing
and Organization 64
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 66
Proposed Facilities Common to Several
Alternatives 68
Population Capacity of Project Facilities 68
iv
-------
Page
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives 69
Alternative 0 - No Action 69
Alternative 1 - Newport-Real Rock 71
Alternative 2 - Newport-Collins Creek 73
Alternative 3 - Newport-Beaver Creek-Collins
Creek 75
Alternative 4 - Seal Pock 78
Alternative 5 - Newport-Waldport Cluster 80
Alternative 6 - Seal Rock-Cluster 82
Alternative 7 - District Maintenance of
Septic Tanks 84
Alternative 8 - Newport-Seal Rock-Waldport
Cluster 86
Sewage Sludge Handling and Disposal Options 88
Cost Comparison and Summarv 90
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE ALTERNATIVES" 95
Introduction 95
Impacts Common to All Alternatives 95
Short-Term Impacts 95
Long-Term Direct Impacts 98
Physical and Biological Resources 98
Social Features 114
Financial Impacts 124
V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 131
VI. LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT vs.
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY 135
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES 137
VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIS 139
IX. UNRESOLVED ISSUES 225
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION 231
APPENDICES 233
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Summary Estimates of Emissions in Lincoln
County 9
2 Characteristics of Soil Associations of the
Study Area 12
3 Recorded Earthquakes in the Lincoln County 17
Area
4 Vegetation and Land Use in the Bay to Bay
Sanitary District 22
5 Rare, Endangered and Threatened Vertebrate
Species Whose Distribution Includes the Bay
to Bay Study Area 23
6 Existing and Projected Non-Transient
Population 35
7 Historical Average Annual Daily Traffic — 37
Highway 101: Yaquina Bay to Yachats
8 Average Daily Traffic by Month, 1974 —
U. S. 101: Yaquina Bay to Yachats 37
9 Average Daily Tourist Traffic, 1969-74 —
U. S. 101: Yaquina Bay to Yachats 39
10 State Park Usage — 1971-75 39
11 Annual Average Unemployment Rate --
Lincoln County, 1960-71 43
12 Source of Income — Lincoln County, 1970 43
13 Real Property Valuation 46
14 Subdivisions in Bay to Bay Sanitary District 49
15 Bay to Bay Sanitary District Wastewater
Project — 20-Year Comparison of Local
and Total Costs 91
16 Bay to Bay Sanitary District Wastewater
Project -- EPA Cost-Effectiveness Comparison
of Costs 93
17 Short-Term Impacts — Bay to Bay Sanitary 96
District
VI
-------
Table Page
18 Emission Factors for Sewage Sludge Incin-
erators 102
19 Locations of Proposed Points of Discharge
for the Various Alternative Sewage Treatment
Plants in the Bay to Bay Sanitary District 110
20 Energy Requirements 113
21 Projected Air Emissions from Local and
Tourist Traffic — Yachats to Yaquina Bay 119
22 Comparison of Population Projections 121
23 Projected Cost to Property Owners for 127
Implementation of Alternative 4
24 Family Incomes in 1970 of Lincoln County 128
as Compared to State and Nation
25 Environmental Summary of Project Alternatives
for the Bay to Bay Sanitary District 132
26 Comments Received on Draft EIS 140
27 General Letters Received Regarding a
Wastewater Treatment System 215
28 Public Hearing Testimony 221
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Location of Bay to Bay Sanitary District 6
2 Mean Monthly Precipitation and Temperature
in Newport, Oregon 7
3 Soil Associations Present in Bay to Bay
Sanitary District 11
4 Geologic Hazards of the Study Area 16
5 Vegetation and Land Use - Bay to Bay
Sanitary District 19
6 Land Use — Yaquina Bay and Seal Rock Areas 50
7 Alternative 1 - Newport-Seal Rock 72
8 Alternative 2 - Newport-Collins Creek 74
9 Alternative 3 - Newport-Beaver Creek-Collins
Creek 77
10 Alternative 4 - Seal Rock 79
11 Alternative 5 - Newport-Waldport Cluster 81
12 Alternative 6 - Seal Pock Cluster 83
13 Alternative 8 - Newport-Real Rock-Waldport
Cluster 87
14 Archeological Site 35LCN16 South of Newport 105
15 Archeological Sites 35LCN14 and at Deer
Creek and Huckleberry Hill 105
Vlll
-------
SUMMARY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT — WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEMS FOR THE BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
1. Type of Statement; Draft ( ) Final ( x )
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 Bay to Bay Sanitary
District, located between Yaquina Bay and Alsea Bay, Lincoln
County, Oregon. This final environmental impact statement
identifies alternatives for providing the district with waste-
water facilities designed to meet the needs of the residents
of the district and maintenance of environmental quality. The
district covers approximately 9,350 acres of land and has a
present population of approximately 5,794 permanent and seasonal
residents.
Portions of the Bay to Bay Sanitary District, primarily in
the area from Beaver Creek south, are underlain by impermeable
soils and a high groundwater table. Such conditions have caused
some periodic waste disposal problems and septic system permit
denials of approximately 19 percent of those applied for.
During 1974 and 1975 the Bay to Bay Sanitary District was
formed and a draft sewerage system developed identifying a
number of alternative means of providing sewerage 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
4 represent full sewerage service alternatives while alternatives
5, 6, and 8 are partial sewering and septic system programs.
Alternative 0 is the no project alternative and alternative 7
represents a septic tank maintenance alternative.
IX
-------
Short-term impacts will occur with all alternatives except
0 and 7. These impacts will include the temporary loss of vege-
tation, disruption of wildlife, traffic congestion, utility
service disruption, soil erosion, safety hazard, aerial pollu-
tants, visual impact, noise, spoil disposal and water quality
impairment.
Long-term impacts of alternatives 1 through 4 include pro-
tection of groundwater, minor effects on stream water quality
and biota, possible minor geologic hazard, air quality changes,
possible disturbance of archeological sites, impacts on vege-
tation, wildlife and marine biota, changes in visual character,
increases in energy consumption, impact on parks, land use
planning, increased traffic, changes in population, and the
economic ramifications on the local economy and private
landowners.
The impacts of alternatives 5, 6 and 8 would be comparable
to those impacts of alternatives 1 through 4; however, the
effects on traffic, land use planning, tourism and the cumulative
effects will be of lesser magnitude.
Major impacts associated with alternatives 0 and 7 will be
the likely periodic localized problems of groundwater and ground
surface contamination by sewage, impacts on parks, land use
patterns and land use planning. Alternative 7 will also result
in increases in energy consumption. Most of the impacts of
moderate or major concern with the alternatives will be of minor
or no consequence with alternatives 0 and 7.
5. Alternatives Considered
Alternative 0 - No Action Alternative. This alternative
would involve a continuation of existing septic system permit
denials and periodic sewage disposal problems. The present
practice of repairing or replacing failing septic systems
would continue.
Alternative 1 - Newport/Seal Rock Alternative. In this
alternative, all sewage north of Henderson Creek would flow to
a new Newport treatment plant (370,000 gallons per day capacity)
and all sewage south of the creek would be transported to a new
treatment plant at Seal Rock (1 million gallons per day capacity).
Capital cost - $10,175,500.
Alternative 2 - Newport/Collins Creek Alternative. All flow
north of Beaver Creek would be transported to a new treatment
plant at Newport (660,000 gpd). Flow south of the creek would be
transported to a new treatment plant near Collins Creek
(710,000 gpd). Capital cost - $10,205,600.
-------
Alternative _3 - Newport/Beaver Creek/Collins Creek
Alternative. This alternative would involve three different
sewage treatment facilities. All flow north of Henderson Creek
would be transported to a new plant in Newport. All flow from
Henderson Creek south to Beaver Creek would be treated at a
Beaver Creek plant, while all remaining sewage south of Beaver
Creek would be conveyed to a treatment plant at Collins Creek.
Capital cost - $11,438,000.
Alternative 4 - Seal Rock Alternative. Flow from the
entire district would be transported to a new 1.3 mgd capacity
treatment plant just south of Seal Rock. Effluent from the
treatment plant would be discharged through a 1,000 foot out-
fall to the ocean. Capital cost - $9,034,700.
Alternative 5 - Newport/Waldport Cluster Alternative.
Three separate portions of the district would be partially
sewered. The three areas are South Beach/Thiel Creek, Seal
Rock, and Bayshore. The three areas would utilize treatment
plants at Newport and Waldport. Capital cost - $9,156,300.
Alternative 6 - Seal Rock Cluster Alternative. The
three cluster areas mentioned in alternative 5 would be sewered
with waste transport to a 1.15 mgd treatment plant at Seal Rock,
Discharge would be to the ocean via a 1,000 foot outfall.
Capital Costs - $4,719,600.
Alternative 7 - District Maintenance of Septic Tanks.
In this alternative no sewers, interceptors or pumping stations
would be constructed. The district would purchase two septic
tank pumping trucks and would periodically inspect all district
septic tanks and pump as necessary. The pumpage would be dis-
posed of at the Waldport treatment plant. Capital cost -
$535,000.
Alternative 8 - Newport/Seal Rock/Waldport Cluster
Alternative.In this alternative, similar to alternatives 5
and 6, three separate clusters within the district would be
sewered. A treatment plant would support each cluster — at
Newport (0.64 mgd plant), at Seal Rock (0.33 mgd plant) and
at the City of Waldport (0.18 mgd plant). Capital costs -
$9,658,900.
6. The following State, Federal and local agencies and in-
terested groups were invited to comment on the environmental
impact statement:
XI
-------
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
OF CONGRESS
MARK 0, HATFIELD LES AuCoiN
U,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
XII
-------
REGIONAL AND LOCAL
LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LINCOLN COUNTY PERMITS, UTILITIES & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
LINCOLN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
LINCOLN COUNTY LIBRARY
SOUTHWEST LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT
INTERESTED GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
ROBERT E, MEYER, ENGINEERS INC,
OREGON WILDLIFE FEDERATION
1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON
NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER
OSPIRG
OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
CHRISTOPHER MINOR
RICHARD BENNER
DONALD A, MCMILLAN
LESLIE H, KLAHN
MR, & MRS, GEORGE CHILD
MR, & MRS, R, J, SNYDER
MR, & MRS, L, 0, MANERUD
xm
-------
MR, & MRS, W, B, NELSON
MR, & MRS, A, E, JOHNSON
PAT KING
H, R, LUTZ
THIS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CEQ) AND THE PUBLIC ON AUGUST 11, 1976,
XIV
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
'Jfr' 4
-\y -M
;-.
^
^"'',••"•4^ ,%T- 5.^-ylte5
8B-ft;,, ;t.;-%*£,'^Ii
•^fc :t,j
'%A»'iS*|W*'*.
> .4
-------
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) 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 pro-
cess 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 intended to be a "full disclosure"
document and must follow specific regulations 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 Bay to Bay Sanitary District project can be
75 percent funded by the EPA, as a part of the 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
Bay to Bay Sanitary District, it was decided by the EPA that an
EIS was needed based on likely changes in land use patterns as
determined by such factors as: vacant land subject to develop-
ment, induced increases in population, rate of change in popu-
lation size, changes in population density, extent to which
landowners may benefit from development and the nature of land
use regulations, 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 have been compiled from various existing
studies of the Bay to Bay area field reconnaissance, and
numerous personal contacts with involved individuals. A com-
plete listing of references is in the Bibliography.
The EIS process encourages public input into the decision-
making process. This EIS was first prepared in draft form and
widely circulated for public comment. Announcements were made
in the local press and on June 3, 1976 a public hearing was
held to solicit responses. The results of the public hearing
and written comments received during the 45-day public comment
period are presented at the back of this final EIS. In this
final EIS, the EPA Regional Administrator has selected the
proposed plan. The final action concerning the grant award
for the district will be made following a 30-day comment period.
-------
Background of Past Events
The Bay to Bay Sanitary District was formed in 1974 to
find a means ^ for resolving apparent problems in sewage disposal
that place limitations on land development.
During the 1968 Lincoln County beach survey, conducted by
the County Health Department, the area from Yaquina Bay to
Alsea Bay was found to be essentially free from septic tank
failures and having substantially less of a sewage problem than
in other portions of Lincoln County.
The 1972 survey by the Oregon State Health Division and
Department of Environmental Quality found only one septic tank
failure just north of Beaver Creek at the Oceans West Apartments,
The survey concluded that "any (future) problems that might
arise in regard to sewage would have to be remedied on an
individual basis rather than community due to the distance
between dwellings. There also appears to be more land area to
install repair systems, if soil conditions permit" (Oregon
State Health Division, 1973).
In the same 1972 survey, the Oregon Health Division evalu-
ated the status of subdivision applications in Lincoln County
from January 1970 through 1972 where septic tanks were to be
the method for sewage disposal. Within the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District, five subdivisions having a total of 253 parcels, were
evaluated. Of the 253 parcels, 173 (68 percent) were approvable
and 80 (32 percent) were denied for reasons of high water table,
impervious soil, slope, small lot size or topography. Of the
80 denials, 52 were due to water table or impervious soil con-
ditions which are principal constraints on septic tanks. The
percentage of parcel approvals vs. denials in the Bay to Bay
District (68 vs. 32 percent) was considerably higher than for
the entire county (47 vs. 56 percent). A major portion of the
denials could be abrogated by a district sewage collection and
treatment system.
In 1974 several residents of the area between Newport and
Waldport initiated the formation of the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District. The official creation of the district came about in
1974 by vote of the district's residents.
The newly-formed district hired the engineering firm of
Robert E. Meyer Engineers, Inc. (Beaverton, Oregon) to study
and describe the sewerage needs of the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District. Following their preparation of a draft sewerage plan
in June 1975, and an environmental assessment in July 1975, the
EPA reviewed the proposed project. The EPA determined that the
preparation of an EIS was necessary. In October 1975 the EPA
letter of intent to prepare the EIS was sent to the Bay to Bay
District and preparation of the EIS began on January 9, 1976.
-------
Important Issues and Considerations
In the course of preparing this EIS, it became evident
that several key environmental issues relate to sewerage of the
district. These issues were identified through discussions
with involved Lincoln County residents and personnel of various
state and federal agencies having interest in the project.
The issues listed below are identified and evaluated in
the Environmental Setting and Environmental Impact sections
of this report. Those issues remaining unresolved and of
greater scope than covered in this EIS will be identified 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 the Oregon State
Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)
planning goals, guidelines and regulations.
2. The rate and distribution of future development on
vacant land that can be tied to the sewerage project.
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 activi-
ties on surrounding lands.
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 need, purpose and objectives of doing an EIS.
-------
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
-------
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physical and Biological Features
Location
The Bay to Bay Sanitary District is located along a
14-mile segment of the central Oregon Coast, between Yaquina
Bay (Newport) and Alsea Bay (Waldport) in Lincoln County.
The district is approximately 1 mile wide and is transected
by U. S. Highway 101 which runs in a north-south direction
paralleling the coast. The sanitary district is bounded
on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by large
tracts of private land (Figure 1).
Most residential and commercial development in the study
area is located along Highway 101 with the greatest density
occurring at South Beach, Seal Rock and Bayshore.
The sanitary district encompasses approximately 14.6
square miles of land (9,440 acres) and has a population of
approximately 4,610 permanent and seasonal residents and a
tourist population of 1,184 people.
Climate
The central coastal region of Oregon has a maritime climate,
with high humidity and moderate temperatures the entire year.
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 degrees Fahrenheit in summer and 44 degrees 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.
-------
SOUTHBEACH
HOLIDAY BEACH
SEAL ROCK
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
NORTH
FIGURE I. LOCATION OF BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
6
-------
TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
O
CD
O
1C
-------
Air Quality
The 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.
A few monitoring studies have been done on the air quality
of Lincoln County, and 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
(Table 1) show that the Georgia Pacific plant in Toledo repre-
sents the major source of particulate and sulfur dioxide emis-
sion in the county. Other sources include automobiles and
trucks, slash burning and forest fires. However, federal
and state air quality standards have not been exceeded.
Topography and Drainage
The Bay to Bay study area lies along the coast margin of
the western flank of the coastal range. Virtually all of the
sanitation district is located on marine terraces ranging from
10 to over 200 feet above mean sea level. Several portions
of the district have vertical bluffs which rise steeply off
of lower marine terraces. These terraces form a shelf which
rises eastward to the more steeply sloped upland of the
coastal range.
The study area is bisected with numerous small coastal
streams which originate in the coastal mountains and flow
westward to the Pacific Ocean. Those creeks include Buckley,
Fox, Collins, Squaw, Hill, Deer, Beaver, Tracy, Pumphouse,
Lost, Thiel, Moore, Grant and Henderson Creeks. In the
southern part of the study area a series of small lakes were
formed from downwarping, perched water tables and the
influence of Buckley Creek.
Flood hazards exist on virtually all streams in the study
area, with Beaver and Thiel Creeks representing substantial
threats (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.).
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY ESTIMATES OF EMISSIONS IN LINCOLN COUNTY
Tons/Year Pollutant Emissions
Source ^articulates 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.
-------
Edaphic Features
According to a U. S. Soil Conservation Service study
conducted in Lincoln County, much of the Bay to Bay study
area is underlain by four major soil associations — Nelscott-
Depoe association (dominant), Netarts-Yaquina association and
Dune land association. Of lesser importance are the Clatsop-
Brallier association, Ferrelo-Lint association and Fendall-
Astoria associations (Figure 3). The pattern of distribution
of the soil associations is strongly influenced by parent
material and physiographic location.
Virtually all of the soils series of the major associations
have severe restrictive features for water percolation and thus
for septic tank use age (Table 2). Restrictions are generally
due to high water table and cemented sands or clays that
restrict permeability and depth of percolation. These condi-
tions increase the potential for groundwater and surface
water contamination.
High water tables and poor drainage are common throughout
much of the district south of Beaver Creek to Alsea Bay.
This is because most of the soils are of old dune sands origin,
overlying marine terrace deposits.
"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 disposal facilities, the
result is an increased soil sensitivity and reduction of
strength". (State of Oregon, 1973)
Mineral Resources
Construction aggregate, nepheline syenite, jettystone
and riprap represent the major mineral resources in Lincoln
County. All of the sources of these mineral resources are
outside of the Bay to Bay study area. Nearby rock quarries
are located at Yaquina Head, Agate Beach and near Waldport
(State of Oregon, 1973).
10
-------
SOUTHBEACH
HOLIDAY BEACH
SEAL ROCK
LEGEND
AREAS DOMINATED EX POORLY DRAINED, NEARLY LEVEL
SOILS OF THE COASTAL STREAM BOTTOMS:
1. Clatsap-Brallier association
AREAS DOMINATED BY WELL TO POORLY DRAINED SOrS OF
THE NEARLY LEVEL TO STEEP COASTAL TERRACES AND DUNES:
2. Nelscott*-Depoe* association
3. Ferrelo*-Lint* association
4. Netarts-Yaquina association
5. Dune land association
AREAS DOMINATED BY WELL DRAINED SOILS OP THE NEARLY
LEVEL TO VERY STEEP DISSECTED COAST RAN7E:
12. Fendall*-Astoria association
* Tentative nare subject to change in correlation.
BOB Bay to Bay Sanitary District boundaries
This map is intended for general planning. Each
delineation nay cant-sin soils different from those
shown on the map. Use detailed soil iraps for opera-
tional planning, and on-site inspection foi mare
detailed decisions.
Source: U. S. Soil Conservation Service, 1972.
I
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE 3. SOIL ASSOCIATIONS PRESENT IN BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
11
-------
TABLE 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL ASSOCIATIONS OF THE STUDY AREA
1 Chatsop-Brallier Association
This soil is found in the river and stream channels within
the study area. The only major area of Chatsop/Brallier
is in the Beaver Creek area. Because of the flood hazard
and high ground water tables, there are severe limitations
for building sites, sewage lagoons and septic tanks.
*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. Permea-
bility 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 alyers 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 soil 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.
12
-------
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.
5 Dune Land Association
This land type consists of wind-drifted sand in the form
of dunes, ridges or hummocks. Some of the material is not
stabilized and has no vegetation established on it.
Dunes often shift under the influence of strong ocean
winds. Septic tank absorption fields are restricted in
this land type due to rapid perculation and possible
groundwater contamination.
12 Fendall-Astoria Association
This soil association is characterized by gravelly and
clayey loam. Within the Bay to Bay study area it is
found to the east of the Nelscott-Depoe Association.
The soils of this association have moderate to severe
limitations for buildings and severe limitations for septic
fields.
* Represents major soil association within the study area.
13
-------
Geology
The geologic composition of the Bay to Bay study area
consists of Quaternary marine terrace deposits and old dune
sands and underlying siltstone or sandstone of Tertiary age.
The marine terrace deposits are "predominantly massive, fine
to medium grained, friable sandstone of beach origin" (State
of Oregon, 1973). Elevations of the upper surface of the
marine terrace deposits are between 150 to 200 feet immedi-
ately south of Yaquina Bay.
Portions of the study area at South Beach, on a narrow
beach strip from South Beach to Seal Rock and near Hidden
Lake north of Alsea Bay are beach sand and primary dunes (S).
These dunes are generally unconsolidated and susceptible to
wind and wave erosion.
Alluvial deposits constitute another unconsolidated
surficial deposit composed of sand, silt and gravel. These
deposits are present in all coastal stream drainages of the
study area, in particular Beaver, Thiel and Moore Creeks.
The relatively impermeable Nye mudstone (Tmn), Yaquina
formation (Toy) and Alsea siltstone underly the unconsolidated
materials and crop out along the eastern portion of the study
area.
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, 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
of the Environmental Geology of Lincoln County, Oregon,
identified the entire coastal region from Alsea Bay to Hender-
son Creek south of Newport, as having critical erosion poten-
tial. Changes in the profile of the shore occur constantly
as natural forces act to erode and deposit sand and other
sediments. In general, the marine terrace margins south of
Newport are retreating at the rate of 1/2 foot to 8 feet
annually (State of Oregon, 1973).
14
-------
Earthquake faults. The Bay to Bay study area is inter-
sected by four concealed earthquake faults. All trend in a
northwest direction. Each fault is concealed by the semicon-
solidated and unconsolidated dune sands and marine terrace
deposits. Figure 4 shows the estimated locations of these
faults. Historical earthquake data show that seven seismic
events have occurred in Lincoln County since 1897 (Table 3).
All were in a III of IV Mercalli intensity (approximately 3.5
to 4 on the Richter Scale).
High groundwater. A high groundwater table underlies
virtually the entire study area south of Beaver Creek to Alsea
Bay and north of Beaver Creek to the Lost Creek Ocean Wayside
State Park. Such conditions are due to thin layers of cemented
sands and clays in the marine terraces which restrict the
downward percolation of water and cause the accumulation and
lateral water movement. The problem of high groundwater in
the area from Beaver Creek to Alsea Bay appears due to a
perched water table created by impermeable soils and areas of
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 combina-
tion of these and other factors. Stream flooding is a poten-
tial hazard along virtually all streams in the study area and
particularly at the mouths of the creeks where a combination
of high stream flow and high tide can have a greater impact.
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.
Landslides and slumping. The hazard of landslides and
land slumping is slight within the study area. Areas of
hazard are primarily in the upper Beaver Creek drainage and some
portions of Thiel Creek. All hazard areas are outside of
the study area.
The low terraces along the coast south of Yaquina Bay
represent a minor landslide hazard but a major erosion hazard
as mentioned earlier.
15
-------
SOUTHBEACH
HOLIDAY BEACH
SEAL-ROCK-
LEGEND
.... Fault (Dotted where concealed)
£> Flood area
\\\\' 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)
I
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE4. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS OF THE STUDY AREA
16
-------
Table 3
RECORDED EARTHQUAKES IN THE LINCOLN COUNTY AREA
Intensity
Year
1897
1902
1916
1923
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.
-------
Biotic Resources
The Bay to Bay Sanitary District study area encompasses
a variety of habitats and biotic life forms. Three major
environments stand as significant — the terrestrial, fresh-
water and marine environments.
Terrestrial environment. The terrestrial environment is
strongly influenced by such factors as precipitation, tempera-
ture, soils, slope and human activity. The flora along much of
coastal Lincoln County between Waldport and Newport, is
characterized by forms varying from the prostrate pioneering
sand binders (such as Poa macrantha and Festuca rubra) to
subsequent successional species such as beach pine(Finus
contorta), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and red cedar
(Thuja plicata). The beach pine is the most common tree of
the stabilized sand dune and coastal strand community.
Appendix A-l identifies the more common plants in the study
area while Figure 5 and Table 4 show the vegetative cover types
in the study area.
A wide variety of wildlife species are associated with the
coastal dune and strand communities. Common birds, reptiles,
amphibians and mammals are identified in Appendix A-2. The
black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) is the most
common of the big game mammals in central Lincoln County.
Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus)
and mountain lion(Felis concolor) occur in the more remote
portions of Lincoln County.
Rare and endangered wildlife. Six species of wildlife
identified by the U. S. Department of Interior (1973) and the
Oregon State Game Commission (1973) and the Oregon State Game
Commission (1973) as rare, endangered or possibly threatened
with extinction can occur within the project area. These
animals are listed in Table 5.
Among the six species, the northern spotted owl is a
likely resident in the project area. The other listed species
could occur in the study area for at least part of the year.
The tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) is deemed a rare species in
part of its range(WaiIowa Mountains), however is a common
species within the study area (Storm, pers. comm.).
18
-------
SOUTHBEACH
BP
EWPORT
1RPORT
LEGEND
R Residential or Commercial
SM Salt Marsh
B Barren
W Water
SB Sandy Beach
RC Rocky Coast
D Sand Dunes
P Park
6 Grasslands
BP Beach Pine
SS Sitka Spruce
S Scrub
BP/SS Beach Pine/Sltka Spruce
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE 5 VEGETATION AND LAND USE-BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
SECTION I
19
-------
LOST CREEK
SEAL ROCK
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/Silka Spruce
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURES. VEGETATION AND LAND USE-BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
SECTION 2
20
-------
BAYSHORE
LEGEND
R Residential or Commercial
SM Salt Marsh
B Barren
W Water
SB Sandy Beach
RC Rocky Coast
D Sand Dunes
P Park
6 Grasslands
BP Beach Pine
SS Sitka Spruce
S Scrub
BP/SS Beach Pine/Sitka Spruce
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE 5 VEGETATION AND LAND USE-BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
SECTION 3
21
-------
TABLE 4
VEGETATION AND LAND USE IN THE BAY
TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
Land Use or Vegetation Type
Dune lands
Parklands*
Residential
Beach Pine
Grasslands*
Scrub*
Sitka Spruce
Beach Pine/Sitka Spruce
Sandy Beach
Barren
Water
Rocky coast
Salt marsh
Total Acreage
Approximate
Acres
343
83
1,166
1,157
390
1,118
1,983
2,066
612
446
30
28
16
9,438
Percent
4
1
13
12
3
12
21
22
7
5
1
1
1
100 percent
* Represents only developed areas. Natural vegetation on
parklands is included in other categories.
+ Areas cleared by logging or residential development.
22
-------
TABLE 5
RARE, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED VERTEBRATE SPECIES WHOSE
DISTRIBUTION INCLUDES THE BAY TO BAY STUDY AREA
Present Status1
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal
FR T
State2
R E
Brown pelican
Northern bald eagle
BIRDS
Pelicanus occidentalis
Ha.liaeetus
alascans
1eucoc ephalus
Aleutian Canada goose Branta canadensis
Peregrine falcon
Northern spotted owl
Western snowy plover
Tailed frog
leucopareia
Falco peregrirms
Strix occidentalis
caurina
Charadrius alexahdrinus
nivosus
AMPHIBIANS
Ascaphus truei*
x
X
X
X
SU x
X
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 the study area
(Storm, pers. comm.).
23
-------
Marine environment. By far the most abundant marine
habitat within the study area is the open-coast sand beach
which extends from Waldport to Seal Rock and thence north to
South Beach. Sandy beaches are sparsely populated by marine
plants and animals when compared to the rocky shoreline and to
the tidal mudflats of estuarines and bays. Appendix A-3 lists
the life forms most commonly found in the open marine environ-
ment, the bays, the beaches, and immediately offshore. Marine
fish and shellfish represent an important economic feature of
the central Oregon coast. Chinook and coho salmon, dungeness
crab, tuna, shrimp, bottom fish and clams constitute the major
commercial fisheries and the third most important natural
resource industry in Lincoln County (Clark and Groff Engineers,
Inc., 1970).
Freshwater environment. A majority of the streams within
the Bay to Bay study area originate in the nearby coastal
mountains and flow directly into the Pacific Ocean. Conse-
quently, most streams support salmon and steelhead, cutthroat
trout and a non-game species. Appendix A-4 lists those fish
species common to the coastal streams. Thiel, Beaver 'and
Collins Creeks represent streams in the study area having
significant populations of anadromous fish (Smith and Lauman,
1972). A few drainages flow into ponds scattered among
the sand dune - coastal strand environment.
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,
195?) . 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).
24
-------
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).
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
early 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
25
-------
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.
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
26
-------
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 riiids 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.
The Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department, Oregon
State Highv/ay 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.
27
-------
Aesthetic Values
The Bay to Bay study area is located on the central
Oregon coast between the Cities of Waldport and Newport.
Surrounding areas including the Pacific Ocean, the Siuslaw
National Forest to the east and seven State Parks occur between
the shoreline and U. S. Highway 101. Much of the surrounding
area is in a natural state, thus providing a scenic environ-
ment encompassing exposed rocky coast, sandy beaches and
coastal sand dunes, beach pine and Sitka spruce vegetation.
Yaquina and Alsea Bays at each end of the study area
provide additional natural scenic areas. Although the coastal
region often has extended periods of rain, clouds and fog, the
area is nonetheless highly attractive to tourists and seasonal
residents.
Many tourists view the scenic area while traveling Highway
101 from Waldport to Newport. The landscape is dominated by
beach pine vegetation, periodic clusters of residential and
commercial development and occasional glimpses of the Pacific
Ocean. Much of the structural development is clustered at
South Beach, Seal Rock and Bayshore. Several intervening
areas are being subdivided for future residential development.
In general, the aesthetic qualities of the area attract
larger numbers of summer residents and day use vacationers.
The beauty of the coastline and the associated recreational
features represent positive values of the Waldport/Newport
area.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Surface water. Surface water resources are plentiful
within the project area. Fourteen streams originating in the
coastal mountains flow through the area to the ocean. The
Alsea and Yaquina Rivers represent major surface water sources
to the south and north. 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
Yaquina River has a watershed of 253 square miles virtually
all of which is in Lincoln County (243 square miles) (Clark
and Groff Engineers, Inc., 1970).
With abundant rainfall and runoff, flowing surface water
is maintained in most streams throughout the entire year.
28
-------
Henderson, Thiel and Beaver Creeks have been classified by
the State Water Resources Board of Oregon for use only for
domestic, livestock, municipal, noncommercial irrigation, minor
power development and instream uses for recreation, wildlife
and fish life.
The water quality standards for surface waters of the
State of Oregon are located in Appendix C-l.
Groundwater. The southern portion of the Bay to Bay
study area from Beaver Creek to Alsea Bay has a high groundwater
due to perched water tables created by impermeable soils, and
lateral and downslope movement of water from upland areas.
The marine terrace areas (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 yield about 19 gallons per minute.
Contamination of groundwater from septic tank leach fields
constitutes the major problem in the use of dune and marine
terrace groundwater resources. Otherwise the quality of
groundwater is 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).
The physical and chemical water quality standards and
recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service and the
Oregon Board of Health appear in Appendix C-2.
Water use and supply. The Bay to Bay Sanitary District
and the Seal Rock Water District (and a portion of the South
Beach Water District) boundaries are essentially the same.
Existing water district facilities extend from South Beach to
Alsea Bay. Water supply for the district is obtained from
Henderson and Hill Creeks which provide a yield of 0.3 mgd.
Water is stored in three 75,000-gallon storage tanks and a
one million gallon storage reservoir.
The existing water sources are planned to be phased out
and incorporated under a joint water development project with
the City of Toledo. A 2.6 cfs permit for supply from the
Siletz River is scheduled for completion July 1, 1976 (Newman,
pers. comm.).
29
-------
Existing Sewage Disposal Conditions
Septic tanks with subsurface leach fields are the major
means of treating and disposing of sewage in the Bay to Bay
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.
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 the Bay to Bay area, only one problem
source of sewage was conclusively identified during the 1972
survey. Conclusions of the 1972 survey were that any problems
that might arise in regard to sewage could be remedied on an
individual basis, and that the larger lot size would be adequate
for repair systems if soil conditions permitted.
Soil conditions within the Bay to Bay Sanitary District
greatly influence the performance of septic tank systems. The
sedimentary substratum in the southern part of the district 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 some 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.
comin. ; 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
30
-------
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.
The presence of a possible health hazard resulting from
failing septic systems or sewage flowing on surface areas has
not been well documented in the Bay to Bay Sanitary District.
Neither the 1968 nor 1972 beach survey reports depicted any
major problem areas from Yaquina Bay to Alsea Bay.
In all likelihood, high groundwater in some parts of the
Bay to Bay 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
Bay to Bay Sanitary District are on a district water supply,
the documentation of well contamination is nonexistent (Dobey,
pers. comm.).
Because of the inherent properties of soils throughout
portions of the study area, many of the problems characteristic
of the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District could occur
in the Bay to Bay area if the area were developed on similar
sized lots to the extent that the Southwest Lincoln County
area is.
Evaluation of 253 subdivisions from 1970 to 1972 and from
116 individual permit requests July 1974 to February 1976 show
that of the 369 permits applied for in the Bay to Bay study
area, 69 (19 percent) were denied because of impermeable soils
and/or high groundwater conditions. The 19 percent is signifi-
cantly less than the 47 percent denials averaged for all of
coastal Lincoln County because of soils and water table conditions.
Social Environment
Population
Existing conditions. The Bay-to-Bay Sanitary District
population fits into three distinct analytical categories:
(1) permanent year-round residents; (2) vacation summer home
occupants; and (3) transient tourist population. Both the
vacation and transient population components have tended to be
more responsible for recent population increases in the area,
31
-------
while the permanent component has increased very slowly, and,
in some surrounding cities, actually declined. During the
period between 1960 and 1970, Lincoln County population increased
by only 4.5% as compared with an 18.2% increase for the entire
State of Oregon. The closest coastal city, Newport, showed a
2.9% decrease in population during this period from 5,344 to
5,188 residents (1974 OCCDC, p. II-2).
The median age of residents of Lincoln County as of 1970
was 38 years of age. This county has the largest concentration
of retirement residents 65 years of age and older of all
Oregon counties, which in 1970 was 18.7% of its total popula-
tion. Much of this retirement group is concentrated along the
coastal strip in rural areas such as the Bay-to-Bay District.
A comparable coastal strip for which 1970 census data is
available is the Waldport Division, which extends south from
Seal Rock to the south county line. The median age of resi-
dents in this area is 42.7 years of age.
Permanent residents. The sanitary district's approximate
population based on Lincoln County Water Sewerage and Waste
Management peak population estimates, and GG+A surveys is
1,844 persons in 1975. Between the years 1960 and 1967, this
population decreased from 1,590 to 1,550 (Lincoln County
Regional Water and Sewerage Plan III-6). This decline is
most likely attributable to the closing of several small wood-
processing and logging operations in the area during the
early 1960's and a concomitant growth of that activity in the
Toledo area approximately 30 miles to the east. Hence, an
out-migration of permanent resident labor force participants,
coupled with an in-migration of retired permanent residents,
has tended to preserve the current population level over the
last 15 years, yet resulted in an overall change in the age
distribution of the existing permanent resident make-up.
Vacation summer home residents. A GG+A survey of resi-
dential subdivisions in the Bay to Bay Sanitary District in-
dicated that over 60 percent of the population maintained
permanent residences outside the Bay to Bay District. Using
the Lincoln County Water Sewerage and Solid Waste Management
1975 peak population estimates of 4,610 non-transient persons,
the seasonal component (60 percent) is estimated to be approxi-
mately 2,766 persons.
32
-------
Trans-Lent population. Again, the Lincoln County Water
Sewerage and Solid Waste Management Plan has estimated the
1975 transient tourist population to be 1,184 persons. A
tourist is generally one who stays overnight in the project
area in other than a permanent or seasonal residence. The
tourist industry is very widely discussed and little under-
stood; no attempt was made to arrive at an alternative esti-
mate of this population component or future projection.
Extensive data were reviewed on the use of area tourist facili-
ties such as motels, state parks and campsites. It appears
that steady increases in tourist traffic are occurring
especially during the peak season and that the estimate of
1,184 may be well on the low side. Tourist estimates for
future years (HGE, January 1974) would be 1,325 in 1980,
1,598 in 1990 and 1,880 in 2000.
Population project-ions. Some housing units in the Bay
to Bay Sanitary District appear to predate 1920, the year in
which the first two subdivision recordings took place. By
using an estimate of 1920 housing units currently within the
district, it appears that an annual absorption of housing
units has been around 38 units since 1920. Of the 14 sub-
divisions comprising an estimated 5,074 lots, six subdivisions,
creating approximately 3,139 lots, have been filed since 1960.
Although records of building permits go back only to 1972,
field estimates of buildout by subdivision and of recent and
current second house ownership in Lincoln County suggest that
an absorption range of 35-40 units per year is appropriate
for projection purposes. In Table 6, an annual increase in
38 housing units is applied to the estimate of the current
housing stock to result in projections for future housing in
1985, 1995 and 2025 (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 6 represent a more rapid rate of growth than has been
experienced recently by either Waldport to the south or New-
port to the north. This would not be unexpected, since there
is more vacant land available in the more open and rural areas
between these two cities.
The population projections in Table 6 correspond closely
with 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 population of
33
-------
8,582 which includes transients who would amount to about
25 percent of the total peak season population. Deducting
25 percent from the 1995 total estimate of 8,582 for the
district leaves 6,437 year-round and part-time residents as
the 1995 HGE estimate as compared with the projections of
6,431 presented in Table 6, based on historic average
absorption of 38 housing units per year.
The projections in Table 6 are somewhat lower than those
presented in the Bay to Bay Sanitary District sewerage study
which extended the HGE projections to the year 2025 (Meyersr
June 1975). The peak population projection in Table 6 for
the year 2025 is 9,168, while the Meyers report projects 9,356
(deducting 25 percent for transients from the 2025 projection
of 12,474). Although these differences are not great, it
should be recognized that the figures in Table 6 represent
simply a continuation of existing trends.
_In evaluating these 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 an objec-
tive of making it more accurate.
The figures presented in Table 6 have not been adjusted.
Although many variables may alter over time, there is not
enough information available to translate the projections
into informed forecasts. For example, the housing recession
of recent years may be protracted and projected new construc-
tion 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) that for the other. A full market study would be
necessary to pin this variable down more accurately. Demo-
graphic variables 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 satura-
tion or by the prior absorption of the most desirable building
sites; changes in preference among consumers affecting dispo-
sition of recreational expenditures, or decelerating advances
in real income. While these and other contingencies have not
been taken into accounty, it is hoped that the figures pre-
sented will suffice for the purpose of considering environmental
impacts.
34
-------
Table 6
Bay to Bay Sanitary District Existing
and Prelected Non-Transient Population
Year-Round
Part-Time
Total
Housing
Persons Units
Housing Housing
Persons Units Persons Units
Present
(1975) 1844
Population
768
2766
1152
4610 1920
Annual Absorp-
tion Since
1920
15
23
38
Projected
1985
1995
2025
2203
2563
3643
918
1068
1518
3317 1382 5520 2300
3868 1612 6431 2680
5525 2302 9168 3820
Source: Present population from County Sewerage and Solid Waste
Management Study via Robert E. Meyers. The total estimate
was 5794 from which was deducted 1184 as the peak transient
population. Absorption 'estimates by Gruen Gruen + Associates
based on Lincoln County records. The historical absorption
rate is based on the independent estimates of average annual
absorption by subdivision. The average for any given year is
computed as the sum of the averages for all subdivisions in
existence in that year; the annual average total absorption
is the sum of the yearly averages divided by 55 years (since
1920}. This technique does not reflect the true numbers of
units build in various years, but results in an annualized
average over the life of the various subdivisions. Estimating
the actual distribution of construction activity over time was
not possible due to the lack of building permit data.
35
-------
Economy
The economy of Lincoln County is driven by three primary
activities: (1) tourism, (2) fishing and fish processing,
and (3) forest product production. All of these three basic
industries are highly seasonal and susceptible to cyclical
variations of the state and national economy. This economic
instability is a major contributing factor to the slow popula-
tion growth of both the county and the Bay-to-Bay Sanitary
District. These three primary industries will be discussed
below in terms of their importance to the study area and their
significance in shaping the future development of the district.
Tourism. Tourism appears to be the fastest growing source
of economic benefit within the study area and the second
largest source of revenue for the county as a whole. A good
indix of tourist activity in the study area is average daily
traffic flow on Highway 101 which serves the area. This has
been tabulated and presented in Table 7. A substantial increase
in traffic volume of 22% is shown for the five-year period
between 1969 and 1974. The sharp decrease shown between 1973
and 1974 is most likely a reflection of both the temporary
gasoline shortage and the generally depressed overall economic
condition of the nation at the 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 during those
years.
Transient population. The Lincoln County Comprehensive
Water, Sewerage and Solid Waste Management Plan has estimated
the peak Bay-to-Bay population, including permanent, seasonal
and tourist, to be approximately 5,794, of which 1,184 are
designated tourist as of 1975. The tourist industry is very
little understood and widely discussed. This estimate cannot
easily be made; however, it does correspond with information
obtained on a countywide basis for average weekly tourist
parties visiting Oregon in August, 1972, the peak travel month.
Tourism, 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.
36
-------
Table 7
Historical Average Annual Daily Traffic
U.S. 101: Yanuina Dav to Yachats
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Average Daily
Traffic
4,188
4,615
4,870
5,303
5,409
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
Month
% of 1974 ADT
(5106) Experienced
Volume of Traffic
per Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
56.7
62.4
82.8
92.7
107.4
124.4
147.2
162.8
122.2
90.1
78.9
72.2
2,895
3,188
4,228
4,734
5,486
6,350
7,516
8,315
6,241
4,599
4,031
3,687
Source: Oregon State Highway Division
Traffic Volunc Tables, 1974
37
-------
The tourist season for Oregon extends between the months
of May through September and is most intense during the month
of August, dropping sharply after the Labor Day weekend. This
pattern is clearly depicted by the data in Table 8 which
shows traffic flows well in excess of 100% of annual average
daily traffic during these months. In examining the distri-
bution of traffic flow between months of previous years, the
year 1974 was found to be typical of past trends.
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 Tables 7 and 9 for average daily traffic
increases, indicates that tourism is most responsible for over-
all increases in traffic flow throughout the study area.
Although tourism is not significant during the winter months
of the year, local residents and business operators in the
area, when questioned, all indicated that weekend traffic
throughout the year had increased substantially in recent
years. 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 in the Bay-to-Bay District 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 development.
Between the years of 1971 and 1975, a 86.6% increase in camper-
nights spent in the study area was observed, while only a 2.4%
increase in usage was observed for all state facilities. Much
of this tremendous increase of usage in the study area was due
to the fact that South Beach State Park (the only overnight
state park in the study area) was opened in the early 1970"s
(Jacobson, pers. comm.).
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 study area therefore tend to capture a larger
amount of the tourist traffic than the less accessible inland
38
-------
TABLE 9
Average Daily Tourist Traffic 1969-1974
U.S. 101; Yaquina Bay to Yachats
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
% Increase
1969-1974
Average Daily
Tourist Traffic
1,379
1,532
1,603
1,745
1,800
1,680
22%
Source: Oregon State Highway Division
Traffic volume Tables, 1974
Fiscal Year
1970-1971
1974-1975
% Increase
State Park
TABLE 10
Usage; 1971-1975
Study Area Campsites
33,882
63,244
86.6
All State Campsites
1,578,173
1,616,645
2.4
1970-1971
1974-1975
% Increase
DAY USE
Study
I/:
i,
FACILITIES
Area Parks
277
,124
,905
14.5
462
All State Parks
22,325,353
27,160,202
21.6
Source: Oregon Stalte Highway Dept. , Parks
& Recreation Division raw park usage data
39
-------
facilities. It is significant to note that these data were
compiled from traffic counts of incoming vehicles to the study
area facilities, but 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
study area usage data will generally be more accurate than that
of the state as a whole.
Day use facilities in the area showed a smaller increase
in usage as compared with similar facilities throughout the
state. 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 populations as opposed
to seasonal tourist visitors. The permanent population of
the study area is very small compared to that of more developed
surrounding areas within the county and state and, therefore,
local day use facilities receive less usage than those in
other areas of the state where population centers exist. The
data above therefore seems consistent with the slow permanent
population growth rate and a relatively fast increase in
tourist population.
The travel industry is a difficult one to analyze statis-
tically; however, these 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 by
GG+A. The results of that survey are as follows: (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) all experienced seasonally varied occupancy with
August being cited as the busiest month, with 90% to 100%
occupancy. All noted December and January as the slowest of
months where 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 for all motels 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 acti-
vity 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 invest-
ment. Two said they would not build a new motel, one said
motels tie you down too much, and one talked about high taxes
and minimum wage laws.
40
-------
No projections were attempted as to the magnitude of future
employment or sales resulting from this industry. In 1973,
over 1,200 persons were employed in various jobs related to the
travel industry in Lincoln County (1974 OCCDC). 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.
A second component of this industry is the seasonal
resident population which increases substantially during the
summer months of the year. The bulk of this population owns
property in areas which may have summer homes constructed on
it or mobile homes in place. This population consists of
approximately 2,766 seasonal vacationers for the area and indi-
cations 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 select-
ing 104 lots from various subdivisions within the Sanitary
District, of which 56 had dwelling units. The incidence of
non-resident ownership of all property sampled was 70.2%,
while residents owned 29.8%. 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 con-
struction was by non-residents. The place of residence
addresses of these new builders ranged throughout the United
States and Canada, but the bulk of them were in the Willamette
Valley, Oregon area, fifty to eighty miles east of the study
area. Present conditions indicate that future building in the
area will be mostly of second homes, adding further to the
seasonal population and retirement economic base.
Forest products. Lumber products, as a component of the
economic base of Lincoln County, still plan an important role in
providing employment income to the area. Peak production was
reached in 1960, with a level of 2,019 forest product-related
jobs. That number has been steadily decreasing since, and in
1973, accounted for only 809 jobs in Lincoln County as a whole.
Among the five Oregon coast counties, Lincoln ranked fifth in
overall forest product-related employment in 1973. Forest
product production in the study area appears to have diminished
more quickly since 1960 than for the County of Lincoln. A
number of small mills have been forced to close because of
inability to compete with larger scale operations based in the
Toledo area. The Siuslaw National Forest is the largest poten-
tial timber resource near the study area, but it holds little
potential in terms of bolstering the local forest product
economy. Much of the timber harvested is shipped to larger
processing plants in surrounding Lincoln County communities.
41
-------
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 indus-
try 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 all the Newport salmon
and albacore catch and 30% of the crab landed there is shipped
elsewhere for processing. This constitutes the bulk of the
Yaquina Bay catch, although an important component of the
overall Lincoln County economic base fishing and fish proces-
sing offer little potential for the study 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 some general conclusions about the
employment characteristics to be made. The high concentration
of population over the age of 65 within the district would
serve to support the assumption that self-employment and retire-
ment benefits constitute a major source of income for the
district. 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 an important employment
category with employment in that sector showing an increase of
70% between 1962 and 1972 (Census, County Business Patterns).
Over half 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 (OEPD, 1973), while the national average is about
8% self-employment. 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 Department, 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 population, 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 average annual family income level
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.
42
-------
TABLE 11
Annual Average Unemployment Rate
Lincoln County, 1960-1971
Yea1
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
Department, 1973, Overall Economic
Development Plan, Lincoln County, Oregon
TABLE 12
Source of Income
Lincoln County: 1970
Source
Wage and Salary
Non-Farm, Self-Employ
Social Security
Mean Income
$7,868
6,585
1,793
Source: 1970 U.S. Census of Population
43
-------
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.
Assuming a higher than normal concentration of retired
and self-employed residents in the district, an assumption
which has already been given considerable support from the
housing and ownership data presented previously, Social
Security and non-farm self-employment constitute the major
income sources for the district; therefore, it should be well
established 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. The population
growth of the study 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 Bay-to-Bay Sanitary District population consists
of such a large proportion of individuals who are non-partici-
pants in the labor force, other factors such as property
values, availability of tourist accommodation and natural
environmental amenities may become more important forces in
shaping the future character and size of the Bay-to-Bay
community.
Future employment prospects. Both the forest products
industry and the fishing and 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, however, 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 significant level are realized.
44
-------
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 Bay-to-Bay Sanitary
District are presented in Table 13.
Property within the Bay-to-Bay Sanitary District has not
been increasing as fast as land throughout the State of Oregon
and has shown an increase well below that of the rest of
Lincoln County. The relatively slow growth in Bay-to-Bay
District property values may be explained in part by restric-
tions 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 resi-
dential usage and held by individuals with intentions to build
retirement or second homes. Many of the building lots, however,
are smaller than minimum size eligible for septic tank instal-
lation and usage and, therefore, cannot be developed for their
intended purpose. This has probably been a factor in holding
property values down within the district in comparison with the
entire county.
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 build-out, while excessive sewer district
costs may actually depress property values and discourage
future growth.
Tourist population. The management of state parks and
recreation facilities within the district will be a key element
determining future growth of the area's transient population.
Further acquisitions of beach property are not presently planned
by the State of Oregon.
Further development of presently owned and operating
facilities would certainly have an effect on peak population
levels. Also, any expansion of motel facilities or additional
entries to the industry will also result in greater tourist
population levels.
45
-------
TABLE 13
Real Property Valuation
State of Lincoln Bay-to-Bay
Year Oregon County Sanitary Dist.
1969 13,215,725,797 281,526,299 .15,874,577
1975 26,190,390,714 568,637,940 29,817,329
% Increase 98% 102% 87%
Sources: Gruen Gruen + Associates, compiled from
Oregon State Department of Revenue data
46
-------
Land Use
Existing development in the District tends to hug the
coastal strip and concentrate itself on embayments and on
either side of U.S. Highway 101. The developed areas to the
west of the highway provides 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 Bay-to-Bay Sanitary District is composed of the South
Beach and Seal Rock Water Districts and lies between Yaquina
Bay to the north and the northern shore of Alsea Bay to the
south. This is a 14-mile long, 1-1/2 to 2-mile wide coastal
strip in which the primary land use is residential. A number
of other land uses exist as well and will be discussed.
Residential. Contained within the district are approxi-
mately 13 legal subdivisions containing lots ranging widely
in size from 2,500 square feet to an acre. It is not known
how many of these lots are actually suitable for building.
Many have been subdivided since the 1920*s, when in some
instances streets were dedicated yet no rights-of-way granted.
Many of the streets were not designed in conformance with the
topographic conditions of the area. Even where rights-of-way
have been granted, often only 20 to 30 feet have been set aside
for the actual roadways. Many of these dedicated streets
end at the beach front and provide public access to the beach.
The newer subdivisions (those platted since 1950) generally
have streets designed more in conformance with the physical
conditions of the land.
An examination of the actual sites and the subdivision
area maps, as well as county assessment records, indicates that
approximately 30% of the subdivided lots have been built upon.
Further, assessment records show that a substantial portion of
this building has taken place within the past three to five
years. An analysis of the ownership records indicates that
approximately 40% of the housing in the area is owned and
permanently occupied by local year-round residents. Thus,
the bulk of housing in the area is held by non-residents who
occupy it only on a seasonal basis.
47
-------
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 per-
centages are rough estimates compiled from extensive tours of
the area and conversations with the staff of the county
assessor's office.
Recreation. There are five developed and operating state
parks and recreation facilities in the study area in addition
to other state-owned properties due to be developed, as indi-
cated in Figure 6. These parks and recreational areas currently
provide beach access for visitors to the Oregon coast. These
facilities are expected to increase in usage during the coming
years.
Highways. U. S. Highway 101 is the major arterial in
the study area which links the Yaquina and Alsea Bays. This
is a two-lane improved highway with two traffic separators in
the study area. Currently, Highway 101 receives its heaviest u
usage during the tourist season between the months of May and
August. Heavy usage also occurs during the weekends throughout
the year. Most other roadways are not surfaced and not main-
tained by any governmental authority: consequently their condi-
tions range from fair to poor.
Commercial. The South Beach area below the Yaquina Bay
Bridge contains light commercial activity along U.S. Highway
101. Several small auto repair shops, gift shops, a recycling
yard, a heavy equipment repair yard, and a small-item grocery
store are located along U.S. 101 between the Yaquina Bay
Bridge and Seal Rock. Very little commercial development
exists between Seal Rock and the Waldport Bridge to the south
along U.S. 101.
Airport. The Newport Municipal Airport is located within
the Bay-to-Bay Sanitary District south of Newport between
U.S. 101 and Grant Creek. Currently, the facility serves
approximately 25 private aircraft and a number of vacation
aircraft. During the past five years, the airport has accom-
modated approximately 200 landings per month.
Educational facilities. School-age children residing in
the Bay to Bay Sanitary District attend schools in Waldport
and Newport. Waldport and Newport each contain one high school
(1975 enrollment 226 and 388 respectively) and one junior high
48
-------
Table 14
SUBDIVISIONS IN BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
Subdivision
Year
Subdivided
South Beach 1940
Surfland 1950
Pruners 1959
Pacific Shores 1960
Lor Lar 1920
Den Bar 1960
Crestview 1940
Wanda Meer 1955
Makai 1960
Huckleberry Hill 1950
Seal Rock 1920
Silver Sands 1967
Sand Piper 1970
Bayshore 1970
Approximate
Number of
Lots Current
175
300
20
575
350
14
50
40
800
150
850
50
500
1200
Estimated
Current
Build-Out
70%
45%
50%
50%
45%
10%
30%
30%
20%
55%
65%
50%
15%
20%
% Local
Ownership
15%
20%
80%
10%
25%
20%
20%
0
45%
50%
65%
50%
10%
50%
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 platted sections of subdivisions;
some of the subdivisions can expand to adjacent
lands, thereby increasing the number of lots.
The estimates provided are known to be rough. Errors
may reflect over or underestimates of numbers of lots
or buildout or both. An overestimate would be
expected in part because of construction of single
units on more than one lot.
49
-------
YAOUNA BAY AREA
LAND USE PLAN
RESIDENTIAL
C5] SINGLE - FAMILY flCSIDENTIAL
a Mut_n - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
C3 RECREATON RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
D rOUO'bT CCMMfftOAL
•i ISETA'L CCMUf = CIAL
•I OfNERAL COMV^RCtAL
CJ MARINE COMMERCIAL
•i «**TEaFRONT COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
• MARlNC MOUSTRIAL
^3 UMtTED (NDUSTRIAL
• GENERAL HOUSTRIAL
RURAL
S RURAL PE90ENTIAL
• RUPAL COMMUNITY
a OPEN
NATURAL RESOURCE
E3 ROCK DEPOSIT
CD ICELAND
IS MARSHLAND
lEI DIKELANO
&} MARINE PRODUCTION
SPECIAL
d PLANNED MARINE & RECRCATON
PUBLIC
m pueu:
O RECBtATION
GENERA*. LOCATION FOR
A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
PACIFIC OCEAN
h-y
~RR
FIGURE 6
SEAL ROCK AREA
R RESIDENTIAL
RR RECSEAT10N RESIDENTIAL
C RETAIL COMMERCIAL
P PARK OR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
LAND USE-YAQUINABAYAND
SEAL ROCK AREAS
FROM YiajINASAYAPEALANDUSEPLJN 19698
KAL ROCK AREA LAND USE PLAN, 1969
SCALE IN MILES
NORTH
50
-------
school (enrollments 147 and 385 respectively). Waldport has
a single elementary school with a 1975 enrollment of 254.
Newport has three elementary schools with a total 1975 enroll-
ment of 690. Total enrollment in all eight schools has de-
clined sharply since 1965, from 2,756 to 2,130'. Future enroll-
ment is expected to continue to decline, but not as abruptly
as during the past decade (Neubauer, pers. comm.).
Land use planning. Land use planning in the Bay-to-Bay
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 pro-
visions of this act, all local city or. county planning juris-
dictions are required to develop and maintain comprehensive
land use plans which conform to adopted statewide planning
regulations.
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 a series of public hearings and review of exist-
ing state land use planning goals, 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 comprehensive land use plans and to submit
them to LCDC by January 1, 1976 for commission review. By
law, local planning authorities failing to comply with the
LCDC directive to meet the required deadline could 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 could be allowed extensions, provided that
evidence of satisfactory progress in completing their compre-
hensive plans could be 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 controlling
and directing land use in Oregon is a subject which has
received wide discussion in recent months. Many argue that the
intended powers of LCDC are mainly to insure a coordinated
51
-------
statewide planning effort through adherence to its adopted
goals. But a second authority of LCDC's is to grant planning
and siting permits to individual or public agencies for land
use activities of statewide significance. Activities of
statewide significance are defined in the 1973 Land Use Act
as follows: (1) the planning and siting of public transpor-
tation 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 power 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
Bay-to-Bay Sanitary District.
Local planning authority. A planning commission consisting
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 author-
ity to recommend adoption of plans and zoning ordinances in the
county, while the County Board of Commissioners has the sole
responsibility to adopt comprehensive land use plans 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 land use plans have been formulated for areas
within Lincoln County including the Alsea Bay Planning Area,
which includes part of the Bay to Bay Sanitary District. A
comprehensive land use plan, as defined by SB 100, 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 zoning changes for some properties. The
current schedule for completion of the comprehensive plan is
June 1980.
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 about 30% built out.
52
-------
The land which is currently zoned for residential use on
the west side of Highway 101 is likely to receive pressure in
the future to accommodate additional multi-family, condominium
or motel usage. This land has excellent 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. Many non-
residents 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 study 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 con-
centrated mainly in the South Beach area in the northern end
of the district closest to Newport. Although some additional
population-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. Approxi-
mately 56 acres of undeveloped park land is held by the state
in the South Beach area. No current plans for development of
this property exist; however, should it become developed in
the future to accommodate additional tourist needs, commercial
usage in the surrounding area could become intensified.
53
-------
f -««r-s.
-------
III. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Introduction
Environmental Protection Agency rules and regulations for
the preparation of an EIS (40 CFR part 6) require that alter-
natives to a proposed project be developed, described, and
objectively weighed when significant resource trade-offs are
involved. 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 an alternative for
implementation. The reasons why a proposed alternative is
selected as the best must be objectively determined and stated
in detail and await review of this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. In the draft project report prepared for the Bay
to Bay Sanitary District by Robert Meyer Engineers, a project
was selected by the district which is included as Alternative
4 among alternatives treated in this chapter.
At the present time, construction within the District is
somewhat restricted by the inability of some property owners to
obtain permits for utilization of septic tanks. The denial of
permits has been based upon high groundwater conditions, un-
suitable 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, only one septic tank system was tested for con-
tribution of sewage to the beach, and the results of the test
were positive. Based on the Health Division survey, an eval-
uation of subdivision applications for septic tank permits
between 1970 and 1972 showed that out of 253 parcels applying
for permits, 80, or 32%, were denied permits. Twenty percent
of those denied were because of either a high groundwater
level or unacceptable soils condition. The majority of denials
were for the area south of Beaver Creek, an area characteris-
tically defined as one having high groundwater. More recent
data (July 1974 to February 1976) that showed of 116 permit
applications by single lot property owners, 90 permits were
approved and 26 disapproved. Seventeen of those disapprovals,
were because of poor soil or high groundwater conditions.
55
-------
Until this draft EIS, the alternatives for wastewater
management in the Bay to Bay Sanitary District were described
in a draft report entitled/ "Sewerage Study, Bay to Bay
Sanitary District, Lincoln County, Oregon", prepared by
Robert E. Meyer Engineers, Inc., and dated June, 1975 (here-
after referred to as the draft Sewerage Study). Prior to this
draft Sewerage Study, the principal planning efforts had cen-
tered around the "Sewerage Facilities Development Plan" pre-
pared as a portion of the Comprehensive Water, Sewerage, and
Solid Waste Management Plan for Lincoln County, dated March 1,
1974.
The June 1975 draft Sewerage Study did not recommend any
alternative, but did state that "the most cost-effective
treatment alternative consists of constructing a centralized
treatment plant at Seal Rock". In this alternative, a single
treatment plant would be constructed at Seal Rock, and two
interceptors totalling over 14.5 miles in length would convey
raw sewage to the plant. A total of 18 separate pumping sta-
tions would be required. The Statement includes this alterna-
tive as well as other viable alternatives.
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 Bay to
Bay 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.
56
-------
6. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 7 -
Subsurface and Alternative Sewage Disposal, Subdivi-
sion 1 - Standards for Subsurface and Alternative
Sewage and Non-water Carried Waste Disposal.
Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, give EPA the responsibility for
establishment 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 a 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 biological
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.
57
-------
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", to comply with EPA requirements (PL 92-500) for per-
forming 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 alternatives for wastewater management nor recommend a
wastewater management plan. Because of this, the EPA rejected
the document, 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 Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems (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 probably NPDES requirements are con-
sidered 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/maintenance
of septic tank systems. Any alternatives which do not provide
100% sewering of the District, would permit new development in
unsewered areas only in conformance with these State require-
ments for septic tanks.
Regional!zation
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 regionali-
zation does not imply or require that only one treatment facil-
ity 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 piecemeal basis. The term "cost-effectiveness" is
comprised of three very important costs: monetary or dollar
costs, environmental costs, and social costs. Within this
58
-------
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 judgemental. The cost-effective
project is that project which is judged to have the lowest
overall monetary, social, and environmental cost.
Several 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 and 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 individual
member control.
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
Present water consumption within the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District was estimated in the draft Sewerage Study to be 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 con-
sumers is utilized indoors, and ultimately results in pro-
duction of about 90-100 gpcd 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 draft 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 con-
struction, and inflow enters through manhole covers, ground
drains and house roof drains connected to the sewer. Infil-
tration/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 drains are connected to the sanitary sewer
system. The amount of infiltration/inflow will probably be
about 10 gpcd initially, and will gradually increase through
the years as joints between pipes loosen and deteriorate,
perhaps ultimately reaching 30 gpcd. Because infiltration and
inflow will be lowest during the peak tourist season, which
59
-------
is the time of projected peak sewage flow. The draft Sewage
Study estimate 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.
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. There should
be no major problems with infiltration 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 following:
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. Percolation ponds are not
considered feasible because of the relative imper-
meability of the soil and the localized high ground-
water conditions. Spray application to the land sur-
face 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.
60
-------
Reuse of effluent for industry and/or agriculture -
Another requirement of the Construction Grants Pro-
gram is that reuse of the treated effluent must be
considered in the formulation and screening of alter-
natives. Reuse of effluent, as a combined means of
effluent disposal and water resource conservation,
was dropped because there is presently no significant
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.
Aerated lagoon treatment - This form of treatment was
dropped from further consideration because it is not
capable of consistently producing an effluent which
would be in compliance with probably NPDES require-
ments. An additional factor considered adverse to
utilization of aerated lagoons is the requirement for
a relatively large amount of land, a resource which
should be considered relatively scarce within the
District.
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 ob-
stacles, 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 repre-
sent 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.
61
-------
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives
Each of the treatment and disposal alternatives selected
as feabile is described to acquaint the reader with their general
characteristics. The three treatment alternatives being con-
sidered are extended aeration activated sludge, trickling
filters, and individual septic tank systems, or a combination
of the above. Three separate disposal alternatives are con-
sidered feasible - discharge to the ocean, discharge to Alsea
Bay, or subsurface discharge to the ground in the case of
septic tanks.
The activated sludge process. This treatment process
uses bacteria to decompose 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 de-
watered using a filter press and transported to disposal.
Disposal can be either through utilization as a soil condi-
tioner or by sanitary landfill.
The trickling filter process. A trickling filter consists
of a circular concrete basin roughly eight feet high that^is
filled with stones or a synthetic plastic media. Sewage is
sprayed over the top of the media, and as it trickles downward,
bacteria that are growing on the media surface break down the
organic matter in the sewage. Eventually, the bacteria build
up in a layer incapable of continued attachment to the media,
and it sloughs off. This sloughed bacterial layer is called
sludge. To treat the sludge prior to disposal, it is first
maintained without food and then dewatered, as described above.
Disposal would be by use as a soil conditioner or by hauling
to a sanitary landfill.
Septic tank treatment. This type of treatment actually
consists of two components: (1) the septic tank and (2) the
leach field or other subsurface land disposal method. Both
components must operate satisfactorily, 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. The remaining
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
62
-------
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 invert material
and sludge that accumulates a.t 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.
2. Poor soil - Soils which contain large amount of clay
or are underlain by clay, will percolate water very
slowly. Such soils require large drainfields because
of their 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 and aeration 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 perfor-
mance is routine pumping of accumulated sludge from the septic
tank.
Treatment Plant Site Options
Five locations are considered feasible for the location of
sewage treatment facilities. Two of these sites are presently
used for sewage treatment.
63
-------
Site A - the City of Newport Treatment Plant. This site
is large enough for proposed facilities, and no additional
land would need to be acquired.
Site B - Beaver Creek. This plant would be located on the
inland side of the Coast Highway and to the north of Beaver
Creek; however, a specific location has not been selected for
this site.
Site C - Seal Rock. This plant would be located south of
the Seal Rock State Park on the inland side of the Coast Highway
but not within visual sight of the Coast Highway. An exact
location has not been selected.
Site D - Collins Creek. The plant would be located on
the inland side of the Coast Highway and most likely on the
north side of Collins Creek. A specific location has not been
selected.
Site E - City of Waldport Treatment Plant. This site is
bordered by Alsea Highway, Lint Slough, and the Waldport High
School. The site is not large enough for the proposed plant
expansion, and some land would have to be acquired from the
adjacent high school athletic grounds. New facilities would
be constructed to the west of the existing facilities.
Although this site is adjacent to the high school boundary
line, the athletic fields will act as a buffer between the
treatment plant and the high school.
Implementation Options — Financing and Organization
A variety of facilities are required for project imple-
mentation: treatment plant(s), Ocean or Bay outfall(s),
interceptors, and local collection sewers. The questions
listed below are important to the present and future residents
of the District as the technical and environmental aspects of
this project.
1. How will the facilities be paid for?
2. How will the cost of required facilities be allocated
to residents within the District?
3. How will the facilities be operated?
64
-------
Various methods of accomplishing the above actions are
available, and must be dealt with before a project can become
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, outfalls,
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 by the reader that land and right-of-way pur-
chase is not a cost eligible for EPA reimbursement, and is a
100% local cost.
The 25% local share of treatment, outfall, 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 within the District and are limited by
Oregon State Statute to 13% 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.
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. Oftentimes a Local Improvement District (LID) is
formed to finance the necessary collection system. A two-
thirds 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 accrue 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 repaid in semi-annual payments at an interest
rate of 7% over periods of 10 and 20 years.
65
-------
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 property in the District.
Allocation of the cost of the collection system to property
owners will probably be accomplished using a procedure re-
ferred to as the area/benefit method. This method assesses a
percentage of the cost over the 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. It is
expected that a financial plan for the District would propose
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 full-time 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 Superinten-
dent 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 Newport.
If Beaver Creek, Seal Rock, or Collins Creek 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
At the present time, there are no existing treatment
facilities within the District. There are, however, two
treatment facilities outside of but relatively close to the
District boundaries. These facilities are owned by the City
of Newport on the north and the City of Waldport on the south.
The City of Newport Treatment Plant was constructed in 1967
and has a rated treatment capacity of 1.6 million gallons per
day (MGD). The hydraulic capacity of this plant is 4.8 MGD,
a flow which is quite often exceeded during the winter months
due to large quantities of infiltration/inflow into the sewage
66
-------
collection system. During the winter months, the flow to the
treatment plant often peaks as high as 7.5 MGD, primarily
because the sewage system collects both storm runoff and
sewage. This trickling filtration plant discharges through an
outfall to the Pacific Ocean. At the present time, the City
of Newport is undertaking a program to eliminate the large
quantities of storm water runoff into the sanitary sewage
collection system.
The City of Waldport treatment plant was constructed in
1950 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 line in to Lint Slough. One full-time
operator is required although other city maintenance personnel
are occasionally also utilized. The plant was financed by
local residents with the partial help of an EPA construction
grant.
Transport of sewage generated with the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District to either the City of Newport or the City of Waldport
plants will require the solution of several institutional
problems. One problem exists because the City of Newport has
stated that they will not accept sewage from outside the City
limits. This, in essence, requires that any areas contributing
sewage to the City of Newport treatment plant be annexed by the
City, thus no longer remaining a portion of the Bay to Bay
Sanitary District. As no formal application has been made to
the City of Newport for service outside the City's boundaries,
this fact cannot be taken with complete certainty.
The second institutional problem concerns the formation of
a service agreement which would have to be signed by the Bay to
Bay Sanitary District and/or the Cities of Newport and Waldport.
If agreement for service is reached between the District and
either of these cities, EPA has established regulations which
require that all costs resulting from facility construction, as
well as operation/maintenance be distributed on a "fair and
equitable" basis. Thus, if Bay to Bay Sanitary District sewage
is contributed to either of these existing plants, the District
would be responsible for all capital costs incurred due to new
construction, 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.
67
-------
Proposed Facilities Common to Several Alternatives
Alternatives 1 through 4 are referred to as full service
alternatives. In these alternatives, a collection system would
be constructed to provide service to all presently developed
areas of the District, and would be designed to allow expansion
to serve presently undeveloped areas. Although there are some
minor deviations between these four alternatives, the pipe
length and total collection system cost would be roughly iden-
tical for each alternative. The full service collection system
has been outlined in the draft Sewerage Study, pages V-ll to
V-15. The full service collection system would consist of
approximately 132,800 feet of pipe and seven pumping stations.
The estimated mid-1975 cost of this system was $3,435,000, a
cost which could probably escalate to around $3,950,300 by mid
1977, the earliest anticipated date that construction of the
system could be initiated.
Alternatives 5, 6, and 8 are referred to as "cluster"
service alternatives. This nomenclature is applied because
sewer service would only serve three major growth areas, these
being South Beach-Thiel Creek, Seal Rock, and Bay Shore-
Sandpiper Village. To provide sewerage service to these three
growth areas, approximately 116,000 feet of sewers would be
required as well as six pumping stations. The estimated mid-
1975 cost of this system was $2,998,000, a cost which is
expected to escalate to about $3,447,700 by early 1977, the
earliest anticipated date that construction could be initiated.
Population Capacity of Project Facilities
All alternatives have essentially equivalent capacities,
which would handle flow from a population substantially greater
than the present population. Within each alternative, various
facilities are sized for various capacities, the sizing depending
principally on the ease of facility expansion.
The following tabulation shows the year various project
facilities are proposed to be sized for:
Capacity Provided For
Facility Population to Year
Collection system 2025
Interceptors 2025
Pumping stations
Wet well 2025
Pumps 1990
Sewage treatment 2000
plant
68
-------
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
12,474 could be accommodated. The pumps in the pumping
stations could accommodate a total population of 7,799. In
the case of the treatment facility, it is best to start with
the proposed size, as treatment facilities are normally con-
structed in only certain incremental sizes, and a certain
amount of capacity increase is often required as a result.
In alternative 4, Seal Rock alternative, a capacity of
1,300,000 has been recommended by the draft Sewerage Study.
The draft 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 9,286 people, a popu-
lation which is expected to be reached at about the year 2000.
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives
Alternative 0 - 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 Bay to Bay 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 between 1970 and 1972.
The ability to modify and upgrade existing septic tank
systems, as well as to construct a new system in some situ-
ations, 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 the
installation of systems with inadequate leach line and/or
septic tank capacity. Consequently, many systems failed as
they grew older and their capacity decreased at the same time
that quantity of sewage increased due to a greater use of
domestic water. Although a potential public health hazard can
69
-------
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 upgrading 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 was subdivided into larger lots.
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 indi-
vidual land owners.
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.
70
-------
Alternative 1 - Newport-Seal Rock Alternative
In this alternative, all flow north of Henderson Creek
would be transported to a new treatment plant at the existing
City of Newport treatment plant site, and all flow south of
Henderson Creek would be transported to a new treatment plant
located at Seal Rock. The expansion at the City of Newport
plant site would be an activated sludge treatment plant with a
rated capacity of approximately 370,000 gallons per day (gpd).
The plant located at a new site near Seal Rock would be a
trickling filter plant with a capacity of 1.0 million gallons
per day (mgd). The plant expansion at the City of Newport
would utilize the existing Newport outfall for ocean disposal
of the effluent. At the proposed new Seal Rock plant, a new
ocean outfall approximately 1,000 feet long, would be con-
structed. The new plant to be located at Seal Rock would
require a land area of approximately two acres.
Interceptor sewers which would contribute flow to these
plants are shown on Figure 7. The interceptor contributing flow
to the City of Newport plant expansion would have a total length
of about 21,600 feet. It would vary in diameter from 10 inches
to 12 inches, and require three pumping stations. The inter-
ceptors which would transport raw sewage to the Seal Rock
treatment plant site would total about 63,690 feet and would
vary in diameter from four inches to 15 inches. This intercep-
tor would require a total of 15 pumping stations.
The costs of implementing Alternative 1, assuming that
construction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
Capital Costs
Collection System $ 3,950,300
Interceptors and Pump Stations $ 2,803,200
Treatment Plant and Outfall $ 3,352,000
District Headquarters and Vehicles $ 70,000
$10,175,500
Local Share* $ 5,559,100
71
-------
SOUTHBEACH
HOLIDAY BEACH
SEAL RO
LEGEND
@ SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
NEW OCEAN OUTRU.L
I
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 7 ALTERNATIVE I-NEWPORT-SEALROCK ALTERNATIVE
72
-------
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share** $ 489,600/year
Interceptor System $ 50,500/year
Treatment Plant $ 181,000/year
District Administration & Operation $ 40,500/year
$ 761,600/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 - Newport-Collins Creek
In this alternative, all flow north of Beaver Creek would
be transported to a new treatment facility constructed at the
existing City of Newport treatment plant site. All flow
south of Beaver Creek would be transported to a new sewage
treatment plant to be constructed near Collins Creek. The new
treatment facility constructed at Newport would be a package
activated sludge plant with a rated capacity of 660,000 gpd,
and the new plant located at Collins Creek would be a trickling
filter plant with a rated capacity of 710,000 gpd. The new
facility constructed at City of Newport would discharge through
the existing Newport ocean outfall. The new treatment facility
constructed near Collins Creek would discharge through a new
ocean outfall approximately 1,000 feet in length and would
require a land area of approximately two acres.
Interceptor sewers which would contribute flow to these
two treatment plants are shown on Figure 8. The interceptor
sewer contributing flow to the Newport plant would have a length
of approximately 47,000 feet and vary in diameter from four
inches to 12 inches, and require a total of nine pumping
stations. The interceptors contributing flow to the new
Collins Creek plant would have a total length of approximately
39,100 feet, varying in diameter from four to 12 inches, and
nine pumping stations would be required on this interceptor.
The costs of implementing Alternative 2, assuming that
construction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
73
-------
SOUTHBEACH
ZJ
HOLIDAY BEACH ,
FLOW
DIVISION fV/
SEAL ROC^ f-|
fn.11 Crtek^v
/^> f<
rt^r i
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 8 ALTERNATIVE 2-NEWPORT-COLLINS CREEK ALTERNATIVE
74
-------
Capital Costs
Collection System $ 3,950,300
Interceptors and Pump Stations $ 2,906,300
Treatment Plant and Outfall $ 3,279,000
District Headquarters and Vehicles $ 70,OOP
$10,205,600
Local Share* $ 5,566,600
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share** $ 490,300/year
Interceptor System $ 50,500/year
Treatment Plant $ 187,000/year
District Administration & Operation $ 40,500/year
$ 768,300/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 3 - Newport-Beaver Creek-Collins Creek Alternative
In this alternative, three separate treatment facilities
would be utilized. All flow north of Henderson Creek would be
transported to a new treatment facility constructed at the City
of Newport plant site. All flow south of Henderson Creek and
north of the south boundary of the Beaver Creek drainage divide
would be transported to a new sewage treatment plant located
at Beaver Creek. All the remaining raw sewage from the
southerly end of the District would be conveyed to a new sewage
treatment facility located at Collins Creek. The expansion
at Newport would be extended aeration activated sludge package
plant with a rated capacity of 370,000 gallons per day and would
discharge through the existing City of Newport outfall. The
new plant constructed at Beaver Creek would be an extended
aeration activated sludge package plant with a rated capacity
of 400,000 gpd and would discharge through a new ocean outfall
approximately 1,000 feet in length. The new treatment facility
that would be constructed at Collins Creek would be a package
75
-------
activated sludge plant with a rated capacity of 600,000 gallons
per day and would discharge through a new ocean outfall approxi-
mately 1,000 feet in length. Each of the two new treatment
plants would require a land area between one and one-half and
two acres.
Interceptor sewers which would contribute flow to these
three treatment facilities are shown on Figure 9. The inter-
ceptor contributing flow from the north cluster to the expanded
Newport facility would have a length of approximately 21,600
feet, vary in diameter from 10 to 12 inches, and require
three pumping stations. The interceptor contributing flow
to the Beaver Creek plant would have a length of approximately
30,200 feet, vary in diameter from four inches to 12 inches, and
require a total of six pumping stations. The interceptor sewer
contributing flow to the Collins Creek plant would have a total
length of about 33,500 feet and require nine pumping stations.
The costs of implementing Alternative 3, 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*
$ 3,950,300
$ 2,803,200
$ 4,614,500
$ 70,000
$11,438,000
$ 5,874,700
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share**
Interceptor System
Treatment Plant
District Administration & Operation
$ 517,400/year
$ 50,500/year
$ 208,000/year
$ 40,500/year
$ 816,400/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.
76
-------
SOUTHBEACH
HOLIDAY BEACH
FLOW
DIVISION
SEAL ROC
LEGEND
0 SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
NEW OCEAN OUTFALL
1
SCALEINMILES
NORTH
FIGURE 9 ALTERNATIVE 3-NEWPORT-EEAVERCREEK-COLLINS CREEK
ALTERNATIVE
77
-------
Alternative 4 - Seal Rock
In this alternative, all flow from the entire sewered
portion of the District would be transported to a new treatment
facility to be constructed just south of Seal Rock. This
treatment plant would utilize the trickling filter process and
have a capacity of 1.3 mgd. Effluent from the treatment
plant would be discharged to the ocean, using a new ocean out-
fall approximately 1,000 feet in length. The land area required
for the treatment plant would be slightly in excess of two
acres.
Interceptor sewers which would contribute flow to this
treatment plant are shown in Figure 10. The interceptors con-
tributing flow would have a total length of 76,200 feet and
would vary in diameter from four inches to 15 inches, and
require eighteen pumping stations.
The costs of implementing Alternative 4, 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*
$ 3,950,300
$ 2,551,900
$ 2,462,500
$ 70,000
$ 9,034,700
$ 5,273,900
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share**
Interceptor System
Treatment Plant
District Administration & Operation
$ 464,500/year
$ 50,500/year
$ 115,000/year
$ 50,500/year
$ 670,500/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.
78
-------
SOUTHBEACH
HOLIDAY BEACH
SEAL ROCK
LEGEND
© SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
NEW OCEAN OUTFfcLL
SCALE INMILES
•:\
RGURE10 ALTERNATIVE 4-SEAL ROCK
79
-------
Alternative 5 - Newport-Waldport Cluster Alternative
In this alternative, three separate portions of the Dis-
trict would be partially sewered, a concept referred as
"cluster" sewering. These three clusters are the South Beach-
Thiel Creek cluster, the Seal Rock cluster, and Bayshore cluster,
All flow from the South Beach-Thiel Creek cluster would be
transported to the City of Newport treatment facility, which
would be expanded by the addition of a 640,000 gpd extended
aeration activated sludge treatment plant. Effluent would be
discharged through the existing City of Newport outfall. Flow
from the Seal Rock and Bayshore clusters would be transported
to a 0.51 mgd extended aeration activated sludge plant to be
located at the existing City of Waldport treatment plant site.
Discharge from this facility would be through a new outfall into
the main channel of Alsea Bay. The new outfall would be about
2,200 feet long, running north through the city into the main
channel.
Interceptor sewers which would contribute flow to these
two treatment facilities are shown on Figure 11. The inter-
ceptor running from the north cluster to the City of Newport
site would be approximately 32,000 feet long, vary in diameter
from four inches to 12 inches, and require eight pumping
stations. The interceptor running from Seal Rock through
Bayshore to the City of Waldport site would be approximately
61,300 feet long, vary in diameter from four to 15 inches, and
require seven pumping stations.
The cost of implementing Alternative 5, assuming that con-
struction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
Capital Costs
Collection System $ 3,497,700
Interceptors and Pump Stations $ 2,828,100
Treatment Plant and Outfall $ 2,810,500
District Headquarters and Vehicles $ 70,000
$ 9,156,300
Local Share* $ 4,927,400
80
-------
SOUTH8EACH
HOLIDAY BEACH
SEAL ROCK
ALSEA BAY
L>y
*.r • ••>
K^
LEGEND
© SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
"CLUSTER"BOUNDARY
SCALE IN WILES
NORTH
FIGURE II ALTERNATIVE 5-NEWPORT-WALDPORT CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE
81
-------
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share** $ 434,000/year
Interceptor System $ 45,500/year
Treatment Plant $ 178,000/year
District Administration & Operation $ 40,500/year
$ 698,000/year
* Local Share taken as 25% of interceptor, pump station,
treatment plant, and outfall costs plus 100% of
collection system and District Headquarters and
Vehicle cost.
** Interest rate — Bonds at 6-1/8% for 20 years.
Alternative 6 - Seal Rock-Cluster Alternative
In Alternative 6, three cluster areas would be sewered,
similar to Alternative 5. However, in this alternative, all
flow would be transported to a new sewage treatment plant to
be located just southerly of Seal Rock. This treatment facility
would utilize a trickling filter treatment process and would
have a capacity of 1.15 mgd. Discharge would be to the ocean
through a new ocean outfall approximately 1,000 feet in length.
Interceptor sewers which would contribute flow to the new
Seal Rock treatment plant are shown on Figure 12. The total
length of interceptor sewers is approximately 76,200 feet,
would vary in diameter from four to 15 inches, and would
require a total of 18 pumping stations.
A somewhat different approach for Alternative 6 would
involve the phasing of the treatment plant and interceptor
system based on conclusive need for the system. This would
essentially mean that there would be a longer term phase for
those portions of the district furthermost from the Seal
Rock treatment plant. Until such a need is shown, the
remainder of the district would continue to use septic tank
systems under a district septic tank maintenance program.
Such a phasing program would allow for a more substantial
definition of need for a fully developed facility throughout the
district.
82
-------
SOUTHBEACH
HOLIDAY BEACH
SEAL ROCK
LEGEND
© SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
NEW OCEAN OUTFfcLL
«••» "CLUSTER" BOUNDARY
SCALEIN MILES
NORTH
FIGURE 12 ALTERNATIVE 6-SEAL. ROCK CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE
83
-------
The, cost of implementing Alternative 6, 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
$ 3,447,700
$ 2,551,900
$ 2,255,500
$ 70,000
$ 8,325,100
$ 4,719,600
$ 415,700/year
$ 45,400/year
$ 110,000/year
$ 40,500/year
$ 611,600/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 7 - District Maintenance of Septic Tanks
In Alternative 7, no sewers, interceptors, or pumping
stations would be constructed. The District would purchase two
septic tank pumping trucks and would be responsible to main-
tain 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 constructed at the existing City of Waldport treatment
plant. The new treatment facilities would consist of aerobic
digestion and sludge dewatering facilities. The supernatant
from aerobic digestion of the sludge would be pumped to the
City of Waldport plant for additional treatment. Digested
sludge would be dewatered and hauled to a landfill.
84
-------
The basic problem with the alternative lies not with the
maintenance of existing septic tanks, but primarily with the
maintenance of new septic tanks which could be constructed in
areas presently prohibited for septic tank use by the County
Health Department. In those areas which are presently denied
septic tank permits, it has normally been found that a combi-
nation of high groundwater and poor soil conditions have led
to the rejection. In essence, this condition 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 con-
ditions 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.
The costs of implementing Alternative 7, assuming that
construction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
Capital Costs
Collection System
Interceptors 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
$ 0
$ 0
$ 450,000
$ 85,000
$ 535,000
$ 112,500
$ 9,900/year
$ 0.00/year
$ 30,000/year
$ 60,OOP/year
$ 99,900/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.
85
-------
Alternative 8 - Newport-Seal Rock-Waldport Cluster Alternative
In this alternative, similar to Alternatives 5 and 6,
three separate growth clusters within the District would be
sewered. However, as distinguished from Alternatives 5
and 6, a separate treatment facility would be utilized to
treat flow from each growth cluster. Providing service in this
manner eliminates the need for a interceptor running the entire
length of the District. The north cluster serving South Beach
south to Thiel Creek would be treated at a .64 MGD treatment
facility constructed at the City of Newport treatment plant
site. The central cluster would be treated at a new plant
constructed at Seal Rock, which would require a capacity of
.33 MGD. This new plant at Seal Rock would utilize an acti-
vated sludge package plant. The south cluster providing
service to the Bayshore area, would be transported to the City
of Waldport site where a package activated sludge plant with a
rated capacity of .18 MGD would be constructed.
Interceptor sewers which would contribute flow to these
plants are shown on Figure 13. The interceptors contributing
flow to the City of Newport plant would have a total length
of 21,600 feet, would vary in diameter from four inches to
eight inches, and would require seven pumping stations. The
interceptor sewers serving the Seal Rock cluster would have a
total length of 17,000 feet, vary in diameter from four inches
to ten inches, and require six pumping stations. The inter-
ceptor sewers serving Bayshore would have a total length of
approximately 14,100 feet, vary in diameter from four inches
to eight inches, and require a total of three pumping stations.
The costs of implementing Alternative 8, assuming that
construction begins in early 1977, are estimated to be:
Capital Costs
Collection System $ 3,447,700
Interceptors and Pump Stations $ 2,363,200
Treatment Plant and Outfall $ 3,778,000
District Headquarters and Vehicles $ 70,000
$ 9,658,900
Local Share* $ 5,053,000
86
-------
SOUTH8EACH
HOLIDAY BEACH
LEGEND
0 SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
V CHANGE IN POSITION INDICATES
DIRECTION OF FLOW
INTERCEPTOR
NEW OCEAN OUTFALL
•—» "CLUSTER" BOUNDARY
SCALE IN WILES
NORTH
FIGURE 13 ALTERNATIVE 8-NEWPORT-SEALRCCK-WALDPORTCLUSTER ALTERNATIVE
87
-------
Annual Costs
Capital Recovery of Local Share* $ 445,000/year
Interceptor System $ 41,000/year
Treatment Plant $ 161,000/year
District Administration & Operation $ 40,500/year
$ 687,500/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.
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
sewage plant has an aerobic digester and sludge drying bed
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 alternatives.
- 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 dis-
posal would only be suitable for Alternatives 1
through 6 and 8. The wastes from Alternative 7 (septic
tank maintenance) would be partially digested and un-
suitable for direct land disposal. Dewatered sludge
can be easily applied to farm lands and plowed under
periodically. This method is now used at the Yachats
treatment plant; however, there is no established
disposal site.
88
-------
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
dewatering (to approximately 30 percent solids), the
process can be self-sustaining, without the need for
supplemental 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 treatment facility. The
dried sludge is transported to a farmland disposal
site and spread on the surface. As mentioned earlier,
this method of drying has proved unsatisfactory in
the past.
2. Vacuum filtration. With this method the sludge
must be conditioned before filtering. A dewatering
sludge cake is produced which must be hauled to a
sanitary landfill, disposed of on farmland or sold
or given away. The sludge 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 rec-
tangular plates and 60 to 180 pounds/square inch of
pressure applied. The end product is a sludge cake
with a moisture content from 55 to 70 percent. The
sludge can be then transported to a suitable disposal
site.
Lagooning. Raw sludge or digested sludge may be deposited
in lagoons where aerobic and anaerobic decomposition 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 treatment facilities can
no longer handle septic system wastes (Dobey, pers. comm.)
89
-------
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 is
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 3 miles from Newport and 19 miles
from Waldport. The costs of hauling such a distance
would dictate that the sludge be dewatered for volume
reduction.
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 Alternative 4 is the least costly of the viable
alternatives, and Alternative 6 is the least costly "cluster
service" alternative. It should be noted that in both of
these alternatives, only one treatment facility would be
constructed, indicating the economy of scale benefits resulting
from flow consolidation.
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
Bay to Bay Sanitary District project according to these
Guidelines, the following deviations from all previous cost
estimates should be noted:
90
-------
Table 15
BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT WASTEWATER PROJECT
20-YEAR COMPARISON OF LOCAL AND TOTAL COSTS*
(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
COSTS ELIGIBLE FOR
75% FEDERAL GRANT **
ALTERNATIVE
1
10 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PUMP STA. &
INTERCEPTOR
2,803.2
2,906.3
2,803.2
2,551.9
2,828.4
' 2,551.9
-
2,363.2
TREATMENT
PLANT
2,852.0
2,829.0
3,714.5
2,012.5
2,702.5
1,805.5
450.0
3,220.0
OUTFALL
450.0
450.0
900.0
450.0
108.0
450.0
-
558.0
25% LOCAL
SHARE OF
GRANT
ELIGIBLE
COSTS
1,538.8
1,546.3
1,854.4
1,253.6
1,409.7
1,201.9
112.5
1,535.3
SEWAGE
COLLECTION
SYSTEM, DIST.
HEADQUARTERS
VEHICLES
3,950.3
3,950.3'
3,950.3
3,950.3'
3,447.7
3,447.7
-
3,447.7
LOCAL
OPERATION &
MAINTENANCE
COSTS FOR A
20-YR PERIOD***
5,440.0
5,560.0
5,980.0
4,120.0
5,280.0
3,918.0
1,800.0
4,850.0
TOTAL LOCAL
PRESENT WORTH
.COST FOR A
20-YR PERIOD
10,929.1
10,050.6
11,784.7
9,323.9
10,137.4
8,567.6
1,912.5
9,833.0
TOTAL
PRESENT WORTH
COST FOR A
20-YR PERIOD
15,495.5
15,695.6
17,348.0
13,084.7
14,366.6
12,173.1
2,250.0
14.438.9
* Assuming construction begins 1n 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.
-------
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.
Based upon these differences, costs derived using the
EPA Guidelines are lower than the previous costs estimates
for this project. Contained in Appendix D is an explanation
of facility sizing and an analysis of the Bay to Bay 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, Alternative 4
is the least costly full service alternative, and Alternative
6 is the least costly "cluster service" alternative.
92
-------
Table 16
BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT WASTEMATER PROJECT
EPA COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF COSTS*
1977 PRESENT WORTH
ALTERNATIVE OF CAPITAL & ANNUAL COSTS
1 $ 7,779,700
2 $ 8,149,400
3 $ 9,255,000
4 $ 6,116,900
5 $ 7,337,700
6 $ 5,868,900
7 $ 725,000
8 $ 7,262,700
* Costs are for interceptors, pumping stations, treatment
plants, and outfalls only.
93
-------
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
-------
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
Central to the evaluation of the viable alternatives
proposed are the varying environmental impacts that will result,
In this chapter, both the beneficial and adverse impacts are
identified. Primary attention is given to those environmental,
social and economic factors most affected by the proposed
actions.
The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for the
preparation of environmental impact statements {40 CFR, Part 6,
1 6.304[C]) require that primary and secondary environmental
impacts, of short and long term duration, must be evaluated.
The following section of this EIS will identify the short-term,
long-term direct and long-term secondary impacts as related to
all alternatives to the project.
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Many of the impacts of the eight alternatives for waste-
water treatment and disposal would occur regardless of the
choosing of any particular alternative plan. Common impacts
come about as a result of general construction and develop-
ment activities, and having a sanitary district to furnish
sewerage services. They may be either short-term or long-term
in duration and direct or secondary in effect.
Short-Term Impacts
Short-term impacts, as the name implies, have a short but
finite period of impact, i.e., usually from the inception of
construction until completion of the project. Such impacts
can usually be effectively mitigated. Short-term impacts and
common mitigation measures are presented in Table 17.
95
-------
Table 17
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS — BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
The direct short-term 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.
Alternatives
Short-Term Impacts
0 1
2 3
5
7 8
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Temporary loss of
vegetation
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
Vegetation stripping for the pipelines should
occur during the late summer or fall months
when nesting birds are not present.
Construction-related
traffic
0
Construction should occur, if possible,
during the fall periods when traffic volume
is lower.
Utility service
disruption
0 -
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
• 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
Keep soil wetted down in construction area.
Increased potential
soil erosion
Employment
If possible, construction should be done
during the drier months of the year.
After construction, exposed soil areas should
be reseeded using grasses native to the area.
None necessary.
Economic activity
None necessary.
Disruption of
benthic habitat
• Locate outfall so as to avoid finfish, shell-
fish areas.
• Avoid identifiable critical spring and
summer use periods.
96
-------
Short-Term Impacts
Alternatives
0 1 2 345
Recormnended Mitigation Measures
Safety hazard
All open trenches should be covered or fenced
at the end of each work day.
All construction equipment should be secured
against unauthorized use.
Aerial pollutants
All vehicles and equipment should be fitted
with appropriate pollution control devices
that are properly maintained.
Visual impact of o
construction equipment
and construction site
Equipment should be stored in a designated
area. All litter should be picked up.
Fence or otherwise screen construction
maintenance area.
Spoil disposal
Disposal of spoil material from the pipeline
should be coordinated with other ongoing
projects needing fill material.
Stockpiling and storage 0
of spoil
All spoil material not needed for backfilling
should be removed from the pipeline route or
spread over the surface and seeded.
Increased noise
• All equipment should have mufflers, properly
installed and maintained.
• Construction activities should be limited to
daylight hours.
Water quality (streams) 0
Construction activities in streamways should
be limited to low flow periods.
Care should be taken not to discharge
petroleum or other pollutants into stream.
Bay and ocean 0
water quality (outfall
construction)
Care should be taken not to discharge
petroleum products or other pollutants into
the bay or ocean.
Temporary blockage of 0
streamways, increased
turbidity and distur-
bance of fish life.
Construction should occur during low flow
periods (late summer) and when anadromous
fish populations would be least affected.
Beneficial impact
- Adverse impact
0 No impact
97
-------
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
areas of wastewater and sludge disposal. Some impacts are
generally common to all alternatives in that the magnitude of
impact among alternatives is small. Once it is determined that
a project is needed, common impacts usually do not influence
the selection of a recommended plan from among the alternatives
even though some common impacts may be significantly adverse.
For ease of understanding, the following long-term impacts have
been divided according to major areas of concern — physical
and biological resources, social features and financial con-
siderations.
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 and flood 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 help to protect the groundwater
from any sewage contamination,
Under present conditions some septic tank systems in Bay
to Bay district are periodically inoperative or failing because
of high groundwater, impermeable soils, and/or poor design.
This condition has probably caused localized contamination of
groundwater resources; however, such contamination problems
have not been well documented. According to the State of
Oregon publication (1973) Environmental Geology of Lincoln
County, Oregon, high groundwater is considered a problem in
the southern portion of the district from Bayshore to just
north of Beaver Creek.
98
-------
Although most of the residents in the sanitary district
are not dependent on groundwater as a potable source, any
contamination of the water table would be unacceptable and a
violation of Oregon Revised Statutes (Section 449.105 and
449.150).
The construction and operation of a sewage system will be
a benefit in those areas where septic systems are inoperative
due to high groundwater conditions and where sewage is
presently contaminating groundwater supplies.
o Impact on stream biota and water quality.
Since none of the alternatives will be discharging to
existing streams in the study area, there will be no direct
long-term impact on stream biota or water quality.
The impacts on streamways instead relate to the secondary
effects to be brought about by increased development of the
Bay to Bay Area. Development on lands directly adjacent to
streams will affect runoff patterns and rates, change the
water quality characteristics of the receiving waters and
indirectly affect stream biota. Residential or commercial
development in flood hazard areas oftentimes results in the
need or desire for flood protection and control.
o Operational reliability of pumping and treatment
facilities in protection of the environment.
The alternatives proposed for this project include between
14 and 18 pumping stations, depending upon the alternative
implemented. Each pumping station will be equipped with a
standby pump-motor combination which would be utilized in the
event of the failure of the other pump-motor combination.
Each pump and motor combination will 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 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.
99
-------
With the exception of the no-action alternative, all of
the six viable alternatives have sufficient operational relia-
bility to meet both existing and anticipated waste discharge
requirements. The activated sludge and trickling filter
processes are well proven processes/ which have worked more than
adequately in this general area along the Coast and which would
provide sufficient operational reliability to protect the
environment. No mitigation measures are proposed.
Geologic and flood hazards.
o Damage to facilities and disruption of operations
due to geologic and flood hazards.
The waste treatment facilities, pump stations and inter-
ceptor systems would be subject to hazards from earthquakes,
high groundwater and flooding.
Although earthquakes have occurred in the past in central
and southwest Lincoln County, the known fault lines transecting
the study area are concealed and considered inactive (reference).
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.
The hazards of high groundwater and flooding are more
likely to occur. For example, high groundwater and heavy
rains have caused problems with excessive infiltration into
the Waldport sewerage system (Seaman, letter of December 28,
1972). Such problems cause a substantial increase in the
volume of sewage entering the treatment facilities and can
overload the hydraulic capacity and upset the treatment process.
Potential flood hazards exist in all the streams within
the study area. Very large floods could cause damage to
sewage lines crossing creeks, particularly from streambed
scour.
In order to reduce the potential for such damage, the
facilities should be designed to minimize physical damage
which can occur during an earthquake or flood. Creek crossings
should be designed to withstand the possible consequences of
flooding. Since a large part of the interceptor system would be
constructed in areas of high groundwater, it would be necessary
for sewers to meet the strongest leakage tests following con-
struction to help ensure against groundwater infiltration.
100
-------
Air quality.
o Impl-Loations of ai-T quality.
Present air quality in Lincoln County is excellent. None
of the project alternatives will create adverse effects on
regional air quality, although treatment facilities may at
times cause unpleasant odors of a localized nature. The odors
can be produced from normal decomposition processes, from an
imbalance in the treatment process or from improper plant
operation. Odors resulting from treatment imbalance are un-
likely to occur since most problems of this type are associated
with drastic changes in sewage quality caused by such things
as high or low pH, toxic substances or high temperature. Such
problems usually occur where the sewage includes both domestic
and industrial wastes. The sewage in the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District will be of domestic origin and therefore unlikely to
cause imbalance problems.
According to Robert E. Meyer Engineers, Inc. (1974) odors
at the existing Waldport plant have not been a significant
problem. The proper operation of equipment will reduce the
likelihood of offensive odors at any new facilities.
A normal condition in any treatment plant is, however, the
production of a musty or earthy smell, characteristic of a
well-operating plant. While this may not be offensive to most
people, there doubtless are some people who would consider
this normal situation an odor-production situation. Thus,
the proximity of the plant(s) to residential or commercial
developments will influence the degree to which complaints
may be received. Expansion of facilities at the City of New-
port and the City of Waldport sites would represent an adverse
impact due to the proximity of commercial developments. There
should be no overall impact of odor production from treatment
plants at Beaver Creek, Seal Rock, or Collins Creek because
sufficient land would be purchased to prevent encroachment of
residential development.
The alternative of sewage sludge incineration would cause
some air pollution. The primary end products of sludge com-
bustion are carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and ash. The parti-
culates are the major emission problem because of the violent
upwards movement of combustion gases. However, particulate
control can be achieved using wet scrubbers. Table 18 shows
the likely emission factors from sewage sludge incinerators.
101
-------
TABLE 18
EMISSION FACTORS FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Emissionsa
Uncontrolled^1
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.
b Estimated from emission factors after scrubbers.
From: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ 1975.
102
-------
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 rebase odors upon
entering the treatment plant.
A secondary impact on air quality associated with provid-
ing sewerage facilities will be the increase in development of
the sanitary district. Added growth of the area will increase
highway vehicular emissions, off-highway sources (utility
engine and construction equipment emissions) and open burning
of such things as wood and landscape 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 will likely limit the degree
of impact to an acceptable level.
Archeological-historical.
o Impact on federally or state recognized
historic places.
Only two sites in Lincoln County are listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. They are the old Yaquina Bay
lighthouse and the Siletz Agency site — neither will be impacted
by any of the alternative sewage systems.
Two historic properties of statewide value, the Oregon
Coast Highway and the Seal Rock midden, are within the study
area. Although much of the construction would parallel the
Oregon highway, the road would not be destroyed nor would its
historic integrity be harmed. The second site, the Seal Rock
midden, could possibly be impacted by a number of the
alternatives. The impacts will be discussed in more detail
under the following impact - Impacts on archeological resources.
o Impacts on archeological resources.
Four and possibly five archeological sites are situated
in the paths of proposed alternative interceptor systems and
treatment facilities. Those sites are as follows:
103
-------
1. 35LCN16 (Figure 14). This was a shell midden site
located at the southern end of the Newport Bridge
just east of Highway 101. A portion of the midden
is situated near a trailer court which borders to
the north and west. More midden material is eroding
out of a disturbed dune east of the trailer court.
Construction of the trailer court destroyed most of
the site. Sewer lines proposed for the trailer
court will have no impact on the site; however,
another line, if constructed, may cut through undis-
turbed midden. If this line is scheduled for con-
struction, test excavations will be necessary to
properly assess potential impact on the site. If
undisturbed midden is present, excavation will be
necessary preceding construction.
2. Huckleberry Hill Burials (Figure 15). This site
was not confirmed by the reconnaissance team.
According to local rumor, burials have occasionally
eroded out of the high bluff, known as Huckleberry
Hill, overlooking the ocean and Ona Beach Park at
the mouth of Beaver Creek. The hill is covered by
vacation homes and a sewer line is proposed for the
area. Based on previous experience, the likelihood
of burials on the point overlooking Beaver Creek is
good. When the last (northernmost) 75 to 100 feet
of line to the vacation homes is excavated for the
sewer line, an archeologist should be on location
watching for graves.
3. Deer Creek (site designation pending) (Figure 15).
This is a village site situated on a bluff just north
of Deer Creek overlooking the ocean. The site lies
approximately 50 feet west of Highway 101. A shell
midden may underlie dense grass at the base of the
bluff north of the- village site. The possible shell
midden is adjacent to the state park's wayside and
beach access point. The interceptor proposed to run
adjacent to Highway 101 will not impact the site. A
proposed pumping station is situated well north of
the site.
4. 35LCN14 - the Seal Rock site (Figure 15). The Seal
Rock site was an historic Alsea village site. As
previously noted, the site is listed on the Oregon
State Inventory of Historic Sites and has undergone
two seasons of archeological scrutiny. The extensive
shell midden is a prominent feature in the highway
roadcut near the ocean adjacent to the modern community
104
-------
Figure 14
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE 35LCN16 SOUTH OF NEWPORT
35LCNI4
High Risk Area
Figure 15
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES 35LCN14 AND AT DEER CREEK
AND HUCKLEBERRY HILL
105
-------
of Seal Rock. The value of the Seal Rock site from
an historical and scientific standpoint cannot be
overemphasized. Impact on this site is potentially
devastating. The north-south interceptor line cuts
directly through the east side of the main shell
midden. Houses, as well as burials, have been
located in this area (Ross, field notes, on file
Oregon State University). If this line cannot be
relocated, a major excavation would have to precede
construction. The cost of an excavation encompassing
the impact zone in the Seal Rock midden would be
about $30,000. Relocating the line approximately
100 feet to the east would mitigate much of the impact.
If the construction of the interceptor line paral-
leling Highway 101 through Seal Rock does not require
cutting into existing roadcuts, there will be no
impact on the site.
Scattered reports of archeological materials from arti-
facts to burials have occurred throughout the com-
munity of Seal Rock. Scattered artifact finds have been
reported between two of the proposed lines. Artifacts
and midden deposits have turned up in basement con-
struction adjacent to one of the interceptor lines.
The entire Seal Rock area between interceptor lines is
a high risk area. When construction plans are formu-
lated for line locations and a possible sewage treat-
ment plant (if located between the above lines), a
survey involving test excavations should be conducted
by a team of archeologists prior to actual construction.
Only in this manner can the absolute impact on cultural
remains be assessed. Enough lead time should be
afforded this operation to allow for proper excavation
of sites should any be threatened with destruction.
The cost of such a testing program can only be deter-
mined when construction plans are known.
Vegetation and terrestrial wildlife.
o The construction of sewage facilities will impact
vegetation and attendant wildlife.
Sewage facilities require land and thus the removal of
native vegetation and wildlife habitat. The removal of habitat
will affect wildlife, both directly and indirectly. Sub-
surface dwelling and sedentary mammals, amphibians and reptiles
will be destroyed by construction activities and birds, mammals
and reptiles periodically utilizing the habitat will be
displaced.
106
-------
The proposed interceptor system will, for the most part,
parallel existing roadways — U. S. Highway 101 and numerous
local streets. Consequently, the direct destruction of
habitat would be minimal.
Under the no action alternative (No. 0), there would be
no impact on terrestrial vegetation and wildlife resources
resulting from project implementation.
The impact on wildlife resources of the study area will
result from the population growth and home development
secondary to the construction of the sewerage system. Those
impacts would be of a lesser magnitude with no action than
those secondary impacts resulting from Alternatives 1 through 8.
Beach pine/sitka spruce habitat would be reduced, along
with populations of attendant wildlife species. It is likely
that much of this habitat change will occur adjacent to the
ocean shore and along the major streets and highways, with
eventual development occurring in other portions of the district
at a later date.
o Pare 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 northern spotted owl is a species of the higher ele-
vations and dense sitka spruce, western red cedar and western
hemlock forest. The spotted owl may forage throughout the
study area and would be indirectly affected by the project.
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
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 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.
107
-------
now supports spotted 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 imple-
mentation of the second mitigation measure would be depen-
dent on Lincoln County and LCDC decisions on land use.
Marine biota.
o Impact on marine biota.
Of the 9 project alternatives (including the no project
alternative), 7 would discharge treated wastewater into a
marine receiving water either off of open sandy beaches or
rocky shores.
Estuarine outfall. Alternative 5 (Newport/Waldport
Cluster) is an alternative involving the Waldport sewerage
treatment plant and wastewater discharge into Alsea Bay.
That is, wastewater from the Seal Rock and Bayshore areas
would enter the Waldport plant and could add approximately
0.3 MGD of wastewater (1975 population level) to the existing
0.1 MGD discharge. Presently, the Waldport sewerage treatment
plant discharges into Lint Slough; however, expansion of the
Waldport facilities would necessitate an extension of the
outfall into the main Alsea Bay channel. The present mixing
zone in Lint Slough was determined to be insufficient to
handle the additional wastewater load without causing degra-
dation of the receiving water quality.
The placement of any outfall structure, dredging or fill
of any material or discharge of sewage in any of the bays or the
ocean will require coordination and a permit from the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Such coordination and permit is as
required under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972.
108
-------
The location of an outfall in the Alsea estuary is impor-
tant to the maintenance of estuarine biota and water quality.
Improper placement of an outfall can result in a reduction of
dissolved oxygen, potential lethal or chronic effects on
biota, accumulation of heavy metals in the substrate, increased
turbidity and biostimulation (leading to growth of algae) and
formation of a pollution block which impedes upstream or down-
stream movement of anadromous fish (SCCWRP, 1973).
Proper placement of an outfall in an area having a good
exchange of water and good dispersion, will greatly reduce the
likelihood of adverse effects on water quality or biota by
reducing the toxicity of the effluent. However, any discharge
into estuaries will likely require a closed safety zone where
the harvest of shellfish will not be allowed.
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. BOD allowances for Alternative 5
would probably be on the order of 50 pounds per day (monthly
average) or a daily maximum of 120 pounds. Alternative 5
would result in an even larger amount of wastewater discharge
and probable BOD loading of 56 pounds per day (monthly average)
and 177 pounds per day maximum.
With stringent NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System) requirements for fecal coliform bacteria (presently
70 MPN for 100 ml) there should not be a health hazard asso-
ciated 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 local-
ized algae growth problems.
Any decision to discharge to Alsea Bay will necessitate
that a comprehensive dispersion study be conducted relating
to both physical and biological characteristics of the
estuary.
Ocean outfall. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 would
discharge to the ocean with portions of Alternatives 1, 2, 3,
and 5 requiring outfalls off of open sandy beaches and portions
of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 would discharge off the
rocky shore. Table 19 shows the location of discharge points
of the various alternatives. As with any wastewater discharge,
the important concerns for ocean outfall are the quality of
effluent and the dispersion capacity of the receiving water.
109
-------
TABLE 19
LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED POINTS OF DISCHARGE
FOR THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANTS IN THE BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
Discharge Point
STP Location
Alternatives
Open Sandy Beach
Rocky Shore
Rocky Shore
Open Sandy Beach
Alsea Bay
Newport - existing 1,2,3,5
Seal Rock 1,4,6,8
Collins Creek 2,3
Beaver Creek 3
Waldport 5
110
-------
The location and length of a beach outfall are important
factors relative to the impact on marine biota and water
quality. The combination of tidal currents, on-shore winds,
water depth and volume of discharge determine the location and
length of the outfall.
Whatever effects sewage effluent would have on marine biota
would be greatly dependent on the location of the outfalls.
Combinations of factors such as wind and tides could cause
effluent to be driven on-shore, having localized effects on
biota such as shellfish (razor clams) and benthic fauna.
If contamination of shellfish is severe enough, the
beach areas could be closed due to a health hazard. Such an
event is unlikely since the levels of treatment required by the
EPA and DEQ and the requirements of the NPDES waste discharge
permit are designed to meet the water quality standards for
marine waters of Oregon (OAR Chapter 334 [Section 11-010;
11-025; 11-070]).
Discharge of wastewater off of rocky coastline, as advo-
cated in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 should constitute a
lesser impact than from discharging off of a sandy beach or in
an estuary. The combination of good dispersion capacities,
aeration and mixing, and sufficient water depth, should ensure
the people discharge of wastewater. However, the malfunction
of sewage facilities or the accidental discharge of untreated
water 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 com-
pliance with state water quality standards.
Aesthetics.
o Aesthetics impact.
The alternative sewerage facilities and the attendant
pump stations along the interceptor line will cause changes in
the aesthetic condition of the area. Only one alternative,
Alternative 5 would advocate the expansion of existing treat-
ment facilities at Waldport and Newport, while portions of
alternative 1, 2, 3 and 8 would advocate expansion of the
Newport facilities plus additional treatment plants at Seal
Rock, Collins Creek, or Beaver Creek. Alternatives 0, 6 and
7 would not utilize any existing facilities.
Those treatment facilities will impact the existing
aesthetic quality in a variety of ways. The existing Waldport
and Newport sewage treatment plants are located adjacent to
residential development. Any treatment facility expansion would
impact those surrounding residential areas.
Ill
-------
The impact of any new treatment plants on the aesthetic
character of the area will be dependent on the location of the
plant. Alternatives 1, 4, 6 and 8 (treatment plant at Seal
Rock) would likely require treatment facilities close to
residential development as that area is presently developed.
The Collins Creek and Beaver Creek alternatives (number 2 and
3) could be located away from residential development or in the
direct view of the ocean shoreline.
There would be no aesthetic impact associated with alter-
natives 0 or 7 - no project and septic tank maintenance.
Pumping stations would be necessary for 7 of the 9 alter-
natives. All pumping stations could be buried except for a
2 foot high manhole extending above the ground.
A major secondary impact on the aesthetic quality of the
area will be that created by future residential and commercial
development of the district. The magnitude of that impact
will 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.
In order to minimize the visual impact of any of the
alternative facilities the treatment plants should be con-
structed using local building materials as much as possible
and screening 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 6 and 8 will
require the greatest amount of energy, while Alternative 0 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 eight alternatives consume
energy is presented in Table 20. As can be seen, alternatives
using more than one treatment plant and alternatives that
utilize extended aeration activated sludge have the highest
energy requirements for treatment. Relative to pumping, alter-
natives that require multiple pumping of sewage, such as the
112
-------
Table 20
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
KILOWATT-HOURS/20 YEARS
ALTERNATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8
TREATMENT
6,293,000
8,022,500
12,258,700
4,086,000
10,215,600
3,375,800
3,000,000
10,290,200
PUMPING
7,872,800
6,949,100
4,759,800
10,663,300
6,471,800
8,810,100
0
5,036,100
TOTAL
14,165,800
14,971,600
17,018,500
14,749,300
16,687,400
12,185,900
12,735,118
15,326,300
* Alternative 7 also requires about 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel
(equivalent to 9,735,118 Rrfri) for the septic tank pumper truck every 20 years.
113
-------
Seal Rock alternatives, have the highest pumping energy
requirements. In addition to the electrical energy require-
ments shown in this table, Alternative 7 also has a require-
ment for diesel fuel for operation of the septic tank pumper
truck. Estimates indicate that 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel
would be required for a 20-year period of operation. Overall,
the Seal Rock alternatives have the lowest energy requirements
for either the full service or cluster service alternatives.
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
- General tourism
Parks and natural areas.
o Impact on parks and natural areas.
Seven State Parks and campgrounds are within the Bay to
Bay Sanitary District. The seven areas total 737 acres and
contain 257 overnight campsites and 71 picnic sites. Ona
Beach Park, Driftwood Beach Wayside and South Beach Park have
toilet buildings and/or shower facilities.
Although all park and wayside areas having restroom
facilities receive a great deal of use, none have had any
problems with septic tanks or drain fields (Pizer, pers. comm.)
However, the seasonal usage of parks allows for some drain-
field rejuvenation during the winter months. Ona Beach Park
restroom facilities were installed approximately 15 years ago,
while those at South Beach are approximately 5 years old.
Septic tanks at all parks and waysides are pumped periodically.
114
-------
Unless future sewage disposal problems arise, the con-
struction of an interceptor and sewage treatment plant will
not appreciably improve the sewage disposal situation in any
of the parks or waysides. However, a sewerage system would
provide an added degree of reliability for waste disposal and
would eliminate the need for periodic septic system pumping
not undertaken. A sewerage system would also allow the future
expansion of restroom and/or shower facilities in any of the
parks or waysides.
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" alter-
native will result in slower property value increases and
reduced real estate sales. Build-out levels well below
current expectations would be the result of the no project
alternative. Difficulties may also be anticipated with over-
loading of existing on-site facilities during peak population
months of the year.
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 likely cause a decrease in the rate of vacation
and retirement home construction as well as a stabilization of
property value.
Land use planning.
o Impaot on land use planning.
No changes are anticipated in current zoning or land use
plans as a result of either of the alternatives. The no project
alternative, however, could result in substantial inconsis-
tencies between current zoning and actual use potential If
Department of Environmental Quality criteria for soil condi-
tions suitable to septic tank use are adhered to, then substan-
tial portions of the district zoned residential may, in the
S?^CS °f Pub]4C 5acilities, be unusable in that classification,
however, other land uses would be allowed to occur
115
-------
The planning and siting of sewerage facilities has been
deemed an activity of statewide significance requiring a
planning and siting permit from LCDC so that a determination
can be made as to whether or not the project conforms with
statewide land use planning goals and in this case coastal zone
management goals as well as compliance with the local compre-
hensive land use plans. Since the coastal zone management
goals of the State of Oregon have not been adopted by LCDC,
and the comprehensive plan for Lincoln County has not been
finalized, an adequate forum is not established for the review
of the proposed land use. LCDC officials have stated in a
letter to the EPA that they, in conjunction with the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, will oversee the planning
and siting of this project ensuring that no hookups will be
allowed until a comprehensive plan addressing this 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 boundries surrounding the
population center of Waldport and Newport on either end of the
district have not been made, thus a determination of the order-
liness of urbanization within the area cannot be made according
to the statewide adopted goals.
Should the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan call for the
widespread development of the project area land into residen-
tial use, it must ensure that State Parks and Recreation
plans for its property are consistent with the comprehensive
plan for the area. State park authorities are planning to
continue development of coastal day use and camping facilities
in the area so as to accommodate increased tourist visitation.
These plans must be coordinated with State Highway Department
plans for road improvements in the study area to accommodate
increased traffic flow and also with county-level plans to
allow or disallow expansion of existing commercial facilities.
Goal 11, relating to public facilities and services,
directs that urban and rural development shall be guided and
supported by types and levels of public facilities appropriate
to the needs of the area. Compliance with this goal entails a
coordination of the planning efforts of all affected land users,
A determination of what types of development are appropriate
for the areas concerned must precede the development of these
guidelines. To aid in this determination, LCDC has been given
permit authority for the planning and siting of such public
116
-------
services and facilities. As discussed above, these planning
efforts have been designated activities of statewide signi-
ficance and, therefore, must be considered separately in terms
of their consistency with statewide planning goals and adopted
local comprehensive plans. Although three separate land use
plans^covering the study area were prepared prior to the LCDC
adoption of statewide planning goals, these plans will remain
effective until revised under the requirements of ORS 197
Section 40.
Finally, goal 14 (urbanization) requires that each plan-
ning jurisdiction establish urban growth boundaries which
separate urban and urbanizable land from that most suitable to
rural use. These boundaries are to be drawn on the basis of:
long range population growth requirements, needs for housing
and employment opportunities, economic and social development
potential, and the compatibility of proposed urban uses with
existing nearby agricultural activities. City and county
planning authorities are expected to coordinate their efforts
in meeting the requirements of this goal. The long-range
population growth of the project area will be largely dependent
upon the completion of the proposed project.
A likely result of constructing such a facility will be the
inducement of additional population growth which would not
have taken place in its absence due to the incompatibility
of soil conditions with septic tank usage. The intended
purpose of goal 14 is to identify areas which are most suitable
for urbanization and to divert future development to them as
needed. The determination of the compatibility of the sanitary
district plans with comprehensive land use plans cannot be made
until urban growth boundaries have been drawn based on coor-
dination with other appropriate land uses.
Thus, the lack of a current comprehensive land use plan
for Lincoln County serves to frustrate the achievement of
statewide planning goals. It precludes the consideration of
sewer district planning (an activity of statewide significance)
in light of overall need and exacerbates existing conflicts
between federal, state and local planning efforts.
117
-------
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 Central Lincoln County
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 Southeast 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.
Owners of commercial facilities which cater primarily to
the tourist traffic of the area will benefit from the expansion
of peak population sewer capacity and should bear the costs of
any benefits which they stand to receive. But tourists who
partake of the natural amenities of the area gain benefits from
having several camping and picnicking facilities available to
them.
o The population impact of a sewerage system.
A survey of Bay to Bay District permit applications indi-
cates that approximately 19% of current applications are being
denied due to inadequate soil conditions for subsurface sewer
drainage (Lincoln County Records, February 1976). The fact
that some permits are being refused is already reflected in
the estimate of 38 housing units per year absorbed. It is this
estimate which is used to approximate growth under the no
project alternative.
118
-------
Table 21
PROJECTED AIR EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) FROM LOCAL AND
TOURIST TRAFFIC — YACHATS TO YAQUINA BAY
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen
Particulates
Year
1974
1975
1980
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
(NQx 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 frcm Oregon State Highway Division Traffic Volumes tables; population projections;
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
-------
The implementation of a sewerage system would facilitate
future growth in the area. A number of permits denied in the
past might be resubmitted once wastewater problems of particu-
lar sites are solved, and a spurt of development reflecting
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 38 units. If
38 units were built when 19% of permit applications were re-
jected, then the total demand must have been in the vicinity
of 47 units per year. Projecting this absorption forward, 20-
year growth would result in a 1995 population of 6,870 non-
transient persons, as is presented in Table 22. Population
projections of the facilities engineer are presented in the
same table for comparative purposes. The difference between
future absorption without a sewerage constraint (10,260 in the
year 2025 and the Meyer projection of 9,355 for the same year)
is 905 persons. Translated to an average yearly increment of
housing units, given a persons-per-household figure of 2.4,
the Meyer projection implies a future absorption of 40 units
per year. This is much closer to the historical absorption
rate of 38 units per year we (GG+A) were able to discern from
analyzing subdivision development patterns given the 19%
building permit denial rate discussed above. The proposed
sewerage facility would be likely to increase the average
annual increment above the 38 unit-per-year level, but probably
not beyond a level of 47 units. The growth-indueing impact of
the sewerage system implied by the Meyer report population pro-
jections is two housing units per year (38 units vs. 55 units)
while the maximum increase suggested by Lincoln County records
of permit denials of the project area is 17 units per year
(38 units vs. 55 units).
Over time, however, the maximum growth increment of 47
units per year is likely to decline 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 household
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 presented in Table 22
probably depends on a shift in ownership patterns toward perma-
nent, year-round occupancy, which in turn would require expan-
sion of employment opportunities in the region for this level
to be fully achieved.
120
-------
Table 22
COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Year
Historical
Housing Unit
Absorption
(see Table 6)
Future Absorption
Without Sewer Con-
straint, 47 Units
Per Year
Sewerage Study
(Meyer, June 1975!
Non-
Tran-
sient
1975
1985
1995
2025
4
5
6
9
,610
,520
,431
,168
4,
5,
6,
10,
610
740
870
260
4
5
6
9
,610
,391
,436
,355
Tran-
sient
1,
1,
2,
3,
184
797
146
118
Total
Peak
5,794
7
8
12
,188
,582
,474
121
-------
Sewage facility management.
o Personnel needed to operate the treatment facil-
ities.
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 facilities. Projections at this time indicate that
Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 will require a total of four
people, and Alternatives 3 and 8 will require five people.
Alternative 0 requires no personnel, as this is a no-action
alternative, and no facilities will be constructed or main-
tained.
Cumulative effects.
o The cumulative impact on the project area.
The continued growth of the project area will provide an
impetus for the development of population-serving activities in
Newport and Waldport. These activities would include both
those directed largely toward the tourist trade (including
food service, automotive service and retail) and those appro-
priate to serve an expanding year round population (particularly
retail). It is likely, too, that the population growth of the
region as a whole - including areas outside the project area
as well as within it - will be a force in stimulating the
expansion of public services throughout the region, as school
enrollment, library use, public safety requirements and other
community services typically expand as a function of population
growth.
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.
122
-------
The sewering of each district might provide a catalyst
for residential and commercial development from Yachats to
Newport. This increased growth is likely to have a particularly
profound impact on U. S. Highway 101, the only major transpor-
tation route along the coast. Traffic congestion under pres-
ent conditions occurs in Waldport and Newport during the summer
months. As with many cities and towns along the coast, 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, may 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 significant
increase in school enrollment because of the summer resident
and retirement nature of the community.
The sewering of the two sanitary districts will cause
change in land use along a 21-mile strip of coast. Land, now
as open space and covered with natural vegetation and support-
ing wildlife species, will be changed to a rural residential
land use. Other areas of open lands may become commercial.
General tourism.
o Impact on tourism of the project area.
The effect of the implementation of the project would be
to remove a significant roadblock to the development of
tourist-serving commercial activities in the region. It
appears unlikely that any such activity of a significant scale
could be undertaken in the absence of a sewerage system. The
cost of package plants serving a motel development could not
easily be carried by commercial lodging places whose clientele
is largely seasonal. Thus, the provision of a sewerage system
would be a positive factor from the point of view of potential
investors. If tourist-serving investment does follow, then
the overall level of tourist activity in the area would rise.
However, aside from the interviews with existing motel opera-
tors summarized elsewhere in this report and the observations
of local residents, no marketing information has been developed
in the course of the preparation of the EIS, and the timing and
scale of such future development - and the growth in tourism it
might generate - remains unquantified.
123
-------
Financial Impacts
The following list indicates those financial impacts to
be discussed in the subsequent text.
- Local economy
- Cost to property owners
- Property values
- Building permit denials
Local economy.
o Impact on local economy.
At the very least the project's impact will be felt as an
injection to the local economy of expenditures on goods and
services in local establishments. Some jobs may be created for
the duration of the project. Approximately 1308 man-days of
labor will be necessary to complete the collection system and
another 2500 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 (except perhaps some quantity of ready mix and
fill material) are expected to be purchased outside the area.
As mentioned above, the ability to expand existing commer-
cial tourist facilities 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 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.
Costs to property owners.
o Financial impacts on local property owners for
project implementation and operation.
The total cost of implementing any alternative appears
as a number of separate billings to the user. The purpose of
this section is, to approximate the separate costs which could
be incurred and then to estimate total costs for various lot
124
-------
sizes. Although no alternative is recommended by EPA to this
time, Alternative 4 - Seal Rock Alternative - is utilized to
calculate these example user costs. Alternative 4 was selected
because it represents the full service alternative with the
lowest cost 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.
All costs are estimates based on a comparable situation in the
nearby Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District. This
approach was necessary as a financial plan for the Bay to Bay
District was not completed.
Estimated i-ni-tial posts.
Connection cost - This is a one-time payment by
property owners for connection to the public sewerage
system. For purposes of evaluation, estimates included
an initial connection cost of $100.00, and a $500.00 con-
nection cost if not sewered within 90 days of sewer
availability.
Inspection cost - This is a one-time payment to
cover the District's cost of inspecting new service
connections to their system. An inspection cost of
$15.00 was used in this case as an estimate.
Lateral to public sewer - The sewer collection system
to be constructed by the District will include laterals
to the individual property lines. The property owner is
responsible 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 the road" cost of $300 has been utilized in this
analysis. Based on sanitary district estimates, there are
approximately 1,062 dwellings that would hookup initially
to the sewerage system.
Estimated Annual Costs.
Local Improvement District (LID) assessment - This
assessment is comprised of two costs:
125
-------
1. An area cost using an estimate of $0.029 per square
foot assessed against all property within 300 feet
of a proposed sewer.
2. A benefit cost estimate of $0.058 per square foot
assessed against the first 150 feet of property
depth.
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 trans-
portation, treatment, disposal and a portion of the ^ bond ^
payment. A $5. 00/month/connection charge was used in this
case.
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
o^-.Iinated to be $3.70 per $1,000 of assessed valuation
.,; 1980 r $2.57 per $1,000 in 1990, and $1.65 per $1,000
'p year 2000. The rate of taxation decreases with time
i jncipally because the District's assessed valuation is
, >;. a>g, and bond payments remain constant. These taxes
r'.ot. a part of operation and maintenance costs for
-„' . :•; -y/.'erage system, but rather represent property taxes
f.~: -,-d co pay off bonds for treatment facilities.
,aa izecl in Table 23 are the initial and annual estimated
. ,-. ..our different lot sizes. The assumptions made in
of this table were:
* . T.D. assessments were financed over a 20-year period
ssessed valuation of lots was:
60' x 100' lot - $15,000
75' x 100' lot - $21,000
100' x 200' lot - $30,000
200' x 200' lot - $50,000
1 •{ table shows that an initial cost of about $415 would
-,. . i. Led to hook up to the sewer and annual costs would
i,,o.; ircm about $164 to $516 in 1980 (depending on lot size),
r..,,: tea sing to about $133 to $414 per year (depending on lot
,izo) In vear 2000.
126
-------
Table 23
ESTIMATE OF PROJECTED COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE 4
N)
tori/
SIZE
60x100
75xlJO
100x200 .
200x200
INITIAL COSTS ^
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
300.00
300.00
300.00
300.00
TOTAL
$415^
$415
$415
$415
ANNUAL COSTS -X
L.I.D. ASSES-
MENT - 20-YR
FINANCING
PERIOD - $/YR
48.89 -f
61.11
135.80
271.60
SEWER
SERVICE
CHARGE
$/YR
60.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
AD VALOREM TAXES - $/YR^
1980 1990 2000
5D.50 38.55 24.75
77.70 53.97 34.65
111.10 77.10 49.50
185.00- 128.50 82.50
TOTAL
ANNUAL COST - $/YR
1980 1990 2000
164.39 147.44 133.64
198.81 175.08 155.76
306.90 272.90 245.30
516.60 460.10 414.10
ly 1st dimension 1s street frontage
21 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: $52?.00"; $652.50; $1450.00; and $?900.00. May
also be paid 1n semi-annual payments over a 10-year period,
which would be from top to bottom: $73.46/vear; $91.B2/year;
S204.0r)/year; and $408.0Qyyear. The 20-year financing can also
be paid in semi-annual payments.
4/ Tax rates were estimated to be: 1980-$3.70/1000; 1990-$2.57/
1000; and 2000-$].65/1000. Assessed valuations used to
compute taxes were:
60x100' lot
75x100' lot
100x200' lot
200x200' lot
$15,000
$21,000
$30,000
$50,000
5/ This total initial cost would increase by $400 after
the 90-day availability period.
6/ Total first year costs include the initial costs
plus total annual costs.
Source: Costs were determined by using methods
that are believed to generally follow
those which would be utilized by the
district's engineer.
-------
o Ability to pay,
The Bay to Bay area is characterized by comparatively low
incomes, higher than average median age and relatively low
residential property values. These are all indicators of
possible difficulties in supporting a major public capital
investment.
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 which
is already below that of the State of Oregon. Table 24
presents 1970 median family incomes for the United States,
"rogon and Lincoln County.
Tl-.fc large concentration of low income and retired residents
: : U.2 considered very carefully so as to insure that this
-.•_-: - :i..omic group is not adversely impacted. It should also
„ . :, r.:cc9iiized that the median age of the population in the Bay
to Bay District is well above that of the county as a whole.
T.JS area is recognized as a retirement center. Retired per-
: .r.s typically live on incomes which do not keep pace with
mflaticn and therefore must be given adequate consideration
": est they be displaced from the community as a result of an
unfair distribution of costs.
TABLE 24
Family Incomes in 1970 of Lincoln County
as Compared to State and Nation
Median Family Income
Onited States $9,590
Oregon 9,489
Lincoln County 7,909
128
-------
Property values.
o The impact of a sewerage system on property values.
Property values have tended to increase more slowly in the
Bay to Bay District than in the county as a whole and the state
of Oregon as well. There may be a number of factors respon-
sible for this lag not the least of which is the absence of
adequate sewerage facilities. Nevertheless, the provision of
such facilities may cause property values to excel at a faster
rate; this could result in higher property taxes for fixed
income residents. The State of Oregon has enacted legislation
to provide for a homeowners and renters property tax refund
which is applicable on a graduated scale to households
earning $15,000 or less income per year.
While the provision of sewer facilities may cause property
values throughout the district to increase somewhat, Alterna-
tives 1, 2, 3, and 4, which call for the location of a treat-
ment facility at Seal Rock, may tend to have an adverse impact
on property values surrounding the plant and its outfall.
Alternatives 5, 6, and 8 provide services to developed clusters
and can be expected to increase the property values of the
serviced clusters faster than that in intermediate areas.
Presumably on site systems will be used in these intermediate
areas where environmental quality regulations are met. Lots
outside of cluster areas which are too small to qualify for
minimum lot size septic tank approval will tend to decrease
in value. Alternative 7, although an improvement over the no
project alternative, may result in property value decreases
wherever minimum lot size restriction cannot be satisfied for
septic tank approval.
o Impact of windfall gains.
The patterns of land ownership throughout much of the
Bay to Bay Sanitary District make the possibility of windfall
gains resulting from a sewerage system a distinct possibility.
Most of the district still remains in land parcels over 5
acres in size, with approximately 88 property owners owning
approximately 7,700 acres of land. Eight landowners own
approximately 3,885 acres, which represents 50 percent of all
parceled land over 5 acres in size. Those property owners
own from 360 to 750 acres of land (Lincoln County Assessors
map) .
129
-------
The nature of land ownership in the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District is significantly different from the ownership patterns
of Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District. In the Bay to
Bay Sanitary District, the average sized property holding in
parcels of over 5 acres in size is approximately 88 acres
whereas in Southwest Lincoln County, the average holding over
5 acres in size is 28 acres.
The continual and increased construction of residences in
Bay to Bay will most assuredly result in the subdivision of
many of the large parcels of land.
Building permit denials.
o A sewerage system will reduce the number of
building permit denials that are due to high
groundwater table or impervious soils.
From 1970 to 1972, 19 percent of the requested building
permits denied within the Bay to Bay Sanitary District were
due to water table or impervious soil conditions — the two
principal constraints on septic tanks.
A sewerage system would eliminate a major constraint
on residential and commercial building within the Bay to Bay
£anitary District.
The presence of an immediate sewage problem in terms of
public health and aesthetics, in the Bay to Bay area is not
clearly evident. The 1972 beach survey identified only one
septic tank failure creating sewage on the beaches. This may
be due to the fact that, 1) much of the area is not densely
settled, 2) soils restrictions are not as severe as indicated
by the number of permit denials, and 3) more building permits
were denied in the Bay to Bay Sanitary District because of high
groundwater.
130
-------
- «r-
V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
-------
-------
V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The unavoidable adverse impacts of all alternatives are
presented in Table 25. While most of the sewerage facilities
projects (Alternatives 1-6 and 8) have similar impacts, there
is a marked difference between impacts of those alternatives
and Alternatives 0 and 7. The following is a summary of the
adverse impacts of each of the alternatives.
0 No Project Alternative. The major adverse impacts of
this alternative will be associated with the continued poten-
tial for degradation of groundwater resources, a greater poten-
tial for a public health hazard, problems with operational
reliability and effects on land use patterns and land use
planning options. No action will also require the continu-
ation of soil and water table suitability practices with
regards to septic tank construction. In areas of high ground-
water or impermeable soils, the likelihood of permit denials
will remain high.
1 Newport/Seal Rock Alternative. The adverse impacts
associated with this alternative are the consumptive use of
energy, impact on land use planning, traffic increases, cumu-
lative effects, and the financial effects on property owners.
This alternative would have a moderate cost impact on district
residents. There is a potential for a major impact on archeo-
logical resources.
2 Newport/Collins Creek Alternative. The impact of this
alternative would be similar to those of the Newport/Seal Rock
alternative except that there would be a major financial impact
on local property owners.
3 Newport/Beaver Creek/Collins Creek Alternative. The
impacts on groundwater, stream biota and water quality, oper-
ational reliability, geologic hazards, air quality, vegetation
and wildlife, marine biota, aesthetics, parks and land use
patterns will be minor. There will be a potential for moder-
ately adverse impacts on archeological resources, land use
planning, traffic, permanent vs. transient use and cost to
property owners. The impact of consumptive use of energy
would be major.
4 Seal Rock Alternative. The adverse impacts associated
with this alternative will be the same as those associated with
Alternative 1. Because Seal Rock is considered to be a high
risk area in terms of archeological resource sensitivity, there
is a potential for a major impact on those resources.
131
-------
Table 25
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
^ro^ect Impacts
»cnfci.Jiued degradation of groundwater
Direct effects on stream biota and water
"Cr.a.Ti'.ial problems with operational
.«,. ~a.~ jfc-j^ogic hazards
''jnpa2J. on air quality
-'<' ;,tt.itial unpact on archeological resources
Vegetation and terrestrial wildlife loss
:>.*re and endangered species
aarir.e biota impact - estuary
Hdritve biota impact - ocean
,,'mpacr an aesthetics
Consuniptxvs use of energy
Ciapact on parks
x^iyact en lar.d use patterns
_3C t)
id id •-! «r- *-H --j -^®
•poo) oid-p*!)*-* ^ cu
oton oscnrHXS x «c
BIB |(D4J OX OX 0 -P -P -I -P
o< a S c p. ffl -P P.«> •-< Q"01 r-101 -^c
3%(d ?Q)C ?® ^ S3 103 Q*^H
O rH 0)rH 0) W
z zwo< zoe zo to zo wu ws
+ _ _ _' - - - A
_
+ _ _____A
0- ___-_o
0- ___-_o
0+ AA+A + 0
0- ____-o
0- ___--o
0 NA NA NA NA - NA 0
0- _._-_o
A- _.-_--
OA A + A+A-
+ - ____-A
+ - - - - A A A
+ A AAA--A
-A A A A - - -
-A A A A - - -
-A A A A - - ~
-- ____--
-A + + AAA-
-A + + AAA-
8
Newport-Seal Rock
Waldport Cluster
-
_
_
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
A
-
-
-
-
—
A
A
- Minor impact
0 No impact
NA Not applicable
132
-------
5 Newport/Waldport Cluster Alternative. Virtually all
impacts associated with this alternative will be of a minor
degree of adversity, except for the potential impact on archeo-
logical resources, land use patterns and financial effect which
will all be of a moderate impact. This alternative will have a
major impact on energy consumption.
6 Seal Rock Cluster Alternative. The adverse impacts of
this alternative are basically the same as those of Alternatives
1 and 4, with a major impact associated with archeological
resources. The consumptive use of energy, impacts on land use
patterns, and the financial impact on local property owners
will represent moderately adverse impacts.
7 Septic Tank Maintenance Alternative. Moderately
adverse impacts associated with this alternative will include
the potential for degradation of groundwater supplies, problems
with operational reliability, effects on state parks, and impact
on land use planning and land use patterns. All other effects
will be minor or of no consequence.
8 Newport/Seal Rock/Waldport Cluster Alternative. Two
major adverse impacts will be associated with this alternative --
the potential disturbance of archeological resources and the
consumptive use of energy. Moderately adverse effects will be
on land use patterns and the cost to district property owners.
All other impacts will be considered of minor adversity.
133
-------
-------
/L LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
VS. MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY , '•-
-------
-------
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
8 are the alleviation of adverse environmental effects related
to existing malfunctioning individual septic tanks and the
potential contamination of groundwater resources. These inade-
quacies have caused minor problems and periodic violations of
state and federal regulations. Natural soil percolation and
groundwater features natural to the area, but related to the
workability of septic tanks, have resulted in some building
permit denials.
Alternatives 1 through 8 would remove these adverse com-
munity level impacts associated with the use of septic tanks.
However, new impacts, probably seen as adverse by many local
citizens, will be engendered. These impacts relate to increased
taxes and service charges, and the likelihood of a greater
population in the project area in the future.
135
-------
-------
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
-------
-------
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
With all alternatives except no action, 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.
137
-------
-------
VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
TO THE DRAFT EIS
P» * *• KH /9>r <• *»•«
'*;'• V, ^V«.' '«>,» '
, _
» «*. ™ i S^.'. * «. ...9' * n.i. 'Wi. * i L * as. i. »• ^ fe .. t, »« r* *. * , B %fl
-------
-------
VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIS
This section contains letters of comments from individuals and
groups to the Bay to Bay Sanitary District draft EIS. Those letters
which commented directly upon the draft EIS have been reproduced in
this document. Wherever a response is required of EPA to the letter,
a response page follows that letter.
The following table is a listing of the comment letters received
during the 45-day review period, the page in this chapter on which they
can be found, and a general category listing of their contents. Comment
categories are shown in an attempt to indicate those aspects of the
proposed action about which the commentors were most interested and
concerned. This may serve to direct the interested reader to those
sections of the document which he may wish to restudy.
In addition to those letters which comment on specific areas
within the draft EIS, EPA received numerous letters voicing opinions
on the project. Because these letters do not directly comment upon
the draft EIS nor do they require a response from EPA, they are not
reproduced in this document. A listing, however, is included in table
form which separates letters into categories of support or opposition
to wastewater treatment facilities for the Bay to Bay Sanitary District.
We have attempted to point out areas with which these letters were
most concerned. A brief summarization of the issues raised most fre-
quently has been included after this table.
On June 3, 1976 at the Seal Rock Community Hall, EPA held a public
hearing on the Bay to Bay Sanitary District draft EIS. The hearing was
attended by approximately 80 people of which 11 read testimony into the
official record. A question and answer session, after the presentation
of testimony, was also a part of the hearing and is included in the
hearing record. Because of the length of the official hearing record
and the costs involved, we have not reproduced the document for the
final EIS. A table is provided, however, listing the speakers and
the areas in which they were most concerned. Letters and petitions
received at the public hearing have been included into the hearing re-
cord. A summary of the testimony, letters and petitions follows the
public hearing table. The Public Hearing Record is available for
public scrutiny at the Newport City Library, Newport, Oregon, EPA's
Oregon Operation Office, Portland, Oregon and EPA's Region X Office,
Seattle, Washington.
The Environmental Protection Agency Region X wishes to express
its appreciation to all commenting agencies, groups and individuals
for the time and effort spent in reviewing the draft EIS. All comments
were presented to the Regional Administrator and were considered by
him in EPA's decision making process.
139
-------
Date
Recc
5/6
5/20
6/18
6/18
6/18
6/2
5/20
6/11
Table 26'
Comments Received On Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
From
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
Corps of Engineers
Portland District
United States Department
of Agriculture
-•
>F*
^Department of Housing and
Urban Development
United States Department
of the Interior
Advisory Council On
Historic Preservation
State Historic Preservation
Office.
Oregon State Clearinghouse
Intergovernmental Relations Division
1. Land Conservation and
Development Commission
2. Division of State Lands
3. Department of Agriculture
E!S
Paqe
No~
142
144
146
148
150
155
158
160
161
166
168
(/i
O
O
X
,J~
4-
i — "
i —
QJ
_e
oo
X
X
i
,
i
f
e^.
•r-
TD
*i—
X
X
O |
•4->
-;-J
a,
O
O
X
L )
4~>
c;
"C •
r™i
£"
>.
•-a
"0
1
01
oo
X
X
cj^
X
X
X
C3
fj
»j —
h
-^^
4-1
./:
X
X
r*
0
^_J
ns
~^
C-
o
o_
«
X
(.'
c
d-
on
C
fO
1
*• ^
X
X
X
I
^_>J
•r**
rj
3
o-
i-
<
r;
OO
s_
CJ
+->
IT3
3
!
b
4J
'"C
4->
s_
Transpo
in
•r—
O
u~>
4_>
r*
CJ
4-
LjJ
X
X
X
00
E
CJ
+->
i^
>.,
oo
o
•r—
-l->
C.
QJ
oo
>^,
CJ
o
d.
1 Federal
(/i
O
Aesthet
>.,
^->
•r—
O
re
^-\
fO
C_)
1 Reserve
>-.
5_
a
r-
ll]
rs
(.'i
O
t/!
O
0
CD
-o
13
oo
s^:
-2
4->
re
4-J
C
r3
CO
o3
-r->
ra
CJ
X
-------
CTl
1X5
.£»
O
O
CD
~n
-s
_l.
fD
3
CL
oo
0
-*>
O
-s
fD
to
O
3
N)
O
^J
X
CT)
— i
CT>
Makai Properties
Donald A. McMillan Partner
to
o
*>
X
X
X
cr>
-P>
i —
ro
oo
— i.
ro
nr
T*Z
Hi
3-
13
NJ
O
M
X
X
Cn
^,
IN3
i-H X3
3 O
o cr
• fD
-s
c+
m
J
fD
-s
m
3
in
i.
3
fD
fD
-s
V*
I-1
10
U1
X
X
X
X
en
00
CD CO
fD 0)
o •<
-?
(£3 r+
0
n DO
Ol Q)
-5 ^<
r+
fD OO
-S QJ
** Z3
-j.
C~> r+
^- D)
?q
3 0
QJ —1.
3 00
rf
-s
n
c+
M
«^>
to
X
,
s
X
x:
X
Cn C71
— ' ~~J
CO
ro
Q>
^3
O
n
;*r
s
Ol
r+
fD
-s
0
00
(-+
-s
o
<-+
M
00
--J
X
X
x:
X
x
tn
(\3
U1
-o r—
fD -J-
-S 3
3 o '
-.. 0
rf — •
in 3
\»
O
CZ 0
r+ C
-•• O
— ' r+
_j.«<
t-h
«j.
fD
00
B=
PO
fD
oo
O
c
-s
0
fD
00
a
fD
T3
(-1-
M
00
U1
X
X
X
in
rx>
o
ji. • • •• •
"-"Lincoln County
Planning Department
M
-j
VD
x:
en
-t>
Oregon State Highway Division
Parks and Recreation Division
H
(-1
-J
4^
X
X
X
X
tn
DJ
rt
fD
-s
r?
00
o
c:
. o
fD
00
0
fD
•a
CU
-s
r+
fD
3
r+
M
^J
M
X
4. Department of Geology
• »
M
^J
O
X
-.
.r ,
X
X> O
tt> Oi
0 H-
CL fD _
~n
o
~z. ~u m
O Q> i — i
• ua oo
fD
m o
3 O
— '• 3
-S fD —1
O 3 CD
3 c-t- cr
3 in — j
ro rp
3 ;o
r*- fD [\o
^S «
«-J.
1— 1 <
3 fD
•0 Q.
B>
0 0
rt 3
OO O
r+ -1
fti W
c+ Hi
fD r+
3
fD
3
c-t-
Costs
Shellfish
Alternatives
Water Quality
Recreation
Fisheries
Wildlife
Construction Impact
Secondary Impacts
Archeological
Historical Preserva
Population
Land Use Planning
Air Quality
Water Supply
Transportation
Soils
If fluent
Septic Systems
Federal Policy
Aesthetics
Reserve Capacity
Energy
Sludge Disposal
Health & Sanitation
-------
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
TO : Mr. Richard R. Thiel
Chief, Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
DATE: May 3, 1976
ROM : Deputy Chief, Northeast Technical Services Unit
--,H;iCT: Review of E!S Drafts - Bay to Bay Sanitary District and Southwest Lincoln
Gour.ty Sanitary District, Oregon
,• nave reviewed both EIS drafts as requested and have the following
general comments which would apply to both:
'1, We favor any alternative which allows the treated sewage to dis-
charge to ocean outfalls rather than any of the small bays involved.
The added cost will be worth it in the long run. We are speaking
in terms of public health protection with regard to molluscan
' shellfish and the subsequent problems with proper classification
J of shellfish areas. As an example, the alternative No. 5—an
outfall into the channel to AI sea Bay is unacceptable since the
Bay will have to be reclassified to contain sufficient closed
safety zone for the secondary treatment and chlorination.
Plants with ocean outfalls "probably" will not need the added
expenses for shellfish protection required by EPA Technical Bulletin
EPA 430/9-74-010, July 1974, "Protection of Shellfish Waters."
The main concerns are adequate alarms, standby power, chlorine
residual monitoring, possible holding tanks, etc. Plants discharging
to bays having actual or potential for commercial shell fishing may
not immediately need these items, but provisions should be made in
the designs for future additions. (24-hour holding ponds, for
example, will need some additional land area.)
Santo A. Furfari
SAP/1 mm
RECEIVED
MAY 0 1976
EPA-EIS
142
-------
Response to Comments by Department of Health,
Education and Welfare
1. The EIS has been revised to reflect the comment — see
pages 108-109.
2. Comment noted.
143
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PORTLAND DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 2946
PORTLAND. OREGON 97208
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OFi
NPPEN-ER 19 May 1976
Mr. Richard R. Theil, P.E., Chief
v.nvironmental Impact Section, M/S 443 RFCEIVED
!'„ S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
'•'"''{> Sixth Avenue fl nv ° 0 1S7C
.,'.!--, Washington 98101 Usi "
Cenr >fr. Theil:
k:~ have completed review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statements for
w,-5,ste water treatment systems for the Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary
District and the Bay to Bay Sanitary District, Lincoln County, Oregon.
Erfch of the discussed alternatives appears to involve several stream
crossings and several require the construction of ocean outfalls. Struc-
tures in navigable waters including the territorial seas of the United
s require permits under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
99. The Corps of Engineers also has the responsibility to regulate
je of dredged or fill material in coastal and inland waters and
their adjacent wetlands under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972. As of 1 July 1976, Section 404 permits are required
•:or discharge of dredged or fill material in traditional navigable waters
01 i;he United States, their primary tributaries, all lakes of five acres
jo: more, and adjacent wetlands. After 1 July 1977, all streams with a
| ilow of five cubic feet per second or more and their adjacent wetlands
jwill also be included in this regulatory program. The final environ-
! mental statements should reflect this requirement. Additional informa-
tion on the Corps of Engineers' permit program may be obtained by
contacting Mr. Roy Brockschink, Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch, at
telephone 777-4441, extension 302.
We have no additional comments relating to the Corps of Engineers func-
tional area of responsibility, basically; flood control, navigation, and
hydropower. This opportunity to review and comment on the draft statements
is appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
/
/fa, f*ry
fj Chief, Engineering Division
-------
Response to Comments from the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers
1. The final EIS has been revised to reflect the comment
see page 108.
145
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
16th Floor, 1220 S. W. Third, Portland, Oregon 97204
June 16, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel , P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
.
Jear Mr. Thiel: " ' -
"e have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Bay to Bay Sanitary District (EPA-10-OR-Lincoln-Bay to Bay-WWTW-76).
«/8 are concerned about the lack of a comprehensive plan covering
the area. Without such a plan it is difficult, if not impossible,
to estimate the effects of the proposed project on land use (and
thus on wildlife habitat, erosion rates, aesthetics, etc.). Comple-
tion of the proposed project and allowing uncontrolled development
will surely bring on the demand for additional public participation
in roads, utilities, police and fire protection, school facilities,
I etc.
jAlso, we would question the need for the proposed project based on
jthe 1972 survey by the Oregon State Health Division discussed
on page 2, unless the local planning commission designates the
arsa for urban and/or residential development, and such a plan
is concurred in by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this statement.
nce rely, yours,
Guy W. Nutt
State Conservationist
cc: Office of the Coordinator of Environmental Activities
Administrator, SCS, Washington, D.C.
Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality (5)
146
-------
Response to Comments from the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service
1. The decision by EPA for no project will allow time for any
comprehensive planning effort by Lincoln County in coor-
dination with the LCDC. Such an effort will assure that
the ramifications of population growth are dealt with.
2. Based upon the information contained in the draft EIS
EPA is recommending selection of the "no action" alternative.
The EIS indicates that there are few known existing water
quality problems within the District. Please see "Preface",
Page i, for the detailed discussion concerning EPA's recom-
mendation.
147
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING, 1321 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
REGION X
Office of Community
Planning & Development
June 16, 1976
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Richard R. Thiel, P. E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
RECEIVED
8
Snbject: Draft EIS - Bay to Bay Sanitary District Waste Water Treatment
Works EPA-10-OR-Lincoln-WWTS-76, Lincoln County, Oregon
We have reviewed the subject draft EIS for areas of interest to HUD.
The major action which may significantly affect the quality of the human
environment is to provide a wastewater treatment and disposal program
for the Bay to Bay Sanitary District, Lincoln County, Oregon. Seven
alternatives are identified for providing the district with wastewater
facilities.
Proposed alternative actions 1-6 and 8 would have no apparent adverse en-
vironmental impacts on HUD projects. On the contrary, a properly coor-
dinated, soundly planned and implemented wastewater treatment and dis-
posal program is a basic functional element of sound community and area-
wide planning and development.
Of concern to HUD is the clear need for effective intergovernmental
coordination and timing of proposed Sanitary District sewerage project(s)
with the growth management objectives of community planning, Lincoln County
planning, the State LCDC's coastal zone management goals, and other State
agency goals. The draft EIS outlines serious unresolved growth management
issues. The unresolved issues are correctly recognized as institutional
awaiting further political and social actions.
Robert CJ Scalia
ssistant Regional Administrator
148
AREA OFFICES
PORTLAND. OREGON•SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Insuring Offices
Anchorage, Alaska • Boise, Idaho • Spokane, Washington
-------
Response to Comments from the U. S. Housing
and Urban Development
1. If and when it is determined that a project is necessary
for the Bay to Bay Sanitary District, the EPA will coor-
dinate with necessary local and state agencies to assure
that proper planning and population growth issues are
resolved.
149
-------
Reference: ES
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Division of Ecological Services
Portland Field Office
919 N. E. 19th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232
April 19, 1976
Mr. John Ives
% Jones & Stokes Associates
455 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Ives:
Per your request, I have been able to obtain at least a partial list of rare
plant species which may be present in the area you designated on the Oregon
Coast - between Newport and Yachats. All of these species are known to occur
along the Oregon coast. Some are more southerly, some more northerly, some
occur in both northern and southern areas. Some are endemic to a particular
region (#'s 3,9,10), some have widely disjunct sites of occurrence (#'s 1,2,
6,7,8), some are rare or threatened within Oregon (#'s 4,5,11), and one is also
on the Smithsonian list of threatened and endangered plants of the United
States (#2).
1. Anemone oregana var. felix
2. Atenaria paludicola
3. Cirsium acanthodontum
4. Empetrum nigrum
5. Microseris bigellovii
6. Plantago macrocarpa
Plant Species
7
Platanthera unalascensis ssp. maritima
(Habenaria greenii)
8. Romanzoffia tracyi
9. Sidalcea malvaeflora ssp. patula
10. Sisyrinchium californicum
11. Stellaria humifusa
References concerning this information are: "Provisional list of the rare,
threatened and endangered plants of Oregon," a summary of lists compiled by
Dr. Kenton Chambers, Oregon State University Herbarium, for a forthcoming pub-
lication in the series "Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon," and
by Mrs. Jean Siddall for "Research Natural Area Needs in the Pacific Northwest;"
and the Smithsonian Institution "Report on Endangered and Threatened Plant
Species of the United States," January 1975, also published in the July 1, 1975
Federal Register.
I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (503) 234-3361, Ext. 4083.
Sincerely yours,
Heidi Haid
Wildlife Biologist
150
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208
June 15, 1976
ER-76/414
Mr. Richard R. Th.iel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the draft statement for wastewater treatment systems for
Bay to Bay Sanitary District, Lincoln County, Oregon, and offer the follow-
ing comments.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Fish and wildlife resources and project impacts upon them are satisfactorily
described in the text. Direct project impacts on fish and wildlife are con-
sidered minor since construction activity will occur in urban areas or along
roadways. However, increased development and human use of nearby areas en-
couraged by the project could significantly affect fish and wildlife. Conse-
quently, we believe these effects could be acknowledged more specifically in
the document.
The draft contains an adequate description of geology and geologic hazards
in the project area. However, minerals and mineral resource development are
not discussed. Some nonmetallic construction aggregate materials in the form
of sand and gravel, and crushed rock are occasionally mined from quaries here.
No adverse impacts upon mineral development are expected to occur during or
subsequent to the construction of this project.
Construction of an extensive sewage treatment facility in this area would
allow significant increased residential development which is otherwise limited
by the soil's capacity to efficiently absorb sewage effluent. Increased resi-
dential development would reduce the quality and nature of the area's recreation
151
-------
opportunities. Because the cost of the project is very great compared to
the number of persons that will be served and because of the project's
probable negative impact on the area's recreational attributes, it might
be advisable to continue to monitor residential units so that it can be
conclusively determined when an extensive sewage treatment facility is
necessary.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 18, Environmental Setting, Biotic Resources. The flammulated owl, Otus
flammeolus, inhabits eastern Oregon and would not customarily occur in the
Bay to Bay Sanitary District.
Page 27, Archeological Background. It is stated there are two properties
which may be eligible for the "National Register of Historic Places."
Sections 1(3) and 2(b) of Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment, " requires any property that may be
eligible to be treated in the same manner as a property already on the
National Register. Therefore, it is also necessary to comply with 36 CFR
800 in determining adverse effects and mitigating measures.
Pages 51-90, Alternative Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Throughout this
section increased housing construction is treated as inevitable since
sewage treatment facilities would be built to meet year 2025 population
projections. Increased or decreased alternative sewage treatment capaci-
ties which would substantially influence population growth would in turn
result in impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
Page 92, Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives—Short
~erm Impacts. (Table 15). Disruption of benthic habitat caused by dredg-
ing or other activities associated with outfall construction in bays or
seaward should be included. Mitigative measures could comprise locating
outfalls, pipes, and diffusers to avoid important finfish, shellfish, or
wildlife use areas, and timing construction activities to avoid identifi-
able critical spring and summer use periods.
Page 101. Archeological-Historical. The archeological sites listed here
should be evaluated for eligibility for the "National Register of Historic
Places." If eligible, they should be nominated.
We concur with the recommendation of Professor Ross that an intensive
archeological survey of the right-of-way be conducted prior to plan
finalization. Such a survey would provide a valuable record of the area's
historical resources.
Page 103, Vegetation and Terrestrial Wildlife. Differences in total impact
of different alternatives on wildlife habitat could be discussed in this
section. For example, clustered development alternatives to control urbani-
zation along Highway 101, should retain more wildlife habitat.
152
-------
1C
II
Page 105, Marine Biota. Chlorine concentrations of outfall discharges,
if such treatment is anticipated, and subsequent effects on marine
organisms should be described.
Appendix A-3, Common Biotic Resources of the Marine Environment. Text
should acknowledge English sole, Parophrys vetulus, and surf smelt, Hypo
mesus pretiosus, as common estuary residents.
We appreciated the opportunity to review the statement.
Sincerely,yours,
Charles T. Hoyt
Special Assistant to the Secretary
153
-------
Response to Comments from the U. S. Department
of the Interior
1. Additions to the EIS have been made per your comment --
see page 107.
2. Additions have been made to the EIS -- see page 10.
3. EPA is recommending selection of the "no action" alternative due
to the few known existing water quality problems within the District.
See "Preface", page i for a detailed discussion of EPA's recom-
mendation.
4. Changes have been made as necessary -- see pages 18 and 23.
5. The possible impacts on the two sites potentially eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places -- the Seal
Rock midden and the Oregon Coast Highway — were identified on
page 103.
6. The comment was noted.
7. Addition made as necessary to the EIS -- see page 96.
8. Comment noted.
9. Comment noted and additions made -- see page 107.
10. Chlorine concentrations would be dependent upon the NPDES permit
to be issued for any sewage treatment facility. It is anticipated
that the permit would require a discharge quality such that marine
organisms are not adversely affected.
11. Additions were made as requested -- see Appendix A-3.
154
-------
Advisory Council
On Historic Preservation
1522 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
JUfi 2
May 28, 1976
Mr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr. RECEIVED
Regional Administrator
Region X
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in response to your request of April 22, 1976, for comments on
the draft environmental statement (DES) for the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District, Lincoln County, Oregon. Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory Council has
determined that this DES demonstrates compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. However, the DES is
incomplete for it does not demonstrate compliance with the provisions
of Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment" of May 13, 1971, as implemented by the "Procedures for the
Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800).
While the DES identifies several archeological sites, some of which are
included in the Oregon State Inventory of Historic Sites, and identifies
probable impact and possible mitigative measures, it fails to explain
the steps that will be taken by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
comply with Executive Order 11593. Having identified the existance of
cultural features in the proposed undertaking's zone of impact, EPA is
directed by the "Procedures" to determine their eligibility for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places. For sites found to meet
National Register criteria that will be affected by the undertaking, EPA
is required to afford the Council an opportunity to comment in accordance
with the "Procedures." In the consultation process detailed in the
"Procedures," alternatives to avoid and/or satisfactorily mitigate any
adverse effects are discussed and, hopefully, agreed upon.
Until the requirements of Executive Order 11593 are met, the Council
considers the DES to be incomplete in its treatment of historical,
155
The Council is an independent unit of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government charged by the Act of
October 15, 7966 to advise the President and Congress in the field of Historic Preservation.
-------
Page 2
May 28, 1976
Mr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr.
Bay to Bay Sanitary District
archeological, architectural and cultural resources. To remedy this
deficiency, the Council will provide substantive comments on the under-
taking's effect on those cultural features found to be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register through the process detailed in the
"Procedures." Please contact Brit Allan Storey of the Council staff at
(FTS) 234-4946 or P. 0. Box 25085, Denver, Colorado 80225, to assist
you in completing this process as expeditiously as possible.
Sincerely yours,
Louis S. Wall
Assistant Director, Office
of Review and Compliance
cc: Dr. Clement M. Silvestro, Chairman, Advisory Council
Mr. David G. Talbot, Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer
Mr. Sheldon Meyers, Director, Environmental Protection Agency
Mrs. Marilyn Klein, Council on Environmental Quality
156
-------
Response to Comments from the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation
Because the EPA has made the decision for no project in
the Bay to Bay District, it will not be necessary to
effect the requirements for mitigation impacts on archeo-
logical/historical resources at this time. If at some
future date a project is undertaken in the district, the
EPA will complete all necessary procedures to assure com-
pliance for the "protection of historic and cultural
properties".
157
-------
MAY 1 3 1976
10000
Re: Day to Bay S.O. and
,/S.W. Lincoln County S.D,
Mr. Edward Long
Stata Historic Preservation Office
Oregon State Highway Division
Highway Building
Salem, Oregon 97310
Dear Mr. Long:
As part of EPA's preparation of the draft environment impact state-
nents for Bay to Bay Sanitary District and S.W. Lincoln County Sanitary
District, an archeological survey of the area was authorized. The re-
port attached is prepared by Mr. David Brauner, Oregon State University.
Review of this report indicates that the criteria of adverse affect
(36 CFR 300.9) applies if portions of the sev.'erage system are construc-
ted as^proposed. However, those portions of both projects which tha
criteria of adverse affect apply could he nitigated if certain rr-asurss
are taken. The attached table lists the sites", the impact the proposed
project v/ould have on the site, and the mi gated roasure "proposed by EPA
to avoid the inpact. Your Garments on the report and attached table
would be appreciated. The enclosed sowar map will help you locate the
designated sewer lines in Bay to Bay Sanitary District.
In order to implement the two recommendations on page 8 of the
report, EPA could condition the appropriate Step 2 grants (preparation
of construction drawings and specifications) to the sanitary districts
that would allow flessrs. Richard Ross and David Grauner to review and
comment on final plans and specifications. The specification could
list a professional archeologist "on call" to work with the contractor
during construction in the event a buried site is encountered.
If you have any specific questions, please call na at 221-3250.
Sincerely yours,
Hi 111 am J. So^olewski
Project Officer
cc: OEQ
BSobDlewskl/vlk 5/12/76
158
-------
Site
Impact the Proposed
Project Uould Have
on tha Site
Migated Measure to he
Taken to Avoid the Impact
L° JkjLUL.
35LCN16
(Shell midden
site)
Huckleberry Hill
(burials)
Deer Creek
(Village 4
Shell Midden)
35LCN14
(Village and
Shell Midden)
Seal Rock Area
between 89.4 and
B10.1
(artifacts,
burials, midden)
Lincoln Co. S.D.
Starr Creek
(snidden site)
Sewer line PA 2.9
may cut through un-
disturbed shell
midden.
Sewer line B76.1
could disturb burial
(not confirmed) on
the point overlooking
Beaver Creek.
No impact if server
line P3-8 as pro-
posed runs adjacent
to Highway 101 and
P.S. PS-3 is situated
well north of the
site.
Saver line 89.5
(north-south) cuts
directly through the
east side of the
main shell midden
Area is a high risk*
area for uncovering
artifacts, burials,
and midden.
Test excavation will be
done prior to construction
If undistrubed midden Is
present, excavation will
be necessary preceding
construction.
Last 75 to 100 feet of
sewer will be constructed
with the presence of an
archeologist watching
for graves.
N/A
Relocate sewer 100 feet
to the east. Excavation
for sewer line P3-9 will
not be in roadcut.
Test excavations will
be conducted by team of
archeologists prior to
construction.
Proposed pump station! Pump station will be
and force main could ' located north of gravel
disturb midden site. road and beach access.
Sower from pump station
will be relocated 100
feet east of the proposed
location.
159
-------
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DIVISION
240 COTTAGE STREET S.E.
SALEM, OREGON 97310
ROBERT W. STRAUB
GOVERNOR
STAFFORD HANSELL
Director
June 1, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Re: Wastewater Treatment System
PNRS #7604 4 1170
Thank you for submitting your draft Environmental
Impact Statement for State of Oregon review and comment.
Your draft was referred to the appropriate state
agencies. Department of Land Conservation and Development,
Division of State Lands, Department of Agriculture, Depart-
ment of Geology, and Water Resources Department offered
the enclosed comments which should be addressed in prepara-
tion of your final Environmental Impact Statement.
We will expect to receive copies of the final state-
ment as required by Council of Environmental Quality Guidelines
Sine
lichael L. Burton
Supervisor
MLB:1m
Enclosures
RECEIVED
JUN 11 1976
[TO
160
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFSCATSOaM AND REVIEW SYSTEM
• ' ' STATE CLEARINGHOUSE '" '
Intergovernmental Relations Division
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310
Ph: 378-3732
, DEPARTMENT OF
LAND CONSERVATION
AN!n n^'
nr _
' <~ '•> 1976
P N R S STATE REVIEW
Project ft: 760 ^ 4 1^70 Return Date:
SALEM
HAY 9 ?, 1976
i
2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
A response is required to all notices requesting environmental review.
OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary. If you cannot respond by the above return date, please
call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
( I') We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject.
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
SEE ATTACHMENT
161
Agency
-------
RESPONSE TO DEIS #7604-4-990
#7604-4-1170
The selection of an alternative under this project and its related
land use implications must be coordinated and consistent with local
comprehensive paans in general and current efforts of the involved
jurisdictions to update their plans in particular. In this regard
the City of Newport and Lincoln County presently are requesting a
planning extension and financial assistance to perform the work
needed to develop comprehensive plans consistent with the provisions
of the statewide planning goals.
Accompanying these requests are a compliance schedule and de-
tailed work program. Staff of the Department of Land Conservation
and Development have conducted a detailed review of these documents
and have made recommendations to the Land Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission. These recommendations, if approved by the
Commission will provide for the development of a complete preliminary
comprehensive plan for the area included in the Bay to Bay and
Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary Districts and the area around
the Cities of Newport, Waldport and Yachats by July 31, 1977.
These recommendations would also result in a delay of less than
one year in selecting an alternative and proceeding to phase 2
(eg development of a design plan and specifications for the
selected alternative).
The purpose of the delay would be to assure that the selected
alternative is consistent with the revised comprehensive plan; that
issues and conflicts are resolved early in'the process; and that
further complications and delays in solving sewage disposal and
water pollution problems are avoided.
Action on the recommendations by LCDC is expected on June 18, 1976.
At that time the report and notice of the LCDC's action will be
transmitted to you for your information.
162
-------
ROBERT W. STRAUB
GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF
LAND CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
1175 COURT STREET N.E.
July 1, 1976
SALEM, OREGON • 97310 • (503) 378-4926
HAROLD F. 6RAUNER
Director
IAND CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
I. B. DAY
Chairman
STEVEN SCHELl
Vke Chairman
DOROTHY ANDERSON
ALBERT BUUIER, JR.
RICHARD GERVAIS
DR. PAUL RUDY
JAMES SMART
Richard Thiel
Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Stop 443,
1200 6th -Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
RECEIVED
JUL 8 1976
EPA-EIS
In our comments on the DEIS for the Bay to Bay and South-
west Lincoln County Sanitary Districts we indicated that
we had reviewed the proposals ^and had made recommendations
to the Land Conservation "and Development Commission.'
These recommendations, as approved by the Commission,
will provide for the development of a complete prelim-
inary comprehensive plan for the area included in the
Bay to Bay and Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary Districts
and the area around the cities of Newport, Waldport and
Yachats by July 31, 1977. The staff report sets forth
the Commission's action and is attached. While the
Commission did not specifically comment on the proposals
or the recommended increase in funding, it did address
the overall timeframe for compliance. You should note
that the timeframe has been reduced from 1987 to 1980.
•This indicates the Commission's commitment to assuring
that coordinated comprehensive plans are developed in
an expeditious manner. Consistent with this commitment
is the assurance that comprehensive plans are developed
in a coordinated and balanced fashion.
Accordingly, in regard to the proposals you are consid-.
ering, we would like to request that you delay a decision
on both of the proposals until a desirable alternative
is identified through development of the local coordinated
comprehensive plan. A delay,.estimated at not more than
a year, would allow the planning process to operate as
intended. Conflicts between uses would be resolved and
would permit the development of a sewerage alternative
consistent with land uses and documented needs.
163
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
July 1, 1976 -2- -
I would also like to take this opportunity to bring
your attention to some factual erroxo in the DEIS's.
First, the Land Conservation and Development Commission
has not yet implemented a permit process for activities
of statewide significance; including, sewerage and •
solid waste disposal facilities.
Secondly, the Commission and the Department are placing
emphasis on the evaluation of comprehensive plans and
development of compliance schedules to complete these
plans in accordance with the provisions of the State-
wide Planning Goals and Guidelines (copy attached for
your information). • .
Such errors are understandable in light of the fact that
our program has been evolving very rapidly and at the
time the DEIS's wjaere developed some of the facts may
not have been very clear. In this regard, a meeting
between our agencies might be desirable so similar act-
ivities in the future may be more effectively directed
and delays avoided.
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to
contact this office or Neal Coenen, of my staff, who is
the Department's field representative for Lincoln County.
Sincerely,
/di+'G&f &~
Harold F. Brauner
Director
NC:lj
Enclosure
cc: Lincoln County Commissioners
Bill Sobolewski
Max Rijken
164
-------
Response to Comments from the Department of
Land Conservation and Development
1. Please see Preface to this final EIS.
2. These comments have been recognized.
165
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIF2CATJON AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Intergovernmental Relations Division - / %>^".-
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 <^/ '*'";-..*
Phi 378-3732 j ^ "'"'"'
P N R S STATE R E V I E W '^
Project ft ; / 6 0 4 4 1 1 7 (j Return Date:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
1. A response is required to all notices requesting environmental reviev
2. OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary. If you cannot respond by the above return date, please
call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( t^TThe environmental impact is adequately described.
( ) We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject .
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
JIf the alternative selected involves the construction of a new ocean outfall or a
! crossing of state owned submerged or submersible land, an easement will be required
I from -.he Division of State Lands.
j Also, if the project would require tne ror.ioval or fill of i>0 cubic yards or r.iore
I of material below the bank of the waterway, we urge the applicant to apply for
! state fill or removal permits well in aavance of construction deadlines to prevent
junnecessary project delays.
1 Specific information on the need for permits or easements 'my be obtained from
the Division of State Lands' office at ~Li.L^> State Street, Jolem, Oregon V7310
; Phone 376-3805.
166
J A . I 1
Agency
-------
Response to Comments from State Lands
1. Comments noted.
167
-------
OREGON ' XIECT NOTIFICATION AND Rr iW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Intergovernmental Relations Division
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon
Ph: 378-3732
P N R S STATE REVIEW
Project ft; 7604 k 1170 Return Date: tfAt 28 ^*'^
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
1. A response is required to all notices requesting environmental reviev
2. OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary. If you cannot respond by the above return date, please
call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
( ) We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject .
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
May 4, 1976
>We support in principal the Environmental Impact Statement (Bay to
bay Sanitary District) as presented.
The many alternatives presented in the statement gives the areas served
Isome latitude in determining their needs.
|
'Since the final decision on picking an alternative will rest with the
ilocal community, dollar cost and payback feasibility could influence
;a local community's decision.
168
Agency
-------
Response to Comments from Agriculture
1. Comment noted.
169
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Intergovernmental Relations Division ]•••
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 '•-'-•-•. '-.--,
Ph: 378-3732 -- - : ., ' '
P N. R S STATE REVIEW
Project t; 760 k k 1170
Return Date:
.'^AY2-8197B
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
1. A response is required to all notices requesting environmental review
2. OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary . If you cannot respond by the above return date, please
call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
( X ) We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject.
( ) No comment.
I
REMARKS
»d 2)
/./•<»"/
170
Agency
-------
Response to Comments made by the Oregon
Department of Geology
1. The final EIS will reflect these comments — see page 109
171
-------
OREGON PROJECT NOTIRCATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Q> FT O E1 ff u fr
('U i-« ^J L, I ^ £
Intergovernmental Relations Division ,-. r .- n - -,.-,^
240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310 __ '"''•-•'.• t'i/o
Ph: 378-3732 iV/.iER RESOURCES
PN R S SJLAJJE REVIEW
Project
"
7604 4
Return Date;
2 8 1876
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
1'. A response is required to all notices requesting environmental reviev,
2. OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary. If you cannot respond by the above return date, please
call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.
( V) We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject.
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
<2& -3 ?
I)
172
Agency
(J
-------
Response to Comments from the Department
of Water Resources
The final EIS will reflect these comments — see pages 28
and 29.
173
-------
OREGON STATE
HIGHWAY DIVISION
PARKS AND RECREATION BRANCH 525 Trade Street S.E. Salem 97310
ROBERT W. STRAUB
GOVERNOR
F. B. KLABOE
Administrator and
State Highway Engineer
June 11, 1976
RECEIVED
JUN 1 4 1876
Richard R. Thiel, P.E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
In the 14-mile segment of central Oregon coast between Newport
and Waldport, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Branch maintains
seven parcels of land. These properties, located within the
boundaries of the Bay to Bay Sanitary District, are:
1. Alsea Bay North Bridgehead State Wayside—7.11 acres.
Facilities include a day-use parking area.
2. Collins Creek State Wayside—11.00 acres. This park is
undeveloped.
3. Driftwood Beach State Wayside—7.70 acres. Facilities include
one day-use/beach access parking area with restrooms.
4. Lost Creek State Park—33.94 acres. Facilities include one
day-use/beach access parking area with pit latrines.
5. Ona Beach State Park—237.17 acres. Facilities include one
day-use/beach access parking area with restrooms.
6. Seal Rock State Wayside—7.80 acres. Facilities include one
day-use/beach access parking area with restrooms.
7. South Beach State Park—432.65 acres. Facilities include 257
improved campsites, two day-use parking areas, one with beach
access and restrooms, one maintenance yard with shop.
174
Form 81-734-3122
-------
Richard R. TMel
June 11, 1976
Page 2
Specific Parks Branch comments in regard to Draft Environmental
Impact Statement of the Bay to Bay Sanitary District are:
fl. Page 28, "Asthetic Values."
"Surrounding areas including the Pacific Ocean, the Siuslaw
National Forest to the east and seven state parks occur between
the shoreline and U.S. Highway 101" (instead of the five listed).
t2. Page 35 and 36, "Transient Population" (fourth paragraph) and
Table 9, "State Park Usage."
"Between the years of 1971 and 1975, a 33.3% increase in
campemights spent in the study area was observed, while only
a 2.4% increase was observed for all state facilities."
According to Parks Branch statistics, the "Study Area Campsites"
indicate 33,882 and 63,244 overnight campsites for 1970-71 and
1974-75 respective fiscal years. This compares to 69,639 and
92,831 for these two time periods in the draft EIS. Though
these corrected figures indicate nearly a 100% increase in
four years, this rapid use can be attributed to the fact that
South Beach State Park, the only overnight state park in the
district, was opened in the early seventies. This growth has
slackened considerably in the past few years. It is expected,
however, that park useage at South Beach might grow at a slightly
faster rate than the more established state parks in the area.
i
3. In regard to the financial participation for sewer system costs:
»
! Page 61, third paragraph.
Tax exempt agencies "will pay an initial one-time cash payment
to help offset facilities construction, a payment that would
probably be based on the value of properties determined in a
manner similar to that used by the county tax assessor."
It is recommended that this sentence end at "to help offset
facilities construction."
The Parks Branch certainly expects to pay its "fair share"
cost of providing sewerage service to state parks 1n the
district's service area. However, state park policy in regard
to this participation is based on the demand park facilities
place on the sewage system, not the value or amount of property.
The need to maintain open space for public enjoyment is a
primary responsibility of the Parks Branch. As such, park
lands provide a stabilizing factor to the landscape, as opposed
to the speculative possibilities of open space in private
* ownership.
175
-------
Richard R. Thiel
June 11, 1976
Page 3
4. Page 111, "Park and Natural Areas."
"Although all park and wayside areas having restroom facilities
receive a great deal of use, none have had any problems with
septic tanks or drainfields."
The Parks Branch essentially has had few problems with septic
tanks and drainfields within the district's boundaries.
However, this point should be qualified by the fact that:
a. Park useage is extremely seasonal. Nearly 80 percent of
park useage occurs during the six summer months of April
through September. This fact is particularly helpful in
terms of drainfield rejuvenation as compared to residential
year-round use.
b. Camper shower useage at South Beach State Park is limited
to certain hours each day because of energy conservation
measures. This is true for all overnight state parks
* throughout the state.
Though there was an early failure of a drainfield at South Beach
overnight camp, that fact was due to a faulty initial installation.
This drainfield was repaired immediately and has given no further
problems.
What should be concluded in this regard is that park useage is
somewhat unique in its demands on wastewater disposal. It was
correctly summarized in this section that an added degree of
reliability would be realized if a district sewage system was
constructed. Likewise, if park useage was to become more year-
round, a district sewage system would become extremely beneficial.
In general review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement, it
appears that adverse impacts might result if new growth with a
sewage system is allowed under present planning guidelines.
Conflicting this is the apparent need in some areas for a district
system. It would appear that the development of a sewage system
between Newport and Waldport should be encouraged, to result in
the minimum of adverse socio-economic impacts for both present and
future residents and visitors.
Very truly yours,
~~^X~, ,'Ct<*4~*
Larry Jacjjbson, Assistant
State l^ffrKs Superintendent
9P
cc: George Carter, Seal Rock Water District
Robert E. Meyers Engineers
J. Christopher Minor, Attorney
Lincoln County Commissioners
176
-------
Response to Comments from the Oregon
State Parks and Recreation
1. Changes were made in the EIS to reflect this information •
see page 28.
2. Changes were made as necessary in the EIS on pages 38 and
39,
3. Changes were made as requested — see page 65.
4. Additions were made on page 114 to reflect these comments,
177
-------
rrr---^ i
^^
U • T -.1.1 'kj
525 TRADE STREET S.E. .* « SAUVA, OREGON
97310
Mey 17, 1976.
.Mr. William J. Sobolewski
US Environmental Protection Agency
1234 SW Morrison St.
Portland, Oregon 97205
Dear Mr. Sobolewski:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 13, regard-
ing the Bay-to-Bay Sanitary District project in Lincoln County.
After a review of Prof. Prauiier's report, and consultation
with Professors Brainier and Ross, this office finds that your
listed, mitigation measures for the five sites to be impacted by
the 6ay-to-B
in Sucrai'iunto regarding the survey. A copy of this correspon-
dence is enclosed. If- we can bo of any further assistance, do
not lies irate to corrcact us.
Sincerely5
]c(c'
./ J,.
Paul B. Hartwig
Historical Programs Coordinator
State Historic Prestrvation Office
EL:ko
Enc.
178
-------
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Lincoln County Courthouse
Newport, Oregon 97365
503-265-5341
May 19, 1976
RECEIVED
MY 2 0 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 'i^i-3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X.
1200 Sixth Avenue ' - ppA _,
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Thank you for this opportunity to review end comment on the
Bay to Bay Sanitary District Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment .
This review was limited to an investigation of the accuracy of
information contained within the draft, statement as it pertains
to local land use planning. The review has brought to light
numerous errors and misconceptions stated in the draft relating
to the current status of local land use'planning. In our opinion
the errors will require correction and* a further elaboration on
statewide planning law (O.R.S. 197) and local land use planning
will hopefully alleviate these misconceptions.
To facilitate an easier correlation between the objectionable
statements and our responses, the statement is presented first
and is followed by our explanatory comments.
A serif-s of preliminary land use pianr, have boon formulated
for areas \;;'thin Lincoln County, including the Yaquina Bay
and Alsea B:-.y Planning 7irea<=, which includes p-art of the Bay-
tu--Bciy 3<*.n'.,.i ' " " "
County T'Tanhiny" b'iroctor) .
(PAGE 48}
The com
one bu.l
Lincoln County has prepared a
dating back to 1964.
o.f being presented in
into six geographic .sub-area
jor drainager, and estuaries (
and several spcc.in] element p
and recreation, wau. r/sewerap;
mcnt, etc.). These plans (3
wliicJi cover a.1.1 of LJncoln Co
don of the ].,CDO' statewi de p3 &
179
nd adopted Hocal land use plans
prehensive land use plan, instead
i;y document, is conveniently divided
paans, four which focus on the ina-
Sa.lmon, Si.letz, Yaquina and Alsea),
Jans (e.g. transportation, parks
e facilities,, solid waste managD-
and use and special element),
unly_, were prepared before adopt-
nning goals and vn.ll require
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P-.E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101 ' " .
May 19, 197&
Page 2
2.
J
3.
revision. The adoption of coastal goals (required under
Coastal Zone Management Act) will require further refine-
ment and the insertion of additional land use designations
'within the plans.
In. 1973, the Oregon Supreme Court (Baker vs. City of Milv;aukie)
ruled that land use plans were to be strictly interpreted as
to the allowable land uses and recognition of spe-cific ] end use
classification boundaries. PVior to 1975, land use plans had
been viewed and purposely designed .to represent a general guide
to future land use. A broa.d brush stroke approach had been
utilized to draw land use classification boundaries. Unfortun--.
ately less than perfect attention to detail resulted in these
land use boundary lines not coinciding with property ownership
•lines,, rights-cf-ways, or other superimposed legal descriptions.
The Court directed that in those instances where the land use
'plan is more restrictive than zoning that the more restrictive
must be enforced. This has created much inconsistency between
land use'plans and the zoning ordinance. The conflicts between
allowable uses in the land use classifications and the density
and uses allowed in the zoning ordinance are presently being
resolved on a case-by-case basis.'
The Lincoln County Planning Commission hopes to review all
land use plan/zoning conflicts and recommend appropriate.
changes to the Board of County Corrirnissj oners by July^ 1977-
The planning and siting of seweraoe facilities has been
ed sn activity of statewide significance requiring a
plan ling and siting porir.it from LCDC so that a de-.;ermina«-io»«
can be ir,ac\= as to whether or not the project conJrorrr.s with
statewide land use planning goals and in this case coastal zone
management goals as well as cornpliar.ee with the loca] .compre-
hensive land use plans. Sincti_ncj_th_.ir_ _tho_co_Qsta_l_/_cn
~
forum is" not established for_ t\:£_jrc_yi_cjv_of_ the pcooosoc
use"^ LCDC" olfi cTaTjfhavo seated in a Ictl.er to the-. /.PA
ir conjunction with the Oregon De-i.--.rt:;ient of Knviron-
l£nd_
that
they, ... . , . .""'..
mental Quality, will oversee the planning and sitnny of tmu
project insuring that no hookups will be allowed until a compre-
hensive plan addressing '..his issue has been filed with LCDC.
Whether LCDC has the 'authority to ir, pose such restrictions on
local residents is a matter which hrc. yet to be resolved and r,o
doubt will require a Jeqal interpretation of the applicable
statutes befo)(< n resolution is reached.
(PAGE 112)
180
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel , P.E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 4^3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
May 19, 1976
Page 3
ORS 197 does not authorize, neither does it require, L.C.D.C,
to adopt local comprehensive plan;.;.
5 _Shou_ld _th_c j^o'^-j-J^Co^prr >:on_£_iv£_I.£:ic:_Ura_Pl£'ri c-all f or' the
widespread dcv^-l oi\ c-.i. of vi:r- pro'icct "a~r~ea Ta;.d into re s; cTeT7-:
- _ _ — _ _
a_dopted at thc.-_iedcra_l __ l_tvcl _f _pr the 'use __ 01 surround i :K' n a tic ria
i£l£l'_si _ ~ ~~
for its
- ._-
for the area. \';it.cr dittricv ofiicicils
Ccmnty have expressed concern about the prcsc-r.c policies of
forest management which reduce- the wa'icrholding capacity of
area watersheds arid could inhibit its ability to supply water
to an increasing population i r; southwest. Lincoln County
(peril, corm. W. D. Campbell). This is an example of the con-
flicts in lend use planniny v,-;-.ich have arisen between various
districts involved in the plar.nir.g of project area land use.
State park authorities also are plenning to continue develop-
ment of coastal day use and ci.rr.pinr facilities in the; area so
as to acco.Tjnodate increased rourist visitation. Thene plans
must be coordinated with State Highv.'ay Ecpartr.is.rit pl?ns for
road improveinentr. in the study arts-, to accommodate increased
traffic flov; and also with co-^niiy-Ii vol p^anc to allov; or
disallow expansion c£ exisiir.-y commt rciai facilities.
Contained inside and contiguous to the Bay to Bay Sanitation
District boundaries lies 120 acres of Siuslav; National Forest
lands (1.3$ of total'district land area).
ORS 197, Section 11 (6), requires the L.C.'D.C. to coordinate
the planning efforts of state agencies to assure confonnance
with state-'.vlde planning goals and compatibility with county
comprehensive nlans. A Department of Transportation, Parks
Division, overall development pj.an (30GHP) meeting adopted
state-wide planning goals has not been -completed nor has it
been coordinated with Lincoln County.
7 ,J5£5P-_JL2_» relating to oublic facilities and services,
regurrc^ ^J;.a_t tj}e_c^nr^rcjY:^i^e_j2lnn_pf_thc local jurisdiction
provide cjuideiin--T. _for tho_ provi£.i_pji_o.f pubyic~:sej:v;)lFc:I"''iir;a
^apil_3j-i(^y__2.ii hot j; U2jjan_c!_.y; .ruj"al]j^r£):r' accord i nrfto "curr'c:'n~E
and |_ Jony-rangc__nc.-c'_ar,_._ Cor. oJ iri-.cc: wit_)i "thi's coal c:f!ta"i~ls~o
cooi dlna'taon'ol "ti;r:"iO anniny offc.rts of all affected land uteri;.
A do.tcrioinat.ion of what typc-s of. devcO oprienf are £ipuroj>r i ate
for the areas concerned r.urr.t piei-ede tlie development of t)-,e.se
guideline.';. To, aid in thi.': di to luini'ti on, LCDC has )>cen give;;.
permit auLhoriiy for the ). lannint; and citing of such public
r.orvicor; and f aci 1 i tie.'; . I,'-, discussed above, the.<:e planning
c-fforls liavo bc:cn dcniynatrn act j vita c.-j; of statev.'idc cigni-
licanco and, tlic'reforo, i.ast bo considered ficparntcly in i crn.o
C'f their consi.-.lc-ncy with statewide planning goals 9._
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel,' P.K. Chief
Environmental Impact Section,, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, V/ashington 98101
May 19, 1976
Page 4
7!'
8
a*to-'
J7. Goal 11 directs that urban and rural development shall be
guided and supported by types and .levels of public facilities.
and services that are appropriate to the needs and requirements
of those areas. Provisions should be made to insure the coordin
! ated development of those facilities. The goal does not require
1 -local jurisdictions to provide guidelines for the provision of
i those public facilities as reported in- the'E.I.S.
]8. The Bay-to-Eay Sanitation District geographic area is covered
) by three separate land use plans: - (1) Preliminary Comprehen-
sive Plan for the Lincoln County Coast £1967); Preliminary
Land Use Plan for the Yaquina Bay Area (1969); and, Alsea Bay-
Regional Land and Water Use Plan (1975). These plans were
•prepared prior to the L.C.D.C. adoption of statewide planning
goals and although the plans do not conform to the Goals.
-. _ Section 40, CRS 197, states "Comprehensive Plans... adopted
* prior to the effective date of this Act shall remain in effect
; ' until revised under.this Act". ORS 197, Sections 4l and 42,
( sheds still further light upon the validity of land use plans
• adopted prior to the December 27,*1974 adoption of statewide
j land use planning goals.
9- There exists valid land use plans covering the Bay-to-Bay
Sanitation District, plans upon which the appropriateness
or suitability of the project can be determined.
A likely result of constructing :;uch a facility will be the
inckic^ment of additional population growth which would not
have taken place in its absence due to the incompatibility
.of roil ccr.dj t i.or.s vi-'-h peptic tank ur.ace. The intended
purpose of goal 14 is to identify are;iS which arc m.ost suitable
for urbanization and tovdivert future development to them as
}0 needed. The clcbcrru nation of the coinpr- tibiJ i ty of tho sanitary
district plann_wjth coi.iprehc-noi'.".? janr. use planf;. cannot be nadc
in conf orn.inco with LC DC statewide go.'Is until urban growth
i.-7 have been drawn. ' '
SEE Tl'iL? ' *Jl°._jAc^ of a cjurront con'prohgns.ivo land use plan
://:• for Li nco In "CcK'.n ty'~E'r: r vc rL to irrustrj-t t the achio_vcmgn'c of
statewide pldnniruj
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thjel, F.E. Chief ' •
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 4^3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
May 19, .1976
Page 5
SEL <•'
-!1-|Q
unread v<:;d uuesticn i elates to thci clesiyr.r>tion of
n__gj ^:;\_:i_ bpimdajrj or; in ContrcJL Lincoln CounLy.
The LC:I;C gv'i-iclin^r rctji:3.re local pijirming authorities
to d_i;;l i ii_; J2J1'1 b,fitv\c.'r i i.rban and ruval_3and:: jn tho
conn t y p 3 .1 ; -, n 1 11 .1 r i. i o r 1^.
(PAG
10
If
all owe a u r-dar
sivc land
usr:
(PAGE 133)
10. The designation of urban growth boundaries can be made only
in coordination with designating other appropriate land uses.
To properly designate appropriate lard uses a detailed inven-
tory of the interrelated natural syntems and activities of
the area under consideration.,,,LincoHn County has requested
state land use planning assistance funds (LCDC) to gather the.
necessary inventory data and. to adopt preliminary urban growth
boundaries and policies by June, 1977-
11. The entire geographic area of Lincoln County is presently
zoned. There is no need to adopt o'r establish Interim Zoning
Ordinances as allowed under ORS 215-
Respectfully
Janes S. Webb
/ Planning Director • .
JSW:cs
cc: Directors, Fay- to-Bay Sanitary District
Board of Lincoln County Commissioners
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Gruen Gruen 4 Associates
183
-------
Response to Comments from the Lincoln County
Planning Department
1. Changes were made as recommended — see page 52.
2. Comments noted and changes made as necessary — see page 52,
3. Comment noted.
4. Changes made according to request — see page 115.
5. Changes made to text — see page 116.
6. Changes made to text — see page 116.
7. Changes made to reflect the comment — see page 116.
8. Changes were made to reflect the comment.
9. Changes were made to reflect the comment.
10. Changes made to text to reflect the comment.
11. Comment noted.
184
-------
Permits. Utilities & Resources Department
Sub-Surface Section
Sanitarian: 265-5341. Ext. 33 , •->
Director: 265-5772
COUNTY OF LINCOLN
Newport, Oregon 97365
21st May, 19?6
Richard R. Thiel, P.E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Sir:
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 1976
EPA-EIS
I am a Lincoln County Sanitarian working in the Permits, Utilities
and Resources Department. We are responsible for determining
approvability of lots for installation of private sewage disposal
systems.
Recently, we have encountered difficulties in finding disposal
.,-. -p,.
4- „«,!, <^,
,~« -t- n •-
CO. UillCLi O
plant which can or will accept these purnpings on a regular basis
1:3 the Newport Treatment Plant. Other plants will accept loads
of raw sewage, but the aerobic sludge cannot be handled. Appa-
rently, the activated sludge plants are susceptible to shock
charges of an aerobic material.
Land disposal is being used as temporary means for handling this
sludge. These methods include both lagoons in a level field
with regular discing. However, these sites are difficult to
impossible to locate as little or no run-off can be allowed to
occur, contamination of wells or springs must be guarded against,
and proximity to residences must be considered.
Therefore, I feel that in any planning for new or enlargement of
existing sewage treatment plants, aerobic pretreatment system to
handle aerobic sewage sludge should be included.
CLEMENS
LINCOLN COUNTY SANITARIAN
GC/jl
185
-------
Responses to Comments from the County of Lincoln -
Permit Utilities and Resources Department
1. The septic tank maintenance alternative contains a
facility to handle sewage sludge.
186
-------
SEAL ROCK WATER DISTRICT
P. 0. Box 83
SEAL ROCK, OREGON 97376
MPV 3, 1976
Richard R. Theil, P. E. Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
RECEIVED
i •; r. \t
.!.-\ I
7 1976
Re:-Draft-EIS; EPA-10-or
Linccln-WWfS-76
Dear Mr Thiel:
Referenced draft contains the following factual errors as statements pertaining
to the Seal Rock Water District.
1, Page 29-"Water use and supply"
i. The integrated service to the 14 square mile district with
its present 740 service connections is served by 3-75,000
gallon and 1-one million gallon storage reservoirs for a
total storage capacity of 1,250,000 gallons.
b. Present raw water supply sources from Henderson and Hill
Creeks have provided a yield of 0.3 mgd.
c. Present water sources are being phased out under a joint
water development project that will provide the district
and city of Toledo with treated water facilities under
Oregon State Health Division Standards, recently revised
to accord with anticipated EPA standards. A 2.6 cfs
permit for supply from the Siletz River will replace present
supply sources on project completion scheduled for July 1, 1976.
2. Page 56- "Flow and Waste Reduction Measures"
(Par. #))
a. The Seal Rock Water District has been 100% metered for all
service connections since 1966. Monthly statements to each
user itemizes gallonage used plus total charge under rate
table of the districts "Rates, Rules and Regulations."
An additional item, not related to water services is comment under "Traffic"
Par. #2-page 116:
a. Having been appointed and served on an "Advisory Committee"
one month ago to make recommendations for a Highway 101
improvements project under provisions of the "Oregon Action
Plan for Transportation Planning1' pursuant to the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1970 (Section 109(h), Title 23, U.S.C.,
it is my opinion that the conclusion" that there are no plans
to increase the highway capacity" is a misleading one!
187
-------
Page 2.
It is suggested that the final draft of referenced subject be corrected to
accurately reflect the above noted inaccuracies.
Sincerely yours,
- >U<7
Heinz-U^yman, Executive Secretary
cc Bay to Bay Sanitary District
File
188
-------
SEAL ROCK WATER DISTRICT
P. O Box 83
SEAL ROCK, OREGON 97376
June 8, 19 7 £
RECEIVED
Kichard R. Thiel, P. E., Chief JUN 11 1976
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X EPA-FIS
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington, 98101
Re:-l-EIS ?> EPA-1.0-OR -Lincoln WWTS -76
-2-Area Growth Statistics table attached
Dear Mr Thiel:-
Referenced table, item#2, provides factual recorded data on growth in the
area contained within the Bay to Bay Sanitary District boundaries with conservative
estimates on projected growth through 1991.
The 49 miles of transmission and distribution lines provided to serve the
14 square mile water district has had a minimal effect on the character of fauna
& flora conditions in this coastal area that would not have been more adversely
effected through utilization of individual xvells and pump installations to serve
individual domestic, water users.
95% to 98% of sanitation service facilities will be pipeline buried at various
depths and not affecting the natural habitat except during a construction period
of relatively short duration.
Applicable county zoning ordinances and comprehensive development plans
preclude individual or commercial developments adversely affecting normal coastal
environment. In addition some substantial acreage of ocean frontage west of
Highway 101 has been pre-empted by the Oregon State Parks Division for public use
in the 5 state park and 5 lesser beach access and ocean view areas.
A careful analysis of referenced item #2 suggests that the area can support
the necessary share of local funding to provide "alternate #4" implementation
to ensure that ground water or beach pollution can be avoided under an EPA
assistance program now under consideration through referenced item #1.
The efficiency of sewage treatment facilities is directly related to water
quality services. As of July 1, 1976 the Seal Rock Water District, providing service
to the najor number of residents in the Bay to Bay Sanitary District boundaries,
will be providing water for all users that will meet EPA water service standards
now under consideration and presently incorporated ir State Health Division
regulations for "Class A" water systems.
The Seal Rock Water District has been classified as a "Class A" publi<~ water
system.
In consideration of the foregoing it is my recommendation that an EPA decision
should be forthcoming to fund the Bay to.Bay Sanitary District "alternative #4"
proposal.
cc:- Bay to Bay Sanitary District
Executive Secretary
189
-------
Actual & Projected Figures on Seal Rock Water District Growth
Tax base
Service connections occupancy factor Population TCV (in Millions)
Jan. 1, 1965 200 x 2.8 = 580 5.0
Jan. 1, 1976 700 x 2.8 = 2015 28.15
Increase Percentagp = 2607; 2507,
Annual Av, % = 23% 23%
The abo^e are actual figures with computed average growth
percentages over 11 years. If it is assumed thai, there will
br a conservative 10% growth in above categories for the next:
15 years In the 1,4 sq. mile water district, projected figures
follow:
1977 792 2217 30.98
1978 871 34.-%
1979 958 37.4?
1980 105-4 -M.21
1981 1.160 43.33
1982 1?76 -9.87
'933 J',83 4152 54.86
1934 1543 60.34
1985 1698 66.38
1985 1867 73.01
1937 2034 80.32
1988 2260 88.35
1989 248':. «7 . 1 8
1990 27? A 106,90
1991 100R 8422 117.59
190
-------
Response to Comments from Seal Rock Water District
May 3, 1976 letter
1. This information has been incorporated into the final
EIS — see page 29.
2. The final EIS was changed to reflect this information —
see page 60.
3. The information provided on page 118 as related to future
highway plans for Highway 101 was based on a review of
future projects by a planner of the Oregon Department of
Highways. We feel that the information as given properly
reflects future conditions.
June 8, 1976 letter
1. It has been recognized in the EIS that the actual construc-
tion of the interceptor system and collectors will be of
minor impact on flora and fauna in the service area. The
major impact on those biotic resources instead relates to
the future development of the district.
191
-------
RECEIVED
JUN 1 8 1976
I
BAY TO BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
Box 83, Seal Rock, Oregon
June 16, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E. Chief
Enviromental Impact Section, M/S 443
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: Draft EIS, BAY TO BAY Sanitary District
Dear Mr. Thiel:
The Bay to Bay Board of Govenors has recieved the draft
EIS and is satisfied that every effort was made to present
a good study.
The Board in its group opinion urges further consideration
of the following:
1. That the study did not delve deeply enough into the
potential failure of septic tanks installed before there was
an official state and county inspection system, nor the
failure of those systems installed under a very lax and
cursory inspection during the early formation of the state
and county standards. Also, further consideration of septic
tank failure resulting from the unsatisfactory soil conditions
existing throughout the district.
2. Of grave concern to the district is the older people
reaching retirement age who have already purchased lots
with the expectation of "building retirement homes theron.
They may "be unable to do so "because of changes in regulations
regarding septic tanks and minimum drain field areas.
Many lots in Lincoln County while large enough to meet
Planning and Zoning requirements are not large enough to
meet minimum drain field requirements. Almost all present
home owners will be unable to install a replacement drain
field in the event of a drain field failure in view of the
present stringent drain field requirements.
3- That the majority of present home owners within the
district are retired and have a generally fixed and rigid
income. This is of major concern to the district board and
the project engineer will be required to take this factor
into consideration in developing the financial plan.
192
-------
In view of the above there is a definite need for a
sanitary sewer system within the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District "because of the poor soil conditions, failing drain
field systems and permit denials.
After due consideration of the draft study the Board
of directors restates its position that Alternative Plan
Four as presently proposed is the "best and most economical
for the district.
Respectfully submitted
Bay to Bay Sanitary District
Govenors
rge
Chairman
Carter,
193
-------
Response to Comments from the Bay to Bay
Sanitary District
1. One of the responsibilities of a project sponsor is to
define the need for the project conclusively. Because
this type of information was not available for the
evaluation of the Bay to Bay District, it was necessary
to utilize whatever other data were available in the
time allotted.
2 It was recognized in the EIS that there was a major
problem with many lots of inadequate size for septic
tank and leachfield use (pages 30-31). To alleviate such
a problem it will be of utmost importance for the Lincoln
County Planning Department, Sanitary Department, LCDC
and DEQ to coordinate lot size needs to satisfy county and
state planning while meeting the needs for sewage disposal
by use of septic tanks and drainfields.
3. The question of how the financial burden will be distrib-
uted over the district landowners and homeowners will be
the responsibility of the Bay to Bay District and the
project engineer.
194
-------
1095-00
ROBERT E. MEYER ENGINEERS, INC.
Consulting Engineers, Planners and Surveyors
14250 S.W. ALLEN BLVD. • BEAVERTON, ORE. 97005
AREA CODE (503) 643-7531
June 17, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section M/S443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Bay to Bay Sanitary District
Dear Mr. Thiel:
The following are the comments we wish to make concerning
the Draft E.I.S. for the Bay to Bay Sanitary District.
General Statement - On the whole, the E.I.S. prepared on
the Bay to Bay Sanitary District presented an adequate view of the
situation in the District. The consultant should be complemented
for his effort.
RECEIVED
JUN 21 1976
I
1
Summary
A. Page vii - Alternative 7 will have long term impacts
in that energy use (fuel oil) will be of the same magnitude
as for the other construction alternatives .
B. Page x - The correct name of our firm is Robert E.
Meyer Engineers, Inc., not as listed.
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Facilities
A. Pages 55-56 - It is recommended in two separate
paragraphs that the District prohibit connection of roof
drains to the sewer. This is a moot point since the Oregon
State Department of Environmental Quality already prohibits
the connection of roof drains to a sanitary sewer.
195
CIVIL • SANITARY • MUNICIPAL • PLANNING • INVESTIGATIONS
REPORTS. CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION > MAPPING-SURVEYING
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 2
June 17, 1976
B. Page 61 - The statement is made that the District
Engineer has recommended that one Local Improvement
District (LID), encompassing the entire District be formed
to finance the collection system. At this time, we have made
no such recommendation. Obviously, our recommendation
would have to reflect the most appropriate financing method
for the alternative selected.
C. Pages 65-66 - The discussion of the "No Action
Alternative" fails to address the cost of repairing failing septic
tank and drainfield systems. Vertical seepage pits are recom-
mended for areas where no beneficial use of groundwater is
anticipated at present. The Department of Environmental Quality
is charged with protection of the groundwater and could not permit
its degradation even if no use is envisioned.
D. Pages 80-81 - Alternative 7 - District Septic Tank Main-
tenance. How would septic tanks be inspected? What criteria
would be used to determine when a tank is to be pumped. No
mention is made of costs to maintain drainfields (if they can be
maintained in working order) ? How and under what circumstances
would new systems be allowed where they are presently denied?
Since no estimate of the extent of the problem with septic tank
maintenance versus problems associated with soil conditions
has been made, it is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness
of this alternative.
More equipment would be required if a substantial number of
holding tanks were constructed.
This alternative is not presented so as to be comparable to
other alternatives .
Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives
A. Page 96 - Table 16 - Urban and Non-Urban Runoff Emission
Rates . This table may represent a reasonable estimate of the
pollutant discharge from storm runoff in California, but it is
extremely doubtful that it is applicable to the Oregon Coast.
The quantity of pollutants is estimated, based on a report by
Sartor and Boyd entitled Water Pollution Aspects of Street
Surface Contaminants in which the authors indicate that the
196
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 3
June 17, 1976
production of contaminants and the strength of the discharge
vary widely depending on a number of parameters. Some of
these are total rainfall, time between periods of rainfall,
rainfall intensity, traffic volume, land use and density of
development. It is doubtful that this use of the data in that
report would represent a valid estimate of the contaminant
loads or strength of the runoff in the Bay to Bay Sanitary
District.
B. Pages 109-110 - Energy. It should be noted that when
the 200,000 gallons of fuel oil is connected to KWH's of
energy, that the total energy use of Alternative 7 is about
11,000,000 KWH.
C. Pages 119-121 - The statements relative to the recom-
mendations of the District's Engineer are in error. At this
time, no recommendations have been made relative to connec-
tion costs, inspection costs or sewer service charges. These
costs will not be determined until alternatives have been
selected for more detailed analysis.
D. Pages 119-123 - The E.I.S. discusses the cost of a
sewer system to the homeowner and the financial impact on
the average homeowner in the District.
The costs of extensive septic tank and drainfield repair which
many homeowners face or will face within the next 20 years
should be considered.
The possibility of a homeowner or homeowners being required
to vacate their homes because of the existence of a health
hazard and the costs associated with this should be considered,
4. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
A. Page 131 - Last Sentence. This appears to be the sub-
jective judgement of the author and his basis for the statement
is unclear.
197
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 4
June 17, 1976
If you have any questions about these comments, please feel
free to call.
Respectfully submitted, A
,V I ,'
Paul F. Ehinger, Jr., P.E.
Project Engineer
PFE:vb
cc: Bay to Bay Sanitary District
198
-------
Response to Comments from Robert E. Meyer
Engineer s, Inc.
1. Changes were made according to suggestions — see pages VII
and X.
2. A. Comment noted and changes made — see pages 59 and 60.
B. Change made — see page 65.
C. The EIS does not recommend the use of vertical seepage
pits, but rather that such use be explored in areas
where groundwater is not used as a potable water supply.
It may be that DEQ could reevaluate the feasibility of
using such a disposal method.
The costs of repairing septic tank and drainfield
systems should be analyzed in the final facilities plan.
D. This alternative will be covered in greater depth at
such time as it is determined that a project is needed
in the Bay to Bay District.
3. A. Changes regarding this table and text have been made —
see page 99.
B. Based on our calculations for converting fuel oil
equivalents to BTUs and Kwh, the total Kwh energy
requirement for Alternative 7 is 12,735,118 Kwh @
42 gallons per barrel and with a BTU conversion of
6.3 x 106.
C. Changes in this section were made accordingly —
see pages 124-126.
D. A more in-depth analysis of the financial effects will
be covered at such time as it is determined that a
project is needed in the Bay to Bay District.
4. This last sentence is based on the following conclusions:
Allowable minimum lot sizes have not been coordinated
with the needs for proper sewage disposal using septic
tanks and leachfields. While lot sizes are adequate
for housing needs, sufficient area has not been pro-
vided to support septic systems plus replacement area.
199
-------
Many road systems have been developed with no fore-
thought to maintenance or responsibility, resulting in
rutted and sometimes impassable roads to houses and
lots.
Areas have been subdivided in the past with little
thought of natural constraints such as high ground-
water (in some cases standing water), steep slopes or
some other restriction prohibiting home construction.
For all intents and purposes, the entire district is
zoned for residential or commercial use (except for
737 acres of state parks plus 120 acres of U. S. Forest
Service land). It is unlikely that all remaining land
is suitable for residential use.
These problems in concert with others could create a
situation where population growth would have a particu-
larly adverse effect on the area.
200
-------
s \ Jvx ^f- ?x ^
^ > x \ ^x ix ^y >^ "^
^ ^ NX ^
v' ^
h
-------
202
-------
Response to Comments from L. H. Klahn
1. Time has not allowed for a detailed evaluation of public
vs. private land ownership within the Bay to Bay District;
however, the following estimates have been made based on
county assessment maps:
Total district acreage - 9,440 acres
Oregon state parks - 737 acres
Lincoln County - 43 acres
City of Newport - 560 acres
U. S. Forest Service - 120 acres
U. S., state, county
highways and rights-
of-way - Unknown
2. The proportional share of private vs. governmental costs
of the project is unknown at this time as the financial
plan has not yet been prepared. There will likely be a
need for an agreement between the sanitary district and
the governmental agencies using the sewer service (i.e.,
state parks).
203
-------
PROPERTIES
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
6535 Seaview Avenue N W
Seattle, Washington 98107
(206) SUnset 4-9393
June 15, 1976
RECEIVED
JUN 16 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, K/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1?00 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Sir-
As the original developers of Makai Properties located eight miles south of
Newport, Oregon in the Bay-To-Bay Sanitary District, we strongly recommend
the adoption of Alternative #4 in the Environmental Impact Statement Draft
EPA-10-OR-LINCOLN-WWTS-76.
We sincerely believe that this would be the most equitable proposal to all
of the property owners in this area as well as eliminate the real as well
as the potential polution hazards which presently exist in the entire Bay-
To-Bay area. After all, the tax dollars which are in question subject to
your approval in funding does in part belong to the property owners in this
area and by withholding these funds you are exposing these people to the
health hazards resulting from the failure of old-fashioned temporary or
inadequate sewage disposal systems. This exposure would also apply to the
many hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit this area and the ocean
beaches within these fourteen miles.
Makai as a specific existing development is composed of approximately one
hundred and fifty building sites which are presently approved for septic
tank installations that would not conform with the new existing septic tank
regulations. Makai is adjacent to the ocean on the West, Ona State Park and
Beaver Creek on the South and has a tributary stream running along the North
side of the 150 lots. Therefore, if the sewer line is not approved or if
Makai is not included in the Seal Rock cluster at least, you are, it would
appear to us, to be defeating your own goal and purpose of achieving the
highest environmental standards possible in this area for the public.
As the number of lots (150) on which many new homes are presently being built
or proposed to be in the near future on Makai, is approximately the same size
204
(pronounced Ma-KI — rhymes with "sky") is Hawaiian tor "Towards the Sea'
-------
Page Two
Richard R. Thiel, Environmental
as Seal Rock Community, plus the heavy public use of Ona State Park plus the
smaller but populated development of Wandamere on the North boundry of Makai;
it would seem logical that this particular area be included in the Seal Rock
cluster or even be a cluster area of it's own if the cluster system is the
final recommendation of the EPA instead of the Alternative #4.
It also does not seem to be a feasible argument as regards to the increase
tax load on the present retirees of fixed income in this area as we all know
the tax base would be broadened substantially with the increased growth al-
ready allowable in this area.
Yours very truly,
MAKAI PROPERTIES
. McMillan
Partner
DAM.-aj
205
-------
Response to Comments from Donald McMillan,
Makai Development
The presence of a potential or existing health hazard in
the Bay to Bay area has not been conclusive. Septic
systems, properly constructed, are neither temporary nor
old fashioned. The use of such systems in the Bay to Bay
area cannot be discounted as viable, realistic means of
disposing of sewage.
206
-------
1OOO FRIENDS OF OREGON
ADVISORY BOARD
Tom McCall, Chairman
Salem
Eric W. Allen, Jr.
Medford
Ray A. Atkeson
Portland
Martin H. Buchanan
Milton-Freewater
Elizabeth C. Ducey
Portland
J. W. Forrester, Jr.
Astoria
John D. Gray
Portland
Glenn L. Jackson
Medford
Hector Macpherson
Albany
Pat Straub
Salem
Thomas Vaughan
Portland
Mrs. Robert C. Warren
Portland
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Wade Newbegin, Jr., President
Clackamas
Allen Bateman, Vice President
Klamath Falls
Elizabeth K. Johnson Secretary
Redmond
Joe D. Kershner, Treasurer
Portland
John E. Bryson
Portland
Claudia Burton
Salem
Steven H. Corey
Pendleton
John E. Frohnmayer
Portland
Alfred A. Hampson
Portland
Peter McDonald
Wilsonville
George Thompson
Neskowin
Martin T. Winch
Bend
Henry R. Richmond, III
Director
June 22, 1S76
RECEIVED
JUN 24 1S7G
Richard P.. Thiel, P.F., Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency, Peqion X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Vashiriaton 98101
Pe: Lay to Bay Sanitarv District Draft I'nviron-
mental Impact Ctatement
Dear I'.r. Thiel:
1C00 Friends of Oregon submits the follow-
incr comments on the Bay to Bav Sanitary District
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
We find that the LKTS fails to justify an
$8 to $11 million dollar sewerage treatment and
disposal system. V.e. find, also that alternatives
1 throucrh 6 and alternative 8 violate statewide
planning goals and would induce strip develop-
ment alonq fourteen miles of the Oreqon Coast.
I.
- --_ _
$11 filLLIOn SEV7LRAGF TPEATIIENT AMD DISPOSAL
A' DPAFT FAILS TOJDOCCrEITT EXISTENCE OF
SEWFRAGE DISPOSAL' PPOELO'
Septic tank surveys along the coast in Lincoln
County indicate that the Bay to Bay Sanitary Dis-
trict is largely free of septic system failures.
A 1968 survey by the Lincoln County Health Depart-
ment found the area between Yarruina Bay and Alsea
Bay
"... essentially free from septic tank.
failures and having substantially less of
a sewage problem than in other portions
of Lincoln County.11 DEIS, p. 2
A 1972 survey hv the Oregon State Health
Division and Department of Environmental Quality
found only one failure. DI.IS, p. 2.
207
3709S.E. BELMONT PORTLAND, OREGON 97214 TELEPHONE: (503) 233-5408
-------
Mr. Thiel
June 22, 1976
Page two
There has been no documentation of groundwater contamina-
tion in the Sanitary District:
"The presence of a possible health hazard resulting
from failing septic systems or sewage flowing on
surface areas has not been well documented in the
Bay to Bay Sanitary District. Neither the 1968 nor
1972 beach survey reports depicted any major problem
areas from Yaquina Bay to Alsea Bay." DEIS, p. 30
None of the five state parks or campgrounds has experienced
septic system failures:
"Although all parhs and wayside areas having restroom
facilities receive a great deal of use, none have [sic]
had any problems with septic tanks or drain fields."
DEIS, p. 111.
Thus, during the past eight years, there has been only one
recorded septic system failure and no documentation of groundwater
contamination. If the DEIS accurately reflects conditions in the
sanitary district, there is no justification for an $8 to $11
million publicly funded sewerage system in a rural area.
B. POTENTIAL SEWERAGE PISPOSAL PPOLLENS MID FERFIT DEIfIMS
DO NOT JUSTIFY AM $8 TO "?11 MILLION DOLLAR SEWEFAPE
SYSTEF
The primary concern of the sanitary district seems to be
that Lincoln County continues to deny septic system permits to
small lots with high groundwater and impervious soils. DEIS, p. 30.
The "problem" is that high groundwater and impermeable soils impede
development to urban density.
Pecont data indicate that the septic system denial rate in
the Bay to Bay Sanitary District is only 19 percent, "significantly
less than the 47 percent averaged for all of coastal Lincoln County
because of soils and water table conditions.1 DJIS, p. 31.
However, it is not the proper objective of the Construction
nrants Program to overcome natural constraints on development and
subsidize strip development along the nation's coastal shorelines.
The purpose of the program is V> clean up the nation's waters.
If there is no health hazard, the federal government has no business
assuring private developers in the district that they can develop
lots in rural areas.
The real problem in the Bay to Bay Sanitary District is poor
planning. The 1972 survey indicated that septic system problems
which might arise in the future could be remedied on an individual
basis and avoided with larger lot sizes. DEIS, p. 30. As the
DEIS states:
208
-------
Mr. Thiel
June 22, 1976
Page three
". . .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." DEIS, p. 66
Since the 1972 survey, Lincoln County has taken no action
to increase minimum lot sizes in the area. Approximately 50
percent of the district remains in PI zoning, most of the rest
in F2, P3 and FA with minimum lot sizes ranging from 2,500
square feet to 6,000 square feet (with water and sewer).
The objective of Oregon's land use planning program is to
direct development away from valuable natural resources, toward
areas suitable for development at minimal nuMic service infra-
structure cost. A sewerage system whose primary objective is
to overcome natural constraints on urlran density development
in rural areas conflicts directly with the statewide planning
goals.
Proper planning can solve the Eay to Eay "problem" without
$8 to $11 million of federal and local funds. Most land in the
district is in parcels greater than 5 acres. 82 percent of the
total 9,350 acres is owned by 88 individuals. Increased mini-
mum lot sizes, merger of small, contiguously owned lots, va-
cation of older, undeveloped subdivisions and containment of
urban development within urban growth boundaries can remedy
district problems with minimum private economic cost.
II. A TREATMENT WORKS ALTERNATIVE WOULD VIOLATE THE STATEWIDE
PLANNING GOALS
Federal regulations require EPA to determine that a waste
treatment project complies with state law:
Before awarding initial grant assistance for any
project for a treatment works through a grant or
grant amendment, the Regional Administrator shall
determine that all of the applicable requirements
of 35.920-3 have been met and shall further deter-
mine
* * *
35.925-14: That the treatment works will comply
with all pertinent requirements of the Clean Air
Act and other applicable Federal, State and Local
environmental laws and regulations.l! 40 CFR 35.925
Also, ORS 197.180 requires the Oregon Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) to conform its planning responsibilities
and land use actions to the statewide planning goals. DEO. can-
not approve a grant or issue an NPDES permit for a system which
would violate the goals.
209
-------
Mr. Thiel
June 22, 1976
Page four
A. URBANIZATION GOAL
The statewide Urbanization Goal requires cities and counties
to establish urban growth boundaries around incorporated areas
to separate urban and urbanizable land from rural. Lands inside
the urban growth boundary are available over time for urban den-
sity development. Lands outside the urban growth boundary are
"rural lands:"
"Rural lands are those which are outside the urban
growth boundary and are:
(a) Non-urban agricultural, forest or open spaces
land or
(b) Other lands suitable for sparse settlement, small
farms, or acreage homesites with no or hardly any
public services, and which are not suitable, necessary
or intended for urban use." 660 Oregon Admin. Rules,
10-060
The Urbanization Goal limits urban development to areas
within urban growth boundaries. The Goal directs development
toward areas where public facilities and services are already
available or can be provided economically. Development on
rural lands must be "sparse settlement, small farms or acreage
homesites with no or hardly any public services * * *" Defini-
tions, 660 OAR 10-060.
Neither Newport nor Waldport (the two incorporated areas
in or near the sanitary district) has adopted an urban growth
boundary. The City of Newport is party to an agreement with
Lincoln County to establish an urban growth boundary and has
received a grant from the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) to establish an interim boundary by July, 1977.
The City of Waldport has not yet submitted its plan to LCDC for
review. Except for a small area at the northern extreme of the
sanitary district within the city limits cf'Newport, no part of
the district lies within an urlan growth boundary. Thus, land
in the district is "rural land."
As noted above, Iincoln County subarea plans and zoning
permit url.an density development throughout the sanitary district
(2,500 square feet to 6,000 square feet with water and sewer).
Septic tank limitations prevent development at this density.
Provision of sewer services will render all areas served devel-
opalle at urban density. The treatment works alternatives
would violate the Urbanization Goal by inducing urban develop-
ment in a rural area.
210
-------
rr. 'I hi el
June 22, 1976
Page five
That Lincoln County permits uri ar. development outside the
city lirr.i ts of L'ewport and Yacl ats in apparent violation of the
Urbanization Coal does not excuse EP?. from havinci to conform the
proposed treatment worbs to the statei ide planning goals.
40 CFP 35, 1925. Lincoln County is presently on an LCDC compliance
schedule which requires establishment of an interim urban grovth
boundary Ly July, 1977. Approval of a construction grant prior
to completion of tl at process <'"i 11 pre-empt and ncaato the process.
L- FU LLIC F AC I LIT J r.S7 !TD • r
The statewide Public Facilities and Cervices Coal reauires
counties to limit facilities and services in rural areas to the
'needs and requirements" of rural arear;. ruideline ?-2 under the
noal states:
'Pul.lic facilitie-s and services for rural areas
should lo provided at levels appropriate for rural
use onlv and should not support urban uses."
Cha pt er " C 6 0 C/ P 1 0- 0 C 0
Each of ti:e treatment worb s alternatives would support urban
user (five to seventeen housino units/acre) in rural areas outside
raldport and !!evport c.i t" lirits. If there is no documented
contaniindtior of groundwater in the sanitary district, and if
inadeauate septic systems can be upgraded and maintained, a sew-
erage system is not needed. A sewerace system v;hich exceeds the
'needs and reouirenentsl! of a rural area would violate the Public
Facilities and Services Coal.
C •
Inclusion within an urban growth boundary of an area unservecl
by urban facilities and services reflects a determination that the
area is needed to accommodate long-tern growth and that services
can be provided in an orderly and economic nanner . Lincoln County
can include or urbanize specific areas only after consideration
of seven factors set forth in the Urbanization f-oal. 660 O?-P
1C 06C. Plans to extend pul. lie services to a specific area must
be coordinated with the designation of urban arowth 1'oundaries.
Pul lie Facilities and fcrvices ronl , CCC O/R 10-OCC.
In this instance, that process 1 r. reversed. hxtension of
r-ev7er cervices would precede ratlrr tl r,n folloT-- a determination
that urban density residential clevelopnrnt in the sanitary district
i? appropriate and complies with str:tcvdde planning aoals.
Lrl anization -would follov the interceptor lines. Lincoln County's
cor-nrehenri ve plan '-ould r. imply ?cJ- nrv ledge that dcveloprent .
211
-------
Kr. Thiel
June 22, 1S7C
Page six
Tn -i report on LCDC Lincoln County's recruest for a planning
extension and grant, LCDC ' s representative made the following
observation about the Lay to Bay and Southwest Lincoln County
Sanitary District proposals :
"riven the nresent phase and tine frame for the
sewage f acj lities oroposed by the two sanitary
districts portioned alow-, the county's evalua-
tion of planning and its compliance schedule,
the poss ili lit} exists that a comrnitrat nt now
to any one-, alternative for revaar facility devel-
opment v i II mahe it extreme: ly difficult to develop
a coordinated comprehensive plan that ir balanced
ano fully considers all of the statewide planning
qoa •?'•;. /-.ccoidincrl" , the countv reeds to develop,
ac ie-ast on a ^rclLrinarv ] r>ri^ , a complete corn •
pre.jensi v/e plan, for the axca affected fcy the
-anitarv districts' prooo.-aJj:, that considers
all apnlica' Ir ^osls. 11 is T-j 1 1 also rcouire a
delay of less than a year .in t! o selection of
nn alternative -"or severac-e facility develcprent
until such a pr^liwinar" plan ir complete^d . ''
'[hr If';' nav not pern it the Coi rtruction Grants Prooran to
culvert C'regor. 's land ure plarjr.lng i^rograr (40 CTP 35.!?25). "1 e
"recor. \ epartnent of ] nvironrontal Ouality (TIC) cannot approve
a corrtructior. arr.r.t or isruc ar. ITT].0 disci c?rge permit for a
;~( ','erage system vh.icl violates the statewide planning goals.
orr 1S7.180.
Ihe ri'IF fails to deronstrate ? need for ar. ?H tr ^11 million
v.Ti^-tr treatment pystem. The DI If anticinate? a v-ater oualitv
rro) ler- vlijch T.?ould derive from a r'evelopnent densitj' nossihle
only if the treatrtent pystern ir, installed. The ohjective of the
?yrtem. appears to le to overcome' natural constraints on urhan
density residnetial cleve] opmert , not to prevent groundvater
contamination .
The PIT? proposed treatment T'Torhs alternatives which vould
support urban density development outside ur> an growth- boundaries
in violation of the Lrhanization and Put lie Facilities and fer-
vices Coals.
Thr proposed treatment v/orV r alternatives would subsidize
residential development along 14 miles of rural ^regon coast.
T ach of the proposed treatment nlterrvit i ves would undermine rreaon '
land use planning program anr would represent an aJ use of -Federal
spending "ower.
212
-------
Mr. Thiel
June 22, 1976
Page seven
Ve. urge EPA to reject all of the proposed treatment alterna-
tives or to delay further consideration of treatment alternatives
until Waldport and Newport, in cooperation with Lincoln County,
have adopted interim urban growth boundaries in accord with LCDC
Order of June 18, 1976.
Respectfully submitted,
Pichard P. Benner
Staff Attorney
RPBrmlr
cc : Southwest Lincoln County Sanitary District
Joseph Pichards, Chairman
Environmental Quality Commission
I..E. Day, Chairman
Land Conservation and Development Commission
Janet McLennan, Assistant to Governor Straub
for Matural Resources
Harold F. Brauner, Director
land Conservation & Development Commission
Loren Kramer, Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Senator Bob Packwood
Senator Nark C. hatfield
Representative Les AuCoin
James Webb, Planninq Director
Lincoln County
213
-------
Response to Comments from 1,000 Friends of Oregon
1. Please refer to the Preface of this final EIS, pages i-iii,
Because there appeared to be no demonstrated problems of
any major magnitude, the EPA has recommended no project at
this time in the Bay to Bay Sanitary District.
2. Please refer to comments from the Department of Land Con-
servation and Development regarding postponement. There
appears to be no violation of statewide goals, since any
county land use plans prepared prior to the LCDC adoption
of statewide planning goals "shall remain in effect until
revised under this act" ORS 197, Section 40.
214
-------
cr>
ro
co
n:
70
i —
c
r+
N
O
-a
"U
0
(/)
fD
in
X
<
*>.
%
•
3?
01
•
i-3
•
<
•
(-•
I
X
t
X
X
o->
ro
-o
cu
r+
7^
3
U3
O
-O
-a
o
(/)
fD
to
X
X
X
CT>
-P»
«*
CD -J.
^3
O
rn t-t-
on
fD
l/> fD
0 — '
3 to
0
3
O
T3
•a
o
to
fD
cn
X
X
X
CTl
-pi
12
Til —
-s o
fu £
3 fD
O — i
fD — '
(/>
O
C-i •
^
Co 3
3 fD
fD -S
-S C
c a.
Q.
o
•a
T3
o
t/>
fD
to
X
X
cr^
CO
^
-s
e=
s
-s
to
CD
fD
O
IQ
fD
O
3-
— j.
CL
O
•a
~a
o
10
fD
to
X
X
X
CT)
00
3
-s
C°
3
-s
to
70
c_.
CO
<<
Q.
fD
-s
CD
•o
T3
O
to
fD
V)
X
en
ro
CD
Alfred E. Johnson
M-. Edith Johnson
0
•o
•a
o
to
fD
(SI
X
'
sJ O
fD CU
0 r^-
Q- fD
T)
-s
O
3
—1 (75
O fD
3 3
ro n>
Q>
Table 27
General Letters Received Regarding
A Wastewater Treatment System
* -
Costs
Development
Alternatives
Water Quality
Recreation
Fisheries
Wildlife
Construction Impact!
Secondary Impacts
Archeoloqical
Historical Preserval
Population
Land Use Planning
Air Quality
Water Supply
Transoortation
Soils
Effluent
Septic Systems
Federal Policy
Aesthetics
Reserve Capacity
Energy
Sludge Disposal
Health & Sanitation
Geological Hazards
-------
St.-ir Kte. So. Box 4'"J
South B.ach, Oregon
97360
U.S. -inviroriental Protection
Region X
,io ittle, '.'ash.
9«1 1
Sir,
! 'e w-nt
in n st-'-
to
rot^-txto the uay to 3'-y .-,rnicary District cutting
e plant in this arcne
It if. too expensive i.or this ar; a. Sto.-;t t:ocle a e low incone.
earners and can not cet t'\is co:-t ox the installation. ,e have
been told the system will be ntaceO clov-m hi^ a\.;ay 101 and for us
who live back fron the hi..hway will have to pay for all the pines
that will <:;o in our area.- Yet, on our tax oiii wt> wa.ll DO pay-
ing j'or rhe oond issue and only those on the hi/.hway will be
retting the lines to their properties.
v/e h-ive i>een n laced in the Sanitary I)i-trict but v;e will not have
an immediate hook-up a" i-h,ey will on the highway, e h
$2.00 a nonth just rhe same.
I ho'»e you will take these thoughts in deciding to , rant tue
Sincerely yours ,
'
RECEIVED
Hfly g
EPA-FIS
Alfred h.. Johnson
M. Ertith Johnson
216
-------
Response to Comments from A. E. and M. E. Johnson
The main interceptor line for all of the facilities
alternatives (i.e., those alternatives having sewerage
systems — pipelines and treatment plants) will parallel
Highway 101; however, collector lines will extend from the
interceptor system to those areas having existing
residences. If your residence is presently on the Seal
Rock District water system, you will be eligible for sewer
service. The process of who will be receiving service
first has not yet been determined.
217
-------
P. 0. Box 52
Seal Rock, Oregon 97376
May 1, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E.
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
M/S 443
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101 Re:
Dear Sir:
EIS statement
Lincoln Co.,0r
Sanitary Dists
Due to hazards of high groundwater and flooding,
which we know will occur in this coastal area,
causing damage to lines and overloading of plants,
the most feasible alternatives seem to be #7 or
#0.
Also in no way should a sewerage plant be located
within two miles of any homes due to pollution of
air.
Costs, as well as environment, absolutely must be
taken into consideration. As fixed income people
who have invested their savings in a home here
(including $1,500 for an approved septic tank
system), which is not for resale, speculation,
or profit, we just cannot afford more taxes--
the line has to be held somewhere.
Sincerely,
,K
MrY 8 Mrs. J. V. Hull
RECEIVED
MAY 4 1976
218
-------
Response to Comments from Mr. and Mrs. J. V. Hull
1. It was recognized in the draft EIS (Table 25, page 132)
that the threat of geologic hazards will be minor. Project
facilities would be located and constructed in such a way
as to reduce any possible hazard.
2. Air pollution from a treatment facility will not be a
problem. Properly operated treatment plants do not give
off particularly offensive odors.
3. The project engineer and sanitary district must establish
an equitable approach to financing any treatment system.
219
-------
SUMMARIZATION OF GENERAL LETTERS
During the 45 day review period on the draft EIS, EPA received
seven letters from residents within the District voicing opinions
about the need for a wastewater treatment system. Because they neither
provide substantive comments on the draft EIS nor require a response
from EPA, the letters are not reproduced in this final document.
Each of the seven general letters submitted oppose all of the alter-
natives evaluated in the draft EIS which would provide sewer service
to the District.
Costs to the individual homeowner was the reason most often
cited by individuals opposed to a sewerage project. Many of these
individuals are elderly and are low income earners. It is felt
that the cost of a sewerage facility would create an extreme burden
on their financial situations.
Increased development as a result of a sewerage facility is
also a major concern. These individuals believe that the proposed
project is part of a land speculation scheme which will benefit
those individuals with real estate or development interests. In
addition, they believe a wastewater treatment project will have an
undesirable effect in terms of population growth and the resultant
change in the character of the area.
While these letters are not reproduced in this final statement,
they are on file and available for public review in EPA's Region X,
Seattle office.
220
-------
Date
Reed
6/3
1
1
•
Table 28
Public Hearing Testimony
Speakers
James Hull
Bill Graig
Sid Knox
[^Thomas Dokken
M
Robert Vaught
Oregon Hines Construction Company
& Lincoln Air of Oregon Ltd.
Carl V. Cooper, Sr.
Virg Comstock
Ray McDuffee
Jack Postle
Lincoln County Commission
John Dawley
General
Tone
Opposed
Opposed
Supports
Supports
Supports
Opposes
Supports
Supports
Supports
Opposed
to
4->
CO
0
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-C
CO
•r-
q-
'oJ
r—
C/0
to
O)
>
•r—
4->
ro
C
i.
o>
-fj
5
X
X
>>
4->
fO
^
cr
i-
O)
4->
n3
3
X
c
0
Recreat
X
to
QJ
Fisheri
%
a>
<+-
•i—
-o
s
1
ction Impacts
Constru
CO
4->
o
ro
CL
E
>>
Seconda
ra
u
en
O
Archeol
I
cal Preservatu
i.
o
4-J
CO
*l —
:r:
c:
0
4->
«
:D
Q.
O
Q.
e Planning
co
:D
•o
c
ro
— i
X
X
>-
4->
•r—
(Q
=3
O-
S_
•r-
<
»
>>
Q.
Q.
12
oo
S-
QJ
-P
fO
3
i
C
0
4->
m
4J
c
Transpo
to
o
CO
4->
C
OO'
U
+->
Q.
(1)
oo
X
X
X
X
X
X
>:
(J
o
Q.
Federal
CO
U
•r-
Aesthet
Capacity
Reserve
>J
5-
0)
e
UJ
ro
CO
O
a
co
Q
O)
CT
-o
c/i
c
0
4J
ro
4->
•r-
C
-------
;o rt- O!
n> 3- 3
o ro a
o
-s o 01
CL -h -S
• -H n>
.u*
O -J
_i. 3
EU O
C
-a Q
c a>
cr Q
-i. a>
n to
fr cu
ro
n> -a
-s a-
3' rl
U3
O
-+
inii ujr nine IUMII icuucrb III I avUr
of a wastewater treatment
facility was received by EPA
H T3
r C
J. O-
1- -J.
: o
3 n:
'• n>
5 01
> 2
h 3~
> ua
1
i
j
1-
Form Letters Received at
co rt- r
c o ro
0- rt
3 1— rt
-•. _i. ft)
rt-3 -s
rt- O
O -t
CL — • -s
3 O
^o3
o c-
c., c o
O> 3 <
O rt-
?*•<< -s
3
T3 0- 0
O 0> -5
CO rt-
rt- fD —
— i Q. O
rt> __ 3
^ O
CO O
•^ ft!
^-J — 1
ro — i
«•
Lawrence R. Fahl
Supports
X
*
Chris Bussard
Bussard Realty
Supports
X
23.2
ro
OJ
3
ro
OJ
Q.
Supports
X
CTl
CO
-n
o
3
"O 1 —
c ro
cr <-*•
— ' c+
-j. fD
O -5
CO
n:
ro co
a> c:
-s cr
-•• 3
3 -".
LQ rt-
r+
73 ro
ro a.
n
0 —1
~5 0
CL
O-i
CO
31
• ro
_j*
3
rsi
2:
ro
01
3
X
73 O
ro o>
O r+
CL ro
Speakers
i
— f CD
o ro
3 3
ro ro
OJ
-o
c:
cr
_j.
0 —|
Ol
:r cr
ro — •
01 ro
^ M
5 °°
ro
co
rt-
o
<<
Costs
Shellfish
Alternatives
Water Quality
Recreation
Fisheries
Wildlife
Construction Impacts
Secondary Impacts
Archeological
Historical Preservatic
Population
Land Use Planning
Air Quality
Water Supply
Transportation
Soils
Effluent
Septic Systems
Federal Policy
Aesthetics
Reserve Capacity
Energy
Sludge Disposal
Health & Sanitation
-------
PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
On June 3, 1976 the Environmental Protection Agency held a public
hearing on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bay to Bay
Sanitary District's proposed project. The hearing was conducted at
the Seal Rock Community Hall, Seal Rock, Oregon and was attended by approxi-
mately 80 people. Because of the length of the official hearing record
and the costs involved, we have not reproduced the document for this
final EIS. A table is provided, however, which lists the speakers and
the specific areas in which they were most concerned. The Public Hearing
Record is available for review at the Newport Public Library and EPA's
Region X Office, Seattle, Washington.
Many of the speakers in support of wastewater facilities in the
Bay to Bay Sanitary District addressed the restrictions on development
within the District due to soil conditions which are not conducive to
septic tank/drainfield systems. Many property owners within the District
plan on constructing single family dwelling retirement homes but have
been denied septic tank permits. Support for sewerage facilities was
also registered from individuals owning large parcels of land for
speculation and development purposes. These individuals believe that
increased development would lower individual costs for providing sewer-
age facilities due to the larger tax base. Knowledge of failing septic
tank and pollution problems was also a part of supporting testimony.
Jack Postle, Lincoln County Commissioner gave insight into Lincoln
County's planning and zoning procedures. Mr. Postle also expressed
concern over raw sewage running onto public beaches, and the possibility
of closing these beaches to the public if contamination occurs.
Opposition to sewerage facilities within the District was received
by individuals concerned over the costs and the ability of residents
to pay these costs. Many of these individuals have properly operating
septic tank/drainfield systems and see no need for sewers. Each of
the individuals who presented statements opposed to sewerage facilities
stated that they were on fixed incomes and that the costs associated
with constructing the facilities would create an economic burden on
their life styles.
In addition to oral testimony EPA received and included in the
public hearing record thirtynine form letters and three written
letters from individuals supporting sewerage facilities. Jack Postle
submitted a letter from Governor Tom McCall to the Lincoln County
Commissioners dated November 13, 1972. The content of this letter
i s di scussed on page i.
EPA wishes to thank each of the participants who attended the
public hearing for expressing their views and concerns. The hearing
record along with all other comments were considered by EPA in formu-
lating the recommendation stated in the Preface to this document.
223
-------
-------
IX. 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) shorelands 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.
• 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?
225
-------
An unresolved question relates to the designation of
urban growth boundaries in Central 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 Lincoln County area?
226
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Birds. 1975. The seventy-fifth Christmas bird
count, vol. 29, no. 2.
Battelle, 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.
227
-------
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. 4- attachments.
1975. Regulations relating to water quality control
in Oregon. Oregon Administrative Rules, chapter 340.
228
-------
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.
229
-------
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.
230
-------
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
ALERE, WILLIAM. Floodplain Management, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland, Oregon
BROOKHYSER, PAUL. Lincoln County Planning Department, Newport,
Oregon
CARTER, GEORGE. President, Bay to Bay Sanitation District
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
FORTUNE, JOHN. Oregon State Fish Commission, Newport, Oregon
CONOR, SUSAN.
HANKS, JOHN. Traffic Department Planner, Oregon State Highway
Division, Salem, Oregon
JACOBSON, LARRY. Oregon Parks and Recreation, Salem, 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
McMILLIAN, DON. Real Estate Developer, Makai Subdivision,
Seattle, Washington
MILLER, JOE. Chief pilot, Newport Airport, Newport, Oregon
MILLER, ROSS. Chief Appraiser, Lincoln County Assessors
Office
NEUBAUER, EUGENE. Assistant Superintendent, Lincoln County
School District
NEUMAN, HEINZ. Executive Secretary, Seal Rock Water District,
Seal Rock, Oregon
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
231
-------
SCHWAB, TOM. Planner, Oregon Department of Highways, Salem,
Oregon
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
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
232
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A — BIOTIC RESOURCES
A-l Common Vegetation of the Biotic Environment
A-2 Terrestrial Vertebrates of the Bay to Bay
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
233
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
BIOTIC RESOURCES
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A-l
COMMON VEGETATION OF THE TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
Common Name Scientific Name
Beach pine Pinus contorta
Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Sand strawberry Frageria chilensls'
Sand verbena Abronia latifolia
Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis
Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii
Rhododendron Rhododendron itiacrophylum
Cascara Rhamnus purshiana
Western red cedar Thuja plicata
Black huckleberry Vacciniuna ovatum
Salal Gaultheria shallon
Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa
Alder Alnus rubra
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis
Sand binders Poa macrantha
Festuca rubra
Source: Franklin and Dyrness, 1969.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A-2
TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES OP THE
BAY TO BAY 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_. paci'f icus
S_. vagrans
Scapanus townsendii
Myotis lucifugus
M. c a1i forn icu s
Mephitis mephitis
Spilogale putorius
Lepus americanus
Sylvilagus bachmani
Aplodontia rufa
Tamiasciurus douglasii
Castor canadensis
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 a.uritus
Phalacrocorax auritus
]?. penicillatus
Ardea herodias
Anas americana
Anas acuta
Aythya affinis
Melanitta perspicillata
Buteo jamaicensis
Circus ayaneu's
Haematopus bachmani
Aphriza virgata
Pluvialis squatarola
Arenaria melanocephala
Calidris minutilla
Q. alpTna
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 ENVIRONMENT
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 analoga
Nainere"is sp.
Nereis sp.
Hypomesus pretiosus
Amphistichus rhodoterus
Bays and Estuaries
Softshell clam
Piddock clam
Littleneck clam
Gaper clam
Cockle
cla.ro
Dungeness crab
Staghorn sculpin
Shiner perch
Starry flounder
Rock greenling
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Bay mussel
Ghost shrimp
Mud shrimp
Walleye surfperch
English sole
Surf smelt
Mya arenaria
Zxrfaea pilsbryi
Penitella penita
Venerupis staminea
Tresus capax
Clinocardium nuttallii
Cancer magister
Leptocottus armatus
Cymatogaster aggregata
Platichthys stellatus
Hexagrammos lagocephalus
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
O. kisutch
Mytilus edulis
Callian"assa californiensis
Upogebia pugettensis
Hyperpro sopon argenteum
Parophrys vetulus
Hypomesus pretios"us
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
-------
IOBERT W. STRAUB
GOVERNOR
APPENDIX A-5
DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE
NORTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE
ROUTE 5, BOX 325, CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330 PHONE 757-4186
February 24, 1976
Jonathan Ives
Jones & 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 SV1% 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 some general observations may be made, assuming
that 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 benefit wildlife—principally song birds and
small mammals--bycreating 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-8
-------
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,
/O
EL:ko
Enc.
Edward T. Long
Preservation Specialist/Archeologist
State Historic Preservation Office
B-3
-------
Department of
Anyirogplogy
APPENDIX B-2
Oregon
, .State .,_
University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331 (soaj 754-1515
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.
Sincen
rchard 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
STAMDARDSOFQUALITY FORPUBLIC
WATERS OF OREGON AND DISPOSAL
THEREIN OFSEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL
WASTES
fED. 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
086
449.080; 449.
[NOTE: Effective July 1, 1969, the Sani-
tary Authority was replaced by the Depart-'
ment of Environmental Quality, consisting
oi 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 wate r-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 ot" this division.
( t ) ' 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 ter.d
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, solio, 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 expectea
to create a public nuisance or rer.c-r
such waters harmful, detrimental or in-
jurious to public health, safety or welfare,
or to domestic, commercial , industrial,
agricultural, recreational or other \".-:.\^\-
rnate beneficial uses or to livest :. .-c,
wildlife, fish or other aquatic life or ir.f
habitat thereof.
( 5 ) "Waters of the state "include la)- 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 suri'ace 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 ocr-
anic, offshore waters outside of estuaries
or bays and within the territorial limits
of the state of Oregon.
(7) "Estuarine wate rs" means all rr.:x-
ed fresh and oceanic waters in estuurir?
or bays from the point of oceanic water
intrusion inland to a line connecting the
outermost points of the headlar.cb or
protective jetties.
( 8 ) "Standard" or "standards" mear.s
such measure of quality or puritv t'o r a.-.v
waters in relation to their reasonable a.-.d
C-2
-------
} ID
OKt.GON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
nt-cessary use as may be established by
the Sanitary Authority pursuant to ORS
«.r.-t;,t«-r 44V.
( V ) "r'ish and other aquatic life" means
dll 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
best practicable treatment and/or control
of wastes, activities and flows shall in
every case be provided so as to maintain
dissolved oxygen and overall 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
at the lowest possible levels.
41-015 RESTRICTIONS ON THE DIS-
CHARGE OF SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL
WASTES AND HUMAN ACTIVITIES
WHICH AFFECT WAT.ER QUALITY IN
THE WATERS OF THE STATE. NO wastes
shall be discharged and no activities shall
be conducted such that said wastes or
activities either alone or in combination
with other wastes or activities will violate
or can reasonably be expected to violate,
any of the general or special water quality
standards contained in this subdivision.
41-020 MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS
OF QUALITY. (1) The degree of waste
treatment required to restore and main-
tain the above standards of quality shall
be determined in each instance by the De-
partment of Environmental Quality and
bfiall be based upon the following:
(a) The uses which arc or may likely
be made of the receiving stream,
(b) The si^e and nature of flow of the
receiving stream.
(c) The quantity and quality of the sew-
age or wa^tfs. to be treated, anu
(c) The pr-jsence or absence of other
>ources of pollution on the s.irr,tf water-
shed.
(2) All sewage shall receive a minimum
of secondary treatment or equivalent
(equal to at least 85% removal of 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand and suspend-
ed solids) and shall be effectively disin-
fected before being discharged into any
public waters of the state.
(3) All industrial waste shall receive,
after maximum practicable inplant con-
trol, a minimum of. secondary treatment
or equivalent control (reduction of sus-
pended solids and organic material where
present in significant quantities, effective
disinfection where bacterial organisms of
public health are present, and control of
toxic or other deleterious substancesjbe-
fore being discharged into any public wa-
ters of the state.
Hist: Amended 5-24-71 by DEQ 28
41-022 IMPLEMENTATION OF TREAT
MENT REQUIREMENTS AND WATE
QUALITY STANDARDS. Waste treatrr.c.
and control requirements prescribed uii-
der 41-010, 41-015 and 41-020 and such
other waste treatment and controls as may
be necessary to insure compliance with tha
standards contained in this subdivision
shall be provided in accordance with
specific permit conditions for those sour-
ces or activities for which permits are
required and the following implementation
program:
(1) For new or expanded waste loads
or activities, fully approved treatment or
control facilities or both shall be provided
prior to discharge of any wastes from
the new or expanded facility or conduct
of the new or expanded activity.
(2) For existing waste loads or acti-
vities necessary treatment or control fa-
cilities or both shall be provided in ac-
cordance with a specific program ar-.d
timetable incorporated into the waste
discharge permit for the individual dis-
charger or activity. In developing treat-
ment requirements and implementation
schedules lor existing installations or Ac-
tivities, consideration shall be giver, to the
impact upon the overall envi ror.rr.e.-.t^l
quality including air, water, land use
aj-.-l aesthetics.
C-3
-------
1>KPAKTMLNT OF ENVIRONMENTAL UUAUTY
CM. 3-10
Hist: Filed 5-24-71 as DEQ 28
Amended 6-15-72 by DEQ 46
41-023 MIXING ZONES.(1) The Depa rt-
ment may suspend the applicability of all
or part of the water quality standards
set forth in this subdivision, except those
standards relating to aesthetic conditions,
witHir. a defined immediate mixing zone of
very limited size adjacent to or sur-
rounding the point ofwastewater discharge.
(2) The sole method of establishing
such a mixing zone shall be by the De-
partment defining same in a waste dis-
charge permit.
(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 wastewater discharge or the area
or volume of the receiving water or any
combination thereof,
(b) May set other less restrictive water
quality. standards to be applicable in the
mixing zone in lieu of the suspended
standards; and
(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; and
(B) not adversely affect any other bene-
ficial use disproportionately.
Hist: Filed 7-2-73 as DEQ 55
41-024 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 Water published joint -
Iv by the American Public Health Associ-
ation, Ame rican Water Works Association,
and Water Pollution Control Federation,
unless the Department has published an
applicable superseding method, in which
case testing shall b^ in accordance with
the siiporst-iiinL; mt'th^d; p rovided however
that testinr in accordance with an alter-
native method shall- comply with this
8-15-73
section if the Department has published
the method or has approved the method
in writing.
Hist: Filed 7-2-73 as DEQ 55
41-025 GENERAL WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS. The following Gene ral W ate r
Quality Standards shall apply to all waters
of the state except where they are clearly
superseded by Special Water Quality Stan-
dards applicable to specifically designated
•waters of the state. No wastes shall be
discharged and no activities shall be con-
ducted which either alone or in combination
w:*?1 other wastes or activities will cause
in aiy 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 moustry,
("7 ) Objectionable discoloration, tur-
bidity, scum, oily sleek or flo ^tir._; solids,
or coat the aquatic life with oil films.
(S) Bacterial pollution or other con-
ditions rifli-tf nou s- to waters UM-C: lor
dery.ebtic purposes, livestock \v ^te r::1..:,
irruption, bathing, or shellfish proparu-
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. increase 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.
Ill) Radioisotope 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 an external radiation hazard.
(12) The concentration of totaldissolved
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 PROTECTEDBYSPECIAL WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS. The Special Water
Quality Standards contained in this sub-
division are adopted for the purpose of
protecting, together with pertinent 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 Ouahty Standards contained inSec-
tion 41-025, except v,hert- this section
imposes a conflict nm requirement with
the prov>-,ion» of Section -41-025, this
sect id a shall govern. No wastes shall be
discharged and no activities shall be
conducted which either alone or in com-
bination wjth 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 to 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 net 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) (Main 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 usmi; a r< :>re-
sentative number of samples). Averace
concentrations of coliform bacteria to
8-15-73
C-5
-------
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) - - -80
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* 1* 1*
Chloride (mg/1) 250 250
Magnesium (mg/1) — 125 —
Manganese 0.05 0.05 0.01
Aluminum (mg/1) - 0.05
USPHS U. S. Public Health Service (standard)
OSBH Oregon State Board of Health (standard)
AWWA American Water Works Association (recommendation)
* Varies with temperature.
** Not 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 the 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 inititated) to 1997, an estimated
"full service" 1997 peak population of 8,734 was multipled by 140 gallons per
capita per day. This resulted in a required 1997 capacity of 1,223,000 gallons
per day, which was rounded off to 1,250,000 gallons per day. The "cluster
service" alternatives have a peak 1997 population of 7,804, or a required 1997
capacity of 1.10 MGD. Treatment capacities used in the cost calculations were:
Alternative 0 - No action, i.e., no facilities
Alternative 1 - Newport 0.35 MGD
Seal Rock 0.90 MGD
Alternative 2 - Newport 0.61 MGD
Seal Rock 0.64 MGD
Alternative 3 - Newport 0.35 MGD
Beaver Creek 0.40 MGD
Collins Creek 0.50 MGD
Alternative 4 - Seal Rock 1.25 MGD
D-2
-------
Alternative 5 - Newport 0.61 MGD
Waldport 0.49 MGD
Alternative 6 - Seal Rock 1.10 MGD
Alternative 7 - Aerobic digestion facilities only
Alternative 8 - Newport 0.61 MGD
Seal Rock 0.32 MGD
Waldport 0.17 MGD
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
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$ 2,803,200
$ 2,754,300
$ 450,000
$ 2,535,200
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$ 2,803,200
$ 2,754,300
$ 450,000
-$ 772,100
$ 5,235,400
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 50,500
$ 162,900
$ 220,300
SUBTOTAL
$ 573,300
$1,849,400
$ 121.600
$2,544,300
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$7,779,700
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
D-4
-------
20-YEAR COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$ 2,906,300
$ 2,737,000
$ 450,000
$ 2,580,300
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$ 2,906,300
$ 2,737,000
$ 450,000
-$ 785,800
$ 5,307,500
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Cost
Treatment Plant
$ 50,500
$ 168,300
$ 219,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 810,400
$1,910,700
$ 120,800
$2,841,900
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$8,149,400
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
D-5
-------
20-YEAR COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$ 2,803,200
$ 3,634,000
$ 900,000
$ 3,090,200
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$ 2,803,200
$ 3,634,000
$ 900,000
-$ 941,100
$ 6,396,100
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 50,500
$ 187,200
$ 290,700
SUBTOTAL
$ 573,300
$2,125,200
$ 160,400
$2,858,900
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$9,255,000
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
D-6
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$ 2,551,900
$ 1,920,500
$ 450,000
$ 2,096,900
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$ 2,551,900
$ 1,920,500
$ 450,000
-$ 638,600
$ 4,283,800
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 50,500
$ 103,500
$ 153,600
SUBTOTAL
$ 573,300
$1,175,000
$ 84.800
$1,833,100
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$6,116,900
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
D-7
-------
CAPITAL COSTS
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
COST OR VALUE
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Stations $ 2,838,100
Treatment Plant $ 2,662,000
Outfall $ 108,000
1997 Salvage Value $ 2,342,100
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$ 2,838,100
$ 2,662,000
$ 108,000
-$ 713,300
$ 4,884,800
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 45,500
$ 160,200
$ 213,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 516,600
$1,818,800
$ 117,500
$2,452,900
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$7,337,700
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8
D-8
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 6
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$ 2,551,900
$ 1,771,000
$ 450,000
$ 2,040,900
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$ 2,551,900
$ 1,771,000
$ 450,000
-$ 621.500
$ 4,151,400
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 45,400
$ 99,000
$ 141,700
SUBTOTAL
$ 515,400
$1,123,900
$ 78,200
$1,717,500
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$5,868,900
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8X
D-9
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 7
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
Outfall
COST OR VALUE
$ 450,000
$ 169,000
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$ 450,000
-$ 51.400
$ 398,600
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
Outfall
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 27,000
$ 36,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 306,500
$ 19,900
$ 326,400
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$ 725,000
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
D-10
-------
20-YEAR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE NO. 8
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial 1997 Costs
Interceptors & Pump Stations
.Treatment Plant
Outfall
1997 Salvage Value
COST OR VALUE
$ 2,363,200
$ 2,852,000
$ 558,000
•$ 2,452,500
SUBTOTAL
1977
PRESENT WORTH
FOR 20-YEAR PERIOD
$ 2,363,200
$ 2,852,000
$ 558,000
-$ 746,900
$ 5,026,300
ANNUAL COSTS
Average Cost/Year - 1977-1997
Interceptors & Pump Stations
Treatment Plant
1987 Replacement Costs
Treatment Plant
$ 41,000
$ 144,900
$ 228,200
SUBTOTAL
$ 465,500
$1,645,000
$ 125.900
$2,236,400
TOTAL 1977 PRESENT WORTH
$7,262,700
NOTE: Interest rate = 6-1/8%
D-ll
------- |