EPA-910/9-77-047
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
EPA-10/WA-Kitsap-Sinclair-WWTW-77
Water
September 1978
Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Sinclair Inlet
Wastewater Facilities Project
Kitsap County, Washington
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SINCLAIR INLET
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT
EPA PROJECT NO. C-530559
Prepared by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
SEPTEMBER 1978
Prepared with the Assistance of
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, California 947
Approved by
Date
onal Administrator
-------
PREFACE
On November 25, 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
a proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system for the
Sinclair Inlet area of Kitsap County, Washington. EPA's decision
to prepare an EIS on this proposed system was based upon potentially
significant environmental impacts which could occur as a result
of implementing the wastewater treatment strategy. Under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, EPA is
authorized to provide 75% of the funds necessary to plan, design
and construct municipal projects.
The Draft EIS, which evaluates the direct and indirect environ-
mental impacts of a number of feasible wastewater treatment alterna-
tives was submitted for a 45-day review period to Federal, State
and local agencies, as well as many interested citizens. In addi-
tion, EPA held a Public Hearing to receive oral testimony on the
Draft EIS on January 3, 1978. During the Draft EIS review period
EPA received a number of comment letters regarding the County's
proposed wastewater facilities. These letters and EPA's responses
are contained in Section VIII of this document. A summary of the
Public Hearing Record is also included.
As a result of our evaluation of the environmental impacts
associated with each of the alternatives contained in the Draft
EIS and the comments received during the review period, EPA has
determined that the most cost-effective and environmentally sound
alternative for correction of wastewater problems in the area is
Alternative No. 2 of the Sinclair Inlet Strategy. Alternative No.
2 would result in the discharge of treated wastewater from the
Charleston and Retsil sewage treatment plants to Sinclair Inlet
and the discharge of treated wastewater from the Manchester treat-
ment plant to Puget Sound. EPA believes that this strategy will
meet Class "A" water quality standards and that the Sinclair Inlet
flushing rate will provide adequate dilution volume for wastewater
discharge.
During preparation of the EIS a number of revisions were
made to the Facilities Plan, and they have been incorporated
into the Final EIS. Some of the revisions that may be of
interest are the upward revision of Year 2000 population pro-
jections (Section II, page 54); revised design flows due to
infiltration/inflow removal (Section III, pages 71-72), which
-------
are the result of the Bremerton Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Analysis requested by EPA (Appendix I); additional discussion
of impacts of sludge disposal on the county landfill, including
mitigation measures, and impacts to recreational areas (Section
IV).
EPA releases this Final EIS for a public review period
of 30 days and encourages comments on the EIS and EPA's
recommendation for Alternative No. 2. At the conclusion of
the 30-day review period, EPA will consider all comments received
prior to a final determination by the Regional Administrator on
award of construction grant funds to Kitsap County for final
design and implementation of the recommended alternative. We
would like to thank all of the agencies who have taken the time
to provide us with their comments.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY
Section
II
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Background
Present Status
Summary
Alternative Plans
Project Costs
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physiography
Geology
Stratigraphy
Structural and Tectonic
Activity
Geological Hazards
Mineral Resources
Soils
Climate
Precipitation, Humidity
and Evaporation
Temperature
Winds
Air Quality
Existing Conditions from Available
Inventory Data
Noise
Odors
Fresh Water Hydrology and Water Quality
Surface Water
Water Supply and Water Rights
Surface Water Quality
Groundwater
Terrestrial Environment
Biotic Communities
Rare and Endangered Species
Sensitive Ecological Areas
vii
viii
x
1
2
5
5
11
15
15
15
15
19
19
20
20
21
22
22
24
26
26
27
27
28
28
28
31
33
34
35
35
37
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
(II) Physical Marine Environment 37
Hydrography and Circulation 37
Marine Water Quality 39
Biological Marine Environment 41
Marine Habitats 42
Algal Production 42
Fisheries and Aquaculture 46
Archaeological, Historical and Other
Cultural Resources 48
Archaeological Resources 48
Historic Resources 48
Demography 50
Future Population Distribution 52
Future Land Use 55
Employment 57
Income 60
Business and Industry 60
Tax Base and Assessed Values 61
Land and Property Value 64
Bonded Debt 64
Kitsap County 65
City of Port Orchard 66
City of Bremerton 66
Utility Services 67
Gas 67
Electric Power 67
Storm Drain Systems 68
Transportation 68
Visual and Aesthetic Environment 69
Recreation Areas 70
III ALTERNATIVE PLANS 71
Design Flows and Quality 71
Infiltration and Inflow 72
Alternative Strategies 74
Discharge to Sinclair Inlet 75
Discharge to Port Orchard Bay 75
Discharge at Manchester 75
Nutrient Removal 75
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) 78
Land Treatment of Wastewater 78
No Action Strategy 79
Strategy Evaluation by the Facilities Plan 79
Alternative Plans-Sinclair Inlet
Discharge Strategy 81
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
(III) Site Descriptions for Proposed Facilities 89
Project Costs-Sinclair Inlet Discharge
Strategy 94
Revised Alternative 2 Project Costs 97
Interaction with Other Plans 99
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan 99
Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities
Plan 99
Kitsap Basin Water Pollution Control and
Abatement Plan 100
The Shoreline Management Act 100
IV ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 105
Short-Term Impacts
Long-Term Direct Impacts 105
Soils and Geology 105
Air Quality 111
Odors 111
Noise 113
Fresh Water Hydrology and Water Quality 113
Terrestrial Environment 117
Physical Marine Environment 118
Biological Marine Environment 124
Archaeological, Historical and Cultural
Resources 128
Socio-Cultural and Economic Effects 128
Long-Term Indirect Impacts 140
Soils and Geology 143
Water Resources 143
Terrestrial Environment 145
Marine Environment 146
Archaeological and Historical Resources 147
Air Quality 148
Noise 148
V ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 149
Alternative Plans 149
VI IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES 153
Irreversible and Irretrievable Energy and
Economic Resource Commitment 153
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
(VI)
VII
VIII
IX
Irreversible Destruction of Soil Profile
Irreversible Loss of Wildlife Habitat
Irreversible Water and Nutrient Resource Loss
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT AND RESPONSES
REFERENCES
154
154
155
157
161
249
APPENDICES
Appendix A WATER QUALITY REGULATION AND STANDARDS
Appendix B BIOLOGICAL TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
Appendix C MODELING OF WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Appendix D BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Appendix E ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL AND OTHER CULTURAL RESOURCES
Appendix F CITY AND COUNTY BUDGETS
Appendix G SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
Appendix H ALTERNATIVE 2A (ENETAI, RETSIL, MANCHESTER)
Appendix I BREMERTON COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW ANALYSIS
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Planning Area 3
2. Sinclair Inlet Discharge Transmission/Treatment
Alternatives 6
3. Elevation Provinces of Planning Area 16
4. Geologic Formations Within Study Area 17
5. Schematic Geological Structures in the Study Area 18
6. Mean Annual Precipitation Kitsap County (1946-1960) 23
7. Average Monthly Precipitation for the Ten Year Period
1965-1974, Bremerton Gaging Station 24
8. Percentage Frequency of Occurrence of Hourly Average
Surface Winds 25
9. Location of Principal Streams and Drainage Areas 29
10. General Vegetation and Land Use Distribution in Central
Portion of Study Area 36
11. Computed Algal Biomass Concentrations in Sinclair Inlet,
Dyes Inlet and Port Orchard 45
12. Aquacultural Resources 47
13. Developed Area 53
14. Projected Land Use Profile Map 56
15. Estimated Untreated Waste Loads 73
16. Alternative 2 83
17. Alternative 3 85
18. Alternative 4 87
19. Alternative 5 88
20. Kitsap County Shoreline Management Program 101
21. Percentage Exchange of Water in Sinclair Inlet/Lower
Port Orchard Bay with each Tidal Cycle 123
Vll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Project Costs - All Alternatives 13
2. Air Pollutant Emissions in Kitsap County (1975) 27
3. Drainage Areas and Low Flow Characteristics 30
4. Appropriated Water Rights Versus Low Flows in
Blackjack and Chico Creeks 31
5. Quarterly Monitoring of Coliform Levels 40
6. Marine Habitat Types Within the Study Area 43
7. Vertical Zones Within the Marine Environment 44
8. Average Marine Landings and Value Within The
Planning Area, 1972-1974 49
9. Population Growth, Kitsap County and Cities in
Study Area: 1910-1975 51
10. Sub-area Growth, 1960-1975 51
11. Total and Sewered Population Projections 54
12. Resident Labor Force and Employment: Kitsap
County Labor Market Area and State of
Washington 58
13. Resident Civilian Labor Force and Employment
in Kitsap County Fiscal Year Averages, 1973
and 1975 and Projected 1977 59
14. Sinclair Inlet Study Area, Major Employers 61
15. Number of Establishments, Number of Employees
and Annual Payroll, Kitsap County and State
of Washington, 1972 62
16. Kitsap County Assessed Valuation; New
Construction; and Historical Trend 63
17. Financing and Contractual Arrangements 65
18. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal, Strategies and
Alternatives 76
19. Major Marine Fauna and Usages in the Vicinity
of Proposed Wastewater Discharge Sites 92
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
20. Total Project Costs - All Alternatives 95
21. Kitsap County Jurisdiction Costs - All
Alternatives 96
22. Revised Project Costs - Alternative 2 98
23. Short-Term Impacts 106
24. Land Uses in the Vicinity of Treatment Plants
Affected by Potential Odors 112
25. Sites Expected to Experience Sludge Tank
Truck Traffic and Noise 112
26. Water Quality Standards and Estimated Diluted
Waste Concentrations 120
27. Percent of Time Site Provides 100:1 or More
Initial Dilution 120
28. Toxic Levels of Constituents on Marine Life 126
29. Property Tax Effects 131
30. Current Sewage Service Rates and Projected
Increases Associated with the Project 133
31. Total and Peak-Month Gas Consumption; Manette,
Charleston and Retsil Treatment Plants, 1976 134
32. Present Annual Consumption 135
33. Estimated Energy Consumption, Alternative 2,
Year 2000 136
34. Estimated Total Electric Power Demand
and Consumption 137
35. Estimated Energy Consumption, Alternatives 3-5,
Year 2000 138
36. Planning Area Population Growth and Land
Conversion 142
37. Environmental Summary of Adverse Impacts 150
38. Comments Received on Draft Environmental Impact
Statement 163
IX
-------
SUMMARY
SINCLAIR INLET SEWERAGE FACILITIES PLAN
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
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 system for the Sinclair Inlet Water Resource Inventory
Area (WRIA) No. 15 within Kitsap County, Washington. This Environmen-
tal Impact Statement identifies alternatives for providing wastewater
facilities designed to meet residential and industrial needs as well
as the maintenance of environmental quality. The study area covers
approximately 260 km2 [100 sq mi] and has a population of 69,300, the
majority of which is concentrated in the City of Bremerton.
Improvement of freshwater and marine water quality is a key issue
in the Sinclair Inlet study area. Many areas in Kitsap County have
experienced failures of septic tanks and drainfields due to hydraulic.
overloading, high groundwater levels and soils characteristic's which
are unsuitable for disposal purposes. This has led to bacteriologi-
cal contamination of surface streams, lakes and shallow groundwater
supplies in areas such as Wildcat Lake, Chico, Gorst and Blackjack
Creeks. The majority of the wastewater treatment plants experience
excessive infiltration and hydraulic overloading, which result in the
discharge of inadequately-treated sewage into the marine waters. Re-
current stream pollution and contributions from the primary treatment
plants have led to periodic bacteriological contamination of Sinclair
and Dyes Inlet, as well as algal stimulation from excess nutrients.
Sinclair Inlet is presently closed to commerical shellfish harvesting.
Facilities planning for the area began in 1975. Volume I - Plan-
ning Background was published in June 1976 and Volume II - Alterna-
tives was completed in September 1977. The analyses of this Environ-
ment Impact Statement will be based on these two documents.
-------
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental
Effects:
The type and magnitude of potential impacts vary according to the
alternative proposed. Alternative 1 represents the no-action situa-
tion while Alternatives 2 through 5 represent different combinations
of treatment and disposal locations. The impacts have been divided
into: short-term impacts (construction), long-term impacts (opera-
tional) and long-term indirect impacts (secondary effects).
(1) Short-term impacts associated with construction include re-
moval of groundcover, loss or transfer of soil resource, localized
soil erosion, disruption of wildlife patterns, aerial pollutants,
noise, visual impact, spoil disposal, traffic congestion, utility
service disruption, safety hazards and water quality impairments.
No short-term impacts will be associated with Alternative 1 (no-
action) .
(2) Long-term impacts associated with Alternative 1 include
continued ground and surface water contamination by sewage, degra-
dation of the marine environment due to the pollution of Sinclair
Inlet, restrictions on shellfish harvesting and effects on land use
and growth patterns.
Long-term impacts associated with Alternatives 2-5 include:
a. Protection of ground and surface water quality;
b. Incremental improvement of marine water quality in
Sinclair Inlet over a period of time as compared to
present conditions;
c. Long-term contribution of excess nutrients and trace
pollutants which may stress the marine environment;
d. Increased energy demand;
e. Effects on local land-use patterns and property values;
f. Minor effects on vegetation and wildlife;
g. Impacts on the visual and aesthetic environment; and
h. Loss of water (treated effluent) and fertilizer
(sludge) resource - unless arrangements are made for
local sludge application.
(3) Long-term indirect impacts include those changes resulting
from population growth accommodated by provision of sewer services,
such as future construction in the sub-basin leading to erosion and
subsequent stream pollution, loss of natural areas and wildlife habi-
tat, loss of scenic resources, energy, utilities and service demands,
and a long-term change in life style and quality of life,
5. Alternatives Considered:
Alternative 1 - No action alternative. This alternative would in-
volve the continuation of existing treatment plant operations as well
xi
-------
as the usage of individual septic tanks and drainfields. Associated
with this alternative would be the continuation of periodic septic
tank failures, as well as combined sewer overflows and hydraulic over-
loading of plants leading to pollution of Sinclair Inlet.
Alternative 2 - Charleston Regional/Retsil Regional/Manchester
facilities with ocean outfalls. Charleston regional plant handles
Manette and Charleston flows while Retsil regional handles Port Or-
chard and Retsil. Manchester is independent. Capital cost - $16,778,
000.
Alternative 3 - Charleston Regional/Manchester facilities with
ocean outfalls. Charleston facility handles Manette, Charleston, Port
Orchard and Retsil. Manchester is independent. Capital Cost -
$17,742,000.
Alternative 4 - Local treatment facilities with ocean outfalls.
Manette, Charleston, Retsil, Port Orchard and Manchester are all en-
larged. Capital cost - $17,769,000.
Alternative 5 - Charleston Regional/Manchester Regional facilities
with ocean outfalls. Charleston regional handles Manette and Charles-
ton while Manchester regional handles Port Orchard, Retsil and Man-
chester. Capital cost - $19,441,000.
6. The following state, federal and local agencies and interested
groups were invited to comment on the Environmental Impact Statement:
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Agriculture
U. S. Department of Defense
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Interior
U. S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Energy Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
XII
-------
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Warren G. Magnuson, U.S. Senate
Henry M. Jackson, U.S. Senate
STATE AGENCIES
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Department of Ecology
Department of Fisheries
Department of Game
Department of Social & Health Services
Parks and Recreation Commission
Washington State Highway Department
LOCAL AGENCIES
City of Bremerton
City of Port Orchard
Kitsap County Sewer District #1
Kitsap County Sewer District #3
Kitsap County Sewer District #5
Kitsap County Planning Department
South Kitsap Planning and Advisory Council
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
Bainbridge Island Planning Commission
Mason County
OTHER
National Wildlife Federation
Bainbridge Island Concerned Citizens
The Bay Area Neighborhood
Kitsap Lake Neighborhood
Manette Neighborhood
Sheridan Neighborhood
Smith Neighborhood
BACON
League of Women Voters
Sierra Club
CH2M Hill
Hood Canal Environmental Council
7. This Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available to
the public on October 13, 1978.
xiii
-------
\
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Existing wastewater treatment facilities within the Sinclair In-
let drainage area of Kitsap County, Washington are under consideration
for expansion to meet projected wastewater flows, and improvement to
meet the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (Public Law 92-500). Seven jurisdictional entities in Kitsap
County signed an interlocal agreement on 20 September 1974 for the
purpose of jointly preparing a sewerage facilities plan for the Sinclair
Inlet area. These entities are:
1) Kitsap County;
2) City of Bremerton;
3) City of Port Orchard;
4) Kitsap County Sewer District (KCSD) No. 1 -
Navy Yard City;
5) KCSD No. 3 - Manchester;
6) KCSD No. 5 - Retsil; and
7) Port of Bremerton.
Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton were authorized by the
remaining jurisdictions to apply for and receive funding to prepare
a facilities plan. A consultant was retained to prepare the Sinclair
Inlet Sewerage Facilities Plan of which Volume I - Planning Background,
was completed in June 1976 (Reference 1). Volume II - Alternatives, was
completed in June 1978 (Reference 2). Volume III - Sewer System Eval-
uation Survey was completed in January 1978.
EPA has determined that the proposed changes to the Sinclair In-
let wastewater treatment facilities will have significant environmen-
tal effects and has required the preparation of an Environmental Im-
pact Statement (EIS) concurrently with the preparation of the facili-
ties plan. This requirement is pursuant to Section 102(2) (c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, its amendments and the case
law ensuing therefrom.
EPA is preparing this Environmental Impact Statement as documen-
tation of: (1) the full consideration of possible courses of action
to meet and maintain federal and state water quality standards as re-
lated to the Sinclair Inlet planning area; (2) the analysis of en-
vironmental and quality-of-life impacts of the alternative wastewater
treatment systems; (3) EPA's decision-making process in determining
its course of action at Sinclair Inlet; and (4) the involvement of
-------
other agencies and the citizenry in this process. The final EIS will
serve as a statement of EPA's course of action on the Sinclair Inlet
Sewerage Facilities Plan.
PRESENT STATUS
The planning area of the facilities plan encompasses the natural
drainage basins tributary to Sinclair Inlet in Kitsap County. The
planning area boundary, as shown in Figure 1, includes sub-basins 11,
23, 24, 26 and 27 of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) No. 15. The
Kitsap County Airport (Port of Bremerton) and its associated develop-
ment is also included in the planning area.
The population of Kitsap County has been growing at a rate greater
than the State of Washington as a whole. The construction of the Tri-
dent Submarine Support Site and the expansion of the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard have attracted substantial new development to central Kitsap
County. Many new housing developments are on temporary septic facili-
ties awaiting connection to a regional facility. In some areas, the
increased number of septic systems from new homes has led to the con-
tamination of groundwater. The immediate need for sewerage service
and treatment facilities is so pressing that a new regional treatment
plant, as recommended by the Central Kitsap Wastewater Facilities Plan
(Reference 3), will be constructed in the near future north of Browns-
ville. Thus the Sinclair Inlet facilities plan will not serve the
bulk of the Trident-related growth but, nevertheless, will experience
increased growth effects. On the basis of local estimates, the plan-
ning area had a population of 70,500 in 1975. Population estimates
for the year 2000, as revised in June 1978 (Reference 2) project
102,000 persons within the planning area. These population estimates
were used in the development of future wastewater flows and waste-
loads for the facilities plan.
The Sinclair Inlet planning area is presently served by six waste-
water treatment plants as shown in Figure 1. Bremerton provides sew-
age services to KCSD No. 1 and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Bre-
merton operates two primary treatment plants at Manette and Charles-
ton. The Manette plant currently handles 0.11 m /s [2.6 mgd] which
is discharged to Port Washington Narrows, while the Charleston plant
treats 0.14 m3/s [3.1 mgd] and discharges to the northern portion
of Sinclair Inlet. The City also operates numerous pumping stations,
some of which overflow raw sewage to marine waters during wet weather.
Port Orchard and KCSD No. 5 operate small primary treatment plants
with outfalls to the southern portion of Sinclair Inlet. Flows in
1975 were 0.019 and 0.020 m3/s [0.44 and 0.45 mgd] respectively, for
the two plants. KCSD No. 3 operates a small primary treatment plant
with an average flow in 1975 of 0.001 m3/d [31,000 gal/day] discharging
-------
-------
to Puget Sound. The Manchester Naval Fuel Depot has plans to dis-
charge its ship waste to the KCSD No. 3 system in the near future.
The Port of Bremerton operates a small secondary treatment facility
handling a daily maximum of 0.0004 m3/day [10,000 gal/day], which is
discharged to a nearby drainfield. This is the only facility which
does not have a marine discharge. It is not planned to connect this
facility to a regional treatment plant in the near future, and there-
fore, it is not considered further in the facilities plan impact as-
sessment.
The primary wastewater treatment plants within the planning area
all experience problems with liquid-handling processes due to hydrau-
lic overflows caused by excessive infiltration and inflow during wet
weather. As developed under P.L. 92-500, the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for each facility require
future secondary treatment levels. Upgrading of these facilities is
necessary in order 'to keep pace with growth in the area and to restore
and maintain a high-quality marine environment in Sinclair Inlet. The
treatment plant effluents historically have been a source of marine
pollution to Sinclair Inlet. High biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
suspended solids and dissolved nutrients have produced a long-term
stress upon the marine environment. Effects upon the marine system
include loss of sensitive fish and invertebrate species from the area
and selection for low-diversity ecosystems with pollutant-tolerant
species.
Another major consideration for marine water quality is the ef-
fects of nonpoint source pollutants. The planning area has experienced
numerous failures of septic tanks due to hydraulic overloading, high
groundwater levels and soil characteristics which are unsuitable for
disposal purposes. Other areas of concern within the county are the
bacteriological contamination of freshwater streams, lakes and water
supplies, as well as of marine waters, in the planning area. The fa-
cilities plan identifies the following reported problem areas: Wild-
cat Lake, lower Sinclair Inlet at Gorst, the Manette peninsula facing
Port Orchard, Beach Drive between Retsil and Point Glover, Beach Drive
between Manchester and Colchester, Rocky Point, Chico and portions of
Tracyton. High fecal coliform bacteria counts, an indicator of bac-
teriological contamination, are largely attributed to septic tank fail-
ures, sewer overflows and treatment plant upsets. All of the major
creeks such as Chico, Gorst and Blackjack Creeks, along with the larger
lakes, have exceeded state coliform standards. Recurrent stream pol-
lution and contributions from surface runoff have led to the periodic
bacteriological contamination of the nearshore waters of Sinclair In-
let. The inlet is presently closed to commercial shellfish harvesting.
-------
SUMMARY
Five alternative plans were evaluated. All plans are based on
the discharge of wastewater treatment plant effluents to Sinclair In-
let. This summary contains a brief description of each alternative
and addresses the major issues of the project. These issues have been
identified as: the effects on marine water quality from wastewater ef-
fluent discharged into Sinclair Inlet; construction disturbances along
the lower Sinclair Inlet shoreline; population growth permitted by ex-
pansion of sewerage service and treatment plant capacity; economic im-
pact on the community from facility construction, operation and mainte-
nance costs; and the expected benefits from implementation of a waste-
water management system. Alternative plan number 1 is designated as
the "no action" alternative. Alternative plan numbers 2 through 5 are
correlated with those developed in Volume II, Chapter II of the facili-
ties plan. The alternative treatment plant locations, pipeline routes
and outfall sites are shown in Figure 2. Wastewater flows include cost-
effective infiltration and inflow removal as recommended by the facili-
ties planner.
Alternative Plans
Alternative Plan No. 1 (No Action)
Under the no-action alternative, the five existing primary treat-
ment facilities and marine outfalls as described in the preceding
"Present Status" section would be retained. As each facility is pre-
sently at or above its handling capacity, future connections to the
sewer system and expansion of the service area would be greatly limi-
ted. Installation of septic tanks and leach fields for new structures
would be evaluated on an individual basis by the County Health Depart-
ment. Associated with this alternative would be the continuation of
periodic septic system failures and pollution of shallow groundwater
aquifers.
Marine water quality in the Sinclair Inlet planning area would
continue to be affected by the discharge of wastewater effluent high
in coliform bacteria, organic material, suspended solids, dissolved
nutrients and, at times, residual chlorine. Areas where water qua-
lity and the marine environment will be affected include the shallow
waters of Sinclair Inlet near Gorst, Port Orchard, Retsil and to some
extent, Dyes Inlet. Long-term pollution effects on the marine en-
vironment are reductions in the population of sensitive fish and in-
vertebrate species, overstimulation of nuisance species (i.e. algae),
contamination of shellfish resources, public health hazards and de-
terioration of aesthetic qualities. Continuance of the present dis-
charge system would also be contrary to the goals of P.L. 92-500 and
in direct violation of the NPDES discharge conditions.
-------
^m £i!is
j REVERSE FLOW IN f. '. '. '. '. . . \ . . '. • . . ./
' FYISTINR PIPFC • , v/y''
REPLACE EXISTING"
PUMP STATION N0.4 ' '
REPLACE KCSD N0.3 PRIMARY ST.R : : :
W/ANEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
UPGRADE a EXPAND
CHARLESTON S.T.R
//; . 7?>»«i ,'f ^9g Ntw
/;::::::..::::::: •.•j^.^-f C ^ • -•' -
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD STP
W/NEW PUMP STATION
ALTERNATIVE 2
^^;;;;;;; ;;;
: ::
REPLACE MANETTE S.T.P
W/NEW PUMP STATION
KCSD NO 3 PRIMARY S.T P.
W/A NEW SECONDARY STP
24" PRESSURE LINE : •;:::::
20,000' TOTAL
UPGRADE a EXPAND
CHARLESTON PLANT
TO SECONDARY S.T.P.
SUBMERGED PIPELINE
3,500'
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD ST.P
W/NEW PUMP STATION
18 PRESSURE LINE
11,000' TOTAL
LEGEND
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMP STATION
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
....... EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
. i» NEW OUTFALL
......> EXISTING OUTFALL
-------
^::\ /:;;i;V\
r Ci V /• '^*-X. • • \
• EXPAND 8 UPGRADE,
MANETTE S.T.R
REPLACE KCSD N0.3 PRIMARY S.T.R
SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
EXPAND a UPGRADE-
CHARLESTON ST.R
\ t-7.:*.::::::;/ X. y:::: .V::: ::v
^^;;^ii;^--T(?--^:::
.
/^'W/ANEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
j N r. -i £ 3 7 E -i ("1 / ) ; ; ' ' . ' ;*; ;
•
,» - *,^ife^'" / v
REPLACE KCSD NO 5 PRIMARY *»\
S.T.P. W/A NEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED \
.-.REPLACE PORT ORCHARD PRIMARY SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
.•<•' ST.R W/A NEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED r
?r. '. . SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT / 3.,^ ^
ALTERNATIVE 4 \:::i:::::::::
;:::-') ?/ j:::::N 71 ^-f-v
/••REPLACE MANETTE ST.P^ ^ ~ • r- - '
::W/NEW PUMP STATION' *. • .REVERSE FLOW IN >
•••;•••?; I • • • .1 , X ••. EXISTING PIPES
\ - . . >
\ ~y:--s u
ji/^
^1 ~**~^"*-+
f*~ ^..'t ! ' x T ^^ 20,000' TOTAL
REPLACE EXISTING j- ! : '. '.
PUMP STATION N04-/;"""
MANCHESTER STP • • % ;
*I8" PRESSURE LINE
12,500' TOTAL
UPGRADE a EXPAND
CHARLESTON STP
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD STP.
W/ NEW PUMP STATION
REPLACE KCSD NO 5 STP
-i W/ NEW PUMP STATION
\ /;•:-••
ALTERNATIVE 5
FIGURE 2
SINCLAIR INLET DISCHARGE
TRANSMISSION / TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
-------
Alternative Plan No. 2 (Charleston Regional/Retsil Regional/Manchester)
Wastewaters from Bremerton and portions of Dyes Inlet and Kit-
sap Lake would be collected and treated at an expanded and upgraded
secondary treatment facility at the Charleston site. The facility
would be designed using an activated biological filter (ABF) to serve
a population of 55,300 with an average flow of 0.34 m3/s [7-6 mgd].
Treated effluent will be discharged to Sinclair Inlet through the ex-
isting Charleston outfall. The Manette facility will be demolished and
flows pumped to the Charleston facility. Port Orchard wastewater will
be pumped to Retsil where a new secondary treatment facility using an
ABF system will be constructed. The facility will serve 20,200 persons
with an average flow of 0.09 m3/s [2.2 mgd]. Treated effluent will
be discharged to Sinclair Inlet near Retsil. The Manchester facility
will be upgraded to secondary treatment with RBS, serving 3,500 per-
sons with an average flow of 0.02 m3/s [0.4 mgd].
The major impetus for population growth in the area and associ-
ated demands upon utilities and municipal services is related to ex-
pansion of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and to a certain extent de-
velopment of the Trident Support Site. The northern portion of the
planning area has already experienced substantial uncontrolled growth
which is not served by centralized wastewater treatment facilities.
Expanded and improved sewerage facilities will therefore serve exist-
ing new development as well as anticipated growth. In the less dense-
ly populated southern and eastern portions of the planning area, ex-
panded sewerage and treatment facilities would have a tendency to
direct future growth toward sewered areas. This would facilitate
County efforts to control the location of future development. This
impact is identical for all subsequent alternative plans and will not
be addressed again.
Placement of a proposed pipeline route along roads and establish-
ed rights-of-way between Manette and Charleston will have significant
short-term impacts on traffic, aesthetics and utility services. On
the south shore of Sinclair Inlet, pipeline placement in the subtidal
and intertidal lands between Port Orchard and Retsil will have nega-
tive short-term impacts on small-boat navigation, marine vegetation
and benthic communities, marine water quality and aesthetics. Care-
ful construction practices could mitigate these impacts, but they are
nevertheless unavoidable. Disruption of land use and local patterns
would occur with the removal of one home at the Charleston site.
The major treated effluent submarine outfall would be located in
Sinclair Inlet near Charleston at a 12-18 m [40-60 ft] depth. Model-
ing results indicate that first mixing and dilution of effluent would
be fair-to-poor and that subsequent dispersion and flushing would be
poor. Initial dilution could provide 100:1 dilution only 25 percent
of the time, thus effluent would be diluted poorly. Due to the poor
-------
circulation within this inlet, diluted effluent would be the receiving
water for more effluent. Secondary-level treated effluent discharged
at Charleston and Retsil would improve local water quality compared to
the present situation. However, chlorine compounds woule be a problem
for marine life. This alternative represents an immediate solution
that best accommodates the existing jurisdictional entities. Pollu-
tion effects will be alleviated, but the long-term productivity of the
marine environment would not be comparable to the complete cessation
of discharge to Sinclair Inlet.
Project benefits for this and all other alternatives are basically
identical as the outlying portions of the planning area become sewered.
Substantial groundwater and potable water supply pollution from inade-
quate and failing septic tank drainfields will be greatly reduced. An
exception will be the Wildcat Lake and Illahee areas which are not
projected to be sewered due to low population densities. Public health
risks from contaminated wells will be reduced, and it is expected that
secondary level wastewater treatment with appropriate disinfection
measures will reduce bacterial pollution in all adjacent marine waters.
These project benefits accrue for all alternative plans and will not be
repeated subsequently.
This alternative was ranked as one of the two lowest in project
costs.
Alternative Plan No. 3 (Charleston Regional/Manchester)
This alternative involves a regional secondary treatment plant at
Charleston consolidating the four treatment plants in the vicinity of
Sinclair Inlet. Flows from the Manette facility, Dyes Inlet and Kitsap
Lake will be conveyed across Bremerton to the Charleston site. Retsil
and Port Orchard flows will probably be conveyed in a submerged pipe-
line from Retsil west to Ross Point and then across the inlet to
Charleston. The facility would be sized to handle an average flow of
0.43 m3/s 19.7 mgd]. The facilities planner did not designate a spe-
cific treatment process. It is presumed that it would be similar to
Alternative 2. The Manchester facility will remain independent and
will also be upgraded to a 0.02 m3/s [0.4 mgd] secondary treatment
plant similar to Alternative 2.
Pipeline construction in this alternative represents the most
significant short-term impact. Land routes for pipelines through
downtown Bremerton, Port Orchard and Bay Street/Beach Drive between
Retsil and Port Orchard would cause significant traffic disruption and
interference with life styles. Alternative pipeline construction in
the subtidal and intertidal lands between Retsil and Ross Point would
cause disruptions to the marine community and shoreline areas.
Construction effects would probably be the greatest on this alternative
due to greater lengths of submerged pipeline route required. Removal
of one home would also be required at the Charleston site.
-------
All treated wastewater flows, except for Manchester, would be
discharged to Sinclair Inlet near Charleston. Dilution and flushing
conditions are similar to those described in Alternative 2. The volume
of effluent discharged at Charleston would be approximately 20 - 25
percent greater than in Alternative 2 and thus would slightly increase
the ambient background level of diluted effluent in the inlet. Long-
term effects of this discharge are similar to those discussed in
Alternative 2.
This alternative was ranked as one of the two lowest in total
project costs.
Alternative Plan No. 4 (Local Treatment Plants)
Under this plan each existing facility is upgraded to the secon-
dary treatment level. The Manette plant will treat and discharge 0.17
m3/s L^-l mgd] to Port Washington Narrows. The Charleston plant will
treat and discharge 0.14 m3/s [3.4 mgd] to Sinclair Inlet. The Man-
chester Plant will treat and discharge 0.02 m3/s [0.4 mgd] to Puget
Sound and the remaining Port Orchard and Retsil facilities will each
treat and discharge 0.02 m3/s [l.O mgd] to Sinclair Inlet. This
alternative will involve no major new pipeline routes.
Localized construction impacts at each facility will be moderate
to significant, depending upon the amount of land required. Signifi-
cant disruption of land use and local patterns would result from
construction at the Manette site which requires the removal of 25
homes. This would also occur to a lesser degree at the Charleston and
Port Orchard sites. The Port Washington Narrows site is an aesthetic-
ally poor location for a wastewater treatment facility becuase of its
high visibility, alont the shoreline and proximity to a local park.
Discharge of secondary-treated effluent to Sinclair Inlet by the
Charleston, Port Orchard and Retsil facilities will undergo similar
dilution and dispersion characteristics as in Alternatives 2 and 3.
Modeling results indicate that initial mixing and dilution of the
effluent would be fair and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be
poor. Effluent discharged at Port Washington Narrows from the Manette
facility would achieve good initial dilution due to the strong tidal
movements. Dispersion would be fair to good.
Alternative 4 does not involve pipeline construction costs or land
and easement costs for the pipeline. However, land acquisition costs
for each treatment plant facility, particularly Manette, can be signi-
ficant. Therefore, this alternative was ranked as one of the two
highest in total project costs.
10
-------
Alternative Plan No. 5 (Charleston Regional/Manchester Regional)
Wastewater flows from Bremerton and portions of Dyes Inlet and
Kitsap Lake would be collected and treated at an expanded and up-
graded secondary-level treatment facility at Charleston. The flows
and treatment processes would probably be similar to Alternative 2.
The Port Orchard and Retsil facilities will be demolished and flows
pumped to Manchester where a new secondary level treatment facility
will be constructed. The average flow will be 0.11 m3/s [2.5 mgd].
No treatment process was designated by the facilities planner.
Pipeline construction impacts will be the greatest with this al-
ternative due to the extensive pipeline requirements. Pipeline rout-
ing through downtown Bremerton will have short-term traffic and cir-
culation effects. Pipeline construction in the subtidal and inter-
tidal lands between Port Orchard, Retsil and Waterman will have signi-
ficant short-term negative effects on the marine environment, and may
include long-term effects in some cases. Damage to the benthic marine
environment is unavoidable; however, several construction techniques
can be employed that would not only recreate the habitat, but also serve
to partially stabilize the eroding shoreline at Beach Drive.
Treated effluent discharge from the Charleston facility would be
under the same conditions as Alternative 2. At Manchester, the sub-
marine outfall depth would be below 50 m [165 ft]. Modeling results
indicate that due to the depth and constant currents in the area, at
least 100:1 dilution could be provided 84 percent of the time, re-
sulting in excellent first mixing and dilution, and excellent subse-
quent dispersion and flushing. In terms of water quality, this alter-
native would cause the least adverse effects over the long-term as
compared to the other alternatives. Good circulation within the Man-
chester area would draw the effluent away from the shore and should
not greatly affect Clam Bay or adjacent areas. Water quality in Sin-
clair Inlet would improve moderately hut not significantly due to the
reduced flow of treated wastewater impacting the area.
This alternative requires the greatest construction costs due to
the extensive pipeline construction and pumping needed for the Man-
chester facility, and is, therefore, one of the two highest in total
project costs.
Project Costs
The present worth of all costs for each alternative in January
1977 dollars is shown on Table 1. The present worth is a combination
of total capital costs less salvage values and the cumulative opera-
11
-------
tion and maintenance (O&M) costs during the project life. Alterna-
tive 1, the no-project alternative, has no associated project costs.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are the lowest with present worth values of
$24-25 milion. Alternatives 4 and 5 are the highest with present
worth values of $26-27 million. It should be noted that all alter-
native present worth costs are within 11 percent of each other.
In Volume II, Part 3 of the facilities plan a more detailed cost
estimate was made for Alternative 2 only. Additional facilities, not
costed out in the original comparison were added to this detailed
analysis. An estimate of the revised present worth for Alternative 2
is $33.9 million. Due to the method of cost analysis, equivalent in-
creases in total project costs cannot be made for Alternatives 3-5.
Capital Costs
Project implementation, as presented by the facilities planner,
will require physical construction during the period 1979-1981. Al-
ternatives 2-5 will require 12-18 months of construction some time
during the time-frame.
Total Capital costs for construction range from a low of $16,778,
000 for Alternative 2 to a high of $19,441,000 for Alternative 5.
This analysis assumed 75 percent federal and 15 percent state parti-
cipation in capital funding, excluding total land and easement costs
which are not grant eligible. Total corresponding costs to local
participating jurisdictions would range from a low of $1,846,000 (Al-
ternative 2), to a high of $2,914,000 (Alternative 4).
The salvage value for facilities and land ranges from $0 in Al-
ternative 4 to $810,000 in Alternative 5.
Operation and Maintenance
Each project alternative represents a separate series of annual
costs for the operation and maintenance of the treatment plants and
transmission pump stations. These costs are the sum of fixed annual
charges and increasing variable charges relating to increased flow
capacity. Since O&M costs increase over time, the facilities plan-
ner has chosen the specific O&M costs for 1990, the median year of
the service life of the treatment facilities (1980-2000) as mathe-
matically representative of annual costs. The annual costs range
from $628,000 (Alternative 2) to $756,000 (Alternative 5).
12
-------
Table 1. PROJECT COSTS-ALL ALTERNATIVES
($1,000)
Alternative
Capital Costs
Total project - 16,778 17,742 17,769 19,441
costs
Local share of total - 1,846 1,921 2,914 2,108
project costs3
Annual 0&Mb - 682 628 756 691
Salvage value of - 451 784 0 810
facilities and
land
Net present worth0 - 24,438 24,729 26,353 27,108
Assumes Federal participation of 75 percent and State participation
of 15 percent of total project costs
Represents annual O&M charges plus variable costs related to in-
creased future flows. For detailed explanation of costs, see
Section III, Alternatives-Project Costs.
Q
Present worth of all costs less salvage value of facilities and
land. For detailed explanation, see Section III.
13
-------
-------
SECTION 11
-------
-------
SECTION II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PHYSIOGRAPHY
The study area lies on the Kitsap Peninsula in western Washing-
ton. The Kitsap Peninsula includes approximately 1,500 km2 [580 sq
mi] of land bounded by the Hood Canal on the north and west, and Port
Orchard Bay in connection with Puget Sound on the east. A substantial
portion of the shoreline is irregularly-shaped with many inlets and
coves. Beaches are generally narrow and flat and set off by steep banks
and slopes. Extensions of Puget Sound into the peninsula area include
Port Madison, Liberty Bay, Port Orchard Bay and Dyes and Sinclair In-
lets (Reference 4).
The study area is approximately 260 km2 [100 sq mi] and consti-
tutes over one-third of Kitsap County. Sinclair Inlet occupies ap-
proximately 16 km2 [6 sq mi] in the center of the study area and is
connected by Port Washington Narrows to Dyes Inlet in the north-cen-
tral portion. The gross relief of the Kitsap Peninsula is characteri-
zed by north to south trending, gently rounded, low ridges which create
an undulating upland province. The ridges on the west side of Dyes
Inlet are parallel to the shoreline and rise up from the beach with an
average slope of 20 percent. The south shoreline of Sinclair Inlet is
buttressed by moderate to steep-sloped bluffs with slopes approaching
30 percent. Elevation provinces shown in Figure 3 indicate low-lying
areas (less than 60 m [200 ft] elevation) surrounding the shoreline
and including Bremerton, Manchester, the Chico Creek drainage off Dyes
Inlet, the Gorst Creek drainage at the base of Sinclair Inlet and the
Blackjack Creek Valley extending inland from Port Orchard. The remain-
der of the study area is typically an upland province with elevations
greater than 60 m [200 ft]. Mountainous areas over 180 m [600 ft] oc-
cur in the western portion of the study area. Two major lakes in the
study area are Kitsap Lake and Wildcat Lake, both located west of Dyes
Inlet. The populated portions, as well as attendant sewerage treatment
facilities, are located on the lowest elevation province. Construction
of new facilities and major interbasin pumping of wastewater would
generally be confined to this area, as pumping to higher elevations re-
quires greater cost and energy.
GEOLOGY
Stratigraphy
Geological formations underlying the study area, as shown on
Figure 4, are predominantly of glacial origin and were deposited during
15
-------
V* [ '—j "*'Mt • - t—-J f..; • '' '..'•„:
tv I ''. r., •—tj-:: . .••:£L
LEGEND
0- 60m (0- 200ft)
60-l80m (200-600ft)
180m (600ft) AND ABOVE
FIGURE 3 ELEVATION PROVINCES OF
PLANNING AREA
16
-------
LEGEND
VASHON FORMATION
puYALLUP FORMATION
KITSAP MEMBER OF ORTING FORMATION
BLAKELEY FORMATION
BASALT VOLCANIC
Source: Reference 5
FIGURE 4 GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS WITHIN
STUDY AREA (SURFACE EXPOSURE)
17
-------
the last few million years. Deeper formations, some of volcanic ori-
gins from an earlier age (40 - 60 million years), also reach the sur-
face at a few exposures. The glacial deposits have been divided into
several formations from most recent to oldest and include the Vashon
drift, Puyallup formation, Orting formation and Admiralty drift. Of
these, the most dominant exposed geologic formations within the study
area are shown on Figure 4.
The uppermost Vashon drift formation generally dominates the
surface exposures in the Bremerton - Port Orchard area. The older
formations are exposed only along the shoreline and in deep ravines
and creek valleys as shown in the schematic geologic structure on
Figure 5.
J/ASHON FORMATION
(GLACIAL DEPOSITS-CONGLOMERATES)
_PUYALLUP FORMATION
CSANDSTONE)
KITSAP MEMBER
(CLAYS)
ORTING FORMATION
IGRAVELl
BASALT X "X*\ ADMIRALTY
(METCHOSIN VOLCANICS) N FORMATION
BLAKELEY FORMATION
FIGURE 5 SCHEMATIC GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTION
ACROSS THE STUDY AREA
18
-------
Structural and Tectonic Activity
Studies on the geological structure of the underlying Tertiary
sedimentary and volcanic bedrock suggest a monocline, or the flank
of an anticline, dipping in a northerly direction under Bainbridge
Island (Reference 5). Based upon geophysical and seismic interpre-
tations, an alternative structure portrays the Tertiary bedrock as
the exposed remnants on the top of an uplifted fault block or horst,
such as appears at South Kitsap High. A fault has been suggested as
crossing from west to east, north of East Bremerton, the southern
portion of Bainbridge Island and through the Seattle area. This fault
has been called the Bremerton-Seattle fault. Other similar east-west
faults have been inferred in southern Kitsap County. Such a structure
of uplifted blocks would be separated by down-dropped blocks or gra-
bens, such as the Seattle low, which have been filled to present topo-
graphy by deposition of thick glacial debris.
Tectonic activity in the western Washington area normally does
not receive the attention accorded it in states such as Alaska and
California, although damaging tremors (6 -7.5 Richter Scale) have
and will probably occur in the study area, perhaps during the normal
project life of the alternative facilities. Between 1939 and 1965,
four damaging tremors occurred within 50 - 100 miles of the study area.
During the Puget Sound Earthquake of 1965, Bremerton and Seattle ex-
perienced seismic intensity of VII or greater (modified Mercalli Scale).
Based upon this tremor and the historic pattern of large and small tre-
mors, the Puget Sound area, including the study area, could receive ad-
ditional tremors which could result in major damage. Some tremors may
result from movements along the inferred faults bounding the Kitsap
High and Seattle Low fault blocks near Bremerton.
Geological Hazards
Land stability hazards commonly consist of landslide and slow-
moving slumps, while other aspects of settlement, lurching and liqui-
faction may also influence portions of the study area. These hazards
may occur during an earthquake or under relatively static conditions
with high rainfall and water tables. Landslides, slumps and lurching
would be of greatest concern along the steep slopes near the Manette
Plant, the crossing of Port Washington Narrows, west of Port Orchard
and various sites along the shoreline between Port Orchard and Man-
chester. Additional concern, especially during tremors, should fo-
cus on subtidal steep slopes in Sinclair Inlet, especially where water
deeper than 20 m [60 ft] passes close to Beach Drive north of Retsil.
Lurching may occur where rapid horizontal acceleration during an earth-
quake dislodges a steep bank, either above or below sea level. As an
19
-------
example, 0.8 km [0.5 mi] of a 100 m [300 ft] high cliff was dislodged
into Puget Sound near Tacoma during the 1949 Earthquake of Olympia,
Washington. Settlement and liquifaction may occur on filled land
where a high water table exists. Such areas exist along the Port
Orchard to Retsil area and parts of the south Bremerton area. Several
large settlements occurred north of the study area during the 1946
Georgia Strait Earthquake.
Mineral Resources
According to Bureau of Mines records, mineral production in Kitsap
County from 1970 through 1974 has fluctuated between $500,000 and
$900,000 annually. Construction materials of sand and gravel and
crushed stone have accounted for the bulk of the output. Small amounts
of peat have also been mined. A cursory search of the Bureau of Mines
Industry Location System (MILS) computer files, revealed that 18
mineral properties are within or in close proximity to the study area.
They included both undeveloped mineral occurrences and current or past-
producing operations, including sand and gravel, stone, clay and peat.
SOILS
The soils of the project area originate from complex glacial
deposits which have weathered under the influence of different expo-
sures, water regimes and land use. General classifications can be
divided into exposed bedrock, developed soils with hardpan or dense
subsoils and developed soils without dense subsoils. The latter two
classes are of concern where high water tables and waterlogged soils
may affect septic tank usage or agricultural and timber production.
Within the study area, the dominant soils are those of the Alder-
wood and Everett groups. The Edmonds, Indianola, Kitsap and Melbourne
soils also occur in the study area but usually are less common. North
of Point Washington Narrows, three types of Alderwood and two types
of Everett soils dominate lesser occurrences of the Kitsap and Indian-
ola soils. The Bremerton area is largely underlain by Alderwood soils
which are gradually replaced by Everett soils towards the west.
Fringes of Indianola and Sinclair soils occur along the shorelines and
stream valleys which are usually Alderwood or Everett soils. Between
Gorst and Port Orchard and to the south, large expanses of both Aider-
wood and Everett soils dominate scattered occurrences of other soils.
The Everett soils tend to increase in the area to the south. Along
Ross Creek and several small valleys south of Port Orchard, large
swaths of Kitsap loam soils lie along the creek valleys (References 6,
7, 8).
20
-------
The distribution and composition of the soils across the study
area generally reflect the changes of geological formation beneath
the surface. Dense clay subsoils or clay lenses in the underlying
geological formations have adversely affected septic tank filter
field operations through the county. The basalt bedrock between Gorst
and Bremerton and the Blakely formation along Rich Passage reduce
infiltration and cause perched groundwater tables. Portions of the
Vashon formation (compacted glacial tills) and many overlying soils
also have very low infiltration rates and cause ponding and perching
of surficial water tables. Generally, the Alderwood, Edmonds and
Sinclair soils possess dense subsoils and result in filter field
failures. Everett, Indianola and Kitsap soils ususally do not have
dense subsoils, although the perched groundwater table may enter into
the soil areas and cause them to become waterlogged.
Soils hazards include relatively simple aspects of erosion of
channels, shorelines and general soil surfaces, more involved features
of land stability and the most damaging and unpredictable effects of
tremors. Erosion in the study area generally involves severe creek
bank erosion caused by increasing storm runoff from new urban and
industrial development. Along Sinclair Inlet and Rich Passage, wind
and ship waves have produced shoreline erosion, especially of arti-
ficial fills such as those along Beach Drive between Retsil and
Waterman. Such shore erosion is closely related to the soft character
of the glacial deposits along the shore south of Point Light (Waterman);
further north, the harder bedrock of the Blakely formation withstands
the erosive forces more easily than the glacial deposits. Eroded
sediments can also clog creeks and drainage channels; such clogging
reduces the channel capacity and causes streams to flood more easily
than in the well-scoured creek channel. These erosional effects are
apparent in and along several creeks between Port Orchard and Manches-
ter where new urban expansion and conversion has altered runoff and
erosional balances.
CLIMATE
The climate of the Puget Sound Region is controlled largely by air
movement from the Pacific and major landforms. The Olympic Mountains
to the west and the mountains of Vancouver Island to the north effec-
tively protect the region from the full intensity of winter storms
reaching the coast. On the other hand, the Strait of Juan de Fuca,
north of the Olympic Mountains, the Chehalis Valley to the southeast
and adjacent lowlands provide passages for marine air moving inland.
The Cascade Range usually shields western Washington from continental
air masses and their temperature extremes. These enclosing mountains,
however, may have negative effects as they induce air mass stagnation
over the lowlands (Reference 9).
21
-------
The Kitsap Peninsula shares Puget Sound's characteristically
maritime climate, typified by relatively short, cool, dry summers and
prolonged mild, wet winters. During summer, few major storm distur-
bances penetrate into the Puget Sound area. Precipitation during this
period is generally limited to isolated shower activity, and clear
sunny days usually prevail. In winter, most of the study area south
of Dyes Inlet is generally well-watered because of the influence of
air flow through the gap between the Olympic Mountains and the Black
Hills (Reference 10).
Precipitation, Humidity and Evaporation
Precipitation patterns in the study area are characterized by fre-
quent rainfalls of low intensity. The mean annual precipitation distri-
bution in central Kitsap County is shown in Figure 6. The mean precipi-
tation within the study area varies from a low of 114 cm [45 in] to a
high of 167 cm [66 in] per year. Average monthly precipitation for
Bremerton is portrayed in Figure 7. Approximately 85 percent of the
precipitation occurs between October and April. Precipitation in the
form of snowfall is generally light, and the depth on the ground in the
lower elevations seldom exceeds 8 to 15 cm [3 to 6 in] (Reference 1).
The relative humidity ranges from 75 to 85 percent in the winter,
and in the summer from 40 to 50 percent in the afternoon to 85 percent
at night (Reference 1).
Annual evaporation as measured by a Class A pan in the region is
estimated at 64 to 80 cm [25 to 35 in]. Annual water loss by evaporation
from lakes and reservoirs is estimated at 51 to 64 cm [20 to 25 in]
(Reference 1). The seasonal soil moisture water deficit due to evapo-
transpiration occurs between May and October.
Temperature
The monthly mean temperature at Bremerton during 1974 was 11°C
[51°F], while the range was from -7 to 33°C [20 to 91°F]. Temperatures
above 38°C [100°F] or under -18°C [0°F] seldom occur. Summer daytime
temperatures average 21° to 26°C [70° to 80°F], dropping to 4° to 10°C
[40° to 50°F] at night. Maximum daytime temperatures occur from July
through September. Winter temperatures average 4° to 10°C [40° to 50°Fl
during the day, and -1° to 4°C [30° to 40°F] at night. The minimum ann-
ual nighttime temperatures occur during December and January. Extremely
cold temperatures in the Puget Sound region are usually caused by out-
breaks of cold polar air from central British Columbia. Most of the
lighter frosts, however, result from ground heat losses on calm, clear
nights. Average frost-free periods, or growing seasons, range from
approximately 225 to 260 days per year (References 1, 4 and 9).
22
-------
128 cm
115
55
SO inchts
FIGURE 6 MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
KITSAP COUNTY
(1946 - I960)
23
-------
<
ce
10
9 -
8 -
7-
6 -
5-
4-
3-
2-
I -
0
25
- 20
- 15
0)
JFMAMJJASOND
MONTH
SOURCE' REFERENCE I
FIGURE 7 : AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION FOR THE TEN YEAR
PERIOD 1965-1974, BREMERTON GAGING STATION
Winds
Within the general Puget Sound region, the fall and winter are
characterized by southwesterly prevailing winds, while those in the
spring and summer are from the northwest.
Wind sampling in the vicinity of the study area was initiated
in East Bremerton during July 1974 by the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency. A wind rose for July 1974 through December 1975 is
presented in Figure 8. The spokes indicate the relative frequency
of winds of different speeds. The number below the directional signs
on the perimeter of the wind rose indicate the percentage frequency
of winds blowing from that direction. The first number is for six
months of data and the second number, in parentheses, relates to ten
months of data.
24
-------
NNE %
3.7°
ia rib
SOUTH
5.8
(S.4|
LOCATION - PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, DEWEY JR. HIGH, PERRY AVE
AND HOLMAN ST., BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
DATES- °JUL-DEC, 1974. b(JUL-APR, 1975)DIRECTIONAL FREQUENCY ONLY
OBSERVATIONS - 3,976
I.I- 4.O- 7.0- 11.0- I7.O- OVER
3.9 6.9 10.9 18.9 21.9 21.9
30 60 9.0 IZ.O
PERCENT
KNOTS
Source: Reference 3.
Figure 8. PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF HOURLY AVERAGE
SURFACE WINDS.
25
-------
AIR QUALITY
Air temperature inversions, which can intensify air pollution
problems, are prevalent in the Puget Sound basin, largely because of
the enclosed mountain basin setting noted earlier. Temperature in-
versions are most likely to occur during early spring and again in
late summer and early fall. Data collected on inversions during each
month of 1972 revealed that they were most frequent during October.
Temperature inversions seldom prevail more than a few days before
they are displaced by a new weather system moving into the region
(Reference 9).
Air quality is determined by the presence of many inert and chemi-
cally active substances such as carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen,
hydrocarbons, suspended particulates, photochemical oxidants and sul-
fur dioxide, as well as meteorological conditions such as temperature
gradients and wind speed.
Existing Conditions from Available Inventory Data
Pollutant emission rates appropriate for the study area have
been estimated and are summarized in Table 2 for 1975 conditions.
Countywide estimates were provided by the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency which summarized the following categories of the 1972
Kitsap County air contaminant emissions: fuel combustion, industrial
sources, solid waste disposal, transportation sources and miscel-
laneous area sources such as orchard heating, agricultural burning
and slash burning. These data were updated to 1975 assuming that
only transportation and residential area sources of fuel were popu-
lation dependent. Current solid waste disposal and slash burning
are also updated in accordance with population estimates. Monitor-
ing of pollutant levels by the Puget Pound Air Pollution Control
Agency at stations in Bremerton, Seattle, Tacoma and on Maury Island
indicates that Kitsap County has generally good to excellent air
quality throughout the year. The levels for 1975, although slightly
higher than those taken in 1974, were still well below the annual
standard in each pollutant category (Reference 10).
26
-------
Table 2. AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN KITSAP COUNTY (1975)
Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen Sulfur
mnnnxide carbons oxides dioxide Particulates
Aa
64.00
Bb ABAB ABA
0.50 15.14 0.12 6.97 0.06 4.70 0.04 2.33
B
0.02
Metric tons per day, (1 metric ton -0.91 ton)
Kg per person per day, (1 kg - 2.2 Ibs).
A specially commissioned monitoring program was conducted during
the spring of 1975 (Reference 11) in Bremerton, a location assumed to
be highest in pollutant levels because of its greater population. The
program has shown that carbon dioxide levels are far below one-hour and
eight-hour standards. It is assumed that corollative, typical smog
constituents were also present at similarly low levels. The low pol-
lutant levels are generally attributed to few pollutant sources within
the county and frequent winds which mix and dilute any existing aerial
emissions (Reference 4).
NOISE
Data describing present noise conditions are limited. In gene-
ral, Kitsap County is quiet and rural in nature. Most noise levels
which cause the majority of long-term disturbances occur along major
arterial roads as a result of traffic. Areas with a relatively higher
degree of urban noise include the cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard
and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Most of the existing wastewater
treatment plants are located in areas of higher noise levels near resi-
dential development. However, the existing treatment plant's noise
levels are low enough to be completely masked by daytime ambient noise
levels. No observations were made of nighttime conditions.
ODORS
The study area is free of widespread odor-producing sources.
Within the County, there are probably two main characteristic types
of localized odors. The first is associated with agricultural prac-
27
-------
tlces where livestock and fertilizer applications produce odors typi-
cal of a farm environment. The second type of odor is that associated
with mud flats along the shorelines and is most noticeable when the
intertidal areas are exposed during low tide. When oxygen in the sedi-
ments is low and organic content high, characteristic sulfide and de-
composition odors may be emitted. Other odors of smaller significance,
are those normally associated with urban development, commercial ac-
tivities and the nearby Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
FRESH WATER HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Surface Water
The study area is drained by many small streams of which the
majority have relatively small drainage areas and flow directly into
marine waters. These streams form five drainage sub-basins which com-
prise Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (WRIA 15) and are shown in Fig-
ure 9. A summary of the drainage areas and flows is presented in
Table 3. Most of the study area is drained by three major creek sys-
tems: Chico, Gorst and Blackjack Creeks. Gorst and Blackjack creeks
maintain a sizeable base flow year around from groundwater discharges.
However, many portions of the study area are geologically and topo-
graphically unsuited for storing appreciable amounts of groundwater.
As a result, streams tend to recede rapidly after a storm and little
water is retained in the groundwater reservoir to maintain base flow
during dry periods. Thus, the majority of the creeks follow a sea-
sonal pattern of high flows in the winter and low flows in the summer,
with transition periods occurring in the spring and fall. Peak stream
discharges usually occur during the months of November through February
(Reference 12).
There are approximately 30 lakes and reservoirs in the study
area. The greatest majority are shallow and average 1.6 ha [4 ac]
in size. The primary use of these lakes is for recreation, although
a few are classified for public water supply, including Heins, Jar-
stad and Alexander lakes and Hunts Mill pond. Kitsap Lake and Wild-
cat Lake are by far the largest lakes in the study area at 96 and 46
ha [238 and 113 ac] in area, respectively.
Water Supply and Water Rights
The existing streamflows and shallow groundwater aquifers in
WRIA 15 presently meet the water supply demands of the study area.
With projected local growth related to the Trident project and the
28
-------
CHICO CREEK
DRAINAGE
••»•//' /
GORST CREEK
DRAINAGE
LEGEND
SEASONAL GAGING STATION
PARTIAL RECORD GAGING STATION
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARIES
DRAINAGE SUB-BASIN
0123456
FIGURE 9 LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL STREAMS
AND DRAINAGE AREAS
29
-------
Table 3
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LOW FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
Gaging
station
number
KP53
KP54
KP55
KP56
KP57
KP58
KP65
KP66
KP67
KP68
0720
KP70
KP70.1
KP70.2
KP71
KP72
KP73
KP74
KP75
0725
KP76
KP77
KP78
KP79
KP80
KP81
KP82
KP83
KP84
KP85
KP86
Stream
Drainage sub-basin 11
Illahee Creek
Unnamed trib. to Port Orchard
Unnamed trib. to Dyes Inlet
Mosher Creek
Unnamed trib. to Dyes Inlet
Unnamed trib. to Dyes Inlet
Drainage sub-basin 23
Woods Creek
Unnamed trib. to Dyes Inlet
Unnamed trib. to Dyes Inlet
Unnamed trib. to Dyes Inlet
Chico Creek Drainage
Wildcat Creek
Wildcat Creek
Lost Creek
Dickenson Creek
Kitsap Creek
Drainage sub-basin 24
Gorst Creek Drainage
Gorst Creek
Heins Creek
Parish Creek
Drainaee sub-basin 26
Blackjack. Creek Drainage
Black-jack Creek
Blackjack Creek
Annapolis Creek
Unnamed trib. to Port Orchard
Unnamed trib. to Port Orchard
Sullivan Creek
Drainage sub-basin 27
Unnamed trib. to Port Orchard
Unnamed trib. to Port Orchard
Unnamed trib. to Port Orchard
Beaver Creek
Duncan Creek
Drainage
area,
km2 b
3.32
1.81
0.54
4.09
1.09
0.70
1.04
0.44
0.13
0.60
(43.26)
6.48
16.06
7.98
5.67
7.07
(19.76)
11.24
4.22
4.30
(30.85)
3.65
27.20
4.82
0.52
0.18
2.59
0.65
O.S3
1.04
4.17
1.17
Minimum
*/sc
11.67
7.40
1.42
7.97
0
0
5.69
2.28
2.28
1.71
3.98
20.77
20.77
1.14
2.28
218.50
17.64
23.05
102.71
135.14
11.38
11.38
4.84
10.24
0.57
0
1.71
12.52
1.14
discharge
Date
8/27/47
8/27/47
8/22/58
8/26/47
8/26/47
8/26/47
8/22/58
9/25/47
9/25/47
8/22/58
9/08/61
9/08/61
9/08/61
8/05/47
8/21/58
8/28/47
8/19/58
8/28/47
8/15/58
8/28/47
8/27/47
8/21/58
8/21/58
8/21/58
8/21/58
8/21/58
8/27/47
8/27/47
8/27/47
For location of gaging stations, see Figure 9.
bl km2 = 0.39 sq mi.
cl liter/second (5./S) = 0.035 cubic feet/second (cfs)
30
-------
expansion of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, water supply will not be
adequate to meet future demands. The Bremerton area will probably be
the first to face a serious water shortage as this area contains the
most concentrated population and'highest water demands. Other areas
supplied by stream diversions may also be subject to water shortages.
Several major surface water sources have been closed to further ap-
propriation.
Table 4 shows water rights and minimum flow characteristics for
two major water sources. Low flow in Blackjack Creek is probably ade-
quate to meet the demands of water rights holders. However, the wa-
ters of Chico Creek may have been appropriated beyond its low flow
volume. This "over-appropriation" may not be of significance during
normal rainfall years due to relatively higher flow volumes and subse-
quent usage by downstream water rights holders. But during abnormally
dry years such as 1976 and 1977, it may have serious consequences for
both available water supply and water quality parameters.
Table 4. APPROPRIATED WATER RIGHTS VERSUS LOW FLOWS IN
BLACKJACK AND CHICO CREEKS
Creek Name
Blackjack
Chico
Total appropriated
quantity, £/sa
111
625
Low flow
characteristics ,
136
477
£/s
a(l £/s = 0.035 cfs)
From Table 2.
Source: Reference 12.
Surface Water Quality
In accordance with the State of Washington water quality stand-
ards, all streams which feed into lake systems have been classified
AA (Extraordinary) and all other surface waters have been classified
A (Excellent). A special "lake" classification has been established
for lakes and impoundments. A summary of these classifications and
their criteria is presented in Appendix A.
Water quality sampling for selected waters in the study area has
been conducted by DOE, the U.S. Geologic Survey (U.S.G.S.) and the
Bremerton-Kitsap County Department of Public Health (Reference 1).
31
-------
Water quality of streams in Kitsap County is generally considered
suitable for most purposes throughout much of the year, with the ex-
ception of those waters in and immediately below heavily urbanized
areas. Water quality of the county's lakes is also generally satis-
factory for most uses, including domestic water (Reference 10).
The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have reported that
past logging activities in some areas of the Kitsap Peninsula have
damaged fishery resources through slash dumping, yarding through
streams, clear-cutting streambanks, roadbuilding and improper road
and culvert construction. Logging on small, scattered tracts is a
significant activity in Kitsap County, though not to a great extent
within the study area (Reference 12). While the extent of agricul-
tural activities on the Kitsap Peninsula is not great, local condi-
tions may present water quality problems. There are no significant
agricultural water pollution sources within the study area.
The lakes and streams of the study area are similar in chemical
character to the region's groundwater. Calcium, magnesium, bicar-
bonate and silica are the principal dissolved mineral constituents.
Surface water, however, generally contains less dissolved material
than groundwater, especially during periods of high surface runoff.
With few exceptions, the dissolved solids contents of surface water
are less than 100 ppm, even during periods of low flow (Reference 12).
Small streams and lakes often exhibit brown water coloration during
the high flow period due to organic solutes derived from swamps and
poorly drained marshy areas.
Ongoing sampling conducted from January 1974 by the Kitsap County
Health Department for several streams and lakes indicates that most
fresh water in the study area meets DOE classification standards for
class A, AA and Lakewaters. However, total coliform levels have ex-
ceeded standards more than once in the following streams and lakes
(References 1 and 12),
Streams Lakes
Blackjack Creek Kitsap Lake
Chico Creek Wildcat Lake
Gorst Creek Deep Lake
The high coliform counts have been largely attributed to wide-
spread septic tank failure in the region (Reference 1). The pre-
sence of coliform bacteria is an indication that disease-causing or-
ganisms may be present in the tested waters.
32
-------
Groundwater
The Groundwater System
The complexity of the glacial materials found underlying most
of Kitsap Peninsula makes it difficult to determine the exact loca-
tion and extent of porous geologic formations, but there is evidence.
that many are continuous beneath several local watersheds, as illus-
trated in Figure 4. In some cases, the direction of groundwater move-
ment is independent of surface topography, and, under such conditions,
some of the precipitation received in one watershed could be trans-
ferred as groundwater to adjacent watersheds. If stream channels in
the adjacent areas intercept such groundwater, some of the water will
eventually be discharged into their surface water systems (Reference
12).
Well hydrographs in the study area have indicated that ground-
water in storage, including that in deep, water-bearing strata, is
closely related to the amount of annual precipitation (Reference 13).
Shallow groundwater or seasonal groundwater tables, which are gene-
rally found at low elevations or adjacent to streams, rise to their
highest level within a month following peak precipitation - normally
in early winter. The shallow groundwater levels recede rapidly fol-
lowing the decline of rainfall. The lowest water levels, or periods
of depletion, occur in late summer.
High seasonal groundwater, 0.6 to 1.2 m [2 to 4 ft] below the
ground surface, occurs in approximately 20 different soil types dis-
tributed throughout the area. This is especially the case in the
Bremerton area, where soils are underlain by consolidated till, and
in the Port Orchard/Retsil area, where soils are predominantly loam
or silt loam (Reference 1).
Groundwater for domestic purposes is available in nearly all
parts of Kitsap County. In many places, particularly in the western
portion of the peninsula, shallow wells have been dug to obtain per-
ched groundwater from the till or outwash materials which overlie
the relatively impermeable Vashon till (Reference 14). Several large
capacity wells have been drilled in the Bremerton/Port Orchard area,
taking advantage of both the relatively high seasonal water table and
deeper confined groundwater. Generally, water-bearing strata are
found within 30 m [100 ft] of the land surface, as evidenced by water
levels in wells throughout the county, particularly in the central
portion (References 1, 12 and 13).
-------
Groundwater Quality
In general, groundwater in the study area appears to be of good
chemical quality (Reference 1), According to State standards, ground-
water quality problems are confined primarily to isolated instances of
high iron and high chloride concentrations. Little correlation ex-
ists between geologic formation and iron concentration, although the
higher concentrations are found in water from formations below Colvos
sand. Instances of high chloride concentrations, an indication of
salt water intrusion, are confined to areas of the peninsula and ad-
jacent islands outside of the study area at the present time (Ref-
erences 1 and 12).
Other chemicals of minor significance found in the region's
groundwater include fluorides, nitrates and hydrogen sulfide. Fluo-
ride content is extremely low with all analyses for the region show-
ing less than 0.40 ppm. Nitrate concentrations are relatively low
and typically found in water from shallow wells that have been affec-
ted by septic tank seepage or percolation of polluted surface waters
(Reference 12).
Groundwater of the Kitsap Peninsula area is characterized by a
low dissolved solids content and moderate water hardness. Increases
in dissolved solids, water hardness and silica generally correlate
with deeper water-bearing zones in older formations. If future water
demand requires the utilization of deeper aquifers, then the increased
presence of solids, water hardness and silica are unsuitable for certain
industrial uses such as boiler feed, ice production or paper produc-
tion.
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
The Kitsap study area is located within the Western Hemlock
Forest Zone, which is characterized as being the most extensive vege-
tation zone in western Washington and Oregon and the most important
in terms of timber production. The Puget Sound area is a sub-unit
within the Western Hemlock Zone and contains slight differences in
vegetation distribution and dominance, as related to localized cli-
mate and soil factors (Reference 15). The area lies in the rain
shadow of the Olympic Mountains, receiving 114-167 cm [45-66 in.] an-
nual precipitation, with at least 85 percent of the precipitation
falling between October and April. This greater amount of moisture
over the winter and spring months plays an important role in the dis-
tribution and abundance of local vegetation.
34
-------
Biotic Communities
Conifers originally covered almost the entire study area. Since
western settlement commencing in the 19th Century, the vegetation has
been altered by successive land use changes. The present biotic com-
munities, which are characterized by the dominant vegetation type, con-
sist of: (1) Woodland Forest, (2) Pasture/Meadow, (3) Freshwater
Marsh, (4) Residential and (5) Marine Shoreline. The Woodland Forest
can be sub-divided into Coniferous Forest, Broadleaf Forest and Mixed
Coniferous Broadleaf Forest. There is considerable intergrading of
species within these units, and they should not be viewed as distinct
entities. The distribution of these units is largely a function of
climate, relief, substrate and the occurrence of fire, grazing, log-
ging and other human activities. The Woodland Forest is the predomi-
nant unit with the maritime climate being favorable to the growth of
conifers. Broadleaf forests are limited in distribution and occur most
frequently in recently disturbed areas, specialized habitats such as
riparian zones or in marginal areas unsuitable for conifers (Reference
16). Examples of the five biotic communities within the study area
are shown on Figure 10 and are described in Appendix B. The charac-
teristic vegetation and wildlife of each community is presented in Ap-
pendix B-l. Species lists of vegetation and wildlife probably occur-
ring within the biotic communities are given in Appendices B-2, B-3,
B-4 and B-5.
Rare and Endangered Species
No rare or endangered plant species are found within the plan-
ning area (Reference 17). The American peregrine falcon (Falco pere-
grinus anatum) is the only wildlife species considered to be en-
dangered within the study area (Reference 18). Due to urbanization,
forest clearing and other changes in land use, this bird is probably
transient and does not depend on specific parts of the study area as
a permanent or primary habitat. Outlying regions beyond the study
area which are less disturbed and closer to their natural habitat
may attract and support a small peregrine falcon population.
No endangered mammalian species are recognized within the study
area (Reference 19); however, several rare species which may exist
in the study area have been identified by the Washington State Game
Department. These are the mountain lion (Fells concolor), sea otter
(Enhydra lutris), fisher (Martes pennanti) and western gray squirrel
(Sciurus griseus) . The Game Department definition of rare is: "A
rare species or subspecies...that, although not presently threatened
with extinction, is in such small numbers throughout its range that
it may be endangered if the environment worsens" (Reference 19).
35
-------
URBAN - DEVELOPED
FOREST-WOODLAND*
FRESH WATER MARH
AND/OR LAKE
MARINE SHORELINE
* INCLUDES OCCASIONAL
STRUCTURES
FIGURE 10 GENERAL VEGETATION AND LAND USE
DISTRIBUTION IN CENTRAL PORTION
OF STUDY AREA
36
-------
Sensitive Ecological Areas
Human settlement has greatly changed the local ecology of the
Kitsap area through alterations in land use and the introduction of
non-native vegetation and animals. Urbanization has removed some
wildlife habitat areas from the region. Most areas retain their ori-
ginal vegetation community characteristics except for the second-
growth characteristics shown in forested areas.
Within the Kitsap planning area, sensitive ecological areas are
generally associated with watercourses and water bodies. Stream sys-
tems provide valuable wildlife habitat. Alteration of streambeds oc-
curs mainly near populated areas and has not greatly reduced habitat
along more remote stream sections. One of the most serious impacts
upon streams in the last few decades is the development of roadways
and structures across stream mouths as they empty into the Puget Sound
system. Obstruction of stream mouths degrades the estuarine zone and
can block seasonal upstream migrations of anadromous fishes.
PHYSICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Hydrography and Circulation
The study area is surrounded by Puget Sound and its inlets and
canals. Puget Sound is connected to the Pacific Ocean by the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and Admiralty Inlet, through which most of the Sound's
oceanic waters enter. Puget Sound is a deep fjord-like embayment
covering approximately 6500 sq km [2,500 sq mi]. Water depths of 180
m [600 ft] are typical in the central basin near Seattle, and maximum
depths extend to 280 m [930 ft]. Tidal exchange of Sound waters with
incoming ocean waters varies with depth and density characteristics.
Theoretically, the entire volume of the Sound's waters is replaced
about twice a year. Considerable variation occurs between the ex-
tremities and the central basin, however, and flushing efficiency
varies widely on a monthly basis.
The shallow sills are critical in controlling the mixing and the
nature of the water which contributes to the deep waters in the in-
ner basins of Puget Sound. Mixing by surface cooling during the win-
ter and by flow across sills tends to equalize dissolved oxygen and
nutrient salts vertically through the water. Because of this mixing
and the tidal exchange that occurs with waters of the open ocean,
the water o." Puget Sound is well supplied with oxygen and mineral salts
necessary to support aquatic ecosystems. Consequently, Puget Sound
provides a rich habitat for a diverse community of organisms.
37
-------
The portion of Puget Sound most affected by the alternative de-
signs under consideration is the Port Orchard subsystem, which includes
Sinclair and Dyes Inlets, the Port Washington Narrows and Rich Pas-
sage. Puget Sound enters the embayments in the study area through
Port Orchard Bay and Rich Passage. Port Orchard Bay is approximately
1.2 km [0,75 mi] wide and 19 km [12 mi] long. Midchannel depths aver-
age 27 m [90 ft] at mean lower low water (MLLW). Rich Passage is
narrowest at the west end 0.4 km [0.25 mi] and widens to meet Puget
Sound at the east end. Depths range from 12 to 30 m [40 to 100 ft]
(MLLW). Sinclair Inlet is a shallow bay approximately 1.2 km [0.75
mi] wide and 8 km [5 mi] long. Mean lower low water (MLLW) depth
varies from 6 to 7.6 m [20 to 25 ft] at the west end to over 15.2 m
[50 ft] at the east end of the inlet. Dyes Inlet is approximately 1.6
km [1 mi] wide and 8 km [5 mi] long. The inlet is deepest at the cen-
ter, approximately 40 m [130 ft] (MLLW), and shallowest at the north
and south ends (MLLW depth of 12 m [40 ft]). Port Washington Narrows
is a shallow 6.4 km [4 mi] channel connecting Sinclair Inlet to Dyes
Inlet. The narrows has a depth of under 9 m [30 ft] (MLLW) and aver-
ages about 0.4 km [0.25 mi] wide.
In the course of facilities planning within Kitsap County, two
models were used to study water quality and mixing: a mathematical
ecological model applied by EPA to a part of Puget Sound and the Uni-
versity of Washington's physical model of Puget Sound. Descriptions
of the models and a discussion of their capabilities and limitations
are presented in Appendix C. Generalizations about currents and dis-
persions characteristics of marine waters in the planning area based
on the models are difficult to make. Conditions vary not only by lo-
cation, but are also relative to tidal cycle and the period of year.
The University of Washington model (Reference 20) describes three re-
ceiving water sites pertinent to the Sinclair Inlet facilities plan:
Enetai, located off the east side of Manette Point; the Puget Sound
waters off Manchester; and Sinclair Inlet. The following descriptions
are from model operations under ideal conditions, however, actual
field conditions, particularly wind speed and direction, will alter
to some degree the current and dispersion characteristics observed
in the model.
At the Enetai site, no field data were gathered by the facilities
planner to confirm the tidal cycles run on the University of Washing-
ton model. However, based on the model's reliability nearby, the
predicted results can be assumed to be reasonably accurate. At this
site, flood tides produce strong currents and turbulence, but ebb-
tides create a calm area near shore with much less mixing.
The Manchester site is adjacent to the main body of Puget Sound.
Field data generally verify the results of the physical model, al-
though somewhat stronger currents, Up to 0.5 knots as opposed to 0.3
knots, were measured in the field. Direction of flow is predomin-
38
-------
ately north and northeast at virtually all phases and ranges of tides.
Only at the ebb of a spring tide was any southerly flow noted at the
point of observation. It is difficult to quantify the absolute mag-
nitude because of tidal cycle variations and strengths, but a general
conclusion about the flow at the Manchester site is that it shows a
net movement into Puget Sound. Small amounts of flow from the Man-
chester site can be carried into Rich Passage on floodtides, but these
flows are not visible at the west end of the passage and are flushed
out again on the ebb.
The currents at the Sinclair Inlet site were verified by field
data to test monitoring accuracy. Currents at this site are weak
(0.2 to 0.3 knot) with a slow, oscillating flow, giving a net trans-
port to the east.
Marine Water Quality
Port Orchard System General Conditions
The Port Orchard system, particularly with reference to the wa-
ters in Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Inlet, exhibits seasonally high coli-
form and nutrient levels, low dissolved oxygen levels and a typical
lack of stratification.
High coliform bacteria levels are found in the waters immediate-
ly following periods of heavy rainfall. The coliform level is an im-
portant public health indicator of bacterial and viral contamination
of waters. High coliform levels in surface waters indicate sources
of inadequately treated domestic sewage in contact with the waters.
In the study area, coliforms may be contributed by either combined
sewer overflows and bypasses or septic drainfield seepage. Coliform
levels from quarterly monitoring surveys are shown in Table 5. Levels
beyond DOE standards appear frequently.
Levels of nutrients are generally high year-around with an oc-
casional depletion of nitrates in early summer. The waters of the
Port Orchard Bay system are nutrient rich, a characteristic shared
with Puget Sound. Abundant quantities of nitrogen, phosphorous and
other nutrients are available at all depths throughout the system,
with one notable exception. In the early summer the increase in day-
light hours triggers algae blooms, which are limited mainly by the a-
mount of nitrate-nitrogen in the upper 5 m [15 ft] (the photic zone)
of the water. During this period, rapid algae growth depletes the
level of nitrate from the upper zones and, therefore, Port Orchard
waters are referred to as "nitrate-limited".
High dissolved oxygen levels are found in the spring and summer
months within the Port Orchard system. Algal photosynthetic activi-
39
-------
Table 5. QUARTERLY MONITORING OF COLIFORM BACTERIA LEVELS3
(Number /100 ml)
Sinclair Inlet
CM csl CM
CM ov r^
TH CM CM
^00 CM
co
CO
rH
1
rH
CM
in ^
-^ CM
v£>
^. rH
r-~ r~-
00 O
CO *O
r- r^
c-j a*
CT^ CM
3/12/7tj
—IB
CT*
MD
S
Sampling Stations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Off Annapolis/Retsil STP
Off Port Orchard STP
Off Port Orchard
Yacht Club
Gorst (off Rock Quarry)
Off Charleston STF
Off N.Y. Crane at
Naval Shipyard
Off Manette STP (Port
Washington Narrows)
40 43 460
150 11 >1100
40 '4 460
230 23 1100
90 <4 2]0
40 23 >1IOO
1100
93
4
93
1100
93
93
1100
>1100
460
9
>1100
<4
15
4
<4
9
9
<4
9
1100
14
>1100
>1100
>1100
>1100
>1100
>1100
>1100
240
460 15
240 4
1100 93
43 4
93 4
>1100
43 150
4 460
240 290
240 460
75 ^1100
7 240
_
23 15
75 <4
23 15
>1100 460
240 23
43 23
>1100
4 >1100
9 240
23 75
<4 150
9 150
1100 43
_
23
23
<3
23
1100
240
_
23
43
15
93
43
23
_
240
460
240
240
43
460
43
Washington State DOE Classification of Sinclair Inlet: "A - special conditons" - total coliforms not to exceed median values of 1000/100 ml. When
associated with any fecal source, less than 20 percent should exceed 2400/100 ml.
Sewage Treatment Plant (STP).
Source: Kitsap County Department of Puhlic Health.
-------
ties during bloom periods produce high dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions, often up to the saturation level. On the other hand, algal
decomposition after the bloom period consumes large amounts of dis-
solved oxygen. Oxygen depletion causes odors and can adversely af-
fect marine organisms.
There is a general lack of stratification throughout the Port
Orchard Bay system. Stratification is the layering of water of dif-
ferent densities. This can be water of different temperatures or com-
positions, e.g., salt versus fresh water. Stratification reduces the
volume available for mixing of a discharged effluent.
General Water Quality Conditions Within the Study Area
Information on the quality of waters in the planning area has
been recorded since 1932. Marine water quality conditions in the
study area may be described as excellent but with local bacteriolo-
gical problems in areas that are subject to poor flushing. The ap-
plicable marine water quality regulations and standards are given in
Appendix A. The DOE classifications and general water quality condi-
tions within the study area are summarized below:
Sinclair Inlet. Classified "A-special conditions" allowing higher
coliforms; considered acceptable, but frequent violations of the coli-
form standards.
Dyes Inlet/Port Washington Narrows. Classified "A-special con-
ditions"; acceptable water quality with frequent violations of coli-
form standards and occasional violations of dissolved oxygen standards.
Rich Passage. Classified "AA"; acceptable water quality, with
only occasional violations of standards, probably due to natural causes.
Port Orchard. Classified "AA"; considered acceptable with fre-
quent violations of bacteriological and turbidity standards in the
Burke Bay/Brownsville area north of Sinclair Inlet planning area.
BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
The marine environment within the waterways, inlets and passages
of the Port Orchard system is a complex ecosystem that is susceptible
to changes induced by human activities. The Port Orchard system forms
part of the larger Puget Sound system along the Washington coast. The
Kitsap County marine environment has been described in detail in Basic
Data and Related Sources to Shorelines (Reference 24).
41
-------
Marine Habitats
The marine shoreline and nearshore waters can be divided roughly
into three types of habitat based upon bottom type and distance from
the shore. These are: (1) River-Creek Mouth; (2) Open-Mud Bays and
(3) Sand-Gravel-Cobble Beach. A brief description of each habitat
along with locations and characteristic associations is given in Table
6. A more detailed discussion of these units is found in Appendix
D-l. Species lists of aquatic organisms probably occurring within
the study area are given in Appendix D-2. The most common shoreline
type within the study area is the Sand-Gravel-Cobble Beach which is
typically inundated during high tide and covered with rockweed and
sea lettuce. Eel grass in the subtidal areas plays an important role
in the nearshore ecology.
Plant and animal life within the marine environment normally ex-
hibit a vertical stratification representing three ecological niches.
They are the benthic, water column and surface zones, which are dis-
tinct and yet interact with each other. The benthic zone includes
the bottom sediments and the associated immediately overlying areas.
The water column zone is that portion of the marine environment where
the water column meets the benthic zone up to 0.7 m [2 ft] under the wa-
ter surface. The surface zone is that portion of the water environ-
ment above the water column zone to 2 m [6 ft] above the surface of
the water body. A brief description of each zone along the locations
and characteristic associations is given in Table 7. A more detailed
discussion of these units is found in Appendix C.
Algal Production
Algal concentration studies for Sinclair and Dyes Inlet were
performed in Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters
(Reference 22). Algal concentrations were studied for their value as
an indicator of productivity in the marine environment and as an in-
dicator of other factors, such as nutrients, light, certain growth
coefficients and zooplankton. Computed algal biomass concentrations
in Dyes and Sinclair Inlets are shown in Figure 11. A species non-
specific algal biomass was computed, based on 80 mg biomass corre-
sponding to one mg chlorophyll a.
In winter, the model computed the lowest algal biomass with an
average of 800 yg/1 in Port Orchard. Spring values were higher,
presumably due to increased light (heat) energy and upstream nu-
trient inputs. Concentrations exceeding 1,500 yg/1 were computed
for Sinclair Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, Dyes Inlet and Liberty
42
-------
Table 6. MARINE HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Habitat
Description
Locations and Examples
Characteristic Associations
River-Creek Mouth
Open-Mud Bays
Sand-Gravel-
Cobble Beach
Estuarine zone where creek mouth
meets marine waters. This zone
extends to several meters below
the low tide level and is subject
to tidal and seasonal salinity
changes.
Bays with limited circulation
due to restricted inlet/outlet.
The marine environment has no
substantial fresh-water source
and typically has an extensive
intertidal zone, Large mud flat
areas and marsh grasses around
the periphery.
Typical shoreline type within
Kitsap County. Shoreline is
predominantly gravel and cobble
gradating to semi-sandy substrate
in the intertidal areas.
Open systems-with direct creek
outlet to marine waters-such as
Chico Creek at Dyes Inlet.
Closed systems-creek mouth en-
closed seasonally or permanent-
ly by sand spits or man-made
obstructions, such as Annapolis
Creek and other small creeks
tributary to Sinclair Inlet.
Dyes Inlet system-including
Oyster Bay, Ostrich Bay and
Phinney Bay. Also includes
lower end of Sinclair Inlet.
Major shoreline areas along
Sinclair Inlet and Port
Orchard.
Anadromous fish nursery areas-At
depths greater than 1 ft below
mean lower low water are produc-
tive eelgrass beds. Associated
fish may include starry flounder,
stickleback, eulachon, surf perch,
sculpin and sole.
Important waterfowl and shorebird
habitat-sandy, silty bottom sup-
ports march grasses and inverte-
brates. During extreme climatic
conditions, serves as important
waterfowl shelter and feeding area.
Subtidal eelgrass beds provide
important feeding and spawning
areas for Pacific herring, starry
flounder, stickleback, eulachon,
surf perch, sculpin and various
flounder and sole species. Dun-
geness crabs, oysters and oyster
drills are found in Chico Bay.
Smelt spawning areas are along
western Dyes Inlet shoreline.
March grass limited or absent,
rockweed and sea lettuce typical
in intertidal areas some eelgrass
in subtidal areas. Typical in-
vertebrate fauna consists of butter,
littleneck and bent-nose clams,
barnacles, shore and butter clams,
tube worms, mussels and peri-
winkles .
-------
Table 7. VERTICAL ZONES WITHIN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Zone
Description
Locations and Examples
Characteristic Associations
Benthic Zone
Water Column
Zone
Surface Zone
Bottom-dwelling plant and animal
community, includes infauna which
may burrow several feet into sub-
strate, epifauna which inhabit sur-
face of substrate and demersal fish
species.
Mid-depth waters that may show
gradations in temperature with
moderate-to-good circulation.
Some areas may be filled with
kelp fronds forming a forest-
llde environment.
Surface waters which are strong-
ly influenced by light, wind,
temperature and human activities
such as boating.
Shallow portions of Dyes Inlet
where bottom depth is less than 6
m 120 ft] deep.
Southeastern end of Sinclair Inlet
where bottom depth is less than 9 m
[30 ft] deep.
Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, Port
Orchard, Rich Passage and Puget
Sound.
All marine waters within study
area.
Washington and manila clams, cockles,
lean dog whelk and over 15 species of
polychaetes dominated by lumberinerids,
ampharetids, orbiniids and trichobran-
chids. For fish species, see Sinclair
Inlet below.
Washington and other small clams:
Axinopsis serricatus and Psephidia Jbrdi
are found in Sinclair Inlet, also lumber-
inerid and cirratulid polychaetes and
cumaceans. Benthis fishes include:
sping dogfish; bay goby; great, rough-
back and Pacific sculpins; speckled sand-
dab; starry flounder; and flathead, rock,
slender, English, c-o and sand sole.
Important local fish species in the water
column include stickleback, eulachon, bay
pipefish, pricklebacks, shiner and pile
perch, striped and white seaperch,
sturgeon and pygmy poacher. Fishes favor-
ing algal and other vegetative associa-
tions include northern clingfiah, plain-
fin midshipman, blackbelly eelpout,
whitespotted greenllng and longspine
combfish. Other pelagic fishes include
Pacific herring, salmon, Pacific cod,
Pacific hake, walleye pollock and
Pacific tomcod.
Important zone for phyroplankton and
zooplankton production. Plankton popula-
tion forms first step of food chain for
benthic invertebrates and fishes. Fishes
in surface zone are similar to water
column zone with a preference for those
tolerating warmer waters.
-------
BIOMASS CONCENTRATION Ulg/l)
901 Spring
941 Summer
SOURCE1 REFERENCE 22
FIGURE 11 COMPUTED ALGAL BIOMASS
CONCENTRATIONS
45
-------
Bay. Model results show that summer algal concentrations dropped to
approximately 500 pg/1 in the bays and inlets while remaining relatively
high in Port Washington Narrows and near Bremerton. By contrast, the
main channel of Puget Sound, near Bainbridge Island, ranges from 5 yg/1
in the winter to 348 yg/1 in the spring. Model results can only approxi-
mate true conditions, which could vary from those predicted.
The seasonal pattern of variation in algal concentration tends to
imply that phytoplankton in Puget Sound are primarily limited by light
and secondarily by the input of nutrients. Continuously high concentra-
tions from spring to summer in Port Washington Narrows reflects the
nutrient loading from the Manette Sewage Treatment Plant wastewater
outfall on the western shore of East Bremerton and the return of much
of that wastewater at each tidal cycle.
Fisheries and Aquaculture
There are two major stream systems in the study area which
support runs of coho salmon, chum salmon and steelhead trout: the
Chico Creek system with its Dickenson, Lost and Kitsap Creek tributaries
entering Dyes Inlet, and the Blackjack Creek system which enters Sin-
clair Inlet. Smaller creeks with less than 3 km [2 mi] of potential
salmon-spawning areas are: Illahee Creek off of Port Orchard; Mosher
Creek off of Dyes Inlet; and Anderson, Ross, and Annapolis Creeks
which drain into Sinclair Inlet. Upstream occurrence and estimates
of salmon numbers for each creek are given in Appendix D-2. Adult
salmon runs normally occur in the fall, while steelhead migr-.te up-
stream in the fall and spring. The shoreline areas of central Kitsap
County are also important for overall salmon production for much of
Puget Sound. Juvenile salmon descending from inland waters to the
ocean in the spring and summer typically remain close to the shoreline
for food and protection from predators. Salmon are also commercially
reared in floating pens by a private firm at Clam Bay near Manchester
and off Fort Ward on Bainbridge Island.
Puget Sound also produces major groundfish resources, including
several flatfish, rockfish, herring, smelt and other species. Some of
the species present are dependent on shallow shoreline reaches for
spawning and/or nursery areas. The commercial and sport harvest of
shellfish in the area is relatively intense, with emphasis on oysters,
hardshell clams, crabs and shrimp. Limited commercial production of
Pacific oysters occurs in lower Dyes Inlet. Aquacultural resources are
shown generally on Figure 12, and listed also in Appendix D-3.
Commercial fishing statistical areas for Kitsap County are
segregated by port. Within the planning area, marine landings
are grouped into: (1) the Bremerton port which includes Sinclair
Inlet, Dyes Inlet and lower Port Orchard up to Point White and, (2)
46
-------
CHICO CREEK
DRAINAGE
BLACKJACK CREEK
DRAINAGE
23456
I | |
KILOMETRES
L EG END
ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS
OYSTERS
COMMERCIAL SALMON PENS
GEODUCK CLAMS
HARDSHELL CLAMS
FIGURE 12 AQUACULTURAL RESOURCES
47
-------
Fletcher Bay port which essentially covers the central portion of
Port Orchard Bay. The three-year average commercial weight and dollar
value of marine landings within these statistical areas are given in
Table 8. The statistics reflect commercially valuable and harvestable
species but do not necessarily reflect all resident species, annual or
seasonal abundance of species or Fisheries Department Harvest restric-
tions. Salmon were not included in individual port catch statistics
because they were categorized as a wide-ranging species not specific
to particular areas.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL AND OTHER
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeological Resources
Existing archaeological site data within the study area are limi-
ted and cover only a few localized areas. Documentation of archaeo-
logical sites is largely a product of opportune surveying along road-
cuts, excavations and selected areas such as promontories, rock-shel-
ter areas and water bodies. Areas identified with a potential for con-
taining archaeological remains include all of the shoreline along Sin-
clair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, Port Orchard Bay and Puget Sound. Other sen-
sitive areas are along the banks of lakes, large ponds and major streams
such as Blackjack and Gorst Creeks. A detailed discussed is presented
in Appendix E. Four archaeological sites have been recorded within
the study area by the State Historic Preservation Officer (Washington
State Department of Parks and Recreation). No recorded sites lie with-
in the alternative sites for treatment facilities and pumping stations
or within a 100 m [300 ft] wide corridor along the alternative pipe-
line routes.
A literature search and field survey conducted in April 1977 did
not reveal any further sites or artifacts of archaeological signifi-
cance. The treatment plant sites and proposed pipeline corridors a-
long roads have been severely disturbed in the past and many areas have
been covered by layers of dirt fill. However, the possibility of buried
sites or artifacts in the project area exists, particularly along the
shores of Dyes and Sinclair Inlets.
Historic Resources
The historic resources of the study area are centered around the
older portions of Bremerton and Port Orchard which contain structures
from the late 1800's to the early 1900's. Central Kitsap County has
two historical sites listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. They include: The U.S.S. Missouri moored in the west end
of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Navy View Apartments (Sid-
48
-------
Table 8. AVERAGE MARINE LANDINGS AND
VALUE WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, 1972-1974
Fletcher Bay
Species
Pelagic fish
Herring
Silver smelt
Ling cod
True cod
Rockf ish
Blue perch
Silver perch
White perch
Pelagic total
Benthic species
Butter clam
Horse clam
Littleneck clam
Pacific hard clam
Sea cucumber
Geoduck
Benthic total
TOTAL
(kg)a
9,887
33
11
2
-
208
-
957
11,098
60,449
9,631
33,798
259
976
193,497
298,510
309,708
($)
4,350
14
6
-
-
36
-
415
4,828
12,218
1,065
17,845
84
537
41,871
73,530
78,358
Bremerton
(kg)
15,414
106
-
-
32
3,287
142
10,118
29,099
236
•
9,490
455
976
-
11,157
40,256
($)
6,782
46
-
-
7
570
48
4,383
11,829
47
-
5,011
148
537
-
5,757
17,586
al kg = 2.2 Ibs.
Source: Reference 21
49
-------
ney Hotel) at Prospect and Frederick Streets, Port Orchard. Both
landmarks have been brought from other areas to their present loca-
tions.
Numerous structures have been recognized by the Kitsap County
Historical Society in Bremerton and surrounding towns. Most build-
ings listed by the Society were built from 1885 to 1916 and. are four-
to eight-room residences. A large number of these residences are
concentrated in the easterly portion of Bremerton south of the Port
Washington Narrows. A potential pipeline corridor between Manette-
and Charleston may pass by structures currently listed by the Society
or pass through areas with residences of equal or greater historic
interest which have not been nominated for the Society's list.
DEMOGRAPHY
The study area is the urbanized portion of a semi rural county. '
Only two incorporated cities are located within the study area: Bre-
merton with 37,000 persons and Port Orchard - the Kitsap County seat-
with 4,000 persons. Small unincorporated communities include Anna-
polis/Retsil, Orchard Heights, Manchester, Gorst, Navy Yard City and
other small clusters of urban development.
The population of the area has grown substantially in the last
few decades and is continuing to grow. This growth has been largely
related to the operation of local military installations. The loca-
tion of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton in the late 1800's,
two World Wars and two limited conflicts, with their accompanying in-
creases in shipyard and other military installation activity, and the
recent selection of Kitsap County for the site of the Navy Trident
Nuclear Submarine Base have all produced population surges as shown
in Table 9.
Sub-area growth figures presented in Table 10 reflect the in-
creased densities in the central portion of the county from 1960 to
1975, particularly around Bremerton. Population figures for Bremer-
ton may vary by as much as 5,000, depending on the number of ships,
and aircraft carriers, at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at any time
(Reference 23).
The data in Table 10 also indicate increasing growth in the area
south of Sinclair Inlet (South Kitsap) in recent years. This repre-
sents, in part, a southward migration of Kitsap County residents to-
ward Port Orchard and the Southworth-Colby communities along Puget
Sound. In part, it also results from an influx of former Seattle
and Tacoma residents. In some respects, Port Orchard is becoming a
50
-------
Table 9. POPULATION GROWTH, KITSAP COUNTY
AND CITIES IN STUDY AREA: 1910-1975
Kitsap County
Total
1910 14,000
1920 30,000
1930 29,000
1940 46,000
1950 77,000
1960 84,000
1970 102,000
1975 116,000
Sources: Reference 23
Bremerton Port Orchard
3,000
8,900
10,000
15,000
27,700
27,000
35,300
37,100
700
1,400
1,100
1,600
2,300
2,800
3,900
4,000
Table 10. SUB- AREA GROWTH, 1960-1975
Census
Area Division
North 1-3
Central 4-8
South 12, 14-16,
and 18
Bainbridge Island 9-11
Bremerton (in- B
corporated area)
County Total:
I960 1970
9,600 12,100
24,800 24,100
16,300 21,700
6,400 8,500
27,000 35,300
84,100 101,700
1975
14,000
28,800
26,700
9,500
37,100
116,100
Source: Reference 23.
51
-------
"bedroom" community for Tacoma, due to its easy access by highway.
Its current growth rate is estimated to approximate that of Bremerton.
In addition, persons outside of Washington, including families of re-
tired military personnel are moving to the area (References 23 and 24).
Total 1975 population for the study area, defined as sub-basins
11, 23, 24, 26 and 27 of Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 15,
was estimated as 69,300. Approximately 49,500 of these people were
in the Bremerton drainage area, which includes the East Bremerton-
Illahee-Tracyton-Fairview communities and the area between Port
Washington Narrows and lower Chico Creek. The balance of nearly 20,
000 was concentrated in the Port Orchard-Annapolis area. The Gorst
and Manchester areas accounted for approximately 4,500 of these 20,
000 persons. These figures represent revised estimates provided by
Arthur D. Little, Inc., in conjunction with the Kitsap County Plan-
ning Department. The population concentration generally corresponds
with the developed portions of the study area, as shown in Figure 13.
According to the 1970 census, 96.1 percent of the population was
white, with blacks accounting for 1.6 percent and other groups, 2.9
percent. The population characteristics of the county population
tended to differ from the state in general. As an example, 10.0 per-
cent of the population was 65 or older in 1970, compared to a state-
wide average of 8.2 percent. Because of this fact, a higher than
average number (15 percent) of county population receives Social Se-
curity payments. Due to the presence of the military (the economy
of the county is heavily dependent on employment related to the U.S.
Navy), the percentage of males (51.2 percent) was higher than the
state average of 49.5 percent. Approximately 15 percent of the 1970
population was military personnel and dependents, and this proportion
increased significantly whenever large ships were in port. Approxi-
mately 25 percent of 1970 county population was of school age.
FUTURE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Four recent estimates for Kitsap County in the year 1985 ranged
from 141,000 to over 166,000. All of these projections assumed that
Trident-related growth would be the most important single factor in
expansion, accounting for an increase of 27,000 to 32,000 persons
(Reference 23). As a result, a significant -population surge in the
central Kitsap area north of Bremerton can be expected, with contin-
uing spillover southward.
The most recent projections of population growth in the study
area for the design period have been supplied by Arthur D. Little,
Inc., with revisions by Bremerton and Kitsap County planners. These
are presented in Table 11. The figures in Table 11 represent a down-
ward revision of total population for the study area and for Bremer-
52
-------
01234
FIGURE 13 DEVELOPED AREA
53
-------
Table 11. TOTAL AND SEWERED POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Drainage Area
East Bremerton
Central Bremerton
Oyster Bay
Kitsap Lake
Gorst
Subtotal
Wildcat, Lake
Erland Point
North Bremerton
Illahee
Subtotal
Port Orchard
Retsil
Unsewered
Subtotal
Manchester
Waterman
Subtotal
STUDY AREA TOTAL
"WRIA
Sub-basin
11
23
23
23
24
23 *
23
23
11
26
26
26
1975
Total
28,108
9,545
6,278
2,989
2,176
49,096
279
1,826
1,303
571
3,979
5,673
6,790
2,441
14,904
2,025
475
2,500
70,479
- Sewered
21,325
9,201
3,738
1,445
0
35,529
0
0
0
0
0
3,547
1,974
0
5,521
503
0
503
41 ,553
2000
Total
33,200
9,186
9,097
4,704
3,792
59,976
923
3,216
3,438
756
8,353
10,745
13,721
5,024
29,490
4,480
475
4,955
302,673
Sewered
32,344
9,186
8,580
4,083
1,138
55,331
0
3,216a
2,578^
680a
6,474
9,525
10,663
0
20,188
3,465
0
3,465
85,458
Areas to be served by the Central Kitsap treatment facility.
Source: Facilities Plan - Volume II, Appendix H, June 1978.
54
-------
ton in the design year, 2000. Earlier estimates had placed the total
for that year at 97,000, with the Bremerton drainage area accounting
for 72,000 of the total. Population in the study area is now projected
to increase from an estimated 70,500 in 1975 to approximately 102,700
in the year 2000 (Reference 2). The Bremerton area has been projected
to increase 22 percent to 60,000 in 2000; the Port Orchard/Retsil area
by 97 percent to 29,500; and the Waterman/Manchester area by 98 per-
cent to 5,000.
FUTURE LAND USE
Wastewater treatment plants are constructed to meet projected use
demand and water quality standards. The study area will continue to
show increasing population densities, centering around Sinclair Inlet.
Future land use plans, as expressed in the Kitsap County Comprehensive
Plan put forth a goal to concentrate urban development in and around
existing urban areas, while preserving to the maximum possible extent
the rural and semi-rural life style of the county. (Reference 26).
The Plan designates "Urban," "Intermediate," (or Transitional), and
"Rural" areas, with "Intermediate" being either "Semi-urban" or "Semi-
rural," depending upon the extent of utilities and services demanded
by growth pressures. The proposed Urban, Intermediate (Semi-Urban or
Semi-rural) and Rural areas within the study area are shown in the
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan projected land use profile map shown
in Figure 14.
Urban areas are those areas which have utilities, transportation
facilities and other urban services which would permit highest intensity
uses consistent with applicable planning policies, ordinances, perfor-
mance criteria and state and federal regulations. According to the
Plan, the study area is expected to be increasingly urban around the
shores of Sinclair Inlet. Most of the Bremerton drainage area is class-
ified as Urban or Transitional. The Manchester, Gorst and Port Orchard-
Retsil/Annapolis areas are also classed as Urban, with the latter being
surrounded by a large Transitional area.
Different intensity uses may be recommended with each of these
land use classifications. In Transitional areas, development will be
treated on a case-by-case basis, depending on need for and proximity
to services, character of the surrounding area, and on existing and
potential land use. A semi-rural area has a development intensity
designed primarily for a low density residential use (maximum
density of 5 dwelling units (d.u.)/ ha [2 d.u./ac]), an intensity
that would require the provision of full public services. Semi-urban
areas are Transitional areas which could be expected to develop into
urban areas over time. The airport and industrial park are con-
55
-------
KILOMETRES
LEGEND
U URBAN
I INTERMEDIATE
SU SEMI URBAN
SR SEMI RURAL
R RURAL
M MILITARY AND INDIAN RESERVATIONS
FIGURE 14 PROJECTED LAND USE PROFILE MAP
56
-------
sidered Transitional, as are areas to the south of Manchester, around
the Colby and Southworth communities, and the southern perimeter of
Bainbridge Island.
The balance of the study area is classed as Rural for planning
purposes (Reference 26). Rural areas are those areas beyond the In-
termediate areas where urban or semi-urban development should not oc-
cur. The County will discourage development of more than one dwelling
unit per 4 ha [10 ac] in areas used, or having the potential to be
used, for•agriculture or forestry, with limited development in other
areas and limited provision of public utilities. Rural residential
development densities, where unrestricted by agriculture or forestry,
are a maximum of 1 d.u./ha [1 d.u./2.5 ac]. Only very low intensity
commercial activities would be permitted in rural areas.
At present, it is not envisioned that Rural areas or the Semi-
rural portions of Transitional areas will receive sewer service (Re-
ference 24).
EMPLOYMENT
Employment for residents of the Sinclair Inlet study area is
spread throughout the whole Kitsap County area. In addition, there
is some cross-commuting between Kitsap County and Seattle to the
west and Tacoma to the south. A specific breakdown of employment
for the Sinclair Inlet study area is not available. However, because
the work force is highly mobile in its commuting patterns, such sta-
tistics would not be particularly meaningful.
The City of Bremerton is the major urban area in the study area.
Governmental employment, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in particular,
dominates the economy in the area. The remaining federal employment
is mainly associated with the Naval Supply Center and the Keyport Na-
val Torpedo Station, and at agencies supporting defense activities.
Presently, construction at the Trident Submarine Base is also pro-
viding employment for many people in the area.
In January 1977, the Kitsap County labor force was estimated at
43,790, with an overall unemployment rate of 8.2 percent compared
with 9.5 percent in January of 1976. Table 12 presents a further
breakdown and comparison with State of Washington statistics. Table
13 shows a comparison of the Kitsap County resident civilian labor
force and unemployment for 1973, 1975 and estimated 1977. Contract
construction unemployment remained fairly consistent from 1973 through
1975 at about 3.1 percent. It is projected to increase to 6.2 percent
in 1977. The employment characteristics indicate an unusually high
proportion of federal government employment in the region, reflecting
57
-------
Kitsap County's reliance on Defense Department employment to sustain
the local economy.
A general economic decline in the period 1970 through 1974 was
experienced in the Bremerton area (Reference 27). Kitsap County did
not recover as fast as other northwest areas because job opportuni-
ties were limited by lack of industrial diversification. During 1974
and 1975, government employment rose as both federal and local govern-
ment made significant additions. Most of the gain in the federal
sector during 1973-1975 period was caused by a work force increase
of 1,400 people at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The increase in lo-
cal government employment followed substantial hiring in the local
school districts (Reference 27).
Construction was relatively unaffected by the recession of the
early seventies. Construction employment rose during 1974 and 1975.
It is projected that employment in this industry will continue to
grow in the 1977, as a direct result of the Trident Project. In ad-
dition, the Navy is planning to spend $30 million building a medi-
cal center and $10 million on other construction projects at the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Keyport Naval Torpedo Base (Re-
ference 27).
Table 12. RESIDENT LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT: KITSAP COUNTY
LABOR MARKET AREA AND STATE OF WASHINGTON
Kitsap County _§t.atp
Labor force
January 1976 42,580 1,523,300
January 1977 43,790 1,555,700
Employment
January 1976 38,540 1,362,000
January 1977 40,220 1,417,000
Unemployment
January 1976 4,040 163,400
January 1977 3,570 138,700
Unemployment Rate
January 1976 9.5 10.5
January 1977 8.2 Q..9
Source: References 27 and 28),
58
-------
Table 13. RESIDENT CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE & EMPLOYMENT IN KITSAP COUNTY FISCAL YEAR AVERAGES
1973 AND 1975 AND PROJECTED 1977
VO
TOTAL
Manufacturing
Stone, Clay, & Glass Products
Other Durable Goods
Food & Kindred Products
Other Nondurable Goods
Non- manufacturing
Mining
Construction
Transp. , Comm. , & Utilities
Trade
Fin., Ins., & Real Estate
Services, exc. pvt. household
Government
Federal
State
Local
1973
29,410
1,030
70
540
90
330
28,380
150
950
960
4,980
810
3,580
16,950
12,020
1,320
3,610
Fiscal
Percent
Of Total
3.4
.2
1.8
.3
1.1
96.6
.5
3.2
3.3
16.9
2.8
12.2
57.7
40.9
4.5
12.3
Year Averages
1975
33,380
1,010
80
530
100
300
32,370
160
1,040
990
5,420
930
3,970
19,860
14,430
1,520
3,910
Percent
Of Total
3.0
.2
1.6
.3
.9
97.0
.5
3.1
3.0
16.2
2.8
11.9
59.5
43.2
4.6
11.7
1977
35,350
1,070
90
580
110
290
34,280
160
2,200
1,010
5,580
970
4,320
20,040
14,280
1,540
4,220
Percent
Of Total
3.0
.3
1.6
.3
.8
97.0
.5
6.2
2.9
15.8
2.7
12.2
56.7
40.4
4.4
11.9
Source: Reference 27.
-------
Trade and services increased between 1973 and 1975. Although
much of this employment is seasonal in nature, increases in these
categories, are anticipated in the 1975-1977 period (Reference 27).
INCOME
The most comprehensive county-level income information is avail-
able only for the year preceding the decennial census year. The fol-
lowing information on income levels for 1969 was derived from the pub-
lication "Manpower Profile" from the U.S. Department of Labor (Ref-
erence 29). Median annual family income in Kitsap County in 1969 was
$10,541, which as 12 percent higher than the national median family
income of $9,430. A large segment of the population was categorized
in the middle income level, while several localized areas contained
both higher and lower income levels. Median white family income was
$10,617, compared with $8,273 for blacks and $7,946 for other groups.
More than $15,000 per year per family was earned by 5,525 families,
which as 21 percent of the county total. In 1969 most county house-
hold earned income from direct wages and salaries, with 9 percent de-
pending on self-employment and 15 percent receiving social security
payments.
A total of 8,828 persons (9.1 percent of all county residents),
comprising 1,936 families (7.3 percent of all households) received
less than poverty level income. The "near poor" — persons earning
less than 75 percent of poverty level income —numbered 5,925 (6.1
percent). Mean income of families below poverty level was $1,602.
Public assistance provided income for about 4 percent of county house-
holds.
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
Kitsap County's employment structure is dominated by federal
employment, primarily at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Table 14
indicates the breakdown of employment by industry.
The private sector of the Kitsap County economy is predominate-
ly retail trade. Table 13 indicates a total of 614 retail firms with
payrolls. These firms employ about 4,575 persons, with a total pay-
roll of over $24 million (Reference 30).
In 1972, service industries employed about 1,000 persons with a
total payroll of $4.9 million (Reference 31). There were 60 manufac-
turing establishments in 1972, employing 700 persons, with a total
60
-------
Table 14. SINCLAIR INLET STUDY AREA, MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Employer Percentage
Federal Government 49.6%
Retail & Wholesale Trade 13.4%
Local Government 5.5%
Construction 3.5%
Manufacturing 3.3%
Finance 3.2%
Transportation 3.1%
Other 0.5%
Source: Reference 26.
payroll of $5.6 million (Reference 32). Wholesaling provided employ-
ment for 375 persons with total payroll of $3.5 million. Comparable
statistics for the State of Washington are included in Table 15.
TAX BASE AND ASSESSED VALUES
Property tax collections in Kitsap County are based on the ap-
plication of a levy (tax rate) to every $1,000 of assessed valuation
(AV). In 1975, the AV rates changed to 100 percent of market value.
All taxing jurisdictions except schools and the State of Washington
have a budgetary limitation. This limitation, imposed by the State,
restricts their revenue collections to not more than 106 percent of
the highest amount collected in any of the previous three years (Re-
ference 33).
The restriction does not apply, however, to increases in valu-
ation resulting from new construction. The recent increase in resi-
dential and commercial building activity, counled with recent assessed
evaluation increases, has generated additional revenue for the cities of
Bremerton and Port Orchard. Total new construction in the County rose
by 93 percent in 1975. For information on construction trends, see
the section on "Land and Property Values." (Reference 34).
61
-------
Table 15. NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS, NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES & ANNUAL
PAYROLL, KITSAP COUNTY AND STATE OF WASHINGTON, 1972
Kitsap County State of Washington
Manufacturing Industries
No. of Establishments 50 5,343
No. of Employees 700 224,700
Payroll $5,600,000 $2,299,000,000
Retailing
No. of Establishments1 614 21,596
No. of Employees 4,575 180,481
Payroll $24,179,000 $959,811,000
Wholesaling
No. of Establishments 77 6,532
No. of Employees 375 65,285
Payroll 3,531,000 $607,037,000
Service Industries
No. of Establishments
No. of Employees
Payroll
260
1,013
4,925,000
75,897
12,060
$465,011,000
1. Excludes establishments which do not have payroll
Source: References 30, 33, 34 and 35,
62
-------
Table 16. KITSAP COUNTY ASSESSED VALUATION, NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND HISTORICAL TREND
ON
OJ
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Total
assessed
valuation
$ 629,189,100
736,239,562
772,260,264
894,292,468
965,143,188
1,033,793,823
1,424,606,834
New
construction
$17,251,870
24,851,825
22,834,746
35,514,411
36,088,389
69,701,345
(1)
Net
assessed
valuation
$611,937,230
711,387,737
749,425,518
858,778,057
929,054,799
964,092,478
(1)
Percent
increase
17.7%
16.3%
5.3%
14.6%
8.1%
3.8%
(1) These figures were not available as of April, 1977.
Source: Reference 34.
-------
Residential land and improvement represents approximately 88
percent of total assessed valuation in Kitsap County. Rural valuation
represents 66 percent of the total. City and town valuation repre-
sents 22 percent of the total. In 1974, the rural/city proportions
were 62.6 percent and 26.8 percent respectively, indicating a trend
away from new construction in urban centers (Reference 34).
LAND AND PROPERTY VALUE
Property values in Kitsap County have been rising at an average
annual rate of 11 percent in recent years (References 33, 34). This
trend is reflected in total county assessed valuations, which are
currently at 100 percent of market value. Table 16 presents the in-
creased in value of both existing properties and new construction for
the years 1970 through 1975. The assessed value of new construction
has increased from $36 million in 197A to $69 million in 1975, a 93
percent rise. This reflects the influx of Trident personnel and re-
lated support employment (Reference 34). Rising property values and
increased new construction are expected to continue through the com-
pletion of the Trident project.
Sales of existing properties are already occurring at an increas-
ing rate. Although the Trident base will not be completed until late
in 1978 (Reference 36), representatives of companies, which will ser-
vice the facility, are already moving into central Kitsap County, in-
cluding the Bremerton area. These people are generally more affluent
than the Navy personnel and are coming from areas where housing costs
are much higher than in Kitsap County. The resultant increased demand
for homes has raised the value of existing propc-rty. Many local resi-
dents are selling property for speculative purposes and relocating to
the Port Orchard area, where prices are still relatively low. This
secondary effect is creating population pressure south of Sinclair
Inlet (References 37, 38).
BONDED DEBT
In order to finance the local portion of construction costs for
the various facilities, it will be necessary to Issue revenue bonds.
On Table 17 there is a breakdown of the agencies which will contract
to the bonding parties to guarantee repayment of their portion of
the improvement.
Revenue bonds may be used by an entity to finance major facili-
ties when an adequate method of levying and collection service charges
64
-------
Table 17. FINANCING AND CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS
Wastewater
Bonding Entity Contracting Agencies Facilities
Kitsap County Kitsap County Manchester
City of Port Orchard City of Port Orchard Port Orchard
Sewer District #5 KCSD #5
(Retsil/Annapolis)
City of Bremerton City of Bremerton Charleston
Kitsap County Manette
Sewer District #1
Source: Reference 39.
to secure payment of the bonds can be developed. Unlike general obli-
gation bonds, payment of revenue bonds is secured solely by the reve-
nues derived from, or as a result of, the improvement constructed with
bond proceeds. Because of the increasing difficulties faced by many
communities and public agencies attempting to finance an increasing
number of services within their general obligation bonding capacity,
this type of bond is becoming increasingly popular.
Major advantages of revenue bonds can be summarized as follows:
(1) revenue bonds are payable solely from the revenues of the project
and can never become a lien or charge against real property; (2) pay-
ment of the bonds is derived solely from users of the facilities of
the project for which the bonds were issued; and (3) a referendum is
not required.
Kitsap County
The administration of the Manchester facility has recently been
taken over by Kitsap County (Reference 36). Previously, improvements
had been financed through the establishment of Local Improvement Dis-
tricts (LIDs) approved by residents of the service area. Property as-
ssessments established by an independent engineering firm were used as
a basis for direct billing. Some portion of the debt is financed
through user charges (Reference 40). A breakdown of the County bud1-
get is given in Appendix F.
65
-------
Outstanding current debt established by these LIDs was $191,000,
as of April 1977. Debt service in 1977 will total $22,875, including
$13,000 retirement of principal. A reserve fund is maintained which,
by covenant, amounts to one year's debt service. There is no minimum
ratio for debt coverage.
City of Port Orchard
The City of Port Orchard will act as fiscal and administrative
agent for the construction of improvements at the Port Orchard and Ret-
sil facilities. Kitsap County Sewer District #5 (Retsil/Annapolis)
will contract with the City for repayment of its portion of the finan-
cing. As of the end of fiscal year (FY) 1976, outstanding issues tot-
alled $502,000. Debt service in 1977 will amount to $51,325, includ-
ing approximately $19,000 in principal. Revenues are currently cover-
ing debt service by a ratio of 2 to 1, although the bond covenant re-
quires only 1.4 to 1. A breakdown of the city budget is given in Ap-
pendix F. There are no state or city charter restrictions limiting
the Port Orchard City Council in the issuance of revenue bonds (Re-
ference 41) .
City of Bremerton
The bonding entity for construction in the Bremerton system will
be the Water/Sewer Fund of the City of Bremerton. It is anticipated
that Sewer District #1, Kitsap County, and the City of Bremerton will
contract to participate in repayment of the debt. The Water/Sewer
Fund reported $4,853,000 in outstanding bond obligations as of Decem-
ber 31, 1976. Total debt service on these issues for fiscal year 1977
will be approximately $346,000, including $109,000 for repayment of
principal. A breakdown of the city budget is given in Appendix F.
There is a debt limitation on the Water/Sewer Fund of 5 percent
of the applicable assessed valuation, including utilities, which cur-
rently allows a margin of debt available of $7.3 million.
User charges are adjusted according to the appropriate depart-
mental expenditures, including salaries, capital costs and debt ser-
vice. The debt ratio required by covenant on the outstanding issues
is 1.4 times the debt service. The 1976 annual report of the City of
Bremerton states that the average annual debt service coverage in 1975
was 1.68 (Reference 42).
66
-------
UTILITY SERVICES
Gas
Natural gas is provided to Kitsap County by Cascade Natural Gas
Company. Service connections have been limited primarily to the Bre-
merton and Port Orchard areas.
Electric Power
Puget Sound Power and Light Company provides electric power to
the study area. Since Puget Sound Power and Light Company relies on
a hydroelectric-based generating system for 82 percent of its power
supply (Reference 43), shortage of electrical energy could result dur-
ing dry years with low streamflow. At present, there is a voluntary
program to reduce consumption by 10 percent in Kitsap County (Ref-
erences 44,45). The company is now moving toward a combination of
hydro and thermal power. Its first coal-fired generating plant went
into operation in 1975, with a 330,000-Kw capacity. The company's
combined capability, including purchases from other systems, stood
at 2,900 megawatts at the end of 1975 (Reference 43).
Standby generators at both the Manchester Naval Fuel Depot and
the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (Bremerton) are capable of supplying
sufficient power for all operations at those facilities (Reference
46).
Water Supply
Water in the study area is supplied by several types of systems.
Bremerton's primary water source is the Bremerton Watershed, the Coun-
ty's largest single source, with a reserve capacity of 106,000 m3 (28
mil gal.). The Port Orchard system, in comparison, relies primarily
on wells and has a reserve capacity of only 133 m3 (35,000 gal.)
(Reference 10).
Aside from the city systems, most of the study area's population
is served by five local water districts, with a combined reserve ca-
pacity of approximately 14,000 m3 (3.7 mil gal.). A small percentage
of the population receives water from community systems or from pri-
vate wells.
67
-------
Storm Drain Systems
Less than one half of the developed land within the study area is
served by storm drains. Substantial portions of the older storm drain
systems were constructed to flow into the sanitary sewer system. These
are known as combined sewer overflows (CSO). Where new land develop-
ment has taken place, or older portions of the system have been up-
graded, separate drains have been constructed for storm water and
sewage. With a few exceptions, maintenance of drains throughout most
of the study area has been fair to poor. T^ural areas generally do not
require engineered storm drain systems as runoff volumes are greatly
dispersed. Parts of the older system have insufficient hydraulic capa-
city to handle all these flows. When rainfall results in flows ex-
ceeding the capacity of the system, overflow points begin discharging
the combined storm and sewage flow to surface receiving waters.
Bremerton is presently served by separate systems throughout much
of its area; approximately 25 percent of its 180 km [113 mi] of sewer
lines are combined with storm drains. The Retsil/Annapolis community
also has separate drains in most of their system. Port Orchard's two
systems are now almost entirely distinct, as a result of a concerted
effort in the last five years to prevent inflow of stormwater into the
sewage collection systems. The Navy Yard City lines are in fair con-
dition, at best. Kitsap County Airport and the contiguous industrial
park are served by separate storm drains.
TRANSPORTATION
Since Kitsap County is located on a peninsula, the Hood Canal
Bridge near the northern tip of the peninsula, the bridge to Tacoma
on State Highway 16, and the State Ferry System are the main auto
access routes to the area. Four ferry terminals at Kingston, Winslow,
Bremerton and Southworth connect the County with greater Seattle.
Traffic is heaviest on the Winslow run, followed by Bremerton, Kingston
and Southworth. The ferries handle 400,000-600,000 passengers and
200,000-330,000 autos per month (Reference 47). Trident construction,
increased shipyard activities, and normal growth have accounted for a
recent marked increase in ferry passengers and auto traffic (Reference
37). Ferry service is currently operating near or at capacity during
peak hours; and, due to lack of funding, no new equipment purchases
are foreseen at present.
Major highway routes, as shown in Figure 14, include: State
Route (SR) 303 from East Bremerton across Port Washington Narrows to
Bremerton; SR 3 which follows along Dynes Inlet through Bremerton
along Sinclair Inlet and southwest to the county airport; SR 16 from
Gorst south through the Blackjack Creek Valley; and SR 160 which
-------
follows along the south shore of Sinclair Inlet through Port Orchard
and eastward. Beach Drive runs from Port Orchard eastward along the
shore of Sinclair Inlet over to Manchester and along the edge of Pu-
get Sound.
Heavy traffic areas include: portions of downtown Bremerton and
Port Orchard; the junction of SR 3 and SR 16 at Gorst, the junction
of SR 160 and Beach Drive immediately east of Port Orchard; and peri-
meter streets along Manette which access bridges crossing the Port
Washington Narrows. The most heavily travelled route is SR 3 from
Bremerton along Sinclair Inlet to the junction with SR 16 at Gorst.
Peak hour traffic volumes approach road capacity and lead to severe
congestion. The existing Charleston treatment plant is located with-
in this heavy traffic area near the main intersection where the branch
of SR 3 from the shipyard joins the branch of SR 3 from Oyster Bay.
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Visual and aesthetic qualities within the Sinclair Inlet area
can be divided into three categories: water-related, urban and rural,
The spatially dominant waterways and passages such as Sinclair
Inlet, Port Orchard Bay, Dyes Inlet and Puget Sound constantly pre-
sent the sights, sounds and smells of the marine environment. The
inlets and passages also provide a visual and psychological link with
Puget Sound and the ocean. Shoreline areas are considered to have
high aesthetic qualities and are typically lined with residences and
recreational facilities.
The most visually dominant urban area is Bremerton. The activi-
ties associated with the Naval Shipyard present a busy industrial and
commercial atmosphere. Probably the most well-known visual landmarks
on the ferry approach to Bremerton are the massive hammerhead cranes
towering over the shipyard.
Rural areas generally play the largest role in the visual and
aesthetic environment. Large stands of Douglas firs, thick brush
and ground cover, and open meadow areas provide a natural setting
with high aesthetic appeal. Small communities and individual resi-
dences generally blend in with the rural setting. The relaxed na-
tural setting has also attracted many city dwellers to this area in
more recent years for recreation and homesites.
69
-------
RECREATION AREAS
There are four basic types of recreation areas that may be af-
fected by the proposed project. They are: proposed bicycle routes
piers and boating facilities, shorelines and marine waterbodies, and
parks. The proposed project has the potential to affect the use of
these areas by eliminating aesthetic nuisances, improving water qua-
lity, creating construction disturbances and expanding existing treat-
ment facilities.
There are two bicycle routes planned for in the Kitsap County
Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan, which are located in
potential project construction and operation areas. The first route
is between Retsil and Waterman Point. The second route is through
an area of chronic septic tank failure situated between Annapolis
and Waterman Point along the shoreline. This area has an Intermedi-
ate land use classification assigned by the Kitsap County Comprehen-
sive Plan. As discussed in the Future Land Use Section, this classi-
fication calls for the provision of sewerage facilities as develop-
ment densities warrant them.
Effluent discharges are presently having various degrees of
minor to moderate adverse aesthetic effects, thus limiting recrea-
tion uses to an undetermined extent, at the Manchester boating pier,
the Annapolis pier, the Port Orchard Marina and the boating facili-
ties at Retsil. Also, treatment facilities compete for space with
recreation uses at the Port Orchard Marina.
Existing marine water quality in Sinclair Inlet discourages
many persons from engaging in activities such as fishing, clamming
and beachcombing. The intensity of water-related recreation ac-
tivities in the Sinclair Inlet system can be affected by changes
in water quality brought about by modifications in pollutant dis-
charges to marine waters.
There is a park adjacent to the Manchester Plant and a main-
tained, open area adjacent to the Retsil plant. Changes in land
needs at both plant sites could modify the usable open space of
the two parks, thus affecting their attractiveness for recreation
activities.
70
-------
\\\
-------
SECTION III
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
The facilities plan contains provisions for the transport of
sewage from sewered population areas, treatment of sewage to levels
compatible with receiving water quality criteria, and discharge of
treated wastewater to the final disposal sites. Wastewaters would
be collected from drainage sub-basins 11, 24, 26, 27 and parts of
23 as shown in Figure 1. Detailed descriptions of the sub-basins
are provided in Section II, Environmental Setting.
DESIGN FLOWS AND QUALITY
The facilities planning consultant has estimated that the study
area population will rise from an estimated base of 70,500 in 1975
up to approximately 102,000 persons in the year 2000. In 1975, an es-
timated 41,553 persons, or 60 percent were served by sewers. By 2000
it has been predicted that 85,458 persons or 83 percent of the popula-
tion will be connected to the ultimate sewerage system. Sewers will
be extended to those areas presently having septic tank failures.
Sewer service eventually will be extended to all areas developed to a
density of five dwelling units (d.u.)/ na {2 d.u./ac}. Thus, desig-
nated rural areas will not be sewered under present plans, but semi-
urban areas will be connected to proposed sewerage facilities when
they reach urban densities.
•3
The 20-year design flow for 2000 was estimated at 0.43 m Is
{10.1 mgd}. This value includes 0.09 m3/s (2.2 mgd) of groundwater
infiltration into sewers and inflow of storm water through openings
such as manhole covers. Commercial and institutional flows are es-
timated to total 0.08 m3/s (1.82 mgd). Further details may be found
in Appendix H of the facilities plan (Reference 1). The sewer system
is not intended to collect storm water runoff, and sewer design
would attempt to minimize such inflow. The division of sewage flows
in 2000 is estimated to be as follows: Bremerton and Gorst (sub-
basins 11, 23 and 24) at 0.34 m3/s (7.9 mgd)- Port Orchard/Retsil
(sub-basin 26) at 0.09m3/s (2.2 mgd); and Manchester (sub-basin 27)
at 0.02 m3/s (0.4 mgd).
Wastewaters generated through 2000 are expected to be of typical
domestic sewage quality. The facilities planner estimated that the
current sewer system receives a flow of 0.31 m3 (80 gal)/cap-day with
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,-) and suspended solids loadings
(SS) of 0.08 kg (0.17 Ib)/cap-day each. For future development, how-
ever, the facilities planner developed higher values to reflect greater
71
-------
usage of automatic appliances and increased disposal rates. For
areas developed after 1975, flow was based on estimates of 0.38m
(100 gal)/cap-day and corresponding BOD^ and SS loadings of 0.09 kg
(0.20 Ib)/cap-day each. A graphical presentation of untreated waste
loads generated by the planning area is shown in Figure 15. Typical
domestic wastewater presents no problems to the standard sewage
treatment processes.
Commercial contributions to the system will generally be low.
Commercial flows originate primarily from Bremerton and Port Orchard
and will comprise approximately eight percent of the total flow.
Industrialization within the study area consists of the Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard, the Manchester Fuel Depot and the Olympic View
Industrial Park/Kitsap County Airport. The design year flows and
waste loads take into account three new special waste treatment/col-
lection systems under construction. The first two are at Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard and the third will be at the Manchester facility. The
first is an industrial waste treatment system with a small 0.003m^/s
(0.072 mgd) flow to the Bremerton system. The second is a ship waste
collection system to be completed in 1979 with a 0.035 m3/s (800,000
gal/day) flow to Bremerton. Current flow from ships on piers and
at the dry docks is approximately 0.018 m^/s (400,000 gal/day). The
third new system at the Manchester Naval Fuel Depot will be a ship
waste collection system and an oily waste separator system operating by
1980. Only the ship waste collection system with a holding tank of
190 m3 (50,000 gal) will be discharged to the Kitsap County Sanitation
District (KCSD) No. 3 (Manchester system). Flows from the Olympic
View Industrial Park/Kitsap County Airport will be relatively small
and will probably continue to be treated by the existing small treat-
ment lagoon and drainfield system.
Infiltration and Inflow
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) exist to some degree in every
sewerage system in the area. The flows used herein for developing
design data assume the cost-effective removal of excessive I/I. In
KCSD No. 3, whether I/I is excessive depends on the alternative se-
lected.
An analysis of infiltration/inflow conditions in the study area
and recommendations for improvement was performed by the facilities
planner. A summary of this analysis, particularly the combined sewer
overflows (CSO's) in Bremerton-which are the most significant overflow
problem is presented in Appendix I. This analysis was performed in
accordance with EPA Program Guidance 61. The CSO corrections will be
separate from the decision on the sewage treatment system and CSO work
will be evaluated for impacts at the time it is done. The following is
72
-------
7,000
<5,000
o
^
0»
o
O
<
O
o.
5,000
4,000
3,00 u
2,000
1,000
1970
1975
BOD5/SS-UNTREATED
ASSUMED UNIT WASTE PRODUCTION
BOD5
SOLIDS
NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
COMMERCIAL
0.09 KG/ CAPITA/ DAY
0.09 KG/CAPITA/DAY
0.0135 KG'CAPITA/DAY
G.0045 KG/ CAPITA /DAY
35%
STRENGTH OF
RESIDENTIAL
NITROGEN
I960
1985
YEAR
1990
1995
2000
FIGURE 15 ESTIMATED UNTREATED WASTE LOADS
73
-------
a summary of the major recommendations of this analysis.
The majority of sewers in Bremerton are combined storm and sewer
systems which receive sewage flows, infiltration from high groundwater
levels and storm water runoff. Historically I/I has been relatively
high and at times equalling the sewage flows. Peak instantaneous flows
for Charleston have been calculated at 35.5 mgd including all overflows,
During storm events, excessive inflow leads to hydraulic overloading
of sewer lines and subsequent overflows at pump stations. The overflow
directly enters local marine waters without treatment. The Bremerton
system contains 39 CSO's. In a 1977 sewer system evaluation survey
by the facilities planner, 23 of the 39 CSO's were judged non-detri-
mental and no changes were planned. Of the remaining 16 CSO's, 12
were recommended to be handled by treatment and transport; requiring
larger sewers, pumps and treatment facilities. Three were recommended
for complete inflow removal, and one was recommended for on-site
screening and disinfection facilities. The results of this cost-effec-
tive inflow removal are as follows.
Entity Inflow Removal*(mgd)
Bremerton 9.98
Port Orchari 0.85
KCSD No. 1 0.53
KCSD No. 3 0.15
KCSD No. 5 1.02**
^Represents reduction in peak flow that would otherwise
reach the treatment facilities.
**Includes 0.002 mgd of infiltration.
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
Discharge strategies are general approaches to wastewater treat-
ment and disposal, and are described in terms of discharge location
and effluent quality. Within each strategy, several alternatives are
usually possible for meeting discharge requirements. For the Sinclair
Inlet study, four action strategies were developed, plus the fifth
strategy of no action. For the four action strategies, existing com-
bined sewer overflows that have detrimental effects on the use of
receiving waters will be controlled to reduce these impacts to ac-
ceptable levels. Excessive infiltration/inflow will also be removed
from the systems.
74
-------
Discharge to Sinclair Inlet
The main discharge area with this strategy would be Sinclair In-
let and/or Port Washington Narrows. Under this strategy, five alter-
natives were defined. Potential treatment sites and features are
shown in Table 18. The alternatives ranged from upgrading all exist-
ing plants to secondary treatment with individual outfalls, to re-
gional treatment plants at Charleston or Manchester.
Discharge to Port Orchard Bay
The major discharge in this strategy would be to Port Orchard
Bay either from the Bremerton side or the Waterman side. This stra-
tegy would likely result in a regionalization of the area's sewerage
system. All discharges would receive secondary treatment. The two
alternatives possible with this strategy are presented in Table 18.
Discharge at Manchester
The major discharge with this strategy would be to Puget Sound.
A single treatment plant, requiring regionalization, would serve the
study area under this strategy. Primary treatment, although current-
ly an unacceptable treatment level for discharge to receiving water,
was considered by the facilities' planner for comparison purposes. The
alternatives possible with this strategy are defined in Table 18.
Nutrient Removal
With this strategy, algae stimulating nutrients would be removed
from the treated wastewaters either by advanced waste treatment (AWT)
or land treatment of effluent. Nutrient removal processes are rela-
tively expensive compared to primary and secondary treatment. To be
cost-effective, a main regional treatment facility would be required
with this strategy. Due to the small volume and cost-effectiveness
reasons, the Manchester facility would be upgraded to the secondary
level and remain independent. The two alternatives considered are
shown in Table 18.
75
-------
Table 18. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL, STRATEGIES
AND ALTERNATIVES
Strategy
Plan Treatment
number sites
Discharge
sites
Features
Discharge to
Sinclair 1
Inlet
Charleston Sinclair Inlet
Port Orchard Sinclair Inlet
Retsil Sinclair Inlet
Manchester Puget Sound
Charleston
Retsil
Manchester
Charleston
Manchester
Manette
Charleston
Port Orchard
Retsil
Manchester
Charleston
Manchester
All of Bremerton's wastewater will
receive secondary treatment at Charles-
ton. Port Orchard, Retsil and Manchester
will maintain individual secondary treat-
ment plants discharging to Port Orchard
Bay and Puget Sound, respectively.
This alternative differs from Sinclair
Inlet Alternative 1 in that Port Or-
chard and Retsil join in a single secon-
dary treatment plant at Retsil.
Port Orchard and Retsil would consolidate
their sewerage systems at a secondary
treatment facility at Charleston. Trans-
mission costs to a central treatment fa-
cility are lowest with the Charleston lo-
cation. The Manchester facility remains
independent.
Port Washington All existing plants will be upgraded to
Sinclair Inlet
Sinclair Inlet
Puget Sound
Sinclair Inlet
Puget Sound
Narrows
Sinclair Inlet
Sinclair Inlet
Sinclair Inlet
Puget Sound
secondary treatment capacity and expanded
as necessary at their present locations.
Pumping and transmission line costs are
lowest with this system.
Sinclair Inlet Regional treatment facilities will serve
Puget Sound the north and south sides of Sinclair In-
let at Charleston and Manchester, respec-
tively. Port Orchard and Retbil are ser-
ved at Manchester.
Discharge to
Port Orchard
Discharge at
Manchester 2
Waterman
Manchester
Enetai
Retsil
Manchester
Port Orchard
Puget Sound
Port Orchard
Port Orchard
Puget Sound
Manchester Puget Sound
A new regional treatment facility will be
constructed with a discharge at the junc-
tion of Rich Passage and Port Orchard Bay.
The discharge location has good mixing prop-
erties and would be outside of Sinclair In-
let.
Regional treatment facilities at Retsil
(serving Port Orchard and Retsii) and Enetai
(serving Bremerton) will discharge into Pot-
Orchard Bay. Manchester remains independent.
A regional facility serving the entire study
area will be constructed at Manchester. In
addition to secondary treatment,primary treat-
ment is considered, with a deep-water discuarge.
76
-------
Table 18. (Cont'd)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL, STRATEGIES
AND ALTERNATIVES
Strategy
Plan Treatment
number sites
Discharge
sites
Features
Manchester Puget Sound
Central Kitsap County will share secon-
dary treatment facilities with Sinclair
Inlet at a new regional plant in Manchester.
Flows and the attendant transmission costs
will be nuch greater.
Nutrient
Removal
Charleston Sinclair Inlet A regional facility serving all areas ex-
Manchester Puget Sound cept Manchester, will be constructed at
Charleston. In addition to secondary treat-
ment, nitrogen will be removed from waste-
water to reduce algae stimulation in Sinclair
Inlet. The Manchester facility rer.ains in-
dependent.
Charleston Land applica- Charleston is ungraded to secondary treatment.
Retsil tion south of Port Orchard consolidates with Retsil which
Long Lake is upgraded to secondary treatment also. Ef-
Manchester Puget Sound fluent from ooth plants is pumped to 3. land
application site south of Long Lake. The Man-
chester facility remains independent. Ground-
water suoplies will be recharged with high
quality renovated water and Sinclair Inlet
water quality will be protected from effluent
discharges.
77
-------
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT)
The secondary treatment processes at the regional plant would be
supplemented by new facilities to remove nitrogen from wastewaters.
Nitrogen contributed from wastewater effluent can overstimulate algal
growth in marine waters. AWT processes can reduce nitrogen, generally
in the forms of ammonia-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen, by 95 percent
through mechanical and biological processes. However, AWT systems en-
tail high capital costs, are extremely energy intensive and performance
has not been documented over long periods of time for large systems.
Where possible, land treatment of wastewaters - which usually involves
lower capital costs and energy usage - is often considered desirable.
Land Treatment of Wastewater
Nutrient removal strategy alternative No. 3 considered land treat-
ment of effluent. Land application of wastewater is highly dependent
upon local climatic conditions, soils type and the quality and quanti-
ty of wastewater. This technique uses the assimilative capacity of
plants, the soil surface and the soil matrix to remove nutrients and
other constituents from the wastewater. Usually some degree of pre-
treatment is required before the wastewater is applied to land. Two
types of land application were analyzed for the study area: irriga-
tion and infiltration-percolation. The assumed flow was 0.52 m3/s
[12.0 mgd].
Land Treatment by Irrigation. The irrigation method uses waste-
water to supply the water requirements for crops. Due to the rainy
climate, the annual net irrigation requirement is only 13 cm [5.1 in.]
compared to 100-125 cm [40-50 in.] in a dry climate. With low irriga-
tion requirements, large amounts of land will be needed to handle 0.52
m-Vs [12.0 mgd]. Disposal of the wastewater through the irrigation
method would require approximately 8500 ha [21,000 ac]. Within the
study area, the Everett gravelly sandy loam (Ev) is the most suitable
for this method of application. However, according to Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS) personnel, there is no contiguous area of Everett
soils of this size within or near the study area; therefore, this
method of application was eliminated from further consideration.
Land Treatment by Infiltration/Percolation. The infiltration-
percolation process involves high loadings of wastewater and uses the
capacity of crops to remove nutrients to only a limited extent. In
forested areas, the natural vegetation may die under the high appli-
cation rates used in this method. Without vegetation, the uptake of
nutrients will be lessened. If there are strict limitations on
78
-------
discharge of nutrients into the groundwater, this process may become
infeasible, depending on the assimilative capacity of the soils.
Two rates of application were reviewed for the infiltration-
percolation method: (1) low (5 cm [2 in.] per week total wastewater
+ precipitation) and (2) high (25 cm [10 in.] per week total waste-
water + precipitation). Both of these application rates would require
storage to hold the wastewater during periods of intensive rainfall
when wastewater could not be applied.
The Everett gravelly sandy loam (Ev) was determined to be the
most suitable soil for the low rate infiltration-percolation process
and would require approximately 1,000 ha [2,500 ac] to accommodate
projected flows. Because of the small contiguous acreage of this
soil type available near the study area, low rate-infiltration-per-
colation was eliminated from further consideration.
The high rate infiltration-percolation process requires approxi-
mately 138 ha [340 ac] of suitable soil with an additional 32-40 ha
[80-100 ac] for attendant uses. The Everett gravelly sandy loam (Ev)
was also determined to be the most suitable soil for this method of
application. By using available SCS soil mapping, one contiguous
area of Everett gravelly loamy sand (Eg) was identified south of the
Long Lake area.
No Action Strategy
The facilities plan also examined the option of continuing pre-
sent operations with no changes. Currently, the existing treatment
facilities in the Sinclair Inlet area do not meet state and EPA stan-
dards. In addition, discharges and overflows into the inlet season-
ally degrade the bacteriological quality of Sinclair Inlet to below
Class A standards, causing a ban on shellfish harvesting in the area.
These conditions could only be expected to worsen as flows from the
area increase, causing further degradation of the water quality of
Sinclair Inlet. For these reasons, the no action alternative was
considered unacceptable by the facilities planner.
Strategy Evaluation by the Facilities Plan
The facilities plan evaluated each strategy primarily on the
basis of cost-effectiveness and comparative improvements effected
upon the local water quality. Projected water quality improvements
were analyzed with the aid of the Ecologic Model of Puget Sound as
79
-------
developed for EPA. The model was calibrated for Port Orchard and
Sinclair Inlet conditions for the years 1980 and 2000. Modelled
parameters focused on dissolved oxygen, nutrients and algal concen-
trations. The following model runs were made on a coarse grid:
1) Existing Conditions: primary treatment facilities
at Manette, Charleston, Port Orchard, Annapolis and
Manchester;
2) Sinclair Inlet Discharge Strategy: Secondary treatment
facilities at Charleston and Manchester for 1980 and 2000.
This strategy was also modeled with a fine grid;
3) Port Orchard Bay Discharge Strategy: Secondary treatment
facilities at Enetai and Manchester for 1980 and 2000;
4) Nutrient Removal Strategy: AWT at Charleston and Secon-
dary treatment at Manchester for 1980 and 2000.
The Manchester regional discharge strategy was discarded from
consideration due to its high cost, the high degree of local coopera-
tion required and the fact that Central Kitsap County will be con-
structing a separate treatment facility in the near future. The
strategy involving no marine discharge with land treatment-nutrient
removal was evaluated to be similar to AWT-nutrient removal in terms
of nitrate effects on waters. Since the model was run primarily to
simulate algal growth in Sinclair Inlet, only the reduced nitrogen
condition in AWT was computed.
The results of the computer runs indicated that only small incre-
mental improvements in Sinclair Inlet water quality were achieved
over present conditions with secondary-treated effluent outfalls in
either Port Orchard Bay or Sinclair Inlet. Similar slight benefits
also resulted with the nutrient removal strategy.
According to the ecological model, algae blooms would continue
to occur annually in Sinclair Inlet. Secondary treatment does not
remove nutrients; therefore, algal activity would increase slightly
(less than 10 percent of measured chlorophll a) with increased waste-
water flows. With the nutrient removal strategy, algal activity was
projected to be less than that with secondary-treated effluent and
approximately equal to present levels of algal activity in Sinclair
Inlet. Thus, nutrient removal would allow Sinclair Inlet to retain
approximately the same or a small percentage higher algal activity.
The Port Orchard Bay discharge, Manchester discharge and nutrient
removal strategies in each case were more energy intensive and cost-
ly than the Sinclair Inlet discharge strategy and thus were elimina-
ted from further consideration.
80
-------
Based primarily upon these evaluations, the facilities planner
recommended the Sinclair Inlet discharge strategy. This strategy
was the least expensive, while providing water quality capable of
meeting "A" standards. Although Sinclair Inlet is a shallow embay-
ment with a slow flushing rate, it was envisioned to have adequate
dilution volume for wastewater discharges. The higher degree of
treatment would also produce a lower unit wasteload thus improving
present water quality.
Sinclair Inlet Plan no. 1 (from Table 18) was incorporated into
Plan no. 4. Thus Plans 2-5 were developed into Alternatives 2-5 in
the facilities plan. The description of these alternatives, as well
as no action, are presented below. An alternative, utilizing a treat-
ment plant and discharge at Enetai instead of Charleston, was considered
and discarded early in the planning process because of its high cost. In
response to questions asked at the Public Hearing, the facilities planner
prepared the schematic and cost analysis shown in Appendix H to show that
the Enetai alternative is not within the range of cost-effectiveness.
Alternative Plans-Sinclair Inlet Discharge Strategy
Alternative 1 (No Action)
For the purpose of this EIS, Alternative I was defined as the
no action alternative. The five existing primary treatment facilities
and marine outfalls as described in the "Present Status" section would
be retained. As each facility is presently at or above its capacity,
future connections to the sewer system and expansion of the service
area would be greatly limited. Installation of septic tanks and
leach fields for new structures would be evaluated on an individual
basis by the County Health Department. Associated with this alterna-
tive would be the continuation of periodic septic system failures
and pollution of shallow groundwater aquifers.
Common Features - Alternatives 2-5
Alternatives 2-5 have a number of common features, namely:
1. The Port of Bremerton will continue to operate a separate
treatment facility serving the Kitsap County Airport and the Olympic
View Industrial Park. The Port currently has the only secondary
treatment facility in the area and the system appears to perform
satisfactorily. The flow from the port is small and the cost of
pumping it to another facility in the area would be high.
2. KCSD No. 3 (Manchester) will be served by a treatment fa-
cility in the vicinity of Manchester. This is because Manchester
81
-------
is separated by 6 km (4 mi) of hilly terrain from the center of the
study area population, which makes pumping and pipeline costs very
high. Also, the assimilative capacity of the local receiving waters
(Puget Sound) off Manchester is higher than that of any other loca-
tions, providing adequate dilution and dispersion.
3. At present, Sinclair Inlet is a Class A water with a special
condition allowing higher-than-normal coliform level. Upgrading
treatment levels to secondary treatment should cause more effective
solids removal, thereby allowing more effective disinfection. Also,
elimination of serious overflows and bypasses presently discharging
into Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows would remove major
sources of fecal contamination. Thus all alternatives will remove
the special discharge condition from the Class A rating of Sinclair
Inlet and Port Washington Narrows.
4. Excessive infiltration/inflow will be removed from the sewer
systems in the study area. Preliminary evaluations of the sewer sys-
tems have indicated excessive infiltration/inflow in many areas, which
will be removed before any treatment facilities are constructed.
5. Bremerton must agree to serve KCSD No. 1 and all entities
must agree to serve undeveloped areas draining to their facilities.
Thus, Gorst and other areas are projected to be sewered by the year
2000.
6. Wastewater solids (sludge) from each facility, will be de-
watered by mechanical means at each site and disposed to a private
or county landfill. The use of sludge-drying beds has been proposed
for Manchester. Hauling of liquid sludge for reuse on land applica-
tions was considered cost-effective within a 32-km (20 mi) haul dis-
tance for Charleston and a 20-km (12 mi) haul distance for Retsil
and Manchester. Land application would be an attractive alternative
if an acceptable agreement can be reached with a local landowner(s)
to handle the material.
Alternative 2 (Charleston Regional/Retsil Regional/Manchester)
The treatment plant locations and pipeline routes in Alternative
2 are depicted in Figure 16. With this alternative, three treatment
plants will be operated: a 0.34 m^/s (7.6 mgd) facility at Charleston;
a 0.09 m3/s (2.1 mgd) plant at Retsil, both discharging to Sinclair
Inlet; and a 0.02 m^/s (0.4 mgd) plant at Manchester, discharging to
Puget Sound. The existing treatment plant at Charleston will be up-
graded to secondary treatment and expanded to the design capacity in
order to handle all of the flow diverted from the Manette plant. The
existing Manette facility will be demolished. From the Manette pump-
ing station across Port Washington Narrows, wastewater will flow
82
-------
• • • / REPLACE KCSO N0.3 PRIMARY S.T.R
I . , ' ' : '/ W/A NEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
PRESSURE LINE •••• ::\'.i, SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
«
I •" » APV==
^P"- ^4 ^ ' t-
-f r \ ,„-,'-
^'
PAln— \JP •'••'• •"*+ ^ -•• 't I A
TAPND mf-\: '• _,awV^.•••'•':. :> J ^ j> >' / \
Liis^::::.
LEGEND
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMP STATION
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
NEW OUTFALL
EXISTING OUTFALL
FIGURE 16 ALTERNATIVE 2
83
-------
through the existing pipeline; however, new pipeline construction will
be required through the City of Bremerton to the Charleston Plant.
The pipeline will be a force main 6 km (3.8 mi) long. The cross-city
pipeline route, as shown in Figure 16 is approximate and subject to
revision by the facilities planner. The plant site at Charleston
presently occupies 2.24 ha (5.52 ac) and will require approximately
an additional 1.94 ha (4.8 ac).
The plant at Retsil will also be upgraded to secondary treatment
with an activated biological filter, and will treat all flows from
Retsil and Port Orchard. The existing facility at Port Orchard will
be removed and a pump station will be built at that site to pump all
flows through a force main 2.4 km (1.5 mi) long to the Retsil plant.
The pipeline route will be constructed across the intertidal beach.
The Retsil plant site currently covers 0.38 ha (0.94 ac) and will need
an additional 0.60 ha (1.47 ac) to be acquired from the State of
Washington.
The existing Manchester plant will probably be replaced by a
package system or custom-built secondary treatment facility. The
plant site currently occupies 0.63 ha (1.55 ac) and will require an
additional 0.31 ha (0.76 ac) of land. This alternative requires Port
Orchard and KCSD No. 5 (RetsiJ) to negotiate an interlocal agreement
on joint treatment.
Alternative 3 (Charleston Regional/Manchester)
With Alternative 3, the Charleston plant will be expanded to
0.43 m^/s (9.7 mgd) and will treat all wastes from Bremerton, Port
Orchard and Retsil. The Manchester plant will be enlarged to 0.022
m3/s (0.4 mgd) with an outfall to Puget Sound. This alternative is
shown in Figure 17. Both plants will be upgraded to secondary treat-
ment .
This alternative requires replacing the present plants at Manette,
Retsil and Port Orchard with pumping stations and constructing force
mains to transport wastewater to the Charleston plant. The existing
Manette facility may be retained for future additional capacity. A
6 km (3.8 mi) pipeline across Washington Narrows and through Bremerton
will convey wastewater from Manette, and a 5.3 km (3.3 mi) pipeline
will be built from Retsil through Port Orchard and across Sinclair
Inlet at Ross Point to the Charleston plant. Portions of this pipe-
line may be built onshore or across the intertidal beach offshore.
Expansion of both the Charleston and Manchester plants will require
the same amount of land as in Alternative 2.
To implement this alternative, Port Orchard, KSCD No. 5 and
Kitsap County must negotiate an interlocal agreement on treatment
with Bremerton.
84
-------
/; REPLACE MANETTE S.T.R ^ f *• 'R"EVFRSE~FL Ow""lN L -o^fc*-*" ,- I \ '• '• ' \
t / W/ NEW PUMP STATION •^j EXISTING PIPES >/• — • — '"• : ' j/j?j £ \ • •• •'• \
'..'(/ \ •: .
ACE EXISTING t
STATION N0.4 i '
1^ ' 1::..«.:::
—«. ' x> REPLACE KCSD NO 3 PRIMARY S.T.P.
4 PRESSURE LINE .-'"•, J/ w/A NEW SECONDARY S.TP -• "
20,000' TOTAL / c -.^ , . I ' "
^-r.;.:..,.•:.:;:,>>/> P?*"*
UPGRADE a EXPAND
CHARLESTON PLANT
TO SECONDARY S.T.P.
— ""tt::-. :
**i»k" • S^ 14" PRESSURE
L:,"lJ0f. 8,000'
.
REPLACE KCSO N0.3 S.T.P
NE" PUMP STATION
SUBMERGED PIPELINE :%^
3,500'
,.•;,<*::;:::: is"PRESSURE LINE 1,rj-i
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD S.T.P
* W/NEW PUMP STATION
I \
I 'v
LEGEND
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMP STATION
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
NEW OUTFALL
> EXISTING OUTFALL
FIGURE 17 ALTERNATIVE 3
85
-------
Alternative 4 (Local Treatment Plants)
Alternative 4 retains all of the existing plant sites. Charles-
ton, Retsil, Manchester, Manette and Port Orchard will all be upgraded
to secondary treatment. The Charleston plant will have a capacity of
0.14 m3/s (3.4 mgd); Manette 0.17m3/s (4.1 mgd); Manchester 0.02nH/s
(0.4 mgd); and Port Orchard and Retsil each at 0.04 m3/s (1.0 mgd).
This alternative is depicted in Figure 18.
All the plant sites except the Charleston site will need addi-
tional land. The Manette plant will require an additional 2.3 ha
(5.7 ac) for a total of 2.8 ha (6.9 ac); the Retsil plant will need
0.6 ha (1.4 ac) for a total of 2 ha (5.0 ac); the Port Orchard plant
will need 0.5 ha (1.2 ac) for a total of 0.5 ha (1.3 ac); and the
Manchester plant will need 0.3 ha (0.8 ac) for a total of 1.0 ha
(2.4 ac). No pipelines, other than new collection sewers for newly
developed areas, will be constructed under this alternative.
No interlocal treatment agreements are required with this alter-
native. Sludge will be disposed to the county landfill unless a lo-
cal landowner, as described earlier, is willing to accept the
material.
Alternative 5 (Charleston Regional/Manchester Regional)
Alternative 5 involves the use of two secondary treatment plants;
one at Charleston and one at Manchester. The Charleston plant will
be a 0.34 m^/s (7.6 mgd) facility discharging to Sinclair Inlet, and
will treat all wastes from Bremerton. The Manchester regional plant
will treat the wastewaters from Retsil, Port Orchard and Manchester.
It will be a 0.11 m3/s (2.5 mgd) plant discharging to Puget Sound.
This alternative is depicted in Figure 19.
Additional land will be required by both plants for their ex-
pansions. The Charleston plant will require an additional 1.3 ha
(3.2 ac). The Manchester plant will require an additional 0.97 ha
(2.4 ac). Two new force mains will be required: the first, a 6 km
line (3.8 mi) line from the current Manette plant site through Bre-
merton to the Charleston plant; the second a 7.4 km (4.6 mi) line from
Port Orchard through Retsil to the Manchester plant. The second
pipeline has been proposed to be either constructed onshore, offshore
across the intertidal beach, or a combination of the two. Pump
stations will be constructed at the sites of the present Manette,
Port Orchard and Retsil treatment plants. The primary facilities at
the latter two sites will be removed. An additional pump station
will be constructed at Waterman.
86
-------
., I I ! EXPAND a UPGRADE,
-j (•' ' MANETTE S.T.P
.REPLACE KCSD N0.3 PRIMARY S.T.R
X/W/ANEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
'^ SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
EXPAND 81 UPGRADE.
CHARLESTON S.T.R
REPLACE KCSD NO.S PRIMARY ™\
S.T.R W/ANEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD PRIMARY SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
*•>"' S.T.R W/A NEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
LEGEND
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMP STATION
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
» NEW OUTFALL
,.....> EXISTING OUTFALL
FIGURE 18 ALTERNATIVE 4
87
-------
j • ; ; - x W '•
..jE-~f4 f—— -
W/ NEW PUMP STATION mj ' REVERSE FLOW IN I
*EXISTING PIPES 7
REPLACE EXISTING ft- . - i i \ . k
PUMP STATION N04-, NEW MANCHESTER S.T P. \
"•'" PRESSURE LINE
,500' TOTAL
PRESSURE
20,000' TOTAL
NEW WATERMAN
rPUMP STATION
UPGRADE a EXPAND
CHARLESTON S T P.
18 PRESSURE LINE
15,500' TOTAL
PRESSURE
8,000' TOTAL
REPLACE KCSD NO 5 STP.
*/ NEW PUMP STATION
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD
W/ NEW PUMP STATION
.._y
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMP STATION
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
• EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
——4 NEW OUTFALL
» EXISTING OUTFALL
FIGURE 19 ALTERNATIVE 5
88
-------
Port Orchard and KCSD No. 5 must negotiate an interlocal agree-
ment on treatment with Kitsap County in order to implement this al-
ternative. All sludge disposal will be to the existing landfill at
the county airport until the new county landfill at Hansford Road
can accept it. Alternate arrangements for sludge recycling, as de-
scribed earlier, can be made if an interested recipient can be found
within a 32-km (20-mi) haul distance of Charleston and another within
a 20-km (12-mi) haul distance of Manchester.
Site Descriptions for Proposed Facilities
Proposed Treatment Plant Sites
Charleston. The existing site lies at the confluence of the
Old Navy Yard Highway and the new section of Highway 3, approximately
2 km from Bremerton. Hillside grading has terraced the original gully
terrain into a valley with two troughs. The two sides of the valley
are disproportionate in height, with the existing treatment plant
lying in the lower trough and the highway overlooking it to the east.
The Charleston facility was constructed over Alderwood-complex urban
land, xerocherpts and glacial drift 45-70% slope.
Along the western edge of the site lies a small creek which is
wooded along the western side. The wooded area is characterized by
second-growth vegetation and is predominantly Douglas-fir and mixed
conifers with evergreen shrubs forming the understory. Slope increa-
ses rapidly forming a precipitous ridge some 32 m (100 ft) high making
the western 0.8 ha (2 ac) of the site unusable.
To the west and north, twenty-one residences exist in the vici-
nity of the treatment plant. Six residences are within the treatment
plant expansion site. Immediately to the south and also within the
plant expansion site is a small building maintained by the Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Sinclair Inlet lies
approximately 320 m (1000 ft) downhill from the Charleston Plant.
Access to the site is via Highway 3. This portion of the Highway
between Navy Yard City and Gorst is one of the most heavily travelled
and congested roads in the study area.
The Charleston site includes a small sludge-dewatering lagoon.
Digested sludge from the Charleston and Manette facilities is placed
in a well-screened area behind the Charleston plant. The dewatered
sludge is then trucked to a landfill. In recent years, a private
operator has been combining a portion of the sludge with wood chips
89
-------
and using the material as a soil amendment. Few odor complaints have
been made about the, sludge handling process. The lagoon and sludge/
wood chip mixing area will be eliminated with the plant expansion.
Nanette. The existing site is located in East Bremerton just
to the west of the Washington Narrows Bridge. Situated within a
city park on the edge of a developed residential/commercial community,
the site has extensive grassy plots and a few shrubs. Few trees
screen the plant from the service road, the Highway 303 Bridge or
Port Washington Narrows. A residential neighborhood surrounds the
park except on the south-west side which slopes down approximately
50 m (160 ft) directly to Port Washington Narrows. Expansion of
the treatment plant, under Alternative 4, would involve the removal
of up to 25 houses and reduction of the park area. The site is on
an excavated shelf over Alderwood-complex-urban land (soils) and may
require further grading for plant expansion.
Port Orchard. The present facility is situated in downtown
Port Orchard at the site of the City's marina and boat dock on Sin-
clair Inlet. The structure housing the treatment plant is on pil-
ings some 5 m (15 ft) above the water's edge at low tide.
Extensive fill operations have greatly altered the natural en-
vironment. The shoreline contour has been extended by the construc-
tion of a commercial area over a 0.4-0.8 ha (1-2 ac) filled area at
the foot of the marina. The sides of the fill have been stabilized
with riprap. Little natural vegetation is present along the bay but
many aquatic organisms have colonized the pilings and riprap. There
is little vegetation screening the treatment plant, however, the ex-
terior appearance has been constructed to appear like other commer-
cial structures in the area. The plant is visible both from down-
town Port Orchard and Sinclair Inlet.
The treatment plant is less than a block from the major business
street of the town, Bay Street or Highway 160. Expansion of the
facility would require 5100 m2 (55,000 sq ft) of adjacent commercial
space, which is presently a parking lot. Approximately 1400 m2
(15,000 sq ft) of commercial development surrounds the expansion site.
Retsil. The present 0.4-0.8 ha (1-2 ac) site is approximately
1 km (1 mi) east from Port Orchard on Highway 160 or Beach Drive.
Sinclair Inlet lies approximately 24 m (80 ft) to the north. The
plant is set back approximately 15 m (50 ft) from the road and is
constructed over Indianola loamy sand soils. The Retsil Veteran's
Home is situated upon a promontory to the west and overlooks the
Retsil plant. Residential homes border the plant to the east. To
the south, Annapolis Creek flows through a wooded canyon composed of
mixed Douglas-fir and broadleaf trees and empties into Sinclair Inlet
through a culvert approximately 6 m (20 ft) south of the plant. Some
90
-------
trees and shrubs line the stream. The area around the treatment
plant is also landscaped with grass, shrubs and small trees, thus
achieving a little screening. Nevertheless, the plant is visible
from Sinclair Inlet, Beach Drive, the Veteran's Home and surrounding
residences.
Expansion of treatment facilities would require property acqui-
sition of 0.60 ha (1.47 ac) and 760 m^ (1,000 cu yd) of excavation.
The 0.35 ha (0.86 ac) of the land needed is presently owned by the
State of Washington as part of the Retsil Veteran's Home. Represen-
tatives of the state indicate that property required for the reasonable
expansion of the treatment facilities can be made available to the
district.
Manchester. The existing site is located between Beach Drive
and Puget Sound, approximately 0.62 km (1.0 mi) north of Manchester.
The plant is some 9 m (30 ft) off the road and 90 m (300 ft) from
Puget Sound. Sludge-drying beds are adjacent to the plant. An
extensive screen of secondary-growth trees and shrubs forms a barrier
to the east which shields views of the plant from Puget Sound. Scat-
tered stands of trees lie to the north and south. No vegetation
screens the plant to the west; thus the plant is extremely visible
from the road. The plant lies in a marshy meadow over Norma sandy
loam and Bellingham silt loam-both of which are prime agricultural
soils.
Five to ten houses are along the slope flanking the western side
of the site. The slope rises to a plateau generally running north-
south. Few houses lie to the north. Twenty to thirty homes are lo-
cated along the shore of Puget Sound within one kilometer of the plant
and some 50 homes are in the town of Manchester to the south.
Proposed Marine Disposal Sites
The outfall sites under consideration for future marine disposal
of wastewater are the existing sites at Charleston, Port Orchard,
Retsil and Manchester. Limited data are available on the benthic en-
vironment of the marine outfall sites. Some sampling was conducted
at the Charleston and Manchester sites in conjunction with the Cen-
tral Kitsap County Facilities Plan (Reference 3). However, no exten-
sive diving or sampling studies have been conducted in the vicinity
of the outfalls. A summary of the probable marine fauna and known
usages associated with the Sinclair Inlet and Manchester outfall sites
is given in Table 19.
Charleston Site. The existing Charleston outfall discharges
to Sinclair Inlet at a 10 m (32 ft) depth. Effluent is dispersed
through twenty 16.5 cm (6.5 in.) diffuser parts at 6-foot intervals.
91
-------
Table 19. MAJOR MARINE FAUNA AND USAGES IN THE VICINITY
OF PROPOSED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SITES
Sinclair Inlet Manchester
Marine environment summary outfall sites outfall site
Mussels x x
Barnacles x -
Cockles x
Manila clam - x
Bentnose clam x -
Butter clam - x
Geoduck (subtidal) x x
Littleneck clam (subtidal) x x
Mixed shellfish x x
Herring spawning areas - -x
Surf smelt spawning areas - x
Major waterfowl areas x x
Eelgrass beds x
General fishing area (sport salmon) x -x
Concentrated fishing area (sport salmon) x x
Commercial salmon fishing (gill net) x
Nonsalmon sports fishing
Cutthroat x
Bottom fish x
Commercial otter trawl
Regularly fished
Historically fished x
Closed to trawl - x
Commercial herring fishing x
College of Fisheries research areas x
State tidelands a
Aquatic land use allocations
Badlands: aquaculture - x
commercial x
Tidelands: Commercial -
Marine terminals x x
Marine fuel stations - x
Shoreline zoned business/commercial x
Presence of existing outfalls x x
Source: Reference 3
Note:
92
-------
The present outfall discharges east of the Puget Sound Naval Yard and
experiences indirect effects of the Naval Yard cooling water and ship
discharges. An industrial wastewater treatment system was completed
in 1977 and a program is currently underway to complete a ship waste
collection system at the Naval Yard by 1979. These two systems will
discharge to the Charleston treatment plant. However, cooling waters
will continue to be discharged directly to Sinclair Inlet. This ty-
pically produces a slightly warmer surface and water column zone which
is attractive to some shorebirds and fishes. Shellfish numbers are
probably limited in this portion of Sinclair Inlet and shellfish
harvesting is generally not allowed due to high levels of coliform
bacteria indicating possible fecal contamination.
Port Orchard Site. The Port Orchard outfall follows the exist-
ing wharf and extends beyond the marina. The construction of the
marina and filling of the shoreline has greatly altered the marine
ecology of the shoreline. Wooden pilings and structures offer inter-
tidal and subtidal substrate for the attachment of mussels, barnacles
and various types of marine algae. The concentration of small boats
may slightly decrease the local water quality through discharge of
small quantities of wastewater, gasoline and oil.
Retsil Site. The outfall from the Retsil plant passes through
a relatively wide sand-gravel-cobble beach area before discharging
into Sinclair Inlet. Although the inlet is closed to commercial shell-
fish harvesting, some recreational clam digging was observed in the
intertidal area below the Retsil treatment plant by the EIS survey
team in April 1977. This probably represents a significant recrea-
tional and potential commercial resource and should be recognized in
any plan that would improve or degrade local water quality. In ad-
dition, Annapolis Creek, which flows past the treatment plant and
empties across the above-mentioned beach, has historically been noted
for runs of steelhead trout. Degradation of water quality at the
mouth of Annapolis Creek and in the nearshore waters may have an
adverse effect on returning and down-migrating trout.
Manchester Site. Very little is known about the marine environ-
ment in the vicinity of the Manchester outfall. However, Orchard
Point and the adjacent Clam Bay have been noted for their excellent
water quality. The National Marine Fisheries Service conducts research
at Manchester focusing on feed and growth of salmon stock, stock de-
velopment and fish genetics (Reference 49). The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency also maintains a regional support lab to monitor water and
sediment quality, and study oyster embryo responses (Reference 50).
Because of the good water quality, Clam Bay is used as a control station
for comparison with other pollution studies in the Port Orchard system
and Puget Sound (Reference 51). In addition, juvenile salmon are
reared for commercial sale in Clam Bay. The effluent discharge point
for the planned oily waste treatment facility at the Manchester Naval
Fuel Supply Depot will extend approximately 50 m (150 ft) from shore,
directly on-line with the end of the fuel pier located southwest from
Orchard Point.
93
-------
Project Costs-Sinclair Inlet Discharge Strategy
Capital Costs
Project implementation, as presented by the facilities planner,
will require physical construction during the period 1979-81. Al-
ternatives 2-5 will require a 12-18 months construction period some-
time during this time frame. Salvage values are projected in the
year 2000. Detailed alternatives representative of the Sinclair
Inlet discharge strategy were evaluated using "high order-of-magni-
tude" estimates based on Part 2 of the facilities plan. Approximate
error is estimated by the facilities planner to be +40 percent to
-20 percent. The design period allows for 20 years of operation from
first phase completion. Therefore, the design year is the year 2000.
All costs in this analysis include costs of construction of primary
and secondary treatment facilities, and engineering, legal and admini-
strative costs. Separate cost estimates developed for treatment and discharge
at the Enetai site are presented in Appendix H. With treatment plants and
discharges at Enetai, Retsil and Manchester, the total present worth
was estimated at $29,004,000.
Total capital costs for construction as shown in Table 20, range
from a low of $16,778,000 for Alternative 2, to high of $19,441,000
for Alternative 5. This analysis assumed 75 percent federal and 15
percent state participation in capital funding, excluding total land
and easement costs which are not grant eligible. Capital costs for
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are fairly close - within six percent of each
other. Total corresponding costs to local participating jurisdic-
tions, as shown in Table 21, range from a low of $1,846,000 for Alter-
native 2, to a high of $2,914,000 for Alternative 4.
The net present worth of all capital costs, annual operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs, and salvage, discounted at 6-1/8 per-
cent annually, range from a low of $24,438,000 (Alternative 2), to
a high of $27,108,000 (Alternative 5). Net present worth for each
alternative is presented in Table 20.
Two rankings of project costs, based on analyses in Tables 20
and 21, are presented below. The first method ranks according to net
present worth of all capital costs, annual O&M costs, and salvage
value. The second method ranks according to average annual equivalent
cost to the local Kitsap County Jurisdictions. In general, present
worth for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 were within 10 percent of each
other and considered the same rank. Average annual equivalent costs
for Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 were within 10 percent of each other and
considered the same rank.
94
-------
Table 20. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS - ALL ALTERNATIVES
($1000)
Alternative
2
3
4
5
Capital
cost
$16,778
17,742
17,769
19,441
Land &
Easement
Cost
$ 187
163
1,263
186
Annual
0 & Ma
$682
628
756
691
Present13
Worth
of all
Costs
$24,889
25,513
26,353
27,918
Salvage
Value of
Facilities
and Landc
$451
784
0
810
Net
Present
Worthd
$24,438
24,729
26,353
27,108
Ranking
(Net
Present
Worth)
1
1
1
2
Operating and maintenance costs are calculated on the basis of certain fixed charges per year plus
variable costs which are affected by increased flow. This method does not create a linear yearly
increase. Therefore, O&M costs for the year 1990 were selected because it is the median year over
the service life of the treatment facilities (1980-2000)
The present worth (in January 1977 dollars) is the sum of 20 years of operation and maintenance
costs discounted at 6-1/8 percent plus the total capital costs.
"Because the useful life of transmission lines - 50 years - exceeds the evaluation period of 20
years, a straight-line depreciation was used to determine the salvage value at the end of the
evaluation period. The salvage value was 60 percent of the construction cost.
Present worth of all costs less the present worth of the salvage value of the transmission lines.
Source: Reference 1.
-------
Table 21. xITSAr COUNTY JURISDICTION COSTS - ALL ALTERNATIVES1
($1000)
Capital
Alternative Cost
7
3
-f
5
$1,846
1,921
2,914
2,108
Capital
Recoverv"
$188
196
297
215
Annual
0 & Mc
$682
628
756
691
Average Annual
Equivalent Cost
$870
824
1,053
906
Ranking
(Average Annual
Equivalent Cost)
1
1
2
1
vC
"Kitsap County Jurisdictions include: the County of Kitsap, the City of Bremerton, and the City of
Fort Orchard.
^
'Assumed federal participation of 75 percent and state participation of 15 percent on total capital
costs less total land and easement costs which are not grant eligible.
"Annual payment required to recover local Kitsap Countv jurisdictions' share of the capital costs
at 8 percent for 20 years.
"'From Table 17.
"Represents 0 & M charges plus capital recovery costs to participating local jurisdictions.
-------
Average Annual
Net Present Equivalent Cost to
Alternative Worth Kitsap County Jurisdictions
21 1
31 1
41 2
52 1
Operation and Maintenance
Each project alternative represents a separate series of annual
costs for the operation and maintenance of the treatment plants and
transmission pump station. These costs are the sum of fixed annual
charges and increasing variable charges relating to increased flow
capacity. Since O&M costs increase over time, the facilities plan-
ner has chosen the specific O&M costs for 1990, the median year of
the service life of the treatment facilities (1980-2000) as mathe-
matically representative of annual costs. These annual costs range
from a low of $628,000 (Alternative 3) to a high of $756,000 (Alter-
native 4). Costs for each alternative are presented in Table 20.
Revised Alternative 2 Project Costs
In Volume II, Part 3 of the Sinclair Inlet Sewerage Facilities
Plan, a preliminary design and detailed cost estimate was made for
Alternative 2 only. These detailed estimates reflect increased costs
due to the addition of new pump stations, sewers, cost-effective I/I
work, pump station modifications, finalization of treatment processes,
and other miscellaneous costs not identified in Part II - Development
of Alternatives.
Capital costs and O&M costs for the treatment plants, pump sta-
tions and transmission lines were evaluated for the most cost-effective
systems. However, a net present worth, similar to that calculated in
January 1977 dollars in Table 20, was not made. The facilities plan-
ner instead compared capital cost allocations in inflated 1980 dollars
for each treatment facility according to the funding entitles. For
the purposes of comparison with Table 20, a net present worth was
calculated based on capital cost and O&M present worth values as de-
veloped for each facility in Chapters 16 and 17 of Volume II of the
facilities plan. The revised total project cost, as presented in
Table 22, is approximately $33,912,000. This figure represents a
$9,474,000 increase over the amount shown for Alternative 2 in Table
20. A percentage change cannot be estimated because the revised figure
contains new items, some of which are specific to this alternative
97
-------
Table 22. REVISED PROJECT COSTS-ALTERNATIVE 2,
JUNE 1978 ($1000)a
Cost Component Cost Total
CAPITAL COST 24,619
Treatment Facilities
Charleston 9,013
Retsil 4,043
Manchester 1,489
Subtotal 14,545
c d
Transmission System '
Bremerton 8,855
Port Orchard 550
Manchester e
Gorst 669
Subtotal 10,074
ANNUAL 0 & Mf 911
Treatment Facilities 689
Transmission Lines 222
PRESENT WORTH OF ALL COSTS5 34,962
SALVAGE VALUE OF FACILITIES AND LANDh 1,050
NET PRESENT WORTH1 33,912
•3
January 1977 dollars.
Includes sludge dewatering and disposal cost, legal administrative
taxes and contingency.
Includes cost-effective I/I work.
Land and Easement-costs included in transmission system costs.
Q
Manchester system to be funded separately and not included here.
Treatment plants: average 0 & M for mid-design year 1990; pump
stations and transmission lines: 0 & M costs for 1981.
8See Table 20, footnote b.
See Table 20, footnote c.
Table 20, footnote d.
Source: Reference 2.
98
-------
only, and other infiltration/inflow work that could be applicable to
other alternatives. Therefore, equivalent increases in total project
costs cannot be made for Alternatives 3 through 5. It is fairly cer-
tain, however, that if a similar detailed analysis were performed for
the remaining alternatives, the resultant total project costs would
be higher than those presented in Table 20.
INTERACTION WITH OTHER PLANS
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive planning for sewerage facilities was established
with the 1970 "Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plans for Kitsap
County" (Reference 52). Projected sewerage service areas for 1975
and 1990 within the planning area are shown in Figure 20.
The county comprehensive plan indicated four wastewater treat-
ment facilities by 1990. The present wastewater facilities plan for
Sinclair Inlet incorporates the two Bremerton facilities into one at
Charleston and the Port Orchard/Retsil facility will probably be at
Retsil instead of on Blackjack Creek. Population projections and
resultant flows are overall slightly lower than the comprehensive plan.
Also, in contrast to the comprehensive plan, Sunnyslope, between Gorst
and the county airport, and small portions below Port Orchard, above
Tracyton and around Wildcat Lake will not be included in the 2000
sewer service areas of the facilities plan.
The comprehensive plan for the portion covering central Kitsap
County was amended in May 1976 (Reference 53) to incorporate the
Central Kitsap County Facilities Plan. Areas within the Sinclair
Inlet planning area that are now excluded from the facilities plan
include North Bremerton, Illahee, Chico and Erland Point. These areas
will now be serviced by the central Kitsap treatment facility.
Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities Plan
The recently completed Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facili-
ties Plan (Reference 3) examined a regional treatment facility for
sub-basins 9 and 10 north of the Sinclair Inlet planning area which
included Silverdale, Meadowdale, Brownsville, the Bangor Naval Reser-
vation and the proposed Trident Support Site. Poulsbo and Keyport
to the north also have the option to join the central Kitsap regional
system.
The Central Kitsap Facilities Plan selected a site for a region-
al plant approximately 3 km (2 mi) north of Burke Bay on Highway 303.
99
-------
The plant will be able to provide urgently needed service to several
recent housing developments which are all on interim sewage disposal
systems. Some of these housing developments fall within the northern-
most portion of the Sinclair Inlet planning area; however, they are
planned to have their sewage pumped into the central Kitsap regional
facility. These areas are defined on the Central Kitsap Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (Reference 53) .
Kitsap Basin Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan
An area-wide program of pollution control for the waters of the
Kitsap Basin (Reference 54) was conducted by the PACE Corporation in
1973 to conform to the Washington State Department of Ecology's "Sew-
age Drainage Basin and Urban Area Planning Guide for Water Pollution
Control and Abatement" (September 1970) and the EPA's "Water Quality
Management" guidelines (January 1971). This program reviewed all non-
point pollution sources as well as point sources and in effect ful-
filled section 208 of Public Law 92-500 on the Clean Water Program.
The final report: Kitsap Basin Water Pollution Control and Abatement
Plan (KBWPCAP) (Reference 54) was published in 1975 with five treat-
ment alternatives for the Sinclair Inlet planning area. Three alter-
natives are incorporated into the Sinclair Inlet Facilities Plan. A
fourth alternative with a regional plant and discharge at Enetai was
considered during the discharge strategy development. A fifth alter-
native with a regional plant at Bainbridge Island serving central Kit-
sap County and Sinclair Inlet was not considered in the Sinclair In-
let Facilities Plan.
The Shoreline Management Act
In 1971, the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management
Act (SMA), a comprehensive program to coordinate coastal development
with protection of natural resources. The. SMA designated two cate-
gories of management areas: 1) A "resource area", over which SMA has
permit authority, composed of all sub-tidal and tidal lands up to 60
m (200 ft) beyond the mean high water line; and 2) a planning and ad-
ministrative area composed of the fifteen coastal counties, Kitsap
County recently completed a Shoreline Management Master Program and a
shoreline inventory (Reference 55) in 1977 in compliance with SMA.
The Master Program establishes five environments on the shore-
lines of Kitsap County: Natural, Conservancy, Rural, Semi-Rural and
Urban. The designations and boundaries of these environments along
shorelines within the study area are shown on Figure 20. The defini-
tions and policies covering these five environments are:
100
-------
\
LEGEND
URBAN
V7//////A RURAL
SEMI-RURAL
LJ.v.'jf»i» CONSERVANCY
FIGURE 20. KITSAP COUNTY SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(JULY 1977)
101
-------
Natural Environment - areas with unique natural or cultural
features in their natural or original condition. These areas
should be maintained and/or restored such that, they are rela-
tively free of human influence. No marine coastal areas in
the study area have been designated "natural."
Conservancy Environment - natural areas that are compatible
with non-consumptive human use such as recreation activities
and sustained resource utilization (timber harvesting, agri-
culture, etc.)
Rural Environment - natural or agricultural features are domi-
nant and only lightly affected by human activities. These areas
should be protected from urban expansion into agricultural land
or intense development of shorelines.
Semi-Rural Environment - predominantly human activities with
some natural features.
Urban Environment - areas subject to intensive human modifica-
tion of natural features.
The following policies, relevant to the Sinclair Inlet Facili-
ties Plan, were developed by the Shoreline Management Master Program
and SMA planning activities for Kitsap County:
1) Preferences to shoreline uses should be given to the follow-
ing categories in order of priority:
- Water-dependent uses including intakes and outfalls as
approved by existing legislation
- Water-related uses
- Nonwater-related uses including utility right-of-way
and sewage treatment plants
2) Gorst Estuary - Water-dependent and water-related uses as
defined above are prohibited from railroad trestle on north
shore westward to Gorst and from Gorst eastward on the south
shoreline to and including the urban area located at Section
33.
3) Other general policies that would affect facilities planning:
-Restoration of shorelines after construction
-Use minimal amount of shoreline in development and provide
multiple use opportunities
-Parking areas and facilities located inland and screened
from shoreline
-Floodplains, storm flooding areas, steep slopes, marshes,
estuaries, and bogs should not be developed
102
-------
-Development encouraged to locate away from immediate
shoreline
-Vegetative buffer provided between normal high water mark
and upland use
4) Use activity policies:
-Whenever utilities must be placed in a shoreline area, the
location should be chosen so as not to obstruct or destroy
scenic views. Whenever feasible, these facilities should
be placed underground, located away from the water's edge
and/or designed to do minimal damage to the aesthetic
qualities of the shoreline area.
-Utilities should be located to meet the needs of future
populations in areas planned to accommodate this growth.
-Development that requires utility services should not
be approved until such utility services are programmed
for operation.
-Developments that require utility services should not be
utilized until such utility services are in operation.
103
-------
flj
-------
SECTION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Each alternative wastewater treatment system will have both bene-
ficial and adverse impacts upon the natural environment as well as on
institutions, the economy and energy utilization rates. These impacts
were assessed on the basis of available scientific knowledge, the pro-
fessional experience of individual project team members, consultation
with local experts in specific fields, and familiarity with local con-
ditions gained by the project team during data collection and investi-
gation of the study area.
The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for the prepara-
tion of the Environmental Impact Statements (40 CFR, Part 6, § 6.304
(c)) require that primary and secondary environmental impacts for
short and long-term duration, be evaluated. This EIS identifies
the short-term, long-term direct and long-term indirect (secondary)
impacts related to all project alternatives.
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
The direct short-term impacts of this project are related to con-
struction activities. These impacts are relatively minor in effect
and magnitude, and in most cases the adverse impact can be effective-
ly mitigated, though not completely eliminated. The impacts are sum-
marized and evaluated as to their positive, neutral or negative ef-
fects in Table 23. Mitigation measures, which are recommended for con-
struction grant approval, are presented for each adverse impact. Sup-
porting discussions for some individual impacts can be found in Appen-
dix G.
LONG-TERM DIRECT IMPACTS
Soils and Geology
The alternative projects will have little direct impact either
upon the soils or geological features of the study area. Geological
hazards may cause pipe failures or other system problems. Potential
effects of strong seismic tremors may be of importance, although the
actual effects or probability of occurrence cannot be estimated. Pipe-
line connectors and pump stations would respond differently from the
pipelines and the surrounding fill material during stress situations.
Differential movement between the connectors and pumps and the pipelines
may cause leakage and ruptures at these points during strong tremors.
Construction of treatment and conveyance facilities will require cement
105
-------
Table 23. SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Alternative
Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
1) Soil erosion from
construction dis-
turbed sites
2) Dust generation
3) Aerial pollutants
03 33*
CD 3 333
03333
4) Stream channel distur- (T\
bances during VL/
construction
0
5) Loss of groundcover/
disruption of wildlife
habitats
03333
6) Disruption of wildlife (T) (^ 4fc (^
patterns and aquatic VLx V^ ^^ V^
patterns and aquati
fish migrations
7) Increased noise and
vibrations
8) Visual impact of
construction equip-
ment and site
9) Soil disposal from
excavation
10.) Stockpiling and storage
of spoil
11) Safety hazard
03333
03333
03333
03333
03303
e Schedule construction to dry season
• Confine surface disturbances to
immediate construction areas
• Grass seeding to stabilize exposed
soil areas and/or detention basins
to intercept surface erosion
• Keep soil wetted down in construction
area
• All vehicles and equipment should be
fitted with properly maintained
pollution control devices
• Interceptor ditches around construc-
tion site to catch run-off
• Care should be taken not to discharge
petroleum or other pollutants to
stream
« Limit construction near streams to
low-flow periods (late summer)
• Replanting with native vegetation
where possible
• Vegetation near pipelines should be
flagged or fenced to minimize
construction damage
• Vegetation removal in natural areas
occur during late summer or fall
when nesting birds are not present
« Avoid construction near streams
during fish migration periods:
Sept-Nov, March-May
• All equipment should have mufflers
properly installed and maintained
• Limit activities to daylight hours
• Equipment should be stored in de-
signated areas, all litter picked up
• Fence or otherwise screen construc-
tion maintenance area
• Disposal of soil material should be
coordinated with other ongoing pro-
jects requiring fill
• Spoil material not needed for back-
filling should be spread on ground
and seeded or covered to prevent
dust and erosion
• All open trenches should be covered
or fenced at end of work day
• All construction equipment should be
secured against unauthorized use
• Construction area should be well
marked and access restricted where
possible
106
-------
Table 23. SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Cont'd)
Alternatives
Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
12) Construction-related
traffic
13) Disruption of through
and local traffic
Utility service
disruption
15) Disturbance of marine
benthic communities
during pipeline
construction
16) Marine water quality
17) Potential for dis-
ruption of
archaeological/
historical resources
18) Employment, direct
and indirect
19) Economic activity,
direct and indirect
033Q3
0
0
03303
00000
0 O O O O
0 O O O O
• Scheduling to avoid peak traffic
periods in area
• Barricades and flagmen posted as
necessary to guide traffic through
construction zones
• Notify local residents as to loca-
tion, nature and duration of con-
struction
• Advance notice of utility service dis-
ruption should be given
• If disruption occurs over a long
period, utility bypasses should be
provided
• Locate pipeline/outfall to avoid signi-
ficant shellfish and finfish areas
• Avoid identifiable critical spring and
summer use periods
• Consult with Washington Department of
Fish and Department Game for
recommended construction techniques
• Care should be taken not to discharge
petroleum or other pollutants to
inlets
• Upon discovery of remains, construction
should be nalted and State Historic
Preservation Officer contacted to de-
termine appropriate measures
• None necessary
• None necessary
Key:
Beneficial impact
(I) No change or minor adverse impact
/~k Moderate adverse impact
Significant adverse impact
107
-------
gravel and earth fill. The supply of these mineral resources in the
county is generally adequate to meet these needs and no significant
impact on these resources is foreseen.
Alternative 2
Consolidation of the Manette with the Charleston plant and the
Port Orchard with the Retsil plant would require 8,400+ m [28,000+ ft]
of pressurized pipeline. The Manette-Charleston pipeline would
contain many joints and turns through the Bermerton area. The press-
urization, long distances and sharp angle turns of this pipeline may
increase the potential for leakage and rupture during a strong tremor
(e.g., 7.0 Richter scale with a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.5g).
Construction techniques such as installation of sand beds prior to
laying pipe in the trench, backfilling with fine soil and thorough
compaction should lessen adverse effects from tremors. The significance
of such induced effects during the tremors should be judged against
the greater effect upon surface structures, both of the alternative
facilities and the urban area in general. Treatment facilities, as
would be constructed at the Charleston and Retsil sites, have generally
withstood tremors with little damage. Normal foundation requirements
for the heavy structures of treatment facilities are sufficient to
reduce or eliminate problems arising from ground instability during
tremors. However, some additional consideration should focus on the
presence of the Kitsap clay member of the Orting formation found under
the Charleston plant site. Groundwater saturation of this clay would
increase pore-pressure and allow movement during the shaking or lurching
which would accompany a strong tremor. The highway and railroad embank-
ments on the east side of the site may contain any movement, but the
clay, its overlying fill and structures may be affected by differential
movement. Structures partially located on fill and on bedrock clay or
other glacial deposits may respond to a tremor differentially and cause
breakage of facilities passing across the boundary between the two
foundation materials.
The Port Orchard-to-Retsil pipeline would have fewer sharp angle
turns and would be only about 2,400 m [8,000 ft] long. As such, the
pipeline would generally be less affected than the longer, more angular
Manette-Charleston pipeline. The replacement of the existing treatment
facilities at Port Orchard with a pump station would lessen possible
damage to the alternative system. The location of the existing
facilities over a deep fill, even with adequate foundations may permit
differential movement of pipes entering the facilities and rupture
could be anticipated at the connections during a strong tremor.
Furthermore, failure of the surrounding fill may occur at a location
adjacent to the inlet.
The corridor between the Port Orchard and Retsil sites would
lie close to the underlying galcial bedrock. A subtidal pipeline
108
-------
route from Port Orchard to Retsil would cross large mudflats into
zones of steep, subtidal slopes. Strong tremors may dislodge poor-
ly compacted alluvium, and slumping and lurching could cause leaks and
ruptures of the pressurized pipeline. The Beach Drive roadway along
Sinclair Inlet would act to contain the fill for the Retsil plant
site. The new Retsil plant would be smaller than the Charleston
plant and, therefore, less subject to potentially damaging tremors.
The expansion of the Manchester plant would occur on or near clay
deposits of the Kitsap member of the Orting formation. Such mate-
rials with unconfined fill along a small creek may allow for ground-
water saturation of both the fill and the clay. Such conditions may
allow substantial differential movement and ground instability during
a strong tremor.
Alternative 3
This subregionalization alternative would involve about 11,890
m [39,000 ft] of new pipeline and the Charleston and Manchester plants.
The 6,100 m [20,000 ft] of the Manette-Charleston pipeline and the
3,350 m [11,000 ft] of the Port Orchard-Charleston pipeline would in-
crease the probability of pipeline rupture during strong tremors. The
Manette-Charleston pipeline hazards have been discussed in Alterna-
tive 2, but the Retsil-Port Orchard-Charleston pipeline may be more
hazardous than the Bremerton pipelines. From Port Orchard west along
Highway 160, the pipeline would lie within clay deposits of the Kitsap
member of the Orting formation. Because of the high water table and
seepage along the adjacent bluff, these deposits may be saturated
throughout most or all of the year. During a tremor, differential
movement may dislocate the roadbed and the pipeline. Rupture or leak-
age of the pipeline may induce further movement of the Highway 160 road-
bed. At the west end of the inlet, crossing the steeper subtidal slopes
may pose a similar instability hazard for the pipeline and adjacent
roadbed. The subtidal route between Ross Point and Retsil may be sub-
ject to greater seismic hazards than along the road. Seismically-in-
duced lurching of the subtidal slope and roadbed could cause ruptures
or leakage of the pressurized pipeline.
Effects on the Manchester plant expansion, the Retsil-Port
Orchard pipeline, the Manette plant replacement and the Manette-
Charleston pipeline would be the same as Alternative 2.
Alternative 4
Expansion of existing local treatment plants would generally
increase possible damage to pipes within the facilities but would
reduce possible hazards of long pressurized pipelines. Expansion
109
-------
of the Manette plant would expose the facility to an increased po-
tential for slope failure. The 9-15 m [30-50 ft] high slope des-
cends directly to the water of the narrows and may be supported below
water level by the clay deposits of the Kitsap member of the Orting
formation. Constant water submergence may allow saturation of the
clay which may prove unstable during strong tremors. Even with proper
foundations for the treatment facilities, pipeline and outfall leak-
age and rupture could be anticipated during a tremor.
Various effects and responses of the Charleston, Port Orchard,
Retsil and Manchester plants have been discussed in the preceding al-
ternative discussions. Expansions of the present Port Orchard and
Manchester plant may substantially increase the adverse effects of
strong tremors on the plants and the resulting malfunctions and spill-
age.
Alternative 5
Subregionalization in this alternative would require 16,900 m
[55,500 ft] of pressurized pipeline and would generally increase the
potential for adverse effects resulting from strong tremors. A po-
tential for lurching and differential settlement or liquification
may exist between the Port Orchard and Retsil plants and along Beach
Drive. Along Sinclair Inlet, the Port Orchard-Manchester pipeline
may lie on the inland side of the roadway and would be protected from
wave erosion, but the large amount of fill, the softer clay deposits
of the Kitsap member (Orting formation) and the steep subtidal slopes
along the inlet would suggest that some potential exists for lurching
or differential settlement during strong tremors along the pipeline
route. A subtidal route would be subject to wave erosion. Softer
alluvial sediment of Little Clam Bay and clay deposits of the Kitsap
member underlie the pipeline route along Little Clam Bay north of the
Manchester plant.
This alternative would contain more pipeline than Alternatives
2, 3 and 4, and may have longer subtidal routes than 2 and 3. The
Manchester plant expansion would be greater than in other alterna-
tives. Overall effects upon this alternative could be greater than
those upon Alternative 2 but may be quite similar to, if not some-
what less than, the level of those on Alternatives 3 and 4.
Mit igation Measures
Potential for system failures during the operation of project
facilities and associated extension of collector sewers would be
reduced by adequate soils investigations, especially for the Charles-
ton and Manchester plants in A]ternatives 2-5. Facilities should
110
-------
be designed to minimize ruptures along the shore roadways north of
the Charleston, Port Orchard, Retsil and Manchester plants, where
waterlogging could endanger the stability of the roadbed. Some analy-
ses and planning should also focus on the stability of foundations
and pipelines during tremors with a horizontal acceleration of 0.5 g.
Air Quality
The present air quality in the study area is generally good to
excellent throughout the year. Because none of the project alter-
natives will contribute significant emissions of photochemical smog
components to the local air basin, there will be no adverse impact
on the region's air quality. However, the potential for localized
odor nuisances is present in the areas surrounding the various treat-
ment facilities.
Odors
Tngeneral, properly operated sewage treatment facilities of
the proposed designs do not produce nuisance odors, nor does the di-
gested sludge. The normal condition in any well-operating treatment
plant is the production of a musty or earthy smell. While this smell
is not offensive to most people, there are some persons that are sen-
sitive to it and may consider it to be a nuisance.
Nuisance odors resulting from treatment processes or plant
operation imbalances sometimes occur because of drastic changes in
sewage quality due to shockloading, hgh or low pH, toxic substances
or high temperature. Also, odors may be noticed around a treatment
plant when tank trucks deliver undigested septic tank sludge, or when
a malfunction in the sewage collection system delays flows to the
plant. At the Manchester site where sludge-drying beds will be oper-
ating, odor generation may occur under warm weather conditions. The
coincidental occurrence of air stagnation, or temperature inversion,
during an odor-production episode can prevent the rapid dispersal and
dilution of odors, thus worsening the degree of impatc.
Table 24 summari •/.('.» the odor potentials for each of the alter-
natives and notes the land uses most likely to be affected.
Mi_t_lga_tion Measures
One means of reducing the likelihood of odors resulting from
sewage treatment is to utili/ce air injection in all force mains con-
Ill
-------
Table 24. LAND USES IN THE VICINITY OF TREATMENT PLANTS LIKELY TO
BE AFFECTED BY POTENTIAL ODORS FROM EACH ALTERNATIVE
Alternatives
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Bremer ton/Manet tea
0
Treatment Plant Sites
Bremerton/Charlestonb Port Orchard0
Of
0
X
0
Retsil Manchester6
X X
X
X X
X
aWill affect park users
bWill affect 15 to 20 residences
cWill affect commercial district
affect Veterans Home
affect residences
0 " Anaerobic digestion proposed—Less potential for odor production
X « Aerobic digestion proposed—Greater potential for odor production
References! 3 and 56
Table 25. SITES EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE SLUDGE TANK TRUCK TRAFFIC
AND NOISE
Alternatives
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
B remert on /Manette
X
Treatment Plant Sites
Bremer ton /Char lest on Port Orchard
X
X
X X
X
Retsil Manchester
X X
X
X X
X
-------
veying raw sewage to the treatment plant. This air injection should
guarantee that sewage influent will not be in a septic condition and
therefore will not release odors upon entering the treatment plant.
Another means is the use of deodorizing mists during period of parti-
cularly bad odor formation or during malfunctions. This method would
be particularly useful for controlling odors from digesters at the Port
Orchard and Retsi-1 plants (Alternative 4) . and the Manchester plant
(Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5), all of which utilize aerobic sludge
digestion systems. Transfer stations for tank trucks delivering undi-
gested septic tank sludge should be designed to minimize sludge
contact with air.
Hauling of liquid sludge to private operators, as discussed in
Section III - Alternative Plans, would greatly reduce the need for
drying beds and hence the odor potential.
Noise
Sewage treatment facilities are relatively quiet, and the facili-
ties under consideration should not significantly increase daytime am-
bient noise levels. However, some electric motor noise may be detected
immediately outside all facility locations at night when the ambient
noise level drops. Slight, intermittent noise episodes during the day
will be attributable to truck traffic to and from the plants. Table
25 summarizes the facility sites that would experience truck noise un-
der the four alternatives. The same land uses near the alternatives'
facility sites will be affected as are shown in Table 24.
Mitigation Measures
Landscaping techniques, including vegetation screens, berms and
fences, should be used to conceal noise sources, if not actually to
diminish the volume of their emissions. It is especially important
that such techniques be used at the Charleston and Manchester plants
under Alternatives 2 through 5, and at the Retsil plant under Alter-
native 4. These three plants are adjacent to residential and insti-
tutiona] land uses. In general, noise levels from treatment facili-
ties should not be allowed to exceed existing conditions by more than:
3 dBA for residential properties; 5 dBA for commercial properties; or
10 dBA for open space, agricultural or industrial properties.
Fresh Water Hydrology and Water Quality
Surface Water Hydrology
Generally there will be no new, long-term direct impacts of any
113
-------
significance to the study area's surface hydrology. The increase in
impervious surface area created during construction will produce re-
latively miniscule volumes of additional runoff. Further, the situa-
tions of the facility sites preclude basinwide, or substantial local
runoff-induced channel alterations because each sites is in close proxi-
mity to the marine shoreline. The closeness to the shoreline limits
the areas that can be affected by increased runoff to a very small
portion of each impacted basin. Lastly, there will be no direct dis-
charges into any streams from the facilities which could increase
stream flows and thus induce channel alterations.
Although the projects do not pose any long-term problems for the
study area's surface hydrology, storm floxv events over the life of the
projects could conceivably cause damage to sewer lines crossing streams,
particularly from such processes as streambed scouring. Damage to
sewer lines could result in the spillage of raw or partially-treated
sewage into streams. There is only a slight to moderate chance of this
type of impact occurring unless runoff volumes are increased signifi-
cantly by urban conversion of undeveloped land. This probability of
impacts is low due to the relatively mild precipitation and runoff
rates experienced in the area.
Mitigation Measures. The slight amount of additional runoff like-
ly to be generated at the facility sites will be handled by drainage
improvements designed into the individual projects. Water quality im-
pacts resulting from site specific runoff is a minor, avoidable impact.
Some new sewer lines are likely to cross creeks and streams, thus,
they will be subject to the possibility of storm runoff damage. The
facilities planner should take this impact and its water quality rami-
fications into consideration to design sewer line creek crossings with
the strength necessary to provide an adequate safety margin. This is
an avoidable impact.
Groundwater Hydrology
The hydrologic balance of each sewered basin, and possibly some
unsewered basins (see Section II-Groundwater), will continue to be ad-
versely affected, as it is now, by the exportation of extracted ground-
water to the Puget Sound marine system through treatment facility dis-
charges. This includes the deep aquifers tapped by wells in the Bre-
merton/Port Orchard area.
High groundwater levels, common throughout much of the study area,
would continue to cause infiltration problems to the existing sewer
system, and potentially for new sewers and interceptors. With the
hazards of rupture during seismic events, groundwater may be locally
contaminated by leaking sewage.
114
-------
Mitigation measures. The land treatment and disposal concept, If
carried out in the study area, could minimally limit the volume of water
presently being exported from the area's groundwater basins to Sinclair
Inlet. The land disposal site that is considered in the facilities plan
is located outside of the study area, thus, its use could not reduce the
volume of groundwater being exported out of the study area's groundwater
basins. This strategy was considered infeasible by the facilities
planner.
In order to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination
from seismic events, the facilities would be designed to minimize
catastrophic physical damage. Since a large portion of the interceptor
system will be constructed in areas subject to high groundwater, it will
be necessary for sewers to meet stringent leakage tests following con-
struction to help ensure against groundwater infiltration.
Surface Water Quality
A long-term beneficial effect of the expanded sewage collection
and treatment capabilities of the proposed project will be the reduction
of pollutants from malfunctioning septic systems which enter streams
situated in urban/suburban developed drainage basins. This will be
accomplished by replacing septic tank use with sewer hookups in these
areas and channeling sewage to treatment facilities. By the year 2000,
almost 83 percent of the population is anticipated to be sewered. The
episodes of excessive coliform levels which have occurred in the local
streams and lakes may be reduced, both in frequency of occurrence and
severity. However, septic problems could continue in unsewered areas—
particularly Wildcat Lake, Beach Drive east of Retsil, the Illahee area
and areas south of Port Orchard.
The possibility of wastewater from sewer line ruptures discharging
sewage into streams was mentioned earlier in the section on Surface
Water Hydrology.
Potential sludge disposal at the County landfill would contribute
to leachates presently being produced at the landfill. Surface runoff
and lateral seepage of leachates to the edges of the landfill mounds
would contribute to surface water pollution. Unchecked, these pollu-
tants could enter the drainage basin, and at the County landfill site,
eventually find its way to streams such as the Union River. Mitigation
measures could reduce or eliminate this problem.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigations are necessary for beneficial
effects of expanded sewage collection and treatment capabilities. Miti-
gations for sewer line ruptures were discussed previously in Surface
Water Hydrology.
115
-------
One form of mitigation for surface water pollution at the County
landfill is the prohibition of sludge disposal to the landfill. The
facilities planner has proposed a system of sludge-hauling for pri-
vate use on farmlands. Another form of mitigation is the direct control
of surface waters on the landfill. Perimeter ditches around the site
would collect the leachate-laden runoff and retain it in a holding basin,
thus preventing it from escaping the site. This measure is very effec-
tive, and regardless of sludge disposal, should be part of the landfill
operations.
Mitigation of septic problems in unsewered areas would involve up-
keep of existing systems and/or the use of community systems. Septic
tank maintenance and emergency crews would probably be required in
these rural areas at additional expense to the county and local home-
owners. The County Community Development Department and Public Health
Division should also limit building permits in areas unsuitable for
septic tanks.
Groundwater Quality
The primary anticipated long-term impact on groundwater quality
will be a reduction in the contamination of local groundwaters by
nutrients and pathogens released by malfunctioning septic systems.
As stated earlier, the magnitude of beneficial effect for this type
of impact is heavily dependent on the total numbers of septic system
users hooking up to an available sewer line.
Sludge-drying beds are proposed for the Manchester facility.
Specific design details for sludge-drying beds have not been made yet
by the facilities planner. If the drying beds have impermeable,
lined bottoms, there will be little or no threat to local groundwater
quality. If the beds are unlined, degradation of local groundwater
could result to some degree. The degree would be determined by such
factors as the design of the beds, the physical properties of the
underlying soils, microc]imatic evaporation rates, the volume of super-
natant in the sludge and the depth to groundwater.
The facilities planner recommended that all sludge be dried and
disposed to a landfill. However, cost comparisons were also made for
sludge hauling distances that would be competitive with drying and
disposal. In the Facilities Plan: Volume II-Part 3, it was determined
that hauling of liquid sludge to distances of within 32 km [20 mi] of
the Charleston plant and 20 km [12 mi] of the Retsil or Manchester
plants was cost competitive. This assumes that an acceptable agreement
can be reached with one or more landowners to receive liquid sludge in
a storage lagoon on their property. With this method, the sludge may
he recycled to the land as a fertilizer and soil amendment.
116
-------
A liquid sludge storage lagoon and indiscriminate application
upon land surfaces may have a potential for groundwater contamination
through leaching of nitrogen and heavy metals into the soil. A degree
of impact cannot be estimated without site-specific and operational
details.
In the situation that dewatered sludge will be disposed to the
County landfill, incremental pollution to the groundwater may occur.
A continuous situation at the landfill is leachate production from
decomposing solid wastes. Sludge would contribute to the present
leachate production but its pollutant contribution would be difficult
to identify in the leachate. If the landfill is not sealed, leachate
can seep into the groundwater table and degrade local groundwater
quality adversely affecting well use.
Mitigation Measures. Infiltration of dissolved solids and trace
pollutants into the groundwater table under the sludge-drying beds
can be avoided with design techniques. An impervious liner in the
drying beds will eliminate percolation and perimeter ditches around
the beds would collect any surface runoff or overflow.
Adverse effects from storing and applying liquid sludge at a
private site are more difficult to mitigate. An impervious liner in
the storage lagoon would eliminate percolation. Health and groundwater
quality hazards from sludge application would fall under the juris-
diction of the County Department of Public Health.
The control of leachates into the groundwater should be focused
on landfill operations rather than prohibition of sludge disposal.
Leachate will occur regardless of sludge disposal and can be effective-
ly contained by sealing the landfill from the groundwater table with
an impermeable clay liner and the installation of drain tiles. Daily
soil cover over the solid wastes would also reduce surface water infil-
tration leading to leachate production.
Terrestrial Environment
Operation of treatment plants or pipelines will have minimal
impacts upon vegetation or wildlife. Tolerant wildlife species will
adapt to sounds and odors associated with treatment processes. More
sensitive animals may avoid the developed and inhabited areas.
Areas that may require further consideration are the mouths of
Blackjack Creek at Port Orchard and Annapolis Creek at Retsil. These
creeks have been recorded for migratory trout and salmon runs. Construc-
tion activities typically will increase turbidity, elevate water tem-
peratures and lead to streambed deterioration through sedimentation.
117
-------
This could have a potential effect if construction occurred prior to or
during salmon and trout spawning periods in the fall. Fish losses would
not be apparent for the first season or year. However, in the following
years, fish productivity from that age class may be reduced. Effleunt
discharge from the Retsil plant could also have a long-term effect upon
migratory trout within Annapolis Creek. The effect of a marine out-
fall a short distance from the mouth of Annapolis Creek may have some
effects upon down-migrating juvenile salmon entering Sinclair Inlet.
Chlorine residual, ammonia and chlorine compounds may have an inhibitory
or toxic effect upon the nearshore marine life.
Mitigation Measures.
The water quality-related mitigations presented in the Short-
Term Impacts and Mitigation Measures section would be moderately
effective in minimizing the project's long-term effects on fish pro-
ductivity. Revegetation in the unused and perimeter areas of the facil-
ities sites would provide some habitat for tolerant wildlife species.
Physical Marine Environment
Water Disposal and Water Quality
The effects of wastewater disposal upon the receiving environment
are dependent upon the quality of the discharge, the dilution it
receives in the receiving water and the nature of the receiving water.
Appendix C explains the mechanism by which dilution is accomplished in
the marine environment and clearly defines the difference between initial
dilution and subsequent dispersion and flushing. It is the cumulative
effect of each type of dilution process that determines the suitability
of a site for treated wastewater disposal.
Initial Dilution at the Proposed Site
Two approaches to the calculation of initial dilution are generally
used. The first approach is based on a mathematical model of dilution
produced when a buoyant plume rises in a stratified liquid, which is in
itself based on tests conducted in laboratory tanks. The second approach
is based on the continuity equation:
118
-------
r - ubd
o ' Q
where
C is the Initial dilution
o
u is the current speed across the diffuser, ft/sec
b is the diffuser length, ft
d is the effective mixing depth, ft
Q is the wastewater flow rate, cfs
Irrespective of diffuser port configuration and sizing, the maximum
initial dilution can be calculated in this way on the basis of the
amount of clean water available for wastewater dilution that is passing
over the diffuser. In most situations the latter approach provides a
more reliable indicator of a site's potential from the point of view of
initial dilution.
Table 26 compares applicable water quality standards with effluent
from a secondary treatment plant which has been subject to dilutions
of 10:1 and 100:1. Although this is a crude comparison and does not
take account of complex interactions between waste constituents and
water quality, it does demonstrate that at any disposal site which ex-
periences good initial dilution it is reasonable to expect that secon-
dary treatment will be sufficient to meet the standards.
From Table 26 it appears that an initial dilution of 100:1 would
insure compliance with bacteriological standards in the study area.
Based upon information relating to the distribution of current
speeds from the University of Washington studies (Reference 20), the
following Table 27 was prepared. This table compares the percent
frequency the desired dilution ratio occurs at the sites. Port Orchard
Bay at Enetai has been added for comparison purposes.
Dilution Due to Circulation and Flushing
Inadequate dilution and dispersal of wastewater effluent can lead
to long—term degradation of water quality and cumulative effects upon
the marine environment. In this section, the dilution and dispersal
potential for wastewater at each site is discussed. Port Orchard Bay
at Enetai has been added for comparison purposes.
119
-------
Table 26. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ESTIMATED
DILUTED WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
Estimated waste concentration
A
Characteristic standard
Total coliform, 70
MPN/100 ml
Dissloved oxygen, 6
mg/1
pH 7 - 8.5
Toxicity, t.u.
Ammoniumc , mg/1
Chlorine, mg/1
Secondary effluent3
Undiluted Diluted 10:1 Diluted 100:1
1,000 144 68
3 8.7 9.2
6-9 7.9 - 8.2 7.9
1.25 0.12 0.01
20-25 2 - 2.5 0.2 - 0.25
0.1-0.5 0.01-0.05 0.0-0.005
Assumed background for secondary effluent is 59 MPN/100 ml for total
coliform; 9.3 mg/1 for dissolved oxygen; 7.9 pH value. (Reference 57),
Assumes dechlorination of effluent.
c
Can be significantly reduced by extending biological treatment period.
Table 27. PERCENT OF TIME SITE PROVIDES 100:1 OR MORE INITIAL DILUTION"
Discharge site
Manchester
Port Orchard at Enetai
Sinclair Inlet
Spring
81
53
28
Frequency
Neap
87
75
22
Average
84
64
25
ar=ii ^,ii it-^A noino r - t.T-i f-Vi >, - 7R ft-/Mr:n.
d = 50 ft for Manchester; d = 30 ft for Port Orchard at Enetai;
d = 20 ft for Sinclair Inlet.
120
-------
Puget Sound off Manchester. The outfall location was selected to
take advantage of the southerly flow toward Colvos Passage during flood
and the effect of Blake Island to the southeast. By locating the out-
fall at a depth of 42-45m {140-150 ft], the shoal area east and south-
east of Manchester tends to direct the flow from the outfall away from
the Rich Passage flood inflow. Current speeds appear to be realtively
weak, commonly near 0.1 to 0.2 knot with constant flow. During ebb-tide
a slow northerly flow can carry the dispersing plume in front of the
ebb discharge from Rich Passage with resulting effective mixing
(Reference 20). Due to its hydrodynamic characteristics and topographic
position in the Puget Sound system, where eventually all the discharged
effleunts will end, the Manchester site offers very good flushing and
circulation.
Sinclair Inlet. Due to the shallowness of the inlet and its
feature as a closed-end appendage to the Port Orchard System, this
area experiences weak tidal currents. The movement is bidirectional
with a slow outward transport. The hydrological simulation of this
area on a physical model such as in the University of Washington
model, has several limitations. The shallow depth of the inlet, the
large amount of shoreline and low tidal currents that are subject to
wind-driven currents affect the accuracy of the model. Model results,
in turn, are limited by surface tension and hydraulic factors associated
with the scale of the model.
In addition to the model results, information is available from a
dye study of the Charleston treatment plant outfall made on 23 and 24
January 1973 (reference 58). Results indicated poor dispersal with
concentrations of effluent near the diffuser. Dilution ratios for
surface samples ranged from 1.3:1 to 2,140:1, depending on sample
location, with an overall average of 250:1. Subsurface samples
indicated considerably less dilution, with an average of 5.5:1.
Additional information was gathered through a drogue study on
29 July 1975 (Reference 1). Three drogues were released near the
outfall site to follow current movements at three different depths
simultaneously. The drogues basically remained in the area of release
with drogues of different depths spreading in different directions.
The scattering of the drogues demonstrated different water movement
at three depths giving an indication of water stratification in the
area studies. An average speed of 0.08 knot was calculated using all
the drogue data.
Evidence of stratification can also be seen in the temperature
profiles made by the University of Washington study (Reference 20).
During late summer, surface waters within Sinclair Inlet reach up
to 17°C. Temperature decreases gradually with depth and may be as
much as 4° lower on the bottom. Stratification limits considerably
the amount of water available for mixing and reduces the potential
for assimilating waste discharges.
121
-------
Calculation of the Sinclair Inlet dilution volume and exchange
rate is complex and would require detailed computations and extensive
field investigations. While quantitative data are limited on the
hydrodymanics of Sinclair Inlet, rough calculations can be made
based on comparisons with other extensively studied systems such as
the San Francisco Bay system. At the mouth of San Francisco Bay
(the Golden Gate), approximately 25 percent of the tide water is ex-
cahnged with each tidal cycle, i.e., 25 percent of the water returning
with the tide is new water. The exchange rate decreases with distance
from the mouth towards the extreme end of the bay. Tidal inflow in
the lower Port Orchard Bay/Sinclair Inlet system is mainly through
Rich Passage. If it were assumed that the tidal exchange at Rich
Passage near Point White (southwest tip of Bainbridge Island) was 25
percent, then a schematic diagram of the exchange rate in Sinclair
Inlet/lower Port Orchard Bay could be made as shown in Figure 21.
The percentage of tidal exchange in the system decreases greatly
west of Port Washington Narrows as shown in Figure 21. In the vicin-
ity of the Charleston treatment plant outfall, tidal exchange is only
2.5 percent. With two daily tidal cycles, this means that near
Charleston, 5 percent of the tidal water is exchanged each day. The
change in water level between high and low tides is approximately
2.4 m [8 ft]. If an average depth of 12 m [40 ft] were assumed in
Sinclair Inlet, then the tidal prism (water volume difference between
tides) would be about one-fifth of the inlet volume. Thus, total tidal
exchange volume in Sinclair Inlet is one percent. The facilities
planner has estimated the inlet volume to be 1600 times the effluent
discharge flow. Thus, the dilution of effluent to the volume of the
inlet would reach 1:16 as wastewater discharges accumulate and attain
an equilibrium level with Sinclair Inlet hydrography.
In actuality, the tide exchange rate at lower Port Orchard
Bay is probably less than 25 percent, which would slightly increase
the final ratio of wastewater to Sinclair Inlet volume. However,
this represents a reasonable estimate that cannot be refined without
further field work such as dye studies and current metering.
Due to the foregoing assessments and the fart that Sinclair
Inlet is one of the farthest points from the Port Orchard circula-
tion and exit to Puget Sound, the potential of this area for waste
disposal is considered only fair.
122
-------
30
Ul
o
§25
o
X
UJ
i20
o
>
£ '5
o
1
UJ
tt I0
UJ
O_
5
n
Ul
i—
X
H
Z
0
a.
N,
^
„
i i i i i
V)
o
CE
CC
Z
PORT WASHINGTON
S^
J
fl
r
d
^^^Bjfc ^^^
i i
Z
Q.
1-
Z
UJ
1
UJ
§^
oo |
i
cc
X
o
k^"*^ 1
• 1 1 1 ^
»-
en
cc
O
0
1
^ 1
45678
Kilometers from Point White
10
12
13
FIGURE 21 TIDAL EXCHANGE IN SINCLAIR INLET/
LOWER PORT ORCHARD BAY
Port Orchard at Enetai. Tidal currents at this site are strongly
influenced by flood flows surging through Rich Passage and Port Washing-
ton Narrows. To a lesser degree, tidal movements in Sinclair Inlet
have an effect upon the site at Port Orchard. Initially currents
are southerly toward Sinclair Inlet. When the flood flow from Rich
Passage reaches the site, there is a quick shift towards the north
followed by energetic mixing both vertically and horizontally. During
the ebb period, the area is quiet as it is bypassed by the flow from
Sinclair Inlet. An outfall at this site should extend toward the
middle of the Port Orchard Channel to take advantage of the additional
flushing.
Currents are light during the ebbtide and the initial stage
of the flood tide, but increase rapidly to 0.7 to 0.8 knot when the
flood tide from Rich Passage reaches the site.
It is possible that some part of the dispersion plume can reach
into Port Washington Narrows. It is fairly well accepted, however,
123
-------
that much of the diluted effluent would effectively exit through Rich
Passage during the ebbtide. Due to its closeness to the exit from
the system and to its hydrodynamic characteristics, this site is
potentially good for waste disposal through a marine outfall.
Mitigation Measures. It is expected that with typical municipal
wastewaters and normal, uneventful operation of the proposed wastewater
treatment facility, the impacts upon marine water quality from treated
effluent discharge to an appropriate site would be minimal. Proper
facility design will result in appropriate pollutant reductions and
minimize the potential for mishaps, and operation of the facility by
properly trained personnel will further safeguard the environment.
Mitigations to lessen the adverse effects of wastewater outfalls are
centered around the outfall design. A single port diffuser, as is
found on the majority of the outfalls in the planning area discharges
effluent in a single stream. Effluent with low initial dilution could
have a shock impact on marine organisms near the diffuser. A well-
designed multiple-port diffuser would greatly mitigate this effect
allowing wastewater effluent to be diluted greatly.
Optimum outfall diffuser design, as discussed above, would greatly
reduce initial effluent pollutant concentrations and lessen the
impacts on water quality and marine organisms. Uncertainty as to
the ability of Sinclair Inlet to accept wastewater discharges over
the long-term indicates the need for further examination. Mitigation
of long-term effects upon Sinclair Inlet should consider further
comparative investigations with other sites, particularly Enetai,
before a final decision is reached.
Biological Marine Environment
Effluent discharge from outfalls will be a continuous process
during the life of the treatment facilities. Continued discharge of
primary-treated effluent under Alternative 1 will perpetuate the
present bacterial contamination problems which cause Sinclair Inlet to
be closed to shellfish harvesting. Effluent quality will be upgraded
in Alternatives 2-5. Impacts discussed below apply only to the
current upgrading.
Effects Upon Marine Biota
Effluent discharges will affect marine benthic fauna and flora.
The effects of the effluent on the benthic community should be limited
in area. Due to physical characteristics of the effluent such as
salinity and density, the outfall plumes rise at a rapid rate from the
124
-------
outfall ports. A very limited bottom (benthic) area is exposed to
effluent, resulting in restricted, site-specific, benthic impacts at
each outfall location. The discharge will most likely limit the sett-
ling and colonization by new organisms rather than affecting existing
outfall site inhabitants.
A review of the toxicity of trace constituents found in treated
wastewater is shown in Table 28. Heavy metals can strongly affect
some benthic organisms; specifically, copper and lead are toxic to oy-
sters and total phosphorus affects the polychaete worm, nereis grubei.
Oysters are generally not present at the 24 m [80 ft] depth at which
the effluent will be discharged at Manchester but are present in Clam
Bay immediately north of Manchester. Oysters are not found in great
numbers in Sinclair Inlet, although they are harvested in Dyes Inlet.
The concentrations of copper and lead in the full-strength effluent
are below the toxic level shown in Table 28. Design of the outfall to
achieve high initial dilution will greatly minimize the concentration.
The phosphorus concentration in undiluted effluent exceeds the toxic
level for N. grubei, but the presence of this benthic community indi-
cator species has not been established at the outfall sites. Toxic
effects upon other benthic polychaete species are reduced because the
wastewater plume would not directly contact the bottom habitat.
The effluent, as it rises to the surface, will change the water
quality in the mixing zone. Fish in the mixing zone which contact the
effluent directly above the diffuser could encounter nearly undiluted
concentrations, while fish swimming closer to the surface will be ex-
posed to a greatly diluted effluent.
As shown in Table 28, domestic effluent constituents in undi-
luted concentrations that are known to be toxic to fish are aluminum,
ammonia and chlorine. Ammonia is the greatest concern in the initial
dilution zone as effluent concentrations of 27 mg/1 greatly exceed the
maximum level to fish of 1 mg/1. Initial concentrations of ammonia
near the outfall may present a shock hazard to aquatic life. Outfall
design maximizing diffusion and dilution would reduce the potential
shock effect. Chlorine residual is another parameter of concern where
effluent concentrations of 1.0 mg/1 exceed the 0.1 mg/1 toxicity level
to coho salmon. Chlorine dissipates rapidly in the marine environment,
but nevertheless is of concern due to potential toxic effects at lower
levels to juvenile fish and marine algae. The practice of heavy chJo-
rination of effluent for disinfection causes chlorine residual to be
of greater concern than heavy metals in the initial mixing zone.
The nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus in various forms that
will be present in the effluent will stimulate phytoplankton growth.
Increased primary productivity through phytoplankton numbers widen
the base of the food chain and can result in more herbivorous and car-
nivorous animals supported by the food web. Overstimulation can cause
125
-------
Table 28. TOXIC LEVELS OF CONSTITUENTS ON MARINE LIFE
Constituent
Ammonia
Phosphorous
(total)
Mercury
Zinc
Calcium
Iron
Copper
Chlorine
Magnesium
Aluminum
Lead
Manganese
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Nickel
Silver
Arsenic
Fluorides
Full strength
concentration
1.35 mg/1
10.0 mg/1
0.001 mg/1
0.12 ppm
30.5 mg/1
1.3 ppm
0.025 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
15.5 mg/1
0.31 ppm
0.02 ppm
0. 22 ppm
0.003 ppm
0.043 ppm
0.5 ppm
0.016 ppm
0.006 ppm
0.01 ppm
0.2 mg/1
Concentration
in ambient sea
water
-
0.07 mg/1
0.00003 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
400 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.003 mg/1
1.4 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.00003 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
0.00011 mg/1
0.00005 mg/1
-
0.002 mg/1
0.0003 mg/1
0.003 mg/1
1.3 mg/1
Toxic level
1.0 mg/1 59
3.4 mg/1 ftl
0.92 mg/1 62
0.9 mg/1 5g
1-9 mg/1 5g
800 m*/l 63, 64
-
1.9 mg/1 65
0.1 mg/1 67
300 mg/1
0.3 mg/1 6Q
0.5 mg/1 5g
0.4 mg/1 6g
0.01 mg/1 66
17.8 mg/1 6q
0.05-0.1 mg/1 7(J
0.8 mg/1
0.003 mg/1 fi3
5.3 mg/1 yl
2.3-7.3 mg/1 rz
Organism
Fi sha
Bluegill Sunfish
Nereis grubei
Phytoplankton3
Steel head
Stickleback
-
Oystersb
Coho Salmon*3
Stickleback
Stickleback
Eastern Oyster
Coho Salmon0
Flshb
Coho Salmon3
Ftshb
Sticklebacks
Sticklebacks
Salmon
Troutb
Suggested
maximum
level
0.1 mg/1 6()
0.3 mg/1 6Q
-
0.009 mg/1 59
0.019 mg/1 5g
-
0.3 mg/1 5g
0.05 mg/1 6fi
0.01 mg/1
30.0 mg/1 5g
1.5 mg/1 6Q
0.02 mg/1 53
1.0 mg/1 66
0.0003 mg/1 59
0.05 mg/1 66
0.025 mg/1 63
0.1 mg/1 ,_9
0.005 mg/1 6Q
0.5 mg/1 6Q
1.5 mg/1
DO
Various Limitations.
TLM (96 hr) Median Tolerance Limit: 50 percent survival of test organisms in 96 hours.
CTLM (24 hours).
-------
a gross imbalance in this primary productivity level. Subsequent die-
off and decay of excess phytoplankton cells can consume large amounts
of dissolved oxygen leaving critically low levels for fish and inver-
tebrates. The hydrography of the outfall location will play a signi-
ficant part in determining whether the nutrients from the outfalls
have a potential to initiate or contribute to the intensity of a phy-
toplankton bloom.
Computer modeling of algal concentrations, as measured by chlo-
rophyll a levels, was conducted by the facilities planner with the aid
of the EPA Ecologic Model. The general model runs are discussed in
Appendix E of the Sinclair Inlet Facilities Plan. The model indicates
that secondary effluent outfalls at Sinclair Inlet and Port Orchard
would demonstrate two stages. In the first stage, as the newly up-
graded effluent is discharged, nutrient levels would be lower and al-
gal blooms would be less intense. In the second stage, as the Port
Orchard system equilibrates and greater volumes of effluent are dis-
charged, algal blooms would recur with similar or greater intensity
as before the upgrading of the effluent quality. This tends to show
a widespread nutrient problem in the Port Orchard system from multiple
sources aside from treatment plant effluents at Sinclair Inlet. The
Ecologic Model was not simulated for a regional Manchester discharge
or the absence of discharges with a land application strategy. Model-
ling under these conditions would have simulated Sinclair Inlet con-
ditions with no wastewater discharges. Data from these model condi-
tions could confirm or discredit pollutant effects from outside the
system or to nonpoint sources.
It should further be pointed out that the Ecologic Model of
Puget Sound was set up to simulate nutrient and algal concentrations
for this study. No calibration or simulation was made for potential
toxic constituents such as heavy metals or pesticides. After effluent
has been diluted to an equilibrium level in Sinclair Inlet, accumu-
lation of the trace toxic constituents, as discussed from Table 28, be-
comes of important concern.
Mitigation Measures
Design of the wastewater outfall, particularly the diffuser
system, would lessen adverse effects in the initial effluent mixing
zone. Placement of outfalls in localities with optimal water move-
ment would aid in the dispersion of toxic constituents. With the Man-
chester outfall, no further changes from present conditions are needed,
For outfalls into Sinclair Inlet (Charleston and Retsil) fur-
ther consideration prior to finalization of outfall locations may be
desired. Facilities plan improvements to the system are intended ba-
sically to meet Washington Class A Standards. Quantitative limits
are set for coliform bacteria and several physical-chemical water
127
-------
quality parameters. Toxic constituent levels are recommended to the
level necessary to meet public health standards. However, no quanti-
tative standards have been set to protect marine organisms. As in-
formation on present and projected toxic constituents is limited, de-
velopment of a more comprehensive information base is recommended.
Calibration of this information into the Ecologic Model and computa-
tion of projected levels would aid in the determination of long-term
maintenance and enhancement of marine productivity.
Archaeological, Historical and Cultural Resources
General operational impacts of the alternative projects would
have little direct long-term impact upon the resources of the study
area, but some secondary effects within the sanitary collection sys-
tem may in turn adversely affect archaeological, historical and other
cultural resources. The increased treatment capacity of the plants
in Alternatives 2-5 would allow the construction of new sanitary sewer
lines. Excavations in the existing urban areas of Bremerton and Port
Orchard may encounter some historic remains, while along the shore-
lines and along creek valleys a potential for encountering subsurface
archaeological remains would be moderate to high.
Mitigation Measures
Extensions in the present service area may adversely affect
significant archaeological resources. These effects cannot be miti-
gated through this project and would largely fall under the juris-
dictions of local authorities at the time of sewer line extension.
Socio-Cultural and Economic Effects
Lpng-Term Employment
Operation and maintenance of the Manette and Charleston plants
currently require 13 persons. Port Orchard requires a half-time worker
and Retsil, one person. Below are the additional manpower requirements
projected for each alternative (Reference 1).
Al t ernat iye Add 11 ional Jobs Re q u i r e d
1 0
2 15.5
3 13
4 19.5
5 15
128
-------
Considering the unemployment situation in Kitsap County, the
addition of these jobs can be considered a beneficial impact. No
mitigation measures are required.
Long-Term Business Activity
Operation and maintenance costs for the completed project will
generate little or no new income for the Kitsap County economy. As
a consequence, net change in overall business activity as a direct
result of the project is expected to be negligible. No mitigation
measures are required.
Land and Property Values
It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed pro-
ject will have a significant, long-term effect on surround land val-
ues. Construction will occur in an economic environment of rising
property values. With the provision of adequate sewerage to the study
area, numerous malfunctioning septic tanks will be eliminated. These
improvements will tend to further increase property values in the ser-
vice area because adequate sewerage is limited elsewhere in the study
area. These generalized effects will occur with Alternatives 2-5. No
sewer improvements in Alternative 1 (no-action) would lead to a lower
rate of appreciation, maintenance or lowering of property values in
areas with septic problems.
If architecture and landscaping compatible with the area are in-
corporated into project designs, undesirability associated with the
plants will be reduced. All major plant construction will occur at
sites where treatment plants have existed for many years. Any poten-
tial reduction in surrounding land values associated with sewer treat-
ment has alread been absorbed by the neighborhoods. Although expanded
facilities will generate sludge at a faster rate, it is anticipated
that collection and disposal will become more efficient. Thus, long-
term impacts can be generally positive, if the existing facilities'
aesthetic problems are adequately redressed during the implementation
of the project. Specific effects on property value for alternatives
requiring significant changes in land use are presented below:
Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. Expansion of the Charleston facility
requires the removal of one home. Construction of new buildings,
tanks and sludge drying beds may affect the value of the 15 close
neighbors. In general, the treatment facility is partly shielded from
sites in a trough and no homes will be immediately adjacent to the
facilities due to the steep hills to the east and west. The presence
of the plant probably will not cause property value to decrease, al-
though their value may increase at a slower rate than other areas in
Bremerton. No significant property value effects will occur at the
Retsil or Manchester sites.
129
-------
Alternative 4. Similar impacts for the Charleston, Retsil and
Manchester sites, as mentioned in Alternatives 2, 3 and 5, would occur.
At the Manette site, up to 25 homes would be removed presenting a sig-
nificant impact on land values. The presence of a moderately large
treatment facility in the midst of a residential neighborhood would
also negatively affect property values. Expansion at the Port Orchard
site would require the conversion of shorefront commercial footage.
Decrease in commercial land may cause the remaining commercial area
to increase slightly in value. However, potential land use would be
limited to that compatible with a treatment facility.
Mitigation Measures. The adverse effects on property values will
be mitigated in large part by the changes described in the section
dealing witn Aesthetic Impact.
Property Tax Revenues
Property tax impacts are expected to be minimal. Land purchased
for expansion at the various locations will be tax exempt, thereby
reducing revenue collections. However, some parcels currently be-
ing considered are already exempt. It is misleading therefore to as-
sume that tax effects will parallel the land costs presented in the
facilities plan.
The KCSD No. 5 (Retsil/Annapolis) facility is located on federal
property. The land surrounding the Port Orchard plant is not generat-
ing tax revenue. Some of the land at Charleston is presently owned
by the Humane Society and by the State of Washington.
Table 29 presents the potential loss in assessed valuation at
Charleston, Manchester and Manette for each alternative. Correspond-
ing reductions in tax revenue are estimated using 1977 tax rates for
each location. The amounts are so small that no single jurisdiction
will lose a noticeable amount. However, comparison between the al-
ternatives indicates that Alternative 4 will result in a much greater
impact.
No mitigation measures are applicable.
Loans, Bonds and SubsJLdies
Ninety percent of project capital costs, other than land costs
will be borne by state and federal grants. The federal government
will assume 75 percent of grant eligible costs and the state will bear
15 percent. The Washington State Department of Ecology, acting as the
state's 201 grant review agency, requires compliance with both state
and federal requirements before certifying a project's eligibility.
130
-------
Table 29. PROPERTY TAX EFFECTS
Alternative
Facility 2 3
Charleston
Assessed Valuation
Reduction $26,400a $42,100a
Tax Rateb $16.3893 $16.3893
Loss of Revenue $ 433 $ 690
Manchester
Assessed Valuation
Reduction Q 0
Tax Rateb
Loss of Revenue
4 5
0 $26,400a
$16.3893
$ 433
0 $31,000°
$16.232
$ 503
Nanette
Assessed Valuation
0 0 $1,036,000°
Tax Rateb $ 15.7023
Loss of Revenue 16,270
Total Loss of Revenue
to All Jurisdictions $ 433 $ 690 $ 16,270 $ 936
3.
Actual Assessed Valuation of parcels under consideration.
$/$1000 of Assessed Valuation
Q
Estimate per CH2M Hill based on average of assessed valuation of
nearby land. Actual parcels have not been selected.
Sources: References 34, 36 and 73.
131
-------
The capital costs of the Charleston treatment plant and trans-
mission facilities will be partially funded by the U.S. Navy to cover
the needs of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). Granting agencies
will not provide funds to cover the capital obligations of the PSNS.
Consequently, the cost sharing for the Bremerton facilities must in-
clude the U.S. Navy as a major contributor.
The facilities planner estimated for Alternative 2, that the
U.S. Navy share was approximately $1,100,000 in inflated 1980 dollars.
Based on a rough estimate that 1980 costs are about 20 percent higher
than 1977 costs, the Navy share would be approximately $900,000 in
January 1977 dollars. The final cost to be shared by the Navy will
be the result of direct negotiations among the EPA, City of Bremerton
and the Navy.
Kitsap County and the cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard will
issue revenue bonds to finance the local share of costs. Repayment of
the debt will be guaranteed from the collection of user charges, which
will be adjusted to meet debt service, and bond covenants. If these
bonds were issued in the current market, it is estimated that they
would bear tax-free interest at 7 percent. Retirement of the bonds
would begin two to three years after issuance and continue until all
had been paid off in 25 years. Collection would be adjusted to allow
for creation of a reserve account to include coverage of one year of
debt service. If covenants are similar to those of current issues,
annual coverage of debt by 140 percent would be required. There is
no limitation on the amount of revenue bonds that may be issued (Re-
ferences 74 and 75).
Municipal Service Costs
It is not anticipated that operation of any of the alternative
plans will create measurable impacts on any municipal services. On-
going costs to finance and operate the new facilities will be paid by
sewer customers through hook-up and user charges. No estimates for
one-time connections have been made (Reference 36). Table 30 presents
current service rates and estimated increases associated with each
alternative.
Utility Services
Natural Gas. Currently, only the Manette, Charleston and Retsil
plants use natural gas for space heating. Total consumption at the
three plants in J976 was approximately 19,600 m3 [700,000 cu ftj, as
shown in Table 31. The Manchester area has no natural gas service.
The treatment facility there uses fuel soil supplied by private com-
panies, as does the Port Orchard treatment plant. In all five faci]i-
132
-------
u>
CO
Table 30. CURRENT SEWAGE SERVICE RATES
AND PROJECTED INCREASES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT
Current Approximate Monthly Household
Monthly Rate Increase3
Household
Entity
Bremerton
Port Orchard
KCSD #3 (Manchester)
KCSD #5 (Retsil/Annapolis)
Fee 2
$5.25b $1.50
5.50 2.40d
5.50 3.00
5.25 2.40
Alternative
345
$1.50 $1.90 $1.50
2.00C 3.10d 3.00d
3.00 3.00 2.10
2.00 2.50 3.00
a
Rates are quoted as of May 1976, but were confirmed by telephone, April 1977.
Rates do not include cost of rehabilitating local collection systems.
$2.25 for houses built prior to 1968.
Q
Rate established assuming that Port Orchard and KCSD #5 are one entity
for the purpose of computing rates. If rates are established separ-
ately, the estimated increase is $2.10 per household.
Assumes Port Orchard and KCSD #5 are one entity for the purpose of computing
rates.
-------
Table 31. TOTAL AND PEAK-MONTH GAS CONSUMPTION
MANETTE, CHARLESTON AND RETSIL TREATMENT PLANTS, 1976
TOTAL 1976
PEAK-MONTH
kJa
cu ft
kJ
cu ft
FACILITY
Manette
Charleston
Retsil
516,600
167,500
65,000
489,700
158,800
61,700
167,000
40,900
11,000
161,100 (January)
38,800 (December)
10,400 (February)
Total Yearly
Usage
749,300
710,200
al kilojoule (kJ) = 0.95 British thermal unit (Btu)
Source: Reference 76.
ties, the methane produced by the anaerobic process is used as fuel to
heat the digester, reducing dependence on other fuels (References 1
and 76).
While the Manette treatment plant would be deactivated under
Alternative 2, there would be an increase in gas consumption for space
heating at both Charleston and Retsil. For example, it is estimated
that total heating capacity at the Charleston plant might be increased
from the present 790,000 kJ [750,000 Btu] to approximately 1,850,000
kJ [1,750,000 Btu]. Total heating capacity and gas consumption would
be considerably less at Retsil, though increased over present levels
(References 1 and 76). The Manchester facility would continue to use
fuel oil for space heating until population pressures warrant extend-
ing natural gas service to the area. Construction of possibly 100-150
new homes in the area, for example, would justify installation costs.
Continued use of anaerobic digesters would still provide methane used
for digester tank heating.
Alternative 5 would have approximately the same consumption at
Charleston as Alternative 2. Natural gas would not be required at
Manette or Retsil. If Alternative 3 is adopted, total gas consumption
at Charleston would probably be increased somewhat over the estimate
for Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would involve only moderate increases
134
-------
over present levels of usage at Charleston, Manette and Retsil (Re-
ferences 36 and 76).
Cascade Natural Gas Company advises that the anticipated in-
creases in consumption, regardless of whice alternative is chose,
would not constitute a significant impact on the gas utility system
Reference 76).
Mitigation measures include consideration of the use of methane
for space heating at the Charleston, Retsil and Manchester plants to
eliminate or reduce the consumption of natural gas and fuel oils.
Electricity. Present annual energy consumption at the five ex-
isting treatment plants is shown in Table 32. These figures do not
include consumption at the existing pump stations. The two Bremerton
plants are served by lines having a total of 28 lift stations, with
an average demand of approximately 7 kw. Their total consumption is
estimated at 480,000 kwh per year. The Retsil/Port Orchard and Man-
chester areas have fewer stations with a total estimated consumption
of approximately 400,000 kwh per year. Thus, the present total con-
sumption for all existing treatment facilities and auxiliary pump sta-
tions is approximately 1.2 million kwh per year (References 45 and 77).
Table 32. PRESENT ANNUAL CONSUMPTION
(March 1976 - March 1977)
Treatment Plant* Consumption (kwh/yr)
Charleston 23,360
Manette 21,960
Port Orchard 86,484
Retsil 109,760
Manchester 60,640
TOTAL: 302,204
Figures do not include existing pumping stations.
Source: References 45 and 77.
135
-------
Total consumption for Alternative 2 has been estimated at approxi-
mately 4.2 million kwh per year. This approximation is based on
the year 2000 design flow for a study area population of 89,000, of
which approximately 87 percent (78,000) would have sewer service.
Implementation of Alternative 2 might therefore increase total elec-
trical consumption by a factor of 3.5, on the basis of the estimate
presented in Table 33. Since this figure is based on design flow,
it represents a conservative (high) projection.
Estimates of total consumption for the remaining alternatives
(3-5) are not available. However, an approximation can be made by
comparing recent and earlier estimates for Alternative 2. The total
of 4.2 million kwh per year for Alternative 2 (Table 33) reflects
recent downward revisions in population projections. In addition.
projections of energy consumption have been considerably reduced below
earlier estimates as a result of design changes aimed at energy con-
servation. Table 34 presents an earlier estimate of average demand
at design flow for alternatives 2-5 for a sewered population of
85,000 in the year 1990. As indicated by a comparison with Table 33,
total consumption for Alternative 2 may be as much as 40 percent less
than originally anticipated for a population approximately 8 percent
smaller than the earlier projection.
If a similar reduction factor is applied to the 1990 projections
for Alternatives 3-5, one can derive order-of magnitude estimates of
consumption for these alternatives for a sewered population of 78,000
in the year 2000 (See Table 35).
Table 33. ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION, ALTERNATIVE 2, YEAR 2000
(Population served: 78,000)
Treatment Plant PumpinR Stations Total
Annual Annual Antui.ll
Average Demand Oonsimijit. i on Average Demand Consumption Average Oem.uirl Consumption
(kw) (mill, kwli/yr) (kw) (mill, kwh/yr) (!
-------
Table 34. ESTIMATED TOTAL ELECTRICAL POWER
DEMAND AND CONSUMPTION, ALTERNATIVES 2-5, YEAR 1990
(Average demand in kw for a population of 85,000)
Treatment Plant*
harleston
anette
ort Orchard
etsil
anchester
Subtotal
Jditional Pumping Stations
mette to Bremerton
jrt Orchard to Charleston
AltPrnaHves
2 3
520 600
-
-
165
60 _60
745 660
70 70
10
4
300 5
300
95
80
_60 1
835 7
_
_
Port Orchard to Retsll
Retsil to Port Orchard
Retsil to Manchester
Subtotal
TOTAL DEMAND
Total Consumption
(mtlHon kwh/yr)
75
820
85
745
835
7.2
6.6
7.4
*FigurRS include pumping stations on existing linos.
Sources: References 1 and 36.
5
520
710
70
50
J25
835
7.4
Table 35. ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION, ALTERNATIVES 3-5,
YEAR 2000 (Population served: 78,000)
Alternative
Approximate Total Annual Consumption
(million kwh/yr.)
3
4
5
4.0
4.4
4.4
137
-------
For purposes of comparison, it is estimated (Reference 36) that
if all existing plants were upgraded to provide secondary treatment
(Alternative 4), total electricity consumption would be approximately
three to four times the present annual total of 1.2 million kwh. The
calculation yields a range of 3.6 to 4.8 million kwh/year, which cor-
responds closely to the estimate in Table 35.
On the basis of the revised population figures, it would appear
that all of the proposed alternatives (2-5) would involve significant
consumption of electrical energy, totaling 4.0 - 4.4 million kwh/year.
Puget Sound Power and Light Company advised that a total peak de-
mand of up to 5,000 kw could be handled without difficulty by the elec-
tric utility (Reference 45). Even on the basis of the earlier average-
demand estimates shown in Table 34, it would appear that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact, regardless of the alterna-
tive adopted.
Mitigation Measures. Energy-efficient facilities design would
reduce energy consumption. Original estimates of usage have been cut
substantially as a result of design recommendations specifying less
power-consumptive processes and alternatives. For example, original
plans assumed complete-mix activated sludge processes at all locations
(Reference 36). Aerobic digestion was also considered. In addition,
it was formerly thought that retaining present combined storm drains
and providing greater plant capacity to handle stormwater inflow would
be more cost-effective than constructing separate storm drains. Re-
vised plans recommend separating storm and sewer drains for reasons
of cost as well as lower energy requirements for pumping (References
36 and 78).
Storm Drain Systems. Combined stormwater and sanitary sewers are
being gradually replaced with separate systems throughout the study
area. For example, in Bremerton, where the only substantial lengths
of combined lines remain, all new development or remodeling projects
must provide both storm and sewer drains. The proposed project (Al-
ternatives 2-5) will probably involve one or more major additional
projects to install separate stormwater drains, in order to reduce or
eliminate inflow from this source to the sewage treatment plants. Thus
the direct effect of any one of the above alternatives would be to ac-
celerate the separation and upgrading of storm drains. The "No Action"
alternative, on the other hand, would result in continued deterioration
of the present combined systems, where these still exist (References
36 and 78). No mitigation measures are applicable for Alternatives
2-5.
138
-------
Recreation Facilities
In general, all the alternatives except the "No Action" alternative
would have a beneficial effect on the area's recreational facilities by
removing or greatly reducing pollution sources. Specifically, Alter-
native 2 would provide secondary treatment at Manchester, Retsil and
Charleston, with Port Orchard and Manette becoming pump stations. The
quality of the effluent discharged into Puget Sound at the Manchester
boating pier and into Sinclair Inlet at Annapolis would be greatly
improved. The source of pollution at the Port Orchard marina would be
removed altogether. The park adjacent to the Manette plant would also
benefit from the transformation of that site to a pumping station and
removal of odors. The quality of water in Sinclair Inlet, itself a
recreational area, would be upgraded.
In addition to the benefits mentioned above, Alternative 3 would
replace the Retsil plant with a pump station, improving the boating
facilities there. The proposed pipeline from Ross Point, on the south
side of Sinclair Inlet, to Retsil would run parallel to the bicycle
path planned to follow the shoreline (Reference 38). Neither construc-
tion nor maintenance of the pipeline would affect use of the bike path,
however, since installation is to be in the tidal areas (Reference 36).
Alternative 4 would provide for secondary treatment plants at all
existing facility sites. This alternative would improve the quality
of receiving waters in the Port Orchard system and offshore at Manchester.
Treatment plants and outfall areas would remain near the three boating
areas mentioned under Alternative 2. The Manette plant would require
an additional 2.3 ha [5.7 ac] but would not infringe upon the adjacent
park. In addition, expansion and upgrading of the Manchester facility
would involve acquisition of 0.3 ha [0.8 ac] of adjacent park lands.
Alternative 5 would have the same impacts on recreational resources
at Charleston as Alternative 2. The Manchester facility however, would
require expansion into 0.97 ha [2.4 ac] of adjacent park lands and site
cleaning. A transmission line would be constructed from Port Orchard
paralleling Beach Drive up to Waterman Point. This pipeline would
probably be in the subtidal areas of the shoreline and could not be
converted into a bike path after construction.
Mitigation Measures. Expansion plans for the Manette, Retsil and
Manchester facilities should be designed to minimize expansion into
adjacent park lands. For acquired park lands, limited groundcover
removal bordering the park area or allowance of a buffer zone of vege-
tation would minimize the visual effects. However, loss of some park
area is unavoidable.
139
-------
Aesthetic Impact
All five existing treatment plants are relatively inconspicuous,
low-lying, neutral-colored buildings, and the proposed new plants will
be architecturally designed to be compatible with the local environment.
Alternatives 3 and 5 offer an aesthetic improvement in compatibility
of land uses, because both alternatives involve reductions in the number
of outfall sites and replacement of three treatment plants with pump
stations. Alternative 2 also would reduce the number of outfall sites
and replace two treatment plants, but it involves replacement of the
Retsil plant with a larger facility. Although Alternative 4 involves
upgrading or replacing existing facilities, the number of outfall sites
and treatment plants will remain the same.
Alternatives 3 and 5 offer a slight improvement over existing
viewer obstructions at Port Orchard and Retsil. There would be no
improvement, and perhaps even a worsening in visual obstructions at
the Retsil site under Alternative 2, because of the replacement of the
existing facility with a larger one. Alternative 4 would offer no
improvements in the existing, visually obstructed conditions.
Noise, odors and visible emissions presently occurring will be
reduced under all alternatives except no project.
LONG-TERM INDIRECT IMPACTS
Most of the impacts examined in this section are not mitigable
through actions by EPA, thus they should be considered unavoidable.
The ramifications of these and other unavoidable adverse impacts will
be examined in subsequent sections.
Long-term indirect impacts of Alternatives 2 through 5 would be
similar. These impacts would result from construction and operation
of residential, commercial, public, institutional and industrial
structures, and their attendant infrastructure of roads, utilities and
flood control measures. Most new construction would be dependent upon
provision of sewage collection and treatment facilities. Because of
severe limitations and past problems in many areas, existing residential
areas would also require adequate sewage facilities. Lack of these
facilities, as in the no action alternative, would limit future con-
struction in the planning areas.
140
-------
Examination of existing and future land uses within the plan-
ning area can yield estimates of the possible indirect impacts
that may be attributable to new growth. A general estimate of such
impacts is derived from the projected population, proportion of
sewered and septic tank usage, number of persons per dwelling, and
the number of dwellings per hectare (acre). In the general Bremerton
area, a 1975 population of 49,096 would grow to 59,976 persons with
sanitary sewers in 2000,
In 1975, residences for approximately 13,500 persons were
served by individual septic tanks, most of which would be replaced
by sewers by 1980 (Reference 1). Therefore, in the period 1975
to 1980, new sewer service would be primarily to existing residences.
In the period 1980-2000, the net new population to be served in
the Bremerton area will be approximately 6,235 persons. Assuming an
average of three persons per dwelling, the total number of new dwell-
ings constructed between 1975 and 2000 would be 2,078. With an
average density of 10-12 units/ha [4-5 units/ac], approximately
170-210 ha [420-520 ac] of land would be converted from unstructured
to residential uses in the Bremerton service area. Additional land
would also be required for public facilities, especially roads, and
commercial-industrial service and employment uses. A general esti-
mate of 200-400 ha [500-1000 ac] of conversion would occur within the
Bremerton service area by the year 2000. Some conversion would involve
"in-filling" within open lands of the urban area, while additional
open lands around the perimeter of the three basins would also be
converted. Table 36 summarizes the population growth, the serviced
population and dwellings and the estimated land conversion for the
Bremerton, Port Orchard and Manchester-Waterman service areas of the
proposed alternatives.
The conversion of 350-420 ha [870-1040 ac] for new residential
land uses does not include area for roads, utilities, public areas,
commercial areas and industrial employment areas. The overall con-
versions for future growth would probably involve more than 420 ha
[1040 ac] of land within existing sewered areas and system expansion
areas.
141
-------
Table 36. PLANNING AREA POPULATION GROWTH AND LAND CONVERSION
Service area
Bremerton-Wildcat
Lake, Dyes Inlet,
Gorst
Port Orchard/
Retsil
Manchester/
Waterman
1975 total
population
49,056
14,904
2,500
2000 sewered
population
55,331
20,188
3,465
Net new
population
65235a
5,284
965
New
dwellings
2,078b
1,761
322
Converted
hectares
170-120C
150-180
27-32
Assumes existing unsewered population would be sewered between 1975 and 2000.
Assumes three persons per dwelling, respectively.
c
Assumes twelve to ten dwellings per hectare, respectively.
-------
Soils and Geology
Future growth and land conversion, permitted by additional sewer-
age capability, will have indirect effects upon the geological and soil
resources of the planning area. Within the Bremerton, Port Orchard/
Retsil and Waterman/Manchester areas, a new population of 20,000 per-
sons would require about 5,000 to 6,700 new structures and a new area
of about 490-780 [1200-1950 ac]. These new structures would require
suitable open land and construction materials, such as sand, aggregate
and soil. The demand for these soil and mineral resources will require
extraction and mining in other areas of the county and state.
New residential construction of 2,900 to 3,900 dwellings and utili-
ties, roads, public/institutional offices, parks/recreational facili-
ties and commercial structures would produce considerable areas of bare
ground during construction and impervious surface during operations.
During construction, frequent rain storms could erode the exposed soils
and soft bedrock. In early construction phases, sediment may pass in-
to surrounding undisturbed lands and be deposited. However, when storm
drains, streets and gutters are in place, eroded sediment would be con-
veyed directly into the receiving waterbodies. This could result in
an annual loss of thousands of cubic metres of soil resource from the
upland areas.
During the next 20-25 years, at least one strong tremor may occur
in the southern Puget Sound area, following the historic frequency of
three strong tremeors in the last 30 years. The increased, structural
land uses, such as bridges, underground utilities, storm drains, and
residences on steep slopes and waterlogged ground may provide suitable
conditions for increases in seismic damages, equal to or greater than
that for existing land uses.
Water Resources
Surface Water Resources
The most significant effect of growth upon surface water resources
will be an increase in impervious surfaces and resultant runoff as
more undeveloped land is converted to urban uses. Because Kitsap Coun-
ty's development policies encourage relatively dense forms of develop-
ment to take place in existing developed and serviced areas, surface
water impacts of a greater magnitude will occur in these areas. In
addition, these development policies will allow such impacts of lesser
magnitude to occur in the developing urban fringe.
143
-------
An increase in impervious surfaces will lead to greater surface
water runoff and subsequent effects on local watersheds and drainage
channels,. These effects are likely to include stream channel scouring,
stream bank and bottom erosion, and gullying. Storm runoff would quick-
ly pass into the creeks by way of gutters, culverts and storm drains,
and would increase channel velocities and flood stages in the upland
areas. Increased runoff would alter the erosion/deposition balance
along some creeks, especially south of Port Orchard. Slight increases
in local flooding may cause bank erosion and failures and increased
culvert maintenance along Ross, Blackjack, Salmon and Beaver creeks
in the Port Orchard/Retsil/Manchester area. Existing culverts near
the shore may not have sufficient capacity to pass increased runoff
and may cause local flooding. The likelihood and magnitude of local
flooding impacts can best be evaluated on a project-by-project basis
through Kitsap County's environmental review process.
Other drainage net qualities will be impacted by future develop-
ment. Construction related erosion will create sediments that will
be washed into water courses via runoff. Much of the sediment will
settle to the bottoms of channels at various locations and may
adversely affect benthic habitats and spawning grounds. Local techni-
cal authorities, such as the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, consider
this impact to be of short-term significance. This is due to the ra-
pid stabilization of disturbed construction sites by fast-growing vege-
tation. In addition to sediments, urban debris from construction and
subsequent activities can be washed into water courses, clogging flows
and possibly creating local flooding problems.
Some chemical and biological water quality problems will continue
in the developed area to varying degrees. Fertilizers, pesticides and
petroleum products will enter the drainage nets in greater amounts as
the development pattern becomes both more dense and more expansive.
Malfunctiong septic systems will continue to be a source of pathogens
and nutrients in the urbanizing fringe areas until sewer services are
extended.
Developable Water Resources
As noted in the Environmental Setting section, the Bremerton area
is expected to face a serious potable water shortage due to the limi-
ted reserves provided by local streams and aquifers. Because infor-
mation and data on the impending shortage are scarce, the following
impact assessments should be considered speculative, but worthy of fur-
ther investigation by appropriate agencies.
As the developed areas of the county have grown, residents have
come to rely more on municipal water systems which utilize large pump-
ing capacity wells. These wells are located on the fringe or beyond
144
-------
the developed areas. Through their draw down characteristics, they can
lower water levels in nearby shallow wells, which supply the bulk of
potable water to rural areas. Reduction in water supply from shallow
aquifers would necessitate new wells to be drilled into the deeper
Colvos sand alluvial aquifers, or water-utility connections with a
municipal system. In either case, the expense to the individual well
user could be considerable.
The future demand for water will likely result in the maximum
appropriation of all significant local reserves, as has already
occurred in the over-appropriated Chico Creek basin. The demand
will also result in the importation of water from outside the study
area and Kitsap County. The nearest available outside reserves are
Gold and Huge Creeks, which are located to the west and drain towards
Hood Canal. Considerations have been made to connect into Tacoma's
water supply or to exercise water rights held by the City of Bremerton
for the Duckabush and Hamrna Hamma Rivers, which are located across
Hood Canal on the east slope of the Olympic Range.
As with other urban areas that have demanded more water than their
immediate areas could provide, the study area's future water demand
may pose significant consequences to areas outside of its immediate
influence. The detailed assessment of these consequences is beyond
the scope of this study. However, the development of any new, major
water resource for use in the Bremerton/Port Orchard area can and
should be subject to environmental review through the State Environment
Policy Act (SEPA) process. This review should take place at the highest
possible level of state government, during the earliest stages of
planning. It should define and examine the specific impacts and issues
inherent in a given water resource development project and the urban
growth that it could accommodate.
Terrestrial Environment
Creek channel improvements, such as straightening, removal of
riparian vegetation and bank modification, severly reduce habitat
diversity. The soil erosion impacts discussed earlier affect aquatic
habitats by filling in rough creek channel bottoms with silt which
eliminates the physical niches necessary to many benthic organisms,
thus reducing the stream's biologic carrying capacity.
Continuing and future construction activities are likely to entail
creek disturbances, modifications, crossing and riparian vegetation
removal. Construction across riparian zones severs the continuity of
this habitat, thereby disrupting wildlife movements through it.
145
-------
The restabilization of creeks disturbed by construction generally
takes 1-3 years depending on various factors such as seasonal stream-
flow, bank stabilization and revegetation efforts. Normal winter rain-
fall following construction periods leads to high streamflows that
scour deposited sediments and detritus. Upstream flows also reintro-
duce aquatic biota to the depleted systems. Turbidity and sedimenta-
tion are severe during initial construction periods but decrease with
time as vegetative cover is restored.
Development around pond and marsh areas often disturbs the local
habitat quality. The opening of rural and wild lands for residential
and increased recreational uses creates pressures on wildlife and their
habitats. However, these pressures on habitat would occur to some de-
gree regardless of this project. The long-term result of human en"
croachment upon wilderness land would mean the adaption of some wild-
life and the disappearance of sensitive individuals and species.
Marine Environment
As the planning area population grows and new lands are developed,
non-point pollution sources will also increase. Development generated
sediments will eventually be transported and discharged into Sinclair
Inlet, Dyes Inlet and Puget Sound. Depending upon the volume and ve-
locity of the water transporting these sediments, silt and other mate-
rials will be deposited along the banks and at the mouths of creeks,
draining the area. Sediments flowing into Puget Sound should be well
dispersed by the strong tidal currents and thus have little or no con-
tinuing impact on marine benthic habitats. However, the sediments pro-
duced in the major portion of the study area will be discharged into
Sinclair and Dyes Inlets where flushing and exchange are relatively
poor. Discharged sediments will accumulate to some degree in the shal-
low sand beaches and mudflats near the mouths of creeks along the west
shore of Dyes Inlet and along the west and south shores of Sinclair
Inlet from Gorst to Waterman. These transported sediments will con-
tribute to the filling in of shallow waters such as Sinclair Inlet,
near Gorst and Chico Bay. Marine benthic habitats will be adversely
affected by the sediments and accompanying turbidity.
No original or model-derived baseline data on the predevelopment
conditions of the Port Orchard Bay system's water quality are avail-
able. Nor, are there any projections or models of the system's future
water quality conditions considering both point and non-point pollu-
tion sources. Thus, it is not possible, at this time, to quantitative-
ly or qualitatively estimate what affect population growth in the study
area will have on the water quality of the Port Orchard Bay system.
146
-------
The increased nutrients to be found in runoff waters will pose
problems for marine fauna and flora. Amounts of nitrogen and phos-
phorus in shallow, slowing moving waters can initiate or contribute
to algal blooms. Areas prone to these algal blooms are the shallow
waters of Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet and small bays within the Port
Orchard System. Algal blooms are characterized by rapid growth in
the spring and summer followed by massive dieoffs as sustaining nu-
trients are depleted in supporting waters. Nitrogen is especially
affected by these algal blooms and its depletion can have adverse im-
pacts upon other forms of marine vegetation which need this nutrient.
Effluent discharges will continue to contribute to nitrogen levels
during the time of nutrient depletion and dieoff, thus outfalls will
have the effect of sustaining algal blooms in the local vicinity dur-
ing this time.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
Long-term effects in the study area may involve the destruction
and disturbance of archaeological sites either by construction activi-
ties or by uncontrolled collection of archaeological remains by local
residents. Also, effects may involve the destruction or substantial
modifications of historic landmarks and their settings. These effects
would probably be concentrated in the East Bremerton, Port Orchard and
Manchester areas.
Tf most development occurs around the perimeter of the existing
urban areas, archaeological remains along creeks and shores may be
adversely affected. However, many such shore areas have already been
converted or are in ownership which may not be subdivided within the
project lifetime. This ownership would provide some protection along
the shore which have the greatest potential for archaeological remains.
Higher upland areas have less potential for archaeological remains,
but these areas also have the least existing ownership protection com-
pared to the shore areas. If new land conversion occurs as in-filling
of lots within the urban area or by intensification or replacement of
existing land uses, fewer archaeological resources would be affected.
However, buildings of some local historic interest may be destroyed
or substantially modified by renovations. These latter effects may
depend directly upon conversion for residential dwellings or may be
induced by general growth of the commercial activity associated with
an increase of 20,000 residents in the urban area.
147
-------
Air Quality
The region's general air quality is projected to remain within
acceptable standards taking into account population growth and its
resultant air pollution emissions. In the future, episodic temperature
inversions, which occur in the early spring, late summer and early fall,
may trap stronger concentrations of air pollutants, contributing to
increasingly notiecable photochemical smog.
Noise
The number of noise sources will increase in the urbanizing portions
of the study area as undeveloped lands are converted and roads are con-
structed to provide access. Suburban areas will not experience a signi-
ficant increase in ambient noise levels, although occasional construction
activities will impact very local areas. The present major noise concen-
trations, the arterial roadways, will likely become more significant in
commercial areas and around job centers if the area's economic activity
remains strong.
148
-------
-------
SECTION V
ADVERSE IMPACTS
Environmental impacts and feasible measures to mitigate or elimi-
nate adverse effects of each alternative were presented in Section IV.
Those impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of
mitigation measures are presented in Table 37. Alternative 1 differs
greatly in degree of impacts from the other alternatives. Alterna-
tives 2 through 5, which involve upgrading to a secondary treatment
level, have many similar types of impacts. Differences are due main-
ly to treatment facility and pipeline locations.
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Alternative Plan No. 1 (No Action)
Operation of septic tanks and leach fields in marginal or un-
suitable areas would lead to periodic septic system failures, and
pollution of surface waters and shallow groundwater aquifers.
Marine water quality in the Sinclair Inlet planning area would
continue to be affected by the discharge of wastewater effluent high
in coliform bacteria, organic material, suspended solids, dissolved
nutrients and, at times, residual chlorine. Areas where water quality
and the marine environment will be affected include the shallow wa-
ters of Sinclair Inlet near Gorst, Port Orchard, Retsil and to some
extent, Dyes Inlet. Long-term pollution effects on the marine environ-
ment are reductions in the population of sensitive fish and inverte-
brate species, overstimulation of nuisance species (i.e. algae) con-
tamination of shellfish resources, public health hazards and deterio-
ration of aesthetic qualities. Continuance ot the present discharge
system would also be contrary to the goals of P.L. 92-500 and in di-
rection violation of the NPDES discharge limitations.
Alternative Plan No. 2 (Charleston Regional/Retsil Regional/Manchester
Placement of a proposed pipeline route along roads and establish-
ed rights-of-way between Manette and Charleston will have significant
short-term impacts on traffic, aesthetics and utility services. On
the southshore of Sinclair Inlet, pipeline placement in the subtidal
and intertidal lands between Port Orchard and Retsil will have nega-
tive short-term impacts on small-boat navigation, marine vegetation
and benthic communities, marine water quality and aesthetics. Care-
ful construction practices could mitigate these impacts, but they are
149
-------
Table 37. ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE SINCLAIR INLET SEWERAGE FACILITIES PLAN
Impacts
Soil stability and erosion hazards
Potential geological hazards
Impact on air quality
Odor and noise generation potential
Direct effects on stream water quality
Degradation of groundwater quality
Vegetation and terrestrial wildlife loss
Marine water quality impact
Marine biota (benthic organisms and fisheries)
Stimulation of algal blooms
Impact on land and property values
Loss in property tax revenue
Increase in municipal service costs
Consumptive use of energy
Impact on recreation facilities
Impact upon aesthetic qualities
Degree of Impact: ^fe Major impact ST\
("^ Moderate impact f A
o
CJ
0
z
1
®a
CD
O
3
•
f
O
3
3
•
CD
O
O
®
CD
3
— .
rH
B
O
oo a
«j c
Charleston
ho Retail Regd
Manchester
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
®
CD
CD
3
3
CD
CD
3
3
O
CD
f-4
C
o
00
01
Charleston
CO
Manchester
3
®
CD
CD
®
®
®
CD
3
3
CD
®
CD
3
O
®
1
4J
01
H
to
to c
o a
0 -1
-i a.
4
3
3
®
CD
O
®
CD
CD
3
3
•
9
3
CD
CD
3
H i-H
C B
O O
•H *H
00 00
C t-t
til 01
H) 01
n o
TO e
5
3
CD
®
®
CD
®
3
CD
3
3
®
CD
3
3
O
®
Minor impact
No impact
150
-------
nevertheless unavoidable. Disruption of land use and local patterns
would occur with the removal of six homes at the Charleston site.
The major treated effluent submarine outfall would be located
in Sinclair Inlet near Charleston at a 12-18 m [40-60 ft] depth. Mo-
deling results indicate that first mixing and dilution of effluent
would be fair-to-poor and that subsequent dispersion and flushing
would be poor. Initial dilution could provide 100:1 dilution only 25
percent of the time, thus effluent would be diluted poorly. Due to
the poor circulation within this inlet, diluted effluent would be the
receiving water for more effluent. Secondary-level treated effluent
discharged at Charleston and Retsil would improve local water quality
compared to the present situation. However, chlorine residual would
be a problem for marine life. This alternative represents an immedi-
ate solution that best accommodates the existing jurisdictional en-
tities. Pollution effects will be alleviated, but the long-term pro-
ductivity of the marine environment would not be comparable to the
complete cessation of discharge to Sinclair Inlet.
Alternative Plan No. 3 (Charleston Regional/Manchester)
This alternative involves a regional secondary treatment plant
at Charleston consolidating the four treatment plants in the vicinity
of Sinclair Inlet. Flows from the Manette facility, Dyes Inlet and
Wildcat Lake will be conveyed across Bremerton to the Charleston site.
Retsil and Port Orchard flows will probably be conveyed in a submer-
ged pipeline from Retsil west to Ross Point and then across the in-
let to Charleston. The facility would be sized to handle an average
flow of 0.5 m^/s [11.7 mgd] . The facilities planner did not desig-
nate a specific treatment process. It is presumed that it would be
similar to Alternative 2. The Manchester facility will remain inde-
pendent and will also be upgraded to a 0.02 m3/s [0.5 mgd] secondary
treatment plant similar to Alternative 2.
Pipeline construction in this alternative represents the most
significant short-term impact. Land routes for pipelines through
downtown Bremerton, Port Orchard, and Bay Street/Beach Drive between
Ketsil and Port Orchard would cause significant traffic disruption
and interference with life styles. Alternative pipeline construction
in the subtidal and intertidal lands between Retsil and Ross Point
would cause disruptions to the marine community and shoreline areas.
Construction effects would probably be the greatest on this alterna-
tive due to greater lengths of submerged pipeline route required. Re-
moval of six homes would also be required at the Charleston site.
All treated wastewater flows, except for Manchester, would be
discharged to Sinclair Inlet near Charleston. • Dilution and flushing
conditions are similar to those described in Alternative 2. The vol-
151
-------
ume of effluent discharged at Charleston would be approximately 20 -
25 percent greater than in Alternative 2 and thus would slightly in-
crease the ambient background level of diluted effluent in the inlet.
Long-term effects of this discharge are similar to those discussed
in Alternative 2.
Alternative Plan No. 4 (Local Treatment Plants)
Localized construction impacts at each facility will be moderate
to significant, depending upon the amount of land required. Signifi-
cant disruption of land use and local patterns would result from con-
struction at the Manette site which requires the removal of 25 homes.
This would also occur to a lesser degree at the Charleston and Port
Orchard sites. Land acquisition costs and resultant loss in County
property tax revenues are also greatest at the Manette site. The Port
Orchard and Manette sites are aesthetically poor locations for a waste-
water treatment facilities because of their shoreline location and high
visibility.
Discharge of secondary-treated effluent to Sinclair Inlet by
the Charleston, Port Orchard and Retsil facilities will undergo simi-
lar dilution and dispersion characteristics as in Alternatives 2 and 3.
Effluent would disperse slowly with a long residence time in Sinclair
Inlet. Effluent discharged at Port Washington Narrows from the Manette
facility would achieve good initial dilution due to the strong tidal
movements. However, subsequent dispersion into the poorly circulating
Sinclair and Dyes Inlets would only contribute to wastewater effects
from other discharges. Energy consumption for this alternative, along
with Alternative 5 is the greatest.
Alternative Plan No. 5 (Charleston Regional/Manchester Regional)
Pipeline construction impacts will be the greatest with this
alternative due to the extensive pipeline requirements. Pipeline rout-
ing through downtown Bremerton will have short-term traffic and circu-
lation effects. Pipeline construction in the subtidal and intertidal
lands between Port Orchard, Retsil and Waterman will have significant
short-term negative effects on the marine environment, and may include
long-term effects in some cases. Damage to the benthic marine environ-
ment is unavoidable to some degree.
Effects of effluent discharge from the Charleston facility would
be similar to those mentioned under Alternative 2. This alternative
would be among the two most energy-consumptive systems.
152
-------
SECTION Ul
-------
SECTION VI
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
The creation and construction of a wastewater treatment system
for the Sinclair Inlet Sewerage Facilities Planning Area will impose
on future generations the necessity for a strong commitment to the
maintenance, potential expansion and continuation of the wastewater
management systems now being developed. The selection of future al-
ternatives for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal will,
to a large extent, be limited by implementation of the selected plan.
Four major commitments of resources have been identified with
the implementation of a wastewater treatment facilities plan. The
extent of resource commitments varies among the alternatives con-
sidered and is discussed below.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE ENERGY AND
ECONOMIC RESOURCE COMMITMENT
Any wastewater treatment system requires a commitment of energy
resources for operation. Alternatives 4 and 5 are the most energy
intensive, with the operation of a greater number of treatment facili-
ties in Alternative 4 and longer pumping distances in Alternative 5.
Alternatives 2 and 3 require comparatively less energy although demand
is still significant for pumping and operation needs. Alternatives
2, 3 and 5 with extensive pumping distances will require increasing
amounts of energy as population and thus sewage volume increases. Al-
ternative 1 (no action) will not require additional energy use beyond
present conditions.
Natural gas is used for space heating within facilities and to
heat digesters. Electricity would be used to power equipment and, in
some plants, generate gases for wastewater disinfection. This commit-
ment is permanent for energy expended. However, if a dollar value
could be placed upon the improved stream water quality, such commit-
ment of resources could be viewed as transferable.
The proposed project will require permanent commitments of con-
struction materials and all/2 year commitment of construction work-
ers for a combined value of $16-18 million under Alternatives 2 through
4 and $19 million under Alternative 5. The materials would consist of
concrete, steel, fabricated machinery, electrical components, wood
forms, framing and pipe. The supply of these materials is not known
to be critically short, and their purchase and use would be beneficial
to the regional and national economies.
153
-------
The employment of construction workers for the regional facility
would draw on a large labor pool at a time of high national unemploy-
ment in the construction trades. These workers would be drawn from
Kitsap County as well as from the greater Seattle area. Their employ-
ment would be of local and state benefit and would reinvest some por-
tion of their earnings through meals, transportation, lodging and en-
tertainment back into Kitsap County.
IRREVERSIBLE DESTRUCTION OF SOIL PROFILE
Expansion of the Charleston and Retsil sites under Alternatives
2-5 will require excavation, grading and removal of some amount of the
soil resource from the site. The Charleston regional plant would re-
quire approximately 24,000 - 43,000 m3 [31,000-56,000 cu yd] of exca-
vation. The Retsil site would require the excavation of approximately
760 m [1,000 cu yd]. No estimate of soil disturbance or commitment
was made for pipeline construction. The soil profile and characteris-
tics disturbed at each site must be considered to be permanently al-
tered.
IRREVERSIBLE LOSS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT
Direct alteration and loss of wildlife habitat will be least for
Alternative 1 (no-action) and comparatively greater for Alternatives
2-5 which require additional land conversion at the Charleston, Ret-
sil and Manchester sites. In particular, a Charleston regional plant
would require 1.3 ha [3.2 ac] of additional land and clearing of some
of the perimeter vegetation around the site. The Retsil site would re-
quire an additional 0.6 ha [1.4 ac] in the brush and forest area be-
hind the plant, while the Manchester site would require complete for-
est and brush clearance of 0.6-1.2 ha [1.5-3.0 ac]. Destruction of
habitat reduces the carrying capacity of the local ecosystem to some
degree and would likely lead to a slight reduction in wildlife numbers.
The secondary impacts of all alternatives include increased popu-
lation growth and its resultant effects upon the environment. Develop-
ment of outlying areas would lead to physical habitat degradation such
as erosion and functional deterioration of habitats due to barrier
construction, excessive noise, alterations in predator-prey relation-
ships, vegetation changes and human presence.
154
-------
IRRETRIEVABLE WATER AND NUTRIENT RESOURCE LOSS
During the drought of 1976-1977, considerable attention has been
focused upon the use of water and possible uses of reclaimed treated
effluents to offset depleted water supplies, primarily for industrial
uses. The project would collect, treat and dispose of 16.7 x 106 m3
[4,400 mil gal.] per year. This water is irretrievably lost for fu-
ture human uses, and such human uses would depend on extracted ground-
water or surface runoff. Unfortunately, energy and capital costs to
provide the treated water to a limited local industrial or agricultu-
ral market would far exceed the costs of extraction from present fresh-
water sources or of use of marine waters for industrial processes and
cooling.
Nutrient resource within the treated wastewater and sludge would
also be lost from beneficial reuse. Trace minerals, particularly ni-
trogen and phosphorus would be disposed in the effluent to marine wa-
ters where it would be superimposed upon existing high seasonal levels
of dissolved nutrients. Sludge reuse as a fertilizer and soil amend-
ment is a strong, consideration. Unless the municipal entity or sani-
tary district can make the appropriate arrangements, the sludge re-
source would be disposed to a landfill and irretrievably lost.
155
-------
SECTION Ull
-------
SECTION VII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Wastewater generation and the necessary management and disposal
of wastewater is a long-term reality. Historically, solutions to the
waste management problems have ignored this fact by providing short-
term solutions which usually have had cumulative adverse effects over
the long-term upon the environment. An appropriate example is the
proliferation of numerous individual septic tank and drainfield sys-
tems in areas with marginally suitable soils. Failure of septic tank
drainfields has contributed to the area-wide non-point source pollu-
tion problems. Similarly, the operation of many small primary treat-
ment plants serving only limited areas and discharging without con-
cern to effects upon nearby areas leads to cumulative adverse effects
upon the environment over the long-term. The solution to these prob-
lems is one of the foremost considerations of the proposed project.
Short-term uses of the Sinclair Inlet area with the proposed pro-
ject would consist of construction effects along the pipelines routes
and at the treatment plants, pump stations and outfalls. Pipeline
construction would utilize as much as 17,000 m [56,000 ft] of pipe,
hundreds of cubic metres of aggregate, other construction materials,
mechanical and electrical equipment energy, labor and capital invest-
ment. Two to five treatment plants and outfalls would be expanded,
and such expansion would use additional land, hundreds to thousands
of cubic metres of aggregate, equipment and materials, large amounts
of energy (both electricity and petroleum fuels) and labor. Short-
term aerial emissions of exhaust, dust and noise would affect the lo-
cal air resources. Losses of trees and riparian vegetation at the
Charleston and Manchester sites, and losses of soil and sediment in
storm water runoff represent other uses of the human environment which
would occur over a short-term period. Disruption of traffic and re-
creational activities would affect social elements of the environment,
such as reducing vehicular capacity in Bremerton and along Sinclair
Inlet, and displacing recreational use of Evergreen Park and school
playgrounds in Bremerton. Facilities would require exclusive uses
and limited use easements for lands throughout the life of the project.
Treatment plants and pumping stations may visually dominate their re-
sidential, commercial and roadside settings. Energy consumption for
the pumping station and treatment plants would be direct uses which
indirectly require uses of hydroelectric reservoir capacity or of
coal, oil and natural gas extraction.
Benefits to the physical environment are common to Alternatives
2-5; but in varying degrees. Failure of septic tank drainfields will
157
-------
no longer occur in sewered areas connected to the treatment facilities.
As a consequence, existing pollution of streams, Kitsap Lake and local
groundwaters, which are used extensively for potable water supply, will
diminish. Pollution of Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet will, in general,
be diminished. Health hazards within the study area would be substan-
tially reduced.
The maintenance and enhancement of a long-term productivity with-
in Sinclair Inlet is an important consideration with all of the alter-
natives. The current state and federal standards define water quality
criteria and treatment needs for the planning area. Development of
treatment strategies and methods along with implementation programs
rests upon the local planning agencies and jurisdictions.
Solutions that seem efficient for long-term productivity at this
time might not be viewed as such by 2000. There will be improved tech-
nology, greater experience with advanced treatment techniques, and,
perhaps, breakthroughs in other technologies which may have great im-
pact on wastewater management.
None of the alternatives considered here can be viewed strictly
as a short-term use of the human environment. Any unmitigated adverse
impact of an action, no matter how small, will be incorporated into
the ecosystem and may be magnified over time. Thus, it is necessary
to view the utilization of Sinclair Inlet as receiving media not in
terms of short-term use of the human environment, but in its true per-
spective. An immediate consequence of such a view is that there must
be a minimal conflict between effluent disposal practices and environ-
mental productivity. This makes adoption of mitigative provisions enu-
merated in Section V important under any alternative selected.
The usage of Sinclair Inlet as a long-term receiving water re-
quires additional consideration. Water quality standards stipulate
the implementation of secondary treatment level and the attainment
of specific water quality parameters. The standards, however, do not
specify impact parameters for the biological community or trace toxic
materials such as heavy metals or pesticides. Given the present and
projected conditions at the Charleston facility, secondary treatment
of wastewaters will marginally meet coliform concentration standards
the majority of the time. To ensure compliance with the coliform
standard, continuous and heavy chlorination would be required to dis-
infect the effluent. Aside from the cost and the energy to produce
the chlorine, EPA has determined that ohlorination is not a reliable
long-term method for waste treatment. Chlorine concentrations in dis-
charged effluents typically present a greater hazard Lo the biologi-
cal marine environment than trace toxic constituents. In addition to
chlorine residuals, the poor circulation of the inlet would tend to
accumulate the trace wastewater constituents that may adversely af-
fect the marine biological community.
158
-------
Based upon these factors, further consideration of long'-term
wastewater discharge to the marine environment may include the ap-
praisal of other sites beyond Sinclair Inlet that provide adequate
flushing without need for heavy chlorination. With proper design
and location, wastewater discharges to the marine environment could
be made reasonably consistent with the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term productivity.
A secondary, related short-term use of the environment is the
local growth and land development activity which is a motivating
force behind the proposed project. Local development with a degree
of outside influence from the Trident project is anticipated in the
planning area with or without the proposed project. Development
typically brings about loss of vegetative cover, transport of soils
and resources, changes in land use and other indirect effects upon
the environment. The balance between short-term growth and develop-
ment and the long-term productivity of the terrestrial environment
is subject to question, emphasizing that proper land-use planning
and implementation are extremely important.
159
-------
•-*«« •*
SECTION Ulll
-------
SECTION VIII
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT AND RESPONSES
This section contains letters of comment from individ-
uals and groups on the Sinclair Inlet draft EIS. A table
follows which lists the comment letters received during
the 45-day draft review period, the page in this chapter
where a letter may be found and a general category listing
of its contents. Comment categories are shown in an attempt
to indicate those aspects of the proposed action of most
interest and concern to commentors. Wherever a response is
required by EPA to a comment letter, a response page follows
the letter.
On January 3, 1978 the Environmental Protection Agency
held a Public Hearing on the Sinclair Inlet Wastewater
Facilities Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement at
the City Hall in Bremerton, Washington. The hearing was
attended by 16 people, two of whom presented testimony.
Because of the length of the official hearing record and
the costs involved, we have not reproduced the document
here. It is, however, available for public scrutiny at
the Kitsap Regional Library in Bremerton, Washington, and
at EPA's Region 10 Office, Seattle, Washington.
Some of the major concerns voiced at the hearing and
during the question and answer period as follows: One
individual commented that there was no discussion in the
draft EIS of on-site wastewater disposal systems other
than the septic tank/drainfield system. No discussion is
found in the EIS because the facilities plan does not
address other on-site disposal systems as an alternative
for treatment of area wastewaters. It is planned that
sewers will be extended to those areas presently having
septic tank failures. However, designated rural areas
will not be sewered under present plans, but semi-urban
areas will be connected to proposed sewerage facilities
when they reach urban densities.
The fact that the draft EIS did not address the Enetai
site for sewage effluent disposal was discussed, with
questions raised as to why this alternative was dropped
from the planning despite the finding that it ranked next
to Manchester in ecological acceptability as an outfall
site. The facilities planning consultant responded that
variances in water quality from discharges at Enetai as
opposed to Sinclair Inlet did not appear great in water
161
-------
quality modeling studies that were done. Costs, however,
were considerably higher. Costs being a primary considera-
tion, the Enetai strategy was eliminated. The matter of
costs was discussed at length, with questions raised
about the backup of costs used in the facilities plan
and relative accuracy of costs estimates as opposed to
absolute accuracy. The costs methodology presented in
Appendix C of the Facilities Plan Volume II was given
as the basis for dismissal of the Enetai site.
An inquiry was then made as to whether sewer re-
habilitation costs had been included in the cost econo-
mic factors to achieve a meaningful comparison of alterna-
tives. It was stated that the rehabilitation costs had
been figured only on Alternative #2; however, the facili-
ties planning consultant added that it appears that if
such an analysis were done for each alternative, all
alternatives' costs would be similarly affected and
would result in lower total project costs for each alterna-
tive.
Flushing action comparisons between Manette and the
Charleston site were a concern, as were Port Orchard Bay
and the Gorst area. The University of Washington hydraulic
modeling studies were discussed and the reasons for the
possibility of different conclusions on flushing characteris
tics of the dilution and transport rates of the Inlet \vere
pointed out.
Two written statements that were submitted at the
public hearing can be found in this chapter. One was
received from the Bremerton Area Council of Neighborhoods,
the other from CH2M Hill, the facilities planning consultant
The Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 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.
162
-------
ON
LO
Table 38
Comments Received on Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Date
Reed
1977
12/5
12/15
12/23
12/23
1978
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/4
1/6
1/6
From
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Department of the Army
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
State of Washington
Department of Natural Resources
Bremerton Area Council of
Neighborhoods
CH2M Hill
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
State of Washington
Dept. of Fisheries
State of Washington
Dept. of Transportation
EIS
Paqe
No.
165
168
169
172
173
193
205
208
210
214
1 Costs & Financing
X
.C
I/)
l*-
,
4->
•r—
fO
13
Cr
5-
m
4->
(O
X
X
X
1 Metals/Toxic Materials
X
1 Fisheries
X
X
X
(U
i*-
T3
•r-
3
Construction Impacts
X
X
X
Secondary Impacts
Archeological
Y
Historical Preservation
Y
c
o
•M
H3
ZJ
O.
o
a.
3
TJ
C
4-J
•r—
(O
3
cy
<*.
ff
Wet Weather Overflows
X
Shoreline Management
in
-o
c
(O
"&
to
u_
3
O
4->
C
O)
3
!]I
4-
LU
X
X
10
4->
HI
ex
u_
•~^
cu
cr.
XI
Ol
s_
a
X
0)
CJ
•o
^
oo
>)
u
o
a.
«
0)
T3
OJ
U_
X
(/)
u.
i.
(U
+J
§
OJ
4J
w
ro
•^c
O.
•r"
.C
Sewer Service Extensions
X
;
i
-------
U3
Hood Canal Environmental Council
M
(jj
O>
__^
~~J
State of Washington
Dept. of Ecology
ho
U>
UJ
X
X
X
CO
Department of the Interior
ho
hO
00
X
X
X
X
X
o
a
n>
•a
a>
-s
r+
n>
3
r+
0
-h
rl-
3"
n>
OJ
<<
ho
ho
av
X
UD
CO
fD
-5
r+
fD
in
O
ho
ho
4^
X
X
10
State of Washington
Dept. of Game
ho
ho
h- '
X
X
X
X
X
\
IO
Glenn L. Vockrodt
ho
I—1
oo
X
X
.J
10
C-i
o
3-
3
:r
%
7T
O
3
rt>
3
N3
I — >
O\
X
so a
fD O>
n r+
Q. fD
-Tl
-s
O
3
z ~D rn
O QJ •— i
• UD OO
fD
Table 38
Comments Received on Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Costs & Financing
Shellfish
Alternatives
Water Quality
Metals/Toxic Materials
Fisheries
Wildlife
Construction Impacts
Secondary Impacts
Archeological
Historical Preservation
Copulation
Land Use
Air Quality
Wet Weather Overflows
Shoreline Management
Prime/Unique Farmlands
Soils
Effluent/Outfalls
Dredge/Fill Permits
Sludae
Federal Policy
hip Wastewater Flows
Sewer Service Extensions
-------
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
1522 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
.
November 29, 1977
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick, M/S 443
201 EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
This is in response to Donald P. Dubois's request of November 11, 1977,
for comments on the draft environmental statement (DES) for the Sinclair
Inlet Wastewater Facilities Project, Ritsap County, Washington. Pursuant
to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Council's "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural
Properties" (36-C.F.R. Part 800), we have determined that it appears
the Environmental- Protection Agency has surveyed the land area affected
by the proposed undertaking and determined that none of the identified
cultural properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected. However, the EPA has
apparently not adequately identified the absence or existence of submerged
cultural properties which may be affected by the undertaking. The
monitoring program proposed to identify such affected cultural properties,
however, should be adequate in this instance.
If cultural properties are discovered during work on this undertaking we
wish to remind the EPA that it should assure that work is stopped
immediately, the cultural property is evaluated in consultation with
the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for inclusion
in the National Register, and, if determined eligible, the comments of
the Council are requested in accordance with the "Procedures" as
appropriate. In addition, the final environmental statement should
demonstrate that the SHPO concurs in the EPA's determinations of effect
on cultural properties, as expressed in this DES, and that the SHPO
concurs in the EPA's proposed course of action for dealing with any
cultural properties identified during implementation of this project.
165
The Council is an independent unit of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government charged by the Act of
October 15, 1966 to advise the President and Congress in the field of Historic Preservation.
-------
Page 2
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Project
November 29, 1977
Should you have any questions or require any assistance with this matter,
please contact Brit Allan Storey of the Council's Denver staff at (303)
234-4946, an FTS number.
Sincerely yours
Louis S. Wall
Assistant Director, Office of
Review and Compliance, Denver
166
-------
Response to letter from Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:
1. Appendix F of the EIS reviews the potential for subsurface and
submerged cultural properties. Due to the absence of actual
surveying in most shoreline areas of Kitsap County, the existence
of submerged cultural properties cannot be verified, only surmised.
2. Appendix G deals with an impact evaluation on Archeological and
Historical Resources. The project was considered not to affect
any recorded archeological or historical sites. However, the po-
tential for uncovering submerged cultural material was noted along
the tidal and subtidal pipeline portions along the south shore of
Sinclair Inlet. Appendix G will be revised to note that two mea-
sures may be taken:
1) The construction crew should be informed about the po-
tential for uncovering cultural material, and instruc-
ted to stop work if such material is encountered and
immediately consult with the SHPO. Appropriate preserva-
tion or recovery measures will be advised by the SHPO
at that time and evaluation given for inclusion of the
site in the National Register, if eligible.
2) If the SHPO considers the south shore of the Sinclair
Inlet to have a high priority, a field survey could be
performed during the Step II design or prior to Step III
construction when the exact pipeline locations have
been designated. This would probably consist of a
series of tidal and subtidal corings in areas identi-
fied by a qualified archeologist as having the grea-
test potential.
If cultural material is found in the coring(s), then
the SHPO may require the presence of a qualified
archeologist to examine dredge materials at the con-
struction site. If no cultural materials are found,
or the evidence is inconclusive, then the measures
outlined in item (1) will be followed.
167
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX C-3755
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124
NPSEN-PL-ER
1 4 DEC 1977
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
201 EIS Coordinator, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for Sinclair
Inlet, Wastewater Facilities Project, Kitsap County, Washington, with
respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of responsibility
for flood control, navigation, hydropower, and the activity which is
subject to Corps of Engineers permit authority.
A Department of the Army permit is required for all work in navigable
waters of the United States, and for all discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States. These waters include lakes
larger than 10 acres in size, streams over 5 cubic feet per second, and
all adjacent wetlands
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this statement. If you have
any questions, please contact Dr. Steven Dice, telephone (206) 764-3631,
of my staff.
Sincerely yours,
SIDNEY UTSON, RE.
Aast. Chief, Engineering Division
168
-------
December 20, -197T
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Environmental & Technical Serja^ces Division
P. 0. Box U332, Portland, QjHftpn ^£7208
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick, M/S UU3
201 EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
The National Marine Fisheries Service has reviewed the draft environ-
mental impact statement for Sinclair Inlet Wastewater (Sewerage)
Facilities Project (Plan).
In order to provide as timely a response to your request for comments
as possible, we are submitting the enclosed comments to you directly,
in parallel with their transmittal to the Department of Commerce for
incorporation in the Departmental response. These comments represent
the views of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The formal, con-
solidated views of the Department should reach you shortly.
General Comments
The National Marine Fisheries Service encourages the installation of
updated, more efficient sewage treatment facilities that lessen the
impact on the aquatic environment and resources under the purview of
our agency. For this reason we support improvement of the Sinclair
Inlet waste treatment facilities.
Specific Comments
Cover and Title Page. The cover lists the title as "Sinclair Inlet
Wastewater Facilities Project" while the title page lists the title
as "SINCLAIR INLET SEWERAGE FACILITIES PLAN." We suggest that these
titles be consistent.
APPENDIX D
169
-------
BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Appendix D-2 PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Page D-8. No key of occurrence is provided to indicate the frequency
that species of fish are found in the listed locations in the table.
We suggest that such a key be included.
Sincerely,
.. ,--. -
/. /k L <:/*{ t'-'^--
Dale R. Evans
Division Chief
cc: Washington Dept. of Fisheries
Washington Dept. of Game
Fish & Wildlife Service, Olympia
170
-------
Responses to U. S. Department of Commerce:
1. The correct title is "Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Pro-
ject" and has been adjusted in the EIS.
2. A key to the occurrence of the various fish species has been
added to the table.
171
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COMMISSIONER
BERT L. COLE
R. A. BESWICK
SUPERVISOR
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON
98SO4
December 21, 1977
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick, M/S 443
201 EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
RE: Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Project DEIS,
Kitsap County, Washington
The DNR has reviewed the above-referenced document.
Our primary comment is that at time of construction the DNR will need
leases for existing, as well as proposed, sewer outfills on state-
owned aquatic lands.
Any questions should be directed to:
Norm Hansen, Marine Land Management
Department of Natural Resources
Public Lands Building
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 753-5324
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
BERT L. COLE
Commissioner of Public Lands
Gerald D. Probst
Resource-Planning Coordinator
GDP:ms
cc: Norm Hansen
Fred Hart, South Puget Area
Larry Sweeney, South Puget Area
172
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
RECEIVED
JAN 9 1978
EPA-EIS
1332 E. Hope
Bremerton, Washington 98310
January 7, 1978
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick, M/S 443
201 EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
The enclosed Section I, II, and III are comments from the assigned
committees of the Bremerton Area Council of Neighborhoods (BACON)
on the Draft EIS Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Project, #C-530559.
November 1977. They are provided 1n response to Region X's request
for public review of this Draft EIS and represent a comprehensive
overview thereof.
The general consensus of the Bremerton Area Council of Neighbor-
hoods, as detailed herein, 1s that this Draft EIS 1s very deficient
and promotes acceptance of a very Inadequate sewer system Improve-
ment.
Doug Booth, President
Bremerton Area Council of Neighborhoods
173
-------
EPA Project No. C-530559 Page 1
PART I -- B.A.C.O.N. LEGAL COMMITTEE REPORT
A verbal presentation prepared and submitted by the
Bremerton Area Council of Neighborhoods, 3 January 1978
The Draft EIS, page 5, Alternate Plan No. 1 (No Action) states,
"As each facility 1s presently at or above Its handling capacity, future
connections to the sewer system and expansion of the service area would
be greatly limited....Continuance of the present discharge system would
also be contrary to the goals of P.L. 92-500 and 1n direct violation of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge
limitations." Also on Page 80, No Action Strategy, it states that,
"Currently, the existing treatment facilities In the Sinclair Inlet area
do not meet state and SEPA standards....These conditions could only be
expected to worsen as flows from the area Increase, causing further de-
gradation of the water quality of Sinclair Inlet."
The adverse environmental effect of currently allowing additional
connections and system extensions to the existing sewer systems, Alter-
native No. 1, have not been addressed. The "No Action" Alternative No.
1, merely expresses that the existing sewer systems do not meet State
and EPA standards and therefore are 1n direct violation of the law.
Although Alternative plans numbers 2 through 5 are presented as possible
solutions to comply with the law sometime in the future, no alternative
measures have been presented to mitigate the present unlawful discharge
of additional pollutants. Any addition of pollutants to the existing
sewer systems that would further degenerate and worsen the water quality
and be further detrimental to the environment should be restricted until
the present Inadequate sewer systems and treatment plants are corrected.
This would be in compliance with the goals, policies, and requirements
of P.L. 92-500 and would not further compound the existing direct viola-
tions of NPDES.
Since any new sewer connection, or system extensions, are defin-
itely a known pollutant point source and are controllable, restrictions
of such sources would eliminate additional volume of overflows at pump
stations and bypass overflows at treatment plants, etc., during the
development and construction phases of this proposal, or unforeseen
situations that might develop regarding this proposal such as:
1) If additional field study and information gathering are
required to evaluate the environmental impacts and alter-
natives of the proposal, or
2) If there are delays in the planning or construction phases, or
3) If grant funding is delayed or only partial funding is pro-
vided or if the proposal is not funded.
We do not believe it 1s consistent with the goals and policies of
P.L. 92-500, NEPA, SEPA, or the Department of Ecology, to allow any public
or private groups or persons to continue to compound and worsen the exist-
ing unlawful discharge of pollutants which would cause further additional
degradation of the water quality.
174
-------
Page 2
The Draft EIS, (page 1x), states that the analysis of this Environ-
mental Impact Statement will be based on two documents: Volume I, Planning
Background, and Volume II, Alternatives. It appears that Volume III (Draft),
"Sewer System Evaluation Survey", should have been Included In the Draft
EIS 1n that Volume III covers the field Investigation, cost-effective analy-
sis, and summary of the point sources of storm water Inflows (based on smoke
testing) Into the existing sewer system. Exclusion of Volume III from the
Draft EIS does not comply with the requirements of WAC 197-10-405, (Purpose
and Function of a Draft EIS), and WAC 197-10-440, (Contents of a Draft EIS),
since Volume III 1s part of the total proposal, Including Its direct and
Indirect Impacts, and 1s functionally related to the total proposal.
It should also be noted that per P.L. 92-500, Section 201, 208, 211,
212 and 502, the total proposal, Including possible federal grants, encom-
pass not only treatment plants, but also the upgrading and rehabilitation
of pumping stations, CSO, I/I, and storm sewer systems, etc. The Draft EIS
should be expanded to Include the total proposal. For example:
1) The proposed "no corrective action" on Infiltration. (See
page 11 of Volume III and P.L. 92-500, Section 201 (g) (3).
2) The proposed corrective and non-corrective actions on I/I
and CSO.
The bulk of the Information regarding field Investigation has been
based on assumptions and simulated or estimated data due to the abnormally
dry years of 1976 and 1977. There 1s little actual wet weather physical
survey or flow monitoring field data, Inclusive of the Kramer, Chlnn and
Mayo 1974 Study, to substantiate the conclusions and to adequately assess
the environmental alternatives and Impacts of the total proposal In the
EIS as required by WAC 197-10-440. It appears that the Inadequate actual
wet weather field Investigation, due to the dry years of 1976 and 1977, 1s
Insufficient reason not to require such data for environmental consldera-
tlon and evaluation, especially when considering the magnitude and life
expectancy of the total proposal.
It 1s highly probable, based on the wet weather patterns of Decem-
ber 1977, that high water tables and rainfall will be present and that
actual wet weather I/I and CSO field data could be readily obtained 1n
the first part of 1978.
CSO Analysis, pages 15-17 of Volume II, states that estimates of
peak flow rates, frequency of overflow and annual volume were made because
np_ records are available for existing CSO. Volume II also states, per DOE
policy, that only the aesthetic Impacts of CSO are to be evaluated, which
means removal of only the raw sewage floatables from these point sources
or treatment works CSO. Regardless of whether these CSO are point sources
or treatment works, as defined by Sections 212(2)8 and 502(14) of P.L.
92-500, 1t 1s pertinent that the draft EIS address these CSO environmental
aspects, such as health and water quality of the effluent discharge limit-
ations that will be Imposed, frequency of the health and water quality
monitoring and control, shellfish gathering by these CSO, alternatives of
Posting the area by these CSO, etc. Also, 1f these CSO point sources are
not eliminated, or 1f only the raw sewage floatables are removed, then the
following should be addressed and become part of the draft EIS:
175
-------
Page 3
1) The water quality related effluent limitations should be
presented, and the establishment of these limitations
should be 1n accordance with Section 302 of P.L. 92-500.
2) The fact that allowing discharge of pollutants from such
as these CSO for this proposal, would set a precedent
for other municipalities and private citizens to seek
exemptions from discharging pollutants from point sources.
This could produce a cumulative effect harmful to health
and water quality 1n this and other areas.
SEPA, MAC 197-10-055 (1), Timing of the EIS Process, states: "The
primary purpose of the EIS process Is to provide environmental Information
to governmental decision-makers to consider prior to making their decision.
The process should thus be completed before the decisions of an agency
commit It to a particular course of action."
This basic requirement was not followed by the governmental bodies
Involved with this proposal, 1n that these governmental bodies made
official decisions to commit them to a particular course of action prior
to considering the environmental Impacts of the alternatives and the
total proposal of this proposed major action. (See Volume I, Planning
Background, and letters 1n Appendix B and pages 10, 11, 26, 29, 40, and
43 of Volume II, Alternatives of CH2M H111 Inc. report).
The governmental decisions to drop Alternative 3, 1n Volume II, for
further consideration and to accept, approve the acceptance of, or to move
ahead with Alternative 2, In Volume II, Inclusive of Instructing CH2M H111
Inc., that Alternative 2 should be pursued In subsequent detailed analysis,
was not a case where preliminary decisions had to be made by these govern-
mental bodies upon.the proposal, before the proposal was sufficiently
definite to permit meaningful environmental analysis of the alternatives
to the total proposal.
The decision by the governmental bodies to add to, discard, or modify
the 4 alternatives as depicted 1n Volume I, might possibly be considered
preliminary decisions that could be made prior to consideration of the
environmental Impacts of the alternatives and the total proposal. However,
the actual official approvals and decisions by the governmental bodies to
commit a particular course of action (Alternative 2 1n Volume II) before
the environmental Impacts of the proposal, Inclusive of all Its alternatives
were reliably Identified and considered, were not valid preliminary approvals
and decisions that had to be made or should have been made prior to consider-
ing the environmental Impacts of the total proposal.
Such premature official decisions and action not only bastardizes
the Environmental Policy Act and makes this draft EIS meaningless, but
such decisions are not 1n accordance with NEPA and SEPA and therefore are
unlawful.
176
-------
EPA Project No. C-530559
Page 4
PART II
B.A.C.O.N. ENVIRONMENTAL/TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Comments on summary, Paqes ix - xi:
a. Page x, Item 4(2) long term Impacts with alternates 2-5, a new
item should be Included stating that "combined sewer overflows, and hydrau-
lic overloading of the treatment plants proposed will continue, and swim-
ming, skin diving, and harvest of shellfish 1n Sinclair Inlet will contin-
ue to be restricted or banned, as noted 1n Alternate 1."
Comment; Shellfish are still harvested 1n the Port Washington Narrows by
the public and by various Indian tribal members, even though they are
contaminated. This is the only shellfish beach area In Bremerton on public
land. Prior to 1962, clams on this beach were not severely contaminated.
Added CSO's and sewage discharge since that time have caused serious con-
tamination, yet the shellfish are still harvested and the area remains
unposted. The Public Health Department has classified the waters as
Grade "B", unsafe for swimming, and the harvest of shellfish. Section II,
fig. 12, p. 47 indicates both clams and oysters are produced in Dyes Inlet
and the Port Washington Narrows. Extensive water skiing, skin-diving
activity Is observed year around 1n the area at present, and some swimming
activity Is observed in lower Oyster Bay in the summer months. Contamina-
tion, floatables, etc., have reduced the swimming activity in the last ten
years. Considerable commercial clam harvest was prevalent in Dyes Inlet
until 1967 when pollution forced closure of this endeavor. Water quality
1n Sinclair Inlet, the Port Washington Narrows, and the Dyes Inlet area
will be low, and remain contaminated unless CSO's are eliminated. Review
of Volume II and III, alternatives and overflow studies, indicate the new
plants proposed in alternates 2 through 5 will only accommodate a rainfall
of 0.06 inches. Rainfall in Bremerton exceeds this rate 95 per cent of
the time it is raining in Bremerton. It rains nearly continuously from
November through April in Bremerton 1n amounts greater than 0.06 per hour.
Treatment or elimination of overflows is ruled out in alternatives 2
through 5 for economic reasons; PL 92-500 does not, where other consider-
ations such as public use of the waterways 1s a normal consideration.
This non-monetary impact 1s significant, contrary to statements in Vol. 2,
part 2, p. 40 (alternatives) and 1s the most Important consideration to
the citizens of Bremerton. The 10 per cent project cost to be absorbed by
them is excessive 1f this environmental improvement is not achieved.
1-b/ Pg. xi, item 5, alternates 2 through 5 should include a statement that
"periodic combined sewer overflows and overloading of the treatment plants
proposed will continue, leading to the continued pollution of Sinclair Inlet.1
Comment: See comments, part a, page x.
1-c. No statement in the summary, under alternatives, etc. that the Port
Orchard Narrows plant site was evaluated. It was, however, given a cursory
look, as noted on pages 117-127. This site was one alternative given con-
siderable support in the 1974 Kramer, Chinn, & Mayo Comprehensive Sewerage
system Improvement Plan. This site was presented as a more environmentally
sound discharge site than the Charleston site, with approximately 75 %
effluent mixing, vs 25 % at the Charleston site 1f an adequate diffuser
location was used. The draft EIS thus does not comply with Its function
177
-------
Page 5
of providing adequate information on all viable alternatives to meet the
no-discharge requirements of P.L. 92-500. Further environmental study,
definitive siting, cost-analysis considering minimum size with CSO's and
overflows omitted are needed on the Port Orchard Narrows site.
1-d. Section 5 of the summary, as well as Volume II and III of the Facili-
ties Planning Reports do not address the magnitude and cost of the I/I and
CSO removal separately. Correction of I/I and CSO by itself may make this,
in combination with alternate I, a better alternate for cost, and improve-
ment of water quality than alternates 2 through 5. Vol. Ill, fig 7,
indicates a total I/I of 12.64 MGD, fig. 5 indicates approximately 5 M6D
I/I can be removed at a cost of approximately $800,000 (present worth).
This indicates complete I/I removal might be accomplished for approximately
$2,000,000 which 1s approximately the City of Bremerton's cost share of
the proposed project. Spending this $2 million for this purpose would be
far more beneficial to the citizens of Bremerton than constructing the
secondary treatment plant under any alternative proposal. It also may
improve water quality in Sinclair Inlet more than the proposed alternates.
SEPA, p. 43, Sec 440(11)(12) Indicates these costs should be detailed in
an EIS. This draft EIS does not address this important aspect of improving
our sewerage handling/treatment facilities and Federal water quality stan-
dards could be met with complete I/I removal, plus a minimum upgrading of
the existing plants in Manette and Charleston. Addition of secondary
treatment to these plants, with all I/I removed, would be far less costly
than the costs proposed in alternate 4. This aspect has not been consider-
ed in this draft EIS. All efforts have been directed at promoting alter-
native 2, which was based on a political decision made without benefit of
the EIS, which includes the poorest waste disposal site studied.
2. Comments on Section I, pages 1-13 (introduction & Summary)
a. None of the alternatives studied in detail proposed consider substitu-
tion of a plant discharge site within the city limits between Manette and
Enetai Beach, into the Port Orchard Narrows. The 1974 Kramer, Chinn & Mayo
report considers this site second only to Manchester, from an environmental
standpoint. It was eliminated by the cursory cost analysis, etc. given on
pages 117-127.
b.. All alternatives proposed are based on no I/I removal, and continuation
of the present policy of continuing overflows, which is stated contrary to
P.L. 92-500 on P. 5, Alternate #1. All cost estimates are apparently based
on this premise, making the comparisons made meaningless. Varying degrees
of I/I removal, to suit each alternate arrangement are needed to determine
the best alternate.
c. If the Charleston site 1s to be the primary disposal site, as indicated
Tn all alternates, there should be a cost/design consideration of utilizing
an aerated basin treatment method. Such a basin could be constructed by
creating a diked island in Sinclair Inlet 1n the shallow portion near Gorst.
This would provide the land needed without disturbance of the shoreline, or
hindrance of navigation, for at least 40 % less cost than the primary method
proposed. The aerated basin method will handle overflows better than any
method proposed, providing treatment equal or better than secondary treat-
ment during overflow; conditions (little I/I removal needed) and nearly
178
-------
Page 6
^m
tertiary quality treatment otherwise, with proper size and design. The
improved treatment possible, at less cost, makes this proposal most attrac-
tive, especially considering the very low energy and operating personnel
costs. The draft EIS is very deficient 1n not considering this alternate
method of treatment (aerated basin) 1n detail, both from a cost and environ-
mental standpoint. Such an island-!1ke site would provide the land area
needed, be aesthetically attractive, safe, and not an Impact on the charac-
ter of our shorelines.
d. Alternate 4 (p. 10) Indicates the acquisition of approximately 25 homes
would be needed to upgrade the Manette plant. Use of RBS filters. Instead
of the method proposed, and use of some of the adjacent park land with
tennis courts constructed on the roof of a portion of the plant would vir-
tually eliminate the need for land acquisition at this site—especially if
I/I & CSO were eliminated. The draft EIS does not address this possibility
which would make alternate 4 more attractive from a cost and environmental
point of view.
3. Section III, alternative Plans.
a. All plans are considered with I/I & CSO Included. Based on the per capita
use figures proposed (200 gal/person/day), 56,000 persons x 100 » 5,600,000
gallons per day would be the minimum plant size needed If 100 % of I/I and
CSO were removed. Under any alternative, costs for providing plants to treat
this 5.6 million gallons/day, plus the cost of 100 % I/I and CSO removal
should serve as a base for cost comparison. This was not presented in this
draft EIS. The lower end of the Total cost curve, with Increasing amounts
of I/I removal Included were not presented, to establish a cost-effective
point. The cost effective point proposed appears to have been backed Into,
to support previous assumptions.
•
b. Costs of all plans, including the recommended alternate 2, are based on
order-of-magnitude estimates proposed. The basis, and back-up data suitable
for comparison of the costs proposed are also missing from the draft EIS.
The degree of variance between estimates for the different alternatives 1s
neither stated nor substantiated by data provided.
c. The Manette site description on p. 91 does not consider the reduced size
needed if an RBS filter were used at that site, or size reeded with complete
I/I removal.
d. There is no location, or description of a possible Enetal Beach site.
This has been totally ignored by this draft EIS. p. 117-127 does not so
identify. The EIS needs to provide sufficient data on this site to justify
its exclusion from the sites evaluated, if 1t indeed can be excluded. The
cost justification used 1s neither justified nor substantiated.
e. Operating costs do not Include a summary of the costs that could be
expected from the operation of an aerated basin in the Gorst portion of Sin-
clair Inlet. There 1s little doubt that they would be a small fraction of
the costs proposed for the other alternatives, (see pages 95-99). Operating
costs with 100 % I/I removal are also not given.
f. It is noted on p. 99, table 22, that the revised costs for alternative
#2 now make it $4.5 million more than alternative 5 on p. 96, which, for
179
-------
Page 7
comparison purposes, was the most expensive alternative. The cost
analysis proposed 1s clearly Inadequate to justify selection of any
alternate proposed on a basis of cost. Other alternates require the
same cost refinement for comparison purposes.
g. The lowest energy consumption estimated for any alternative studied
1s alternative 3—6.6 million kwh. An aerated basin would use less than
1 million kwh. This would save nearly $67,000 a year In energy costs
alone, or nearly 10 % of total operating costs. This Is another reason
this alternative should be addressed 1n the EIS.
4. Summary
a. Not all alternatives of significance are Included In this draft EIS,
and a reasonable selection of sewerage treatment facilities cannot be made
from the data provided.
b. Cost analysis of the alternatives given are of such a rough order of
magnitude that they are meaningless for cost comparison purposes, and very
low. Even probable estimate variance has not been established.
c. Failure to Include elimination of combined sewer overflows, and re-
duction of Inflow/Infiltration to the Bremerton sewer system makes this
proposal of little value to the citizens of Bremerton, not worth the
10 % of cost to be absorbed by them. Raw sewage running In the streets
of Bremerton's East side emphslzes the urgent need to correct this
problem.
180
-------
EPA PROJECT NO. C-530559
Page 8
PART III
B.A.C.O.N. PLANT/SYSTEM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Mention 1s made of land application of sludge on page 83, 1n Section III.
Comment;
The City of Bremerton has proceeded to the point of using forest
land application for disposal of sludge. The proposal 1s to use sludge
directly from the digesters at 2 to 3 % consistency without further de-
watering. This will save dewaterfng costs,.but will raise transporta-
tion costs for disposal. Because of our unusual groundwater problems
and possible contamination of groundwater this alternative should be
addressed.
2. Disposal of sludge in landfill 1s stated as the method to be used,
after drying 1n covered drying beds. /ft
Comment:
The Impact on the environment with our unusual groundwater prob-
lems should be addressed for this method also. Leachate from the present
solid waste and sludge landfill near the airport enters the Union River
basin. The river 1s an Important salmon rearing stream.
Bremerton is already working with the Navy to eliminate leachate
from solid waste at this landfill by burning the solid waste In the new
Navy coal/solid waste boilers projected for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
3. Mention 1s made of elimination of serious overflows.
Comment:
Overflows, although diminished will still be a serious problem
along the Port Washington Narrows and Dyes Inlet. The design rainfall of
.06 inch per hour, mentioned in Volume II is clearly unacceptable and will
mean overflows on nearly every rainfall. To understand this more clearly
a graph from the weather bureau is Included. A suggested minimum design
point of .4 inch per hour 1s indicated on this graph.
The Environmental Impact Statement, the Facilities Report, and
letters 1n the Appendices tend to deal with the water quality of the
macrocosm of Sinclair Inlet and do not effectively address local effects.
The local effects of overflows with raw sewage do not permit swim-
ming, skin diving, water skiing, shellfish taking, fishing, or just enjoy-
ing the beaches by building campflres, walking, or observing marine Hfe.
The odor of raw sewage overflows also affects entire neighborhoods near the
overflows. The Environmental Impact Statement does not address the almost
immediate effect of rise of outfall sewage to the surface from thermal
stratification. The sewage is much warmer than Sinclair Inlet water.
When boating this is Hke sailing on a sea of sewage.
181
-------
Page 9
4. Electrical energy Is an Irreversible energy commitment. Page 151, Sec-
tion VI.
Comment:
The 11ft of sewage from Pump Station #2 along High Street appears
to be the most energy Intensive method of transferring downtown business
and East Bremerton sewage to the Charleston Plant. The lessened Impact
of lower pump head from Pump Station #3 or 3A along unfinished, and
lightly traveled streets to Charleston should be assessed.
5. The EIS states that 1t "appears" that an Initial dilution of 100:1
would Insure compliance with bacteriological standards 1n the study area,
on page 118, Section IV. Table 27 states that this will be obtained 84 %
of the time at Manchester, 64 % of the time at Enetal , and 25 % of the
time at Sinclair Inlet.
Comment;
The dilution at Sinclair Inlet 1s clearly unacceptable therefore
the Manchester site should have been considered for a single regional
plant as one of the alternatives regardless of local politics. This
would give us a gauge of the worth In terms of Impact of the alternatives
already considered.
Under no circumstances do we want tertiary treatment with doubling
of costs over secondary treatment 1f a total regional Manchester site
will obviate this.
SUMMARY;
1. Forest application of sludge should be assessed.
2. Leachate from sludge landfill should be addressed.
3. Revisions to the existing collection system should provide for no
overflows except for unusual storm conditions. Beneficial effects
for swimming, shellfish gathering, skin diving, water skiing, boating
and beach use should be addressed.
4. The lessened impact of a better routing of the pumped sewage between
East and West Bremerton should be assessed.
5. The Impacts of a total regional plant at Manchester should have
been assessed.
(Attachment—graph)
182
(f)
-------
mim m\
2 hHtrS-ftNl*!
-------
Responses to Bremerton Area Council of Neighborhoods
1. The adverse environmental effects of Alternative 1—continuance
of new sewer connections and extensions have been addressed at
the beginning of Section IV and restated in the Section 1
summary. EPA regulates the present discharge of pollutants
through the NPDES permit system which sets effluent water quality
standards. Regulation of pollutants entering the treatment
plants is currently the responsibility of the local sanitation
district or municipality.
Reduction of the present discharge level of pollutants can be ac-
complished through two methods: (1) reduction of CSO's and infil-
tration/inflow; and (2) interim modifications to the existing fa-
cilities to improve discharge quali*ty. The majority of the sewers
in Bremerton are combined storm and sewer systems. In a sewer
system evaluation survey by the facilities planner, 23 of the 39
CSO's in Bremerton were judged non-detrimental and no changes were
planned. Of the remaining 16 CSO's, 12 were recommended to be
handled by treatment and transport requiring larger sewers to be
built with a new treatment plant. Three were recommended for com-
plete inflow removal and one was recommended for on-site screening
and disinfection facilities. Only the last four CSO improvements
could be implemented at the present time prior to operation of any
new treatment system. These improvements amount to infiltration
and overflow reduction of 28.5 million gallons/year. Although
this represents only 2.5 percent of the present average annual
flow, the improvements would be made at three pump stations and
overflows in residential areas.
Interim modifications to the existing Charleston treatment plant
would require extensive upgrading and repair of facilities already
at maximum capacity. Modification of the existing plant was
evaluated as having low cost-effectiveness and technically a poor
solution.
The regulation of any new sewer connections or system extensions
is the responsibility of the local sanitation district in conjunc-
tion with the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan.
2. Volume III - "Sewer System Evaluation Survey" of the facilities
plan was not complete at the time the Draft EIS was prepared.
Volumes I and II contained the essential information for the
evaluation of regional treatment and disposal facilities. The
Sewer System Evaluation Survey was performed separately at EPA
request and will also be evaluated separately from the EIS.
3. Evaluation, approval and funding of CSO work and infiltration/
inflow correction will be separate from this EIS. Answers to
questions on the CSO Analysis have been provided by the facilities
planner CH2M Hill in the letter following this response.
184
-------
4. The alternatives-screening process, public input and practical
considerations of the project are addressed on page 2 of the
letter from the facilities planner. The impact analysis
section of the EIS evaluates all of the alternatives without
preference for a "chosen" alternative.
5. Hydraulic overloading of the treatment plants and CSO problems
are currently serious enough to warrant evaluation during the
facilities planning effort. Facilities design and future
implementation of CSO work should greatly alleviate this
situation such that it does not become a long-term problem.
6. See page 3 of CH2M Hill letter attached.
7. The EIS evaluates the most feasible alternatives developed
by the facilities planner after the preliminary screening
process. The Port Orchard discharge strategy, along with
nutrient removal and land-treatment systems were evaluated
by the facilities planner as less cost-effective. It was
not possible to evaluate all of the alternatives initially
screened by the facilities planner, and effort realistically
could be focused only upon alternatives that were developed
to the same level of detail.
8. See page 3 of CH2M Hill letter attached.
9. See page 4 of CH2M Hill letter attached.
10. Alternatives 2 through 5 were estimated within an order-of-
magnitude in order to be compared on the same level. Of these,
only Alternative 2 was developed in further detail with defini-
tive costs. In all probability, detailed analysis of the other
alternatives would probably also change project costs, although
the general ranking would remain close. The variance in an
order-of-magnitude estimate is +50 percent of -30 percent or the
actual cost. All project costs for each alternative are
derived directly from the facilities plan. For the calculation
basis and back-up data, the reader should refer to the appro-
priate appendices in the facilities plan.
11. See page 5 of CH2M Hill letter and also response NTo. 7.
12. The impacts of forest application of sludge and sludge drying beds
has been discussed in Section IV under long-term impacts to
groundwater quality. Pending the results of forest application of
sludge, sludge disposal to the landfill near the airport is not
185
-------
anticipated. In the event that sludge may be disposed to the
landfill in the future, specific operational measures such
as clay liners, limited cell size, mixing with soil or other
organic matter and daily soil cover can be instituted to reduce
leachates.
13. See page 1 of CH2M Hill letter attached. •
14. See page 6 of CH2M Hill letter attached.
15. On Page 80 of this Final EIS, it is pointed out that the Manchester
regional discharge strategy would be much higher in cost, would re-
quire a high degree of local cooperation to implement, and would
not include central Kitsap County, where a separate treatment fac-
ility is now under construction. For these reasons, the Manchester
regional discharge strategy was discarded by the facilities planner
early in the preparation of the facilities plan. EPA believes that
the wastewater treatment problems of the Sinclair Inlet area can
be solved satisfactorily by Alternative 2 of the Sinclair Inlet
strategy and recommends its construction (See Preface).
186
-------
CH2M
IIHILL
engineers
planners
economists
scientists
10 May 1978
S9 155. JO. 00
-------
Ms. Norma Young
Page 2
10 May 1978
S9155.JO.OO
In addition, we have recommended removal of 99.4 percent of
the inflow tributary to pump station No. 13, which is not
served by combined sewers. The remaining inflow not separated
is minor at this station and would not cause overflowing
unless a rainfall exceeding 1.05-inches-per-hour intensity
(10-year-frequency, 30-minute-duration storm) coincided with
the peak sanitary and peak infiltration flows for the design
year. As this is extremely unlikely, the only circumstance
that would be likely to cause overflowing with the new
facilities would be a malfunction of all the pumps simultaneously,
which is unlikely, or some other catastrophic event. Standby
power will be recommended for pump station No. 13 so that
overflows will not occur during power outages.
Referring to the attachments to Mr. Booth's letter, the last
paragraph on page 2 raises the question of impact assessment
of the CSO's on receiving waters. We believe that CSO's are
detrimental to the recreational development and enjoyment of
Port Washington Narrows and Sinclair Inlet. However, infrequent
overflows of limited quantity during heavy rainfall will be
very expensive to control and should not impair recreational
benefits of the waters. Accordingly, we have recommended a
CSO control system that controls overflows to the maximum
extent that is economically practical. Beyond the levels
indicated, the City of Bremerton should look for opportunities
to eliminate as many inflow sources as possible over the
next 20 years toward the end of reducing the CSO problem at
its source.
The comments on page 3 of the attachments raise the concern
that environmental impacts of all alternatives were not
considered prior to elimination of some alternatives from
consideration. It should be noted that at each stage of the
alternative evaluation process factors other than cost were
considered in making decisions. An examination of parts 1
and 2 of volume II of the facilities plan (including appendix F)
makes this clear. Full environmental impact statements are
normally prepared only following completion of a facilities
plan. The only reason the EIS was prepared before completion
of planning for this project was the fact that potential for
public concern over environmental issues had been demonstrated
on previous projects in Kitsap County. Further, the concern
about governmental decisions occurring in a vacuum of public
comment is unfounded. Multiple public meetings and two
public hearings on the facilities plan were held (as described
188
-------
Ms. Norma Young
Page 3
10 May 1978
S9155.JO.OO
in appendix A of the September draft of volume II) during
the selection of alternatives for further evaluation. The
comments on page 3 also ignore the practical necessity to
simplify the process of considering alternative treatment
site locations to a manageable number. Without such simpli-
fication, meaningful cost and design criteria could not have
been developed within a reasonable time or an affordable
budget. Finally, once a preferred alternative was selected,
the level of detail required by Federal regulations was
developed for the preferred alternative and presented in
part 3, volume II.
Comment 1 on page 4 raises some good examples of beneficial
recreational uses of the waters of the study area that could
be impacted by combined sewer overflows. Further documenta-
tion of these uses will enhance the case for CSO control as
recommended in the final facilities plan. However, the
statement in the discussion of this comment that "rainfall
in Bremerton exceeds this rate (0.06 inch per hour) 95
percent of the time it is raining" cannot be substantiated
with data. Nor is it true that "it rains nearly continuously
from November through April in Bremerton in amounts greater
than 0.06 (inch) per hour." The fact is, as stated above,
that rainfall occurs about 18 percent of the time annually
in Bremerton, and only about 18 percent of the time that it
is raining does intensity exceed 0.06 inch per hour. Also,
as stated above, the proposed level of CSO control as
revised since the draft plan will provide protection from
CSO's resulting from rainfalls less than 0.15 inch per hour.
This intensity is exceeded only 2 percent of the time that
it is raining.
Comment 1-d on page 5 raises the question as to whether I/I
removal in combination with no improvements to the treatment
facilities and use of septic tanks and drain fields would be
better than alternatives 2 through 5. In fact, such an
alternative would be illegal because the existing treatment
facilities are not of the secondary treatment type required
by law and included in alternatives 2 through 5. In addition,
the existing treatment plants are deteriorated to the point
that only replacement or substantial remodeling will allow
their continued use. Population growth over the next 20
years will require the expansion of these plants; so alternative 1
is infeasible. Removal of the optimum amount of I/I has been
189
-------
Ms. Norma Young
Page 4
10 May 1978
S9155.JO.OO
evaluated for alternative 2 (with the recommended CSO control
measures), and such removal is recommended in the final
facilities plan.
Comment 2-b, page 5, raises the question as to whether or
not alternatives can be compared on a meaningful basis
without consideration of CSO control of I/I removal. For
most alternatives the cost difference between the cost-
effective overflow control and I/I removal and not implementing
such control is very small. The magnitude of the costs of
CSO control and I/I removal is very small by comparison to
the costs of each alternative. Since the alternatives
themselves are not close from a cost standpoint, inclusion
of cost-effective CSO control and I/I removal would not
affect the results. The cost of preparing such comparisons
to a meaningful level of detail would be prohibitively
expensive.
Comment 2-c, page 5, deals with construction of an aerated
basin within Sinclair Inlet. This idea was considered but
rejected as infeasible because of shorelines management
restrictions and legal restrictions prohibiting the filling
of natural waterways for any purpose.
Comment 2-d, page 6, deals with consideration of RBS units
as a secondary treatment process for the Manette site. The
contention is that using the RBS process would make the
Manette site and alternative 4 more attractive. In fact,
RBS units do not save substantial space over other secondary
processes. In addition, the encroachment of the treatment
facilities on the Lion's Field Park did not seem to be
consistent with the city's stated policy of increasing the
recreational opportunities in the vicinity of Port Washington
Narrows. Even if the Manette expansion could avoid taking
adjacent homes, which is highly unlikely, operational costs
for two treatment plants would still make such an alternative
unattractive.
Comment 3-a, page 6, deals with 100 percent I/I removal
being a baseline condition for alternative evaluation.
Cost-effective I/I removal is an economic determination, not
a technical one. It is a function of the cost of transporting
and treating I/I as well as the cost of removing the identified
190
-------
Ms. Norma Young
Page 5
10 May 1978
S9155.JO.OO
sources. In most cases 100 percent I/I removal is impractical,
cost considerations aside. This is because infiltration
removal is only about 65 percent effective and it is difficult
to find every source of inflow and effectively remove it.
Comment 3-c, page 6, should be answered by the discussion
under comment 2-d, above.
Comment 3-d, page 6, concerning the Enetai site has been
covered by the inclusion of an Enetai alternative 2A. The
costs for this alternative are included in appendix C and
are 18 percent higher than alternative 2.
Comment 3-e, page 6, should be answered by the response to
comment 2-c.
Comment 3-f, page 6, raises the concern about the comparability
of costs from part 1 to part 2 to part 3 of the facilities
plan. The different costs for the same alternative concept
from part to part are the result of different levels of cost
analysis at each point in the selection process. The factors
used at each level are described in appendix C of the facilities
plan. In addition to greater refinement of costs, each
successive part in the report goes into greater detail to
include costs for parts of the system that will be required
to complete an entire revised and upgraded sewerage system.
This is particularly the case between parts 2 and 3. The
items included in the costs in part 3 but not in part 2 are
those that do not affect the selection of alternatives but
must be indicated in any listing of final costs. To include
them in the early evaluations in parts 1 and 2 would have
been difficult because the needs had not been fully determined
and would have clouded the actual cost differences between
alternatives.
Comment 3-g, page 7, should be addressed by the response to
comment 2-c.
Item 3, page 8, should be addressed in the revised analysis
since the EIS public hearing described at the start of this
letter. The results of the revised analysis are contained
in appendix I of volume II of the final plan. Any documentation
191
-------
Ms. Norma Young
Page 6
10 May 1978
S9155.JO.OO
that BACON can provide of the uses of the waters surrounding
Bremerton for recreational purposes described at the bottom
of page 8 will strengthen the case for CSO control with the
regulatory agencies.
Item 4, page 9, has been considered in evaluating transmission
system options for Bremerton. The recommended alternative
in the final plan follows a route similar to the one shown
in the draft facilities plan.
In summary, Mr. Booth and the BACON members have done an
excellent job in reviewing the EIS and expressing their
concerns. I hope that my responses will help you alleviate
their concerns with the EIS and the facilities plan.
William T. Dehn, P.E.
Project Manager
Sinclair Inlet Sewerage Facilities Plan
cc: Clark Smith, EPA
Dave Wright, DOE
Don Proctor, Bremerton
ecm
192
-------
CH2M
HILL
engineers
planners
economists
scientists
3 January 1978 RECEIVED
S9155.LO JAN3 197°
EPA-EIS
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick, M/S 443
201 EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Project
As the project manager of the facilities planning effort for
which the aforementioned draft EIS has been prepared, I am
interested in the evaluations contained in the draft EIS
document. My interest, which I share with the EIS consultant,
is to provide a -cost-effective solution to the long-standing
deficiencies in sewerage facilities in the Sinclair Inlet
area.
In general, the draft EIS does an excellent job of summarizing
the impacts of the proposed facilities as CH2M HILL views
them. However, I do have comments which will clarify the
proposed sewerage improvement program. Later in this letter,
I address some specific areas in which our proposals may
have been misunderstood.
A major concern that I would like to address in some detail
relates to the consultant's assessment of water quality
impacts from discharge of secondary effluents to Sinclair
Inlet. My comments below indicate our reasons for disagreeing
with the consultant's conclusion that further study of alterna-
tive sites is necessary before selecting Sinclair Inlet as a
receiving water for secondary effluent.
193
Seattle Office • 1500 114th Avenue S E. Bellevue. Washington 98004 206/453-5000
-------
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
Page 2
3 January 1978
S9155.LO
OUTFALL DIFFUSION ANALYSIS
The EIS consultant analyzed the proposed discharge of effluents
to Sinclair Inlet using the following information:
Continuity equation for initial dilution
Washington State water quality standards
Assumed background conditions for Sinclair Inlet water
quality
Assumed secondary effluent quality
Results of physical modeling of Sinclair Inlet
1973 dye study of the Charleston outfall
1975 current study near Charleston outfall
1975 water quality study in Sinclair Inlet
Assumptions regarding tidal exchange in Sinclair
Inlet and its total volume
Using the aforementioned information, the EIS consultant has
determined that Sinclair Inlet has only a "fair" potential
for waste disposal. Further, the consultant recommends
"further comparative investigations with other sites (than
Sinclair Inlet)—particularly Enetai—before a final decision
is reached." The EIS consultant evaluates the Enetai location
as potentially "good" for waste disposal. The primary
concern of the EIS consultant in evaluating dilution is in
meeting the coliform standard for the receiving water.
Our evaluation of the potential for waste discharge to
Sinclair Inlet used much of the same information evaluated by the
EIS consultant and reached the conclusion that waste disposal
to Sinclair Inlet can be accomplished within not only the
water quality standards that presently exist (with special
conditions for coliform levels), but also within the normal
class A standards for interstate marine waters. Our findings
are based on the following:
• A dilution of 12:1 is sufficient to meet class A
standards (total coliform 70 MPN/lOOml) assuming a
background total coliform level of 30 MPN/100 ml
and a secondary effluent discharge with 500 MPN/100 ml,
The current special condition for total coliform
(1,000 MPN/100 ml) will not be necessary once the
proposed facilities are constructed. A background
total coliform level of 30 MPN/100 ml corresponds
well with levels observed in Sinclair Inlet near
Gorst where background conditions are not influenced
194
-------
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
Page 3
3 January 1978
S9155.LO
by existing wastewater discharges with low levels of
treatment. The water quality data point used by the
EIS consultant is affected by present wastewater
discharges with low levels of treatment. A
secondary effluent of 500 MPN/100 ml is conservatively
high for plants designed by CH2M HILL. In 1976,
the Kellogg Creek plant (Clackamas County, Oregon)
averaged a total coliform level of 145 MPN/100 ml with
a maximum monthly reading of 408 MPN/100 ml. At
Wenatehee, Washington, in the same period, the total
coliform average was 115 MPN/100 ml with a maximum
month of 315 MPN/100 ml.
The buoyant plume method of oaloula.ti.ng initial
dilution is an appropriate model for Sinclair
Inlet. The continuity equation used by the EIS
consultant for calculating initial dilution should
only be used (according to Metcalf and Eddy;
Wastewater Engineering) when moderately strong
currents are present such as in discharges to
rivers. The currents in Sinclair Inlet are known
to be weak from field work in 1975 and observation
of the physical model at the University of Washington.
The buoyant plume method used in our analyses is
particularly good at predicting dilutions in water
bodies with slight currents. Within recent years,
CH2M HILL did a dye study in Lake Washington for a
storm sewer outfall and the results correlated
very closely with those predicted using the buoyant
plume method.
Using the buoyant plume method and 1975 water
quality data for August as the worst condition, a
minimum initial dilution of 25:1 is predicted at
mean lower low water. This will be at a flow of
24.1 mgd, which is the peak instantaneous capacity
planned for the Charleston treatment plant. At
average flow, the minimum initial dilution will be
40:1. These calculations neglect the beneficial
effects of wind and tides on the dilution. Obviously,
most of the time peak flows and low tides would
not coincide and minimum initial dilutions greater
than 25:1 would prevail. Even so, it should be
pointed out that the standards allow up to 10 percent
of the samples to exceed the average standards
(70 MPN/100 ml; 10 percent no greater than 230 MPN/
100 ml).
195
-------
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
Page 4
3 January 1978
S9155.LO
• The 1975 diffuses evaluation -indicates such a wide
variation in dilution that the results are of
questionable value in evaluating true outfall
performance. The range of dilutions reported in
the vicinity of the outfall raises questions about
the techniques used in mixing, dispersing, and
measuring the dye. Also, the low dilutions (1:1)
indicate problems with the dye study because much
greater surface dilutions would have to occur from a
diffuser discharging in 35 feet of water through
horizontal diffuser ports.
• Discharge of coliforms in the design year with the
proposed treatment facilities will be only 5 percent
of current levels out of the Charleston outfall.
Existing water quality in Sinclair Inlet, while
not pristine, allows beneficial uses to be enjoyed
with few restrictions. The improved water quality
resulting from the reduction of pollutant discharges
to the inlet should further enhance the recreational
benefits of the waters.
To move the treatment plant from Charleston to some other
location, such as Enetai, would cost an additional 40 percent
in capital and operating costs over the life of the facility
and could result in substantially greater environmental
impacts due to construction of the new sewerage facilities.
In addition, the delays to the City of Bremerton in acquiring
a new treatment site in a residential setting would be detri-
mental to the city's efforts to keep existing facilities in
operation until new ones can be built to replace them. This
could result in major interim capital improvements by the city
to maintain existing levels of treatment. It would also add to
the total cost of providing new upgraded facilities due to the
effects of inflation on construction costs.
The recommendation to build the new plant at Charleston and
discharge to Sinclair Inlet does leave room for improving
effluent dispersion (through outfall extensions and diffuser
modifications) if the resulting water quality is not acceptable
to regulatory agencies. Should higher effluent quality be
required in the future, the Charleston site provides sufficient
land for advanced waste treatment processes.
196
-------
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
Page 5
3 January 1978
S9155.LO
There is no evidence that indicates the expense of moving
the Charleston plant or its outfall would substantially
improve water quality in Sinclair Inlet. For this reason,
we feel Federal/ state, and local taxpayers' money could be
put to better uses than to locate a new treatment facility
elsewhere or to investigate other sites any further.
The regulatory agencies have been presented with information
on Sinclair Inlet's capabilities to accept secondary effluent
and have responded with a letter indicating their approval
of the concept (see attachment). Based on that decision,
further work was done to refine alternatives that have principal
discharges to Sinclair Inlet. The outgrowth of that work is
the recommended alternative in the facilities plan.
OTHER COMMENTS
1. High concentrations of materials toxic to fish in the
dilution zone were noted as potential problems by the
EIS consultant. Heavy chlorine dosages are not antic-
ipated once secondary treatment is instituted. Chlorine
values in the dilution zone will be less than those toxic
to coho salmon and values outside the zone will be much
lower. Data on the effects of ammonia on fish in marine
waters is limited; however, concentrations outside the
dilution zone will be less than those proposed by the
State of California. In addition, coho salmon and
other fish susceptible to these constituents normally
avoid areas of high toxicity. Since the outfall affects
less than 4 percent of the width of Sinclair Inlet, it
is expected that fish will be able to avoid areas of
wastewater discharges where toxic constituents may be
present.
2. While preliminary discussions with the EIS consultant may
have indicated a potential for removing six homes at
the Charleston site, our present proposed facility layout
would only require removal of one trailer home to the '
north of the existing site.
3. There are no plans to provide sewer service to Wildcat
Lake prior to the year 2000. Although septic tank
failures have occurred near Wildcat Lake and at other
points within the study area, it is not accurate to
assume that all such areas will be sewered. Decisions on
sewering areas are dependent upon the economics of connect-
ing to existing facilities and the desires of the local
residents for sewers.
197
-------
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
Page 6
3 January 1978
S9155.LO
4. Sludge drying beds are only proposed as a potential
method for solids dewatering at the Manchester site.
Solids dewatering will be by mechanical methods at the
Charleston and Retsil sites unless agreements can be
reached that will allow application of undewatered sludges
to nearby forest lands.
5. It is our intent to demolish the existing Manette
facility once the Charleston plant and East Bremerton
Interceptor are constructed.
6. Table 24 has some incorrect information. The only
alternative that will have anaerobic digestion at
Bremerton/Manette is Alternative 4. Under Alternative 2,
aerobic digestion is proposed at Retsil.
7. Table 25 has some incorrect information. Only Alternative 4
will create sludge tank truck traffic at Bremerton/Manette.
Alternative 3 will not create such traffic at Retsil,
but may create traffic at Manchester.
8. Anaerobic digestors are not proposed under any of the
alternatives for Port Orchard, Retsil, or Manchester.
9. Nutrient levels in Sinclair Inlet are so high from
natural sources and non-point sources that the contributions
of nutrients from the treatment plant outfalls are
insignificant.
10. Since the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is taking steps to
treat its chemical process wastewaters to reduce the
pollutant levels related to heavy metals and there are
no other sources of such discharges in the study area,
source control of toxic substances through pretreatment
seems to be the best approach to control the discharge
of toxic substances to Sinclair Inlet.
11. The KCSD No. 5 facility is located on district-owned
property, but expansion will require acquisition of
state-owned property.
Volumes II and III of the facilities plan are still in their
draft stages and have now been reviewed by the DOE regional
office and the EPA project officer. The basic concepts in the
September 1977 draft (Volume II) and the November 1977 draft
(Volume III) remain unchanged with the exception of the following:
198
-------
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
Page 7
3 January 1978
S9155.LO
• The Retsil STP treatment process will be ABF
(activated biological filter) instead of RBS
(rotating biological surfaces) because the cost of
the RBS system is too great to be considered the
most cost-effective system.
• The total flows to be received at each treatment
facility will be somewhat reduced due to the
recommendation that cost-effective I/I removal be
undertaken in Bremerton, Port Orchard, KCSD No. 3,
and KCSD No. 5. (See Volume III.)
• The schedules for completion of facilities at
Retsil/Port Orchard and Manchester will be somewhat
delayed due to a lack of state and Federal funding
priority for step 2 work.
• Substantial improvements will be proposed to the
Bremerton transmission system in the vicinity of
Ostrich and Oyster Bays to mitigate the discharge
of overflows from pump stations in the area.
A revised draft .reflecting these changes will be issued before
the end of January. I will be happy to provide the EIS consult-
ant with information concerning these changes if necessary.
We sincerely hope you will consider these comments in weighing
your decisions as to the mitigative measures you require in
the recommended facilities. While we share the view that
Sinclair Inlet is not the ideal location for dispersion of
sewage effluent, we believe the facts indicate it is an
entirely acceptable discharge location because of the low
pollutant loads to be discharged with the proposed facilities.
In view of the costs of other options and their potential
environmental impacts, we believe the study area would best
be served by upgrading the existing Bremerton and Retsil
plants to higher design flows and instituting secondary
treatment.
199
-------
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
Page 8
3 January 1978
S9155.LO
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.
Sincerely,
William T. Dehn, P.E.
Project Manager
Sinclair Inlet Sewerage
Facilities Plan
br
Attachment
cc: Dave Wright, DOE
Clark Smith, EPA
Tom Swanson, Bremerton
Bill Mahan, Kitsap County
Paul Powers, Port Orchard
Lloyd Granquist, KCSD No. 5
Don Proctor, Bremerton
200
-------
August 27, 1976
Snurot
Department
ot liroiojjjy
William T. Dehn, Project Manager
CH2M-Hill
1500 114th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
SUBJECT: SINCLAIR INLET 201 FACILITIES PLAN
Reference: July 30, 1976 letter
Dear Mr. Dehn:
Progress and development of this project has been closely followed.
The agencies along with the local entities are very concerned that
adequate sewage treatment be maintained, and to be provided for in
the future. In addition to improving water quality through the
reduction or elimination of overflows and by-passes and the pro-
viding of secondary treatment, the location or locations of the
treated effluent discharge are of importance for maintaining good
water quality.
Past experience with primary effluent in restricted embayments, and
other receiving water quality studies had lead the regulatory agencies
to the pre-conceived conclusion Sinclair Inlet would not be a favor-
able water body for receiving the study area's treated effluent.
However, after extensive discussion, and review and study of the
water quality studies done in conjunction with this facilities
planning effort, the review agencies have reached the same conclusion
you have. Sinclair Inlet appears to be an acceptable receiving
system for the treated effluent based on the criteria developed and
evaluated in the facilities plan.
..->
4350-150* Av»nu« H._t. ~~ " \, . ^J
Telephone (206'i or.5 1900
201
-------
Letter to: William Dehn
-Page 2-
8-27-76
This was a very appropriate phase of the Step I planning effort to have
confirmed by the review agencies before proceeding.
Sincerely,
LLL:kj
LARRY L. LEWIS
District Supervisor
Environmental Quality
cc: Clark Smith, EPA
Mark Spahr, DSHS
Joe Wei gel, B-KCHD
Fred Schonemen, Bremerton
Bill Mahan, Kitsap County
Paul Powers, Port Orchard
Dick Chi Chester, KCSD #1
Lloyd Grandquist, KCSD #5
Bob Meyer, Port of Bremerton
202
-------
Responses to letter from CH2M Hill:
1. The prime concern regarding the discharge of secondary treated
effluent in Sinclair Inlet is not in meeting the coliform
standards per se. This can be achieved successfully by dis-
infection. The real concern arises from the discharge of
other constituents, whose importance, although not recognized
by the class A description,is becoming increasingly apparent.
Starting in the early seventies, studies showed that chlorine
reacts with sewage constituents generating a number of
potentially toxic elements (chloramines, trihalomethanes, etc.).
In August 1975 EPA waived the chlorination requirement for
effluent being discharged,deferring such activity to the
State.
2. Regarding coliform standards, a dilution of 12:1 can probably
satisfy the 70 MPN/100 ml limitation of class A waters,
considering that the diluting water will have lower bacterial
content (background) than at present.
The buoyant plume method of calculating initital dilution is
well known and still widely used. Its use in the case of
Sinclair Inlet would be appropriate if the wastefield were to
move away so that fresh water were always available to dilute
the effluent. Norman H. Brooks, author of the buoyant method
warns that "...no allowance has been made for major changes in
the overall environment due to waste discharges." What he
refers to, is the accumulation effect that could take place
if there is not sufficient exchange. Of course, this generally
is not a problem in wide and open bodies of water, and the
experimental results generally agree with the theory. In
Sinclair Inlet the fresh (diluting) water comes by several
small creeks and by the limited tidal exchange.
3. According to Metcalf and Eddy; Wastewater Engineering, pp. 698,
the buoyant plume equation and the continuity equation should
both be used and the smaller value adopted. Initial dilution
calculated from the buoyant plume method assumes a continuous
supply of fresh water. In the case of Sinclair Inlet, water
exchange is low and the dilution values will be tempered by
the ambient background concentration of wastewater constituents.
4. We agree that the 1973 diffuser evaluation results cannot be
used as a quantitative prediction of future performance. However
we do feel that the results can still be used as an indication of
potential performance.
5. Comment noted.
6. Recommendations noted.
203
-------
7. The issue is not just chlorine concentrations for disinfection,
chlorine residuals or ammonia levels, but the complexes
formed from these chemicals and other wastewater constituents
that can be toxic to aquatic life (see response no. 1). While
studies have been performed on levels of toxicity and avoidance
of chlorine and ammonia, research is still continuing on syner-
gistic effects of these compounds and newly-discovered complexes.
8. Comments noted. Appropriate revisions have been made to EIS.
204
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Room 360 U.S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201
December 28, 1977
Roger K. Mochnick, M/S 443
201 EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X -A7 J
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101 £P.A-crr^
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
The Soil Conservation Service has reviewed your draft environmental
impact statement for the Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Project,
Kitsap County, Washington.
We have the following comments we believe would strengthen and clarify
the statement.
•
1. Page 20, Soils: This section should be used to address the fact that
such soils as are located within the proposed construction site are, or
are not, soils classified as prime or unique. Information on prime and
unique soils can be obtained from our local office in Port Orchard.
2. Page 106, Table 23: It does not appear that consideration has been
given to methods of controlling erosion on construction sites or on
temporary spoil placement sites. It appears that construction will
continue for approximately one and one-half years. During this period
of time, climatic conditions, particularly heavy rainfall, may create
serious erosion problems on disturbed soils-. We suggest that consideration
be given to reduce the potential for water erosion by temporary seedings
or structures, such as detention ponds, or a combination of the two
systems. Our office in Port Orchard would be available to provide
technical assistance on these protection measures. -
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
Sincerely,
Galen S. Bridge
State Conservationist
205
-------
Responses to letter from U. S. D. A. Soil Conservation Service
1. Identification of soil types on the construction sites and the
presence, if any, of prime or unique soils has been added to
the site descriptions in Section III.
2. The suggested mitigation measures of temporary grass seeding to
stabilize exposed soil areas and the use of detention ponds have
been added to the table. The local Soil Conservation Service
office in Port Orchard was also consulted for technical assis-
tance. A copy of their response letter is attached.
206
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE _
1776 Village Lane S.E.
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
March 20, 1978
Emy Chan
Prl^ect Engineer
Engineering-Science, Inc.
600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, California 9U710
This is in response to you^Letter of 18 January 1978- KEF: 2j?76.
We enclose two photo copies of the Manchester Fuel Depot site,
listing the soils under an old soils survey classification system,
as the updated survey of 1977 does not include federal lands.
We are also enclosing copies of what information -was given in 19^7> along
•with soils information relating to the soil survey used at that time,
We are also enclosing the 1977 soil survey maps for:
Manette stp - photo KMT 65 UlC 6 - soil is Alderwood-complex- urban land.
Charleston stp- " " " 39B-18- " » « " " "
and Xerochrepts, glacial drift, U5-70£ slope
Port Orchard stp " " " hlB-19 soil is Urban land-Alderwood complex
Retsil stp " " " U2A-20 soil is Indianola loamy sand.
We are also enclosing several pieces of Soil Conservation Service literature?
Controlling Erosion on Construction Sites;
Environmental Do's and Dont's on Construction sites; and
Know Your Soils.
Prime agricultural soils on the Manchester site are; Norma sandy loam,
and Bellingham silt loam, 3M2Ydo. We know of no unique lands
in any of the stp's.
We are enclosing a soils report on Indianola loamy sand, and a description
of Xerochrepts, listing the limitations of each. We are also providing
a description of Alderwood - not the urban land-Alderwood complex, as this
soil has been disturbed by fill, or by urban use.
Attached also is a Soils Worksheet page 2, relating to essential or desired
practices to apply to the construction phase of this project.
Construction should be done during the non-rainy season, as much as possible.
The topsoil, where excavation is done, should be stockpiled and replaced
on top of the disturbed soil. The seeding or planting shgyAffefeft^done on
the disturbed areas as soon as possible after construct^
207
Everett E. Loreen,
District Conservationist
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING, 1321 SECOND AVENUE WV*" 1<\
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 » V^*
REGION X r& REPLY REFER TO:
Office of Community
Planning & Development
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick
201 E.I.S. Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Sinclair Inlet
Wastewater Facilities Project
Kitsap County, Washington
We have reviewed the statement submitted with your November 11,
1977 letter.
The proposed action is to provide a wastewater treatment and
disposal system for the Sinclair Inlet Water Resource Inventory
Area No. 15 within Kitsap County, Washington.
We support Kitsap County's Comprehensive Plan to concentrate urban
development in and around urban areas. Your statement describes
the land use in the project area, however, it does not speak about
the potential impact of the project on the land use. We would like
to see an expansion of this in the final statement. Otherwise we
feel you have adequately covered the areas of our concern.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,,
.- , • - .-.
/.Robert C. Scalia
, Assistant Regional Administrator
208
AREA OFFICES
Portland, Oregon • Seattle, Washington • Anchorage, Alaska • Boise, Idaho
Insuring Office
Spokane, Washington
-------
Response to Department of Housing and Urban Development:
1. The Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Project supports the
latest Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan for providing sewer
service and capacity to Urban and Suburban portions of the
planning area. Sewer service will continue and expand in the
vicinity of presently sewered areas such as Bremerton, east
Bremerton, Port Orchard/Retsil and Manchester. New sewer ser-
vice will eventually be supplied for Gorst and some areas south
of Port Orchard and shoreline areas on south Dyes Inlet. Ser-
vice in the last few areas mentioned, will be one factor in al-
lowing additional future residential and commercial growth.
However, in other areas, such as Illahee, and the semi-urban and
semi-rural areas south of Port Orchard, no sewer service will be
provided. These areas under county jurisdiction, will not change
land use with the current project. Although sewers may be limit-
ing, often other factors such as slope restrictions, unstable
soils and high groundwater table actually dictate the land use
designation.
209
-------
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
ns Ggnerai Administration Budding, Olympia, Washington 98504 206/753-6600
Dixy Lee Ray
Gouernor
January 3, 1978
Roger K, Mochnick, MS 443
201 EIS Coordinator
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Project
Kitsap County _ WRIA C-15
The Department of Fisheries has reviewed the above- referenced proposed
facilities project. Our comments follow:
Sinclair Inlet and its adjacent marine waters support a wide diversity
of foodfish and shellfish resources which are under the jurisdiction of
this department. The fishery resources which may be impacted by the
proposed wastewater facilities include salmon, smelt, other marine fish
species, oysters, hardshell clams, and geoducks. These resources are
harvested both commercially and recreationally in Puget Sound.
The fishery resources of Sinclair Inlet and the- adjacent marine waters are
dependent upon the maintenance of suitable water quality. The impact
statement indicates that total col iform levels have exceeded the water
quality classification standard for Sinclair Inlet, illustrating the
necessity to upgrade the existing wastewater facilities. However, the
waters of Sinclair Inlet have limited assimilative capabilities due to
the poor flushing characteristics of the inlet. We therefore encourage
the appraisal of other sites beyond Sinclair Inlet which might provide
more adequate effluent dilution and dispersion, as suggested on page 157.
Of the six existing treatment plants in the planning area, three discharge
effluent directly to the waters of Sinclair Inlet. We support the consoli-
dation of the existing wastewater facilities in the planning area. We also
believe particular attention should be given to decreasing the number of
outfalls discharging to Sinclair Inlet to promote improvements in effluent
dilution and subsequent dispersion. Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 propose up-
grading and expanding the treatment plant at Charleston. It is noted on
page 121 of the draft impact statement that the waters adjacent to the
Charleston site have a low tidal exchange rate. Therefore, we do not
210
-------
Roger Mochnick
Page two
January 3, 1978
concur with the proposals to expand this facility. We concur that the
Charleston treatment plant should be upgraded to secondary treatment if
it is retained. However, in view of the poor exchange conditions at the
site, we discourage any increase in effluent loads discharged from the
Charleston facility. In comparison to the existing exchange conditions
at Charleston, effluent discharged to Port Washington Narrows from the
Manette facility receives good initial dilution and fair to good sub-
sequent dispersion (page 10). We encourage further consideration to
either retaining or expanding the Manette facility due to the more
efficient flushing characteristics at this location. Finally, we support
the proposals to discharge effluent to Puget Sound at Manchester.
Effluent discharged from a treatment facility at Manchester would re-
ceive excellent mixing and dilution as well as excellent subsequent
dispersion and flushing (page 11).
The potential impacts of construction activities on fish and shellfish
resources are specific to each of the five alternatives presented in the
draft impact statement. Both chum and coho salmon spawn in Blackjack
Creek and Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 would require sewer line crossings
of Blackjack Creek. Additional fishery resource habitat which might
be impacted during construction under Alternative 3 include hardshell
clam beaches west of Port Orchard and documented smelt spawning beaches
at Ross Point. The construction of a new outfall at Manette in
Alternative 4 may disturb hardshell clam peculations at that site. In
Alternative 5, in addition to crossing Blackjack Creek, the construction
of sewer lines along the shoreline at Beach Drive may impact hardshell
clam populations and the new outfall at Manchester could impact geoduck
populations.
€>
Transmission line routes should be carefully chosen and construction
activities closely monitored to minimize adverse impacts on the fish
and shellfish resources of Sinclair Inlet and the adjacent marine waters.
Construction of sewer lines on land should be substituted for shoreline
and intertidal routes where possible. As noted on page 19, several shore-
lines in the planning area are subject to land stability hazards, and
these sensitive areas should also be avoided where possible. The con-
struction of sewer lines crossing Blackjack Creek or other salmon producing
creeks within the project area should not be conducted during periods of
salmon spawning, egg incubation, and migration. Excavated trenches in
intertidal and subtidal areas inhabited by shellfish should be backfilled
with materials of a suitable composition to maintain the production of
that resource. The beaches at Ross Point are one of the two remaining
areas in Sinclair Inlet which support surf smelt spawning. Construction
in this area must be carefully monitored to minimize disturbance to the
spawning substrate.
211
-------
Roger Mochnick
Page three
January 3, 1978
All stream crossings and shoreline, intertidal or subtidal construction
will require written approvals from the Departments of Fisheries and Game.
These approvals will stipulate appropriate timing and construction methods
to minimize adverse impacts to fishery resources. In addition, outfall
diffusers should be designed to avoid interference with commercial fishing
gear, Diffuser design will be subject to Department of Fisheries' approval.
The draft impact statement indicates that heavy, continuous chlorination
would be necessary to meet coliform standards in Sinclair Inlet. We
recommend the consideration of alternative disinfection methods, such as
ozonation. If chlorination is ultimately chosen for disinfection, we
recommend continuous flow monitors at each treatment plant to control
chlorine levels in the effluents entering receiving waters. We also
recommend the inclusion of dechlori nation facilities at each treatment
plant, as dechlorination of the effluents may be necessary in order to
meet Department of Ecology standards. Strict adherence to the NPDES
permits for each treatment facility will be necessary for the protection
of aquatic life.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft environmental impact
statement. We hope our comments will be of use in your assessment of
each potential alternative and in your choice of a final facilities
plan for the Sinclair Inlet planning area. We would appreciate being
sent the final impact statement for the chosen proposal.
Sincerely,
Gordon Sandisbir^-
Di rector
js
212
-------
Responses to Washington Department of Fisheries:
1. Comments noted.
2. While the Manette discharge would be subject to good tidal
flushing, subsequent dispersion and dilution into Dyes Inlet
and Sinclair Inlet would be similar to a discharge at Charleston.
However, expansion of Manette treatment plant would have a
number of significant social impacts such as relocation of 25
homes and encroachment upon adjacent park areas.
3. Comments noted. Careful evaluation for fish and shellfish
resources will be done during facilities design and implementa-
tion of mitigation measures. Mitigations will focus on Blackjack
Creek, Ross Point and areas where pipeline crosses subtidal and
intertidal areas.
213
-------
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Dixy Lee Ray
Gouernor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Highway Administration Building, CHympia, Washington 98504 206/753-6005
January 4, 1978
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick, M/S 443
201 EIS Coordinator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
Kitsap County
Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities
Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
We have completed our review of the subject document and offer the follow-
ing comments.
Four of the five alternatives presented in the document which will involve
DOT facilities to varying degrees are in preliminary design stages and
definite plans are not presented. Therefore, specific problems resulting
from crossings or right of way usage cannot be addressed at this time.
The Department is, however, planning improvements to SR 3 from the junction
at SR 160 to the Oyster Bay vicinity in the near future. Included in these
improvements will be the construction of an interchange at the junction of
SR 3 and SR 304. This will no doubt have a direct affect on the existing
Charleston Treatment Facility as well as any improvements planned for the
site. The Department of Transportation therefore requests that the pro-
ponent coordinate their plans with us early in the design stages.
The proponent will also need franchises or permits from the Department prior
to the planning stages for those locations outside incorporated city limits
and within highway right of way.
We would appreciate you sending all future environmental impact statements
directly to this office as we are responsible for coordinating the
Department's review.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this information.
Sincerely,
RUSSELL ALBERT
Planning and Public
Transportation Engineer
RA:ds
WPA/WBH
cc: J. D. Zirkle, KT-11
H. B. Ashford
Environmental Section
P. AfBOHN
Environmental Planner
214
-------
Responses to Washington Department of Transportation
1. Comments noted.
215
-------
The following letter was received from Mr. John H. Bykonen, Star Rt. 2,
Box 249, Belfair, WA 98528, and is typewritten here because we could not
not successfully reproduce his letter which was written with pencil:
Dear Sir, ' 1-6-78
On the evening of the 3rd of January a public hearing was held regarding
the Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Bremerton's proposed
Sewage Treatment Facilities, I failed to attend the meeting but would like
to contribute my knowledge and view point of the existing Sewage Facilities
in regard to the importance of the Environmental Impact Statement being
passed.
First of all if the E.I.S, is not eccepted Bremerton could possibly
have to return to the planning phase, and with all the red tape, the new
treatment plant and upgrading of the collection system (mainly pump
stations and sewer mains) could very well be set back a couple more years.
I feel Bremerton can't afford any possible delay. I am presently
working at Bremerton Manette Sewage Treatment Plant, located on the east
side of the Port WA. Narrows - An easy way to spot it is to look for 200
seagulls on the water feeding on raw sewage that is by passing our presently
overloaded treatment plant.
The Charleston Plant located on the west side of Bremerton is also
presently overflowing raw sewage into Sinclair Inlet each time it rains.
If that isn't bad enough there are a half dozen pump stations located around
Bremerton over flowing everytime it rains, because we have storm sewers
hooked up to our sanitary sewers. We also have more pump stations which
during high tides pump seawater to the treatment plants because, sea water
goes through the overflow lines and into the wetwells of the lift station.
The point of this letter is that the environmental impact of any further
delay seems to far outweigh the impact of possibly not having definite
proof that the proposed facilities are the best or most cost-effective
alternative.
/S/ John H. Bykonen
Operator II
City of Bremerton
216
-------
Response to letter from Mr. John H. Bykonen:
1. Your concern for the environment is noted. Correction of selected
combined sewer overflows, particularly in the vicinity of the
Manette treatment plant has been proposed by the facilities
planner and will receive a separate analysis by EPA.
217
-------
&•/
fe f7
d
~YY\
-------
-------
Responses to letter from Mr. Glenn L. Vockrodt:
1. An analysis of protection from excessive overflows is discussed
in a comment letter by CH2M Hill to the Bremerton Area Council
of Neighborhoods in this section (see the list of comments re-
ceived at beginning of this section). The recommended protec-
tion level now is for rainfall intensities up to 0.15 inch per
hour.
2. An analysis of overflows was requested by EPA. A summary of the
analysis appears as Appendix I. Evaluation of overflows will
be performed separately from this EIS.
3. Comments noted and have been considered by EPA during the project
evaluation.
4. See responses to Comment No. 2.
5. Expansion of the two Bremerton treatment plants to secondary
facilities forms the basis for Alternative 4. Removal of
excessive infiltration and inflow as well as correction of
combined sewer overflows will be coordinated with project imple-
mentation.
220
-------
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
DEPARTMENT OF GAME
600 North Capitol Way/Olympia, Washington 98504
206/753-5700
January 5, 1978
Roger K. Mochnick, M/S 443
201 EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Mochnick:
DEIS: Sinclair Inlet Sewerage Facilities
Plan, Kitsap County
Your document was reviewed by our staff as requested; comments follow.
Your discussion of Long-Term Indirect Impacts (pp. 139-146) is well written and
informative. Though many of the numerous streams in the planning area are con-
sidered impassable for anadromous fish, their lower reaches remain very pro-
ductive in terms of habitat, and rearing and spawning activities. Ultimately,
local water quality should improve as a result of your proposal. However, as
sewer districts expand in capacity, increased development may be facilitated.
For streams to remain productive, it can be helpful to preserve riparian habitat
and create buffer zones for sensitive areas wherever possible.
Also of concern are impacts associated with subtidal and intertidal pipelines.
Alternatives 2,3 and 5 require approximately 28,000, 39,000 and 55,000 feet of
pipeline respectively. Alternative 2 would appear to result in the least amount
of sensitive intertidal area disruption. Construction impacts for alternative
4 would be even less; however, further studies to determine the flushing cap-
abilities of Sinclair Inlet may be necessary to determine whether or not de-
sired dilution ratios can be achieved. If adequate dilution for any alternative
cannot be achieved, various pollutants may build up or become concentrated in
marine organisms. In such case, impacts could be severe, and long-term.
Stringent pretreatment requirements for industry, combined with secondary treat-
ment, could substantially reduce heavy metals, petroleum products, and other
deleterious material loads presently being discharged into Puget Sound waters.
Strict industrial pretreatment standards also may enhance the feasibility of re-
claimed water and sludge re-use programs.
221
-------
page 2
Roger K. Mochnick
January 5, 1978
Have ion exchange systems been considered for upgrading of treatment plants? We
understand that liquid ion exchange has certain features that make it desirable
for sewage treatment. Its feasibility for removing detergents from sewage ef-
fluent has been demonstrated.* Also, "It is a continuous hydraulic process,
especially amenable to the treatment of large volumes of continuously flowing
water. It has flexibility to accomodate for changes in the effluent and is
readily automated. It is capable of concentrating extracted species of at
least one thousand-fold. Its economics are competitive with other established
commercial processes such as precipitation and solid ion exhange. It is espec-
ially amenable to the incorporation of selectivity for one chemical species,
e.g., phosphate."**
We commend you for mentioning in your document chlorine related impacts to
aquatic life (TL 50 for 0.01 mg/1). This is a growing problem for which there
is little public awareness. Toxicity levels vary from species to species, and
with receiving water factors such as temperature, pH, oxygen levels, salinity,
etc. However, the crustacean, Gammarus, an essential food source for fish, is
affected by chloramine levels as low as 0.0034 mg/1. Combinations of chlorine
with cyanides, phenols, and other substances may be even more detrimental to
aquatic life. Improved chlorine application systems for treatment plants could
be extremely beneficial features for reducing impacts to the aquatic environ-
ment.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your document. We hope you find our
comments helpful.
* Dunning, H.N., et al, "Removal of Refractory Contaminants from Wastewater
by Liquid Ion Exhange", presented at 143rd meeting ACS, Cincinnati, 1963.
**Feasibi1ity of Liquid Ion Exchange for Extracting Phosphate from Wastewater;
EPA, Program #17010 EAP, Oct. 1970
Sincerely,
THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME
Fred H. Maybee, Applied Ecologist
Environmental Management Division
FHM:bj
cc:Agencies
Regional Manager
222
-------
Responses to Washington Department of Game:
1. Comments noted and considered during decision-making.
2. The Bremerton treatment plants receive predominantly municipal
wastewaters. Major industries, such as the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, have separate systems for treatment and discharge
of wastewaters from operations. Local ordinances for control
or pretreatment of industrial wastes presently control some of
the pollutants.
3. Nutrient removal was evaluated as a potential strategy by the
facilities planner but was not developed to a detailed alterna-
tive stage where an analysis of cost-effective systems was
made. Nutrient removal was subsequently determined as rela-
tively ineffective in Sinclair Inlet due to high ambient nu-
trient levels.
4. Comment noted.
223
-------
qy % -
^ £° Bert Nelson
-> X»^* 1599 S W Hwy 160
Port Orchard, WA 98366
January 6, 1977
Mr. Roger Mochnick
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
RE: Sinclair Inlet Sewage Treatment Plan
Dear Sir:
I believe that the proposed Charleston outfall location for the
Sinclair Inlet Sewer Plan would be a serious mistake. My concern for
the outfall at the Charleston site is based on the existing conditions
in Sinclair Inlet and on the inadequacy of tidal flushing action in
that area. Your conclusion that adequate flushing does exist in
Sinclair Inlet is based on a University of Washington study. This
study may possibly be incomplete due to funding problems, and certainly
is not consistent with actual tidal conditions. My personal observa-
tions convince me that a steady north wind 'will neutralize any surface
tidal action in Sinclair Inlet and particularly so in the water area
south of Ross Point.
This past summer I saw a continuous red tide condition throughout
the head of Sinclair Inlet. This condition worsened in August during a
week of steady north wind and eventually became severe enough to kill
fish and shellfish. Just recently, the same area froze over when fresh
water from surface and creek runoff was retained to the south of the
Inlet by north winds.
I should hope that a more suitable location for an outfall could be
found. The present Trenton Avenue outfall would be one possible alter-
native if adequate flushing action is a major consideration. The ifS to
70 foot depths off Trenton Avenue are certainly better than the 28 to 30
foot depths at the Charleston site for example. The Trenton site is
also more centrally located than is the Charleston site.
I sincerely urge you to reconsider using the Charleston site as an
outfall location. If the Charleston site is chosen, I would hope that •
you first check and verify the adequacy of the tidal flushing informa-
tion you have for that area. I have lived and worked on these waters
for the past 35 years and I certainly would not want to see an already
poor situation worsen. I trust that you share my concern.
Respectfully yours,
Bert Nelson
BN:mbn
224
-------
Responses to letter from Mr. Bert Nelson:
1. Comments noted. You are correct that the University of Washington
model cannot compensate completely for surface wind conditions.
Thus, model runs are at best an approximation of potential condi-
tions. Thank you for adding your observations on actual marine
conditions.
2. The Trenton Avenue outfall currently handles overflows from the
Trenton Avenue pump station. Although the outfall location is
more centrally located in Bremerton, it nevertheless is farther
from the Charleston Plant and would require additional pumping.
The volume of overflow at this pump station is 2.6 million gal-
lons/day (mgd) annually and would be inadequate to handle future-
design flows from the Charleston plant projected at an average
of 7.6 mgd annually. Use of this site would probably require
the design and construction of a completely new outfall. An out-
fall at this location could represent some improvement over the
present Charleston location although the retention and ultimate
dilution would remain similar for Sinclair Inlet in total. Costs
and feasibility were not developed in detail for a Trenton Avenue
outfall site. A suggestion for further investigation as a miti-
gation measure has been given to the facilities planner.
3. Comments noted and have been considered during decision-making.
225
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
WESTERN DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
P.O. BOX 727
SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 94066
MAIL REPLY TO:
SEATTLE BRANCH, WESTERN DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981 IS
IN REPLY REFER TO:
114F:RCB:rck
11300/1
Ser 114F/11
9 Jan 1978
Mr. Roger K. Mochirick
201 EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 - Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
M/S 443
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for wastewater systems
for Sinclair Inlet, Washington has been reviewed. Section III, page
74, shows the ship waste collection system at the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, Bremerton generating an additional 800,000 gal/day. Based
upon the present and planned schedule of ships at the shipyard the flow
should be 400,000 gal/day, and represents the flow from ships at the
piers. All ships in the dry docks now discharge to the Bremerton sewer
system, flow from these ships has been approximatley 400,000 gal/day.
Accordingly, the total flow from ships at Piers and in dry dock is the
800,000 dal/day as shown; however, the increase over the present flow
will only be 400,000 gal/day.
The ships waste collection system at Manchester does not have a holding
tank of 189,000 gal. The tank has a capacity of 50,000 gal which will
be pumped at a slow rate to the Manchester system over a three day
period. The flow is periodic only when ships are at the pier for re-
fueling.
R. C. BOUGHNER, P. E.
Head, Environmental Section
Seattle Branch, Western Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Copy to:
COMNAVSHIPYDPUGET
CO, NSC
CO, WESTNAVFACENGCOM Code 114
226
-------
Response to Department of the Navy:
Comments noted. Revisions to text have been made for these items,
227
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY <
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
500 NE MULTNOMAH ST SUITE 1692
PORTLAND OREGON 97232
January 10 , 1978
ER-77/1052
Mr. Roger K. Mochnick, M/S 443
201 EIS Coordinator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
This is in response to your request that the Department of the
Interior review and comment on the Draft Environmental Statement
for Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Sinclair Inlet, Kitsap County,
Washington.
General Comments
The draft statement presents alternatives but does not indicate a
preferred course of action. The absence of a definite proposal and
insufficient quantitative data make it difficult to determine probable
impacts on the recreation environment. The final statement should pro-
vide additional quantitative information on probable adverse impacts on
recreation opportunities and aesthetic values. It should-also discuss
potentials for recreation that could be incorporated into facility loca-
tion and design, and considerations for realizing these potentials. The
long-term impact on recreational and other uses of Puget Sound of ef-
fluent discharge from secondary treatment plants should be discussed.
In general, the environmental statement adequately addresses fish and
wildlife values and potential positive and negative impacts, but does
not expand its alternatives to encompass all of the wastewater treat-
ment and disposal strategies discussed on page 77. Major concerns in
this area are the following:
1. The statement consistently refers to the inadequacy of the
flushing and tidal exchange in Sinclair and Dyes Inlets yet all
five alternatives utilize Sinclair Inlet as a major discharge
point and alternatives 1 and 4 include discharges into Dyes Inlet.
228
-------
We would like to see further consideration of the Discharges to
Port Orchard strategy Plan 2 with treatment sites at Enetal,
Retsil and Manchester as identified in Table 18 (pages 77-78).
If dilution, flushing , and dispersal were adequate, it could
create future cost benefits by returning Sinclair Inlet to a
viable commercial shellfish status. Also, with adequate flush-
ing and dispersal, as stated in the environmental statement, the
discharge would probably not need to be dechlorinated.
2. Alternative 2, which is identified as the alternative that
"best accommodates the existing jurisdictional entities" identi-
fies chlorine residual as a problem for marine life. The major
effluent submarine outfall would be located in Sinclair Inlet
near Charleston where the mixing and dilution is considered fair
to poor and subsequent dispersion and flushing is poor. There-
fore, we recommend a dechlorination system be attached to both
the Charleston and Retsil discharge facilities if alternative 2
is selected.
3. If alternative 2 or 3 is selected, timing of installation
of the pipeline on the intertidal beaches should be coordinated
with the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Department
of Game to reduce possible short-term impacts to fish or wildlife
species using the area.
Overall, alternatives 2, 3, or 5 appear to offer significant long-term
improvements over the existing situation; however, as stated, they do
not present the degree of dilution and fish and wildlife protection
that a system of discharge into Port Orchard can offer.
Because of interrelated Federal actions that, may affect fish and wild-
life resources, these comments do not preclude an additional and
separate evaluation by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant
to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661, et seq.),
where project development requires a permit from the U. S. Coast Guard
and/or the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army (Sections 9 and 10 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of P. L. 92-500). All
such permits are subject to separate review by the Service under exist-
ing statutes, executive order, memorandum of agreement, and other
authorities.
Through the Fish and Wildlife Service review of a pending Corps of
Engineers permit for the proposed project, we will strive to reduce
environmental damages through design changes and to obtain mitigation
or compensation for any unavoidable losses. If satisfactory modifica-
tions or compensations are not made to reduce impacts to fish and wild-
life resources, denial of the permit will be recommended to the Corps
of Engineers.
229
-------
The DES provides an adequate description of the study area's geology;
however, it does not discuss the area's mineral resources. According
to Bureau of Mines records, mineral production in Kitsap County from
1970 through 1974 has fluctuated between $500,000 and $900,000 annually.
Construction materials of sand and gravel and crushed stone have ac-
counted for the bulk of the output. Small amounts of peat have also
been mined. A cursory search of the Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry
Location System (MILS) computer files, revealed that 18 mineral properties
are within or in close proximity to the study area. They included both
undeveloped mineral occurrences and current or past-producing operations,
including sand and gravel, stone, clay, and peat. We suggest that the
proposal's potential impact on mineral resource availability be examined
and described in the final environmental statement. .
Specific Comments
Page 70, last paragraph. This paragraph states that existing park and
open space land adjacent to the Manchester and Retsil treatment plan
sites could be modified by changes in land needs at the two sites. The
final statement should give specific information on how the alternative
actions would affect these areas, including impacts on acreages avail-
able for recreation, aesthetic values, existing and planned recreation
facilities, and recreational carrying capacities. Mitigation measures
should also be discussed.
Page 138, second paragraph. Further information should be included in
the Final Statement concerning the proposed pipeline that would parallel
a bicycle path, including mileage and potentials for joint right-of-way
use. Similar information also should be provided for alternative pipe-
line routes.
The FES also should describe any impacts of- the alternative proposals on
park and open space areas near the Manchester, Retsil and other treat-
ment plant sites. Expected impacts on acreages available for recreation,
aesthetic values, existing and planned recreation facilities, and recrea-
tional carrying capacities should be included. Mitigation measures also
should be treated in greater depth, including considerations for
implementation.
In addition, we encourage EPA to consider the imaginative use of treat-
ment plant structures and sites to allow for public use, particularly
for parks and recreation. .
Page 142, Developable Water Resources. Further investigations concerning
developable ground-water resources should stress detailed hydrogeologic
studies on the extent of hydraulic connection between shallow and deep
aquifer systems and aquifer characteristics such as hydraulic conductivity,
230
-------
transmissivity, and storage coefficient. Such information would be
useful in planning for maximum ground-water withdrawals with minimum
adverse consequences outside the project area.
Page 157, first paragraph. The first sentence of this paragraph and
the preceding' narrative appear to assume that sewage effluent discharged
into Puget Sound from secondary treatment plants would not have signifi-
cant impact if adequately dispersed. This assumption is not substantiated
in the report. Because of the possible far-reaching implications of long-
term effluent discharge on recreational use of Puget Sound, we feel the
final environmental statement should either substantiate the above ap-
parent assumption or consider tertiary treatment as an additional
alternative.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this document.
Sincerely yours,
Charles S. Polityka
Regional Environmental Officer
231
-------
Responses to U. S. Department of Interior:
1. The draft EIS was prepared and circulated by EPA to assist in
selection of the most acceptable alternative. The final EIS
contains a preferred course of action and also includes addi-
tional discussion on recreation opportunities and aesthetic va-
lues.
2. Comments noted. Environmental evaluation of discharge strategies
and screening of strategies was made by the faciliies planner
during earlier planning stages. The significant cost difference
of the Port Orchard Strategy over the Sinclair Inlet Strategy
(40 percent greater) was a deciding factor.
3. Review of dechlorination facilities will be made. All work will
be coordinated with Washington Department of Fisheries and Depart-
ment of Game to reduce short-term impacts and enhance long-term
productivity where possible.
4. A description of mineral resources and potential impacts from pro-
ject implementation have been added to the EIS.
5. and 6. Additional discussion has been added to Section IV-recrea-
tion impacts covering aesthetic values, parks and open space use
and recreation opportunities.
7. Comment noted. The proposed project does not have a direct effect
upon the future development of water resources. These concerns
are more appropriately handled on the County and State level.
8. In Section III, various sites for wastewater discharge were re-
viewed. At least two of the sites (Manchester and Port Orchard)
supported the assumption that adequate dispersion would be a
significant key to reducing impacts. Tertiary treatment was evalu-
ated as providing no significant benefits due to the high ambient
levels of nutrients in Sinclair Inlet.
232
-------
uAc£r™ DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON Olympia, Washington 98504 206/753-2800
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
January 13, 1978
RECEIVED
Roger K. Mochnick JAN 1 7 1970
201 EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection EPA-E1S
Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Subject: Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities --
Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Mochnick:
Thank you for providing us with a copy of the draft environmental impact
statement for our review and comment. The impact statement was reviewed
by personnel from our headquarters and regional offices.
David Wright of our Northwest Regional Office made the following comments:
1 - The impacts of constructing pipelines in subtidal and intertidal
lands are adequately addressed, particularly in the appendix.
However, there should be an expansion of the mitigating measures
to be implemented to minimize marine water quality degradation
due to pipeline construction.
2 - The section on Storm Drain Systems is confusing and should be revised
as follows: Combined sewers are constructed to handle both storm
flows and sanitary sewage flows. Parts of the system have insuffi-
cient hydraulic capacity to handle all these flows. When the rain-
fall results in flows which exceed the capacity of the system, over-
flow points begin discharging the combined storm and sanitary sewage
to surface receiving waters.
3 - Page 73 contains the following statement: "This value includes 0.38m3
(100 gal.)/cap. day of groundwater infiltration into sewers and inflow
of stormwater through openings such as manhole covers." This statement
is incorrect. The 100 gal./cap. day figure is the sanitary sewage
component of the design flow, not an infiltration/inflow allowance.
4 - The following incorrect statement is made on page 83: "Preliminary
evaluations of the sewer system have indicated excessive infiltration/
inflow in many areas which will be removed before any treatment
facilities are designed." Design will actually begin prior to the
completion of the rehabilitation work. The excessive infiltration/
inflow must be removed prior to completion of construction of the
facilities.
233
-------
Roger K. Mochnick
January 13, 1978
Page 2
5 - Disposal of sewage sludge is potentially one of the most environ- T
mentally damaging impacts of wastewater treatment plants. The I
discussion on page 83 should be expanded to cover these impacts. J
If you have any questions regarding these comments contact David Wright
at 885^1900.
Sincerely,
r Jonathan Neel
Environmental Review Section
CJNrbjw
cc: David Wright
234
-------
Responses to Washington Department of Ecology:
1. Impacts of constructing pipelines in subtidal and inter-
tidal lands will be controlled by project specifications.
2. Text revision has been made.
3. Based on Appendix H of the facilities plan - Volume II, the
design flow is based on a wastewater generation rate of 100
gal/cap'day. Infilitration/inflow has been assumed at 50
percent of the observed flow in the existing sewer system.
This represents infiltration/inflow of 100 gal/cap'day.
The design flow has been reduced recently to account for
increased I/I removal.
4. Comment noted. Evaluation of infiltration/inflow will be
done separately from this EIS. Correction of I/I will be
done during the design phase.
5. Impacts of sludge disposal have been discussed in Section IV
Impacts.
235
-------
HOOD CANAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
,-|///fi/(.;'j L'li/tj/n- Han ,;'t
P O BOX 87 , SEARECK. WASHINGTON 9S380
January 17, 1978
R. Roger K. Mochnick, M/S 443,
201 EIS Coordinator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,
1200 Sixth Avenue,
SEATTLE, Washington 98101.
Dear Mr. Mochnick,
This proposed project and its possible indirect adverse
environmental impacts on Hood Canal has just come to our
attention. Basically this relates to the proposed disposal
of sludge in landfill (see pages 83, 116 and 153 of the draft
EIS) on lands that are within the Union River drainage basin.
Any leachates or surface runoff from the sludge sites
that enter the Union River will not only have an adverse
impact on the waters of the river, but will also have a
definite long term adverse impact on the Union River Estuary
and Hood Canal due to the ecological chain relationship of
the Union River, its estuary, and Hood Canal.
The draft EIS is deficient in not addressing the
possible long term environmental and ecological impacts and
mitigating measures relating to the Union River, its estuary,
and Hood Canal, due to the proposed sludge landfill.
We request that consideration be given this aspect,
inclusive of further information gathering, to substantiate
any possible environment impacts. The following is also
presented for your consideration and information:
(a) Northwest Environment (Region X news letter)
Holiday Issue, 1977. "Alaska, Washington and
Oregon Sites Nominated for Marine Sanctuary Status.
In Washington: (EPA recommended two large areas
from which a marine sanctuary could be selected—
Hood Canal and the San Juan Islands.)"
(b) Research information etc.: Hood Canal Hand-
book, 1977, by the Hood Canal Advisory Commission.
236
-------
(c) Pages xi and xii of the draft EIS does not
indicate that Mason County was informed or
invited to comment on the draft EIS.
We recommend that the Mason County Planning Department
be given the opportunity to review and comment, since the
Union River and its estuary are within Mason County.
Very /truly yours* ,
XGARY A. /CUNNINGHAM /
President <-x
cc: Mason County Planning Dept.,
Department of Fisheries
Department of Ecology.
237
-------
EFA-91 0/9-77-047
EFA-IO/WA-KITSAP-S!NCLA!R-VAYTVY-7
e '». .
nf?*v^ ,?••> fvofc •?* i**** H
S s \l © il i C S
- < />
S J p '***•« E «3? 5
C? i
November 197y7
€
i a
*-i r*
«-va ff*si r* R |
£ ^is>d -b, tt 3
f*5 f* n i ^ ra §• v \A/ f ^ fei \ P ^ ^
^ vta« W W 5 a B ^ ^ \J V WJ J » J S 3 J ^ 5 ^
r: ,a "&
S
.
' .' f^, (_-
a^-4 s
238
.* c^. v < o r^ rf*^ ft^ v*** /*• &*% **
E. ; i. */ i 5 O a! JTs S n if
-------
as the usage of individual septic tanks and drainfields. Associated
with this alternative would he the continuation of periodic septic
tank failures, as well as combined sewer overflows and hydraulic over-
loading of plants leading to pollution of Sinclair Inlet.
Alternative 2 - Charleston Regional/Retsil Regional/Manchester
facilities with ocean outfalls. Charleston regional plant handles
Manette and Charleston flows while Retsil regional handles Port Or-
chard and Retsil. Manchester is independent. Capital cost - $16,778,
000.
Alternative 3 - Charleston Regional/Manchester facilities with
ocean outfalls. Charleston facility handles Manette, Charleston, Port
Orchard and Retsil. Manchester is independent. Capital Cost -
$17,742,000.
Alternative 4 - Local treatment facilities with ocean, outfalls.
Manette, Charleston, Retsil, Port Orchard and Manchester are all en-
larged. Capital cost - $17,769,000.
Alternative 5 - Charleston Regional/Manchester Regional facilities
with ocean outfalls. Charleston regional handles Manette and Charles-
ton while Manchester regional handles Port Orchard, Retsil and Man-
chester. Capital cost - $19,441,000.
6. The following state, federal and local agencies and interested
groups were invited to comment on the Environmental Impact Statement:
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Agriculture
U. S. Department of Defense
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Interior
U. S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
U. S. Department of Housing s Urban Development
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Energy Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
239
-------
OF CONGRESS
Warren G. Magr.uson, U.S. Senate
Her.ry :•!. Jackson, U.S. Senate
STATE AGENCIES
D-apartnant of natural Resources
Bura-u of Outdoor Recreation.
Caparmant of Ecology
Department of Fisheries
DspairtJiisnt of Gair.e
Department of Social & Health Services
Porks and Recreation Cojnnission
Washington State Highway Department
tOCAI, AGENCIES
City of Bremerton
City of Port Orchard
Kitsap County Sewer District #1
Kitsap County Sewer District S3
Kitsap County Sewer District if5
Kitsap County Planning Department
South Kitsap Planning and Advisory Council
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Pugat Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
Eainbridge Island Planning Commission
OTHER
National Wildlife Federation
Bainbridge Island Concerned Citizens
The Bay Area Neighborhood
Kitsap Lake Neighborhood
Kanette Neighborhood
Sheridan Neighborhood • •
Smith Neighborhood
BACC:I
League of Women Voters
Sierra Club
CH2M Kill
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the public on November 25, 1977.
240
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SINCLAIR INLET
SEWERAGE FACILITIES PLAN
[•PA Project No. C-530559
Prepared by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
NOVEMBER 1977'
Prepared v;ith the Assistance of
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.
600 Bancroft Way 6420 Wilshire Bcfule^/ard
Berkeley, California 94710 Los Angeles-^C^l/rorni^ 90048
Approved
Date October 26, 1977
241
-------
Based primarily upon these evaluation, the facilities planner
recommended the. Sinclair Inlet discharge strategy. This strategy
was the least expensive, while providing water quality capable of .
meeting "A" standards. Although Sinclair Inlet is a shallow embay-
ir.er.t with a slow flushing rate, it was envisionej to have adequate
dilution volume Cor wastewater discharges. The higher degree of
treatment would also produce a lower unit wastelo£id thus improving
present water quality. Also, the proximity of the inlet to the
major population concentrations in the planning area made it a prime
location for effluent discharge.
Under Che Sinclair Inlet discharge strategy, four of the five
alternatives initially proposed were examined in greater detail in
order to select a preferred alternative. The first alternative as
described in Table 18, was eliminated immediately because all reason-
able treatment options for each entity could be described by the
four alternatives.
Alternative Plans - Sinclair Inlet Discharge Strategy
Alternative 1 (Mo Action)
For the purpose of this EIS, Alternative 1 was defined as the
no action alternative. The five existing primary treatment facilities
ana marine outfalls as described in the "Present Status" section would
be retained. As each facility is presently at or above its capacity,
future connections to the sewer system and expansion of the service
area would be greatly limited. Installation of septic tanks and leach
fields cor new structures would be evaluated on an individual basis
by the County Health Department. Associated with this alternative
would be the continuation of periodic septic system failures and
pollution of shallow groundwater aquifers.
Comon Features - Alternatives 2-5 X1A& 7^ £
Altematives 2-5 have a number of common features, namely:
1. The Port of Sremerton will continue to operate a separate
treatment facility serving the Kitsap County Airport and the Olympic
View Industrial Park. The Port currently has the only secondary treat
ment facility in the area and the system appears to perform satisfac-
torily. The flow from the port is small .-ind the cost of pumping Lt
to another facility in the area would be high.
2. K.CSD Mo. 3 (Manchester) will be served by a treatment fa-
cility in the vicinity of Manchester. This i.rj because: Manchester
242
-------
,;i.'parated by 6 km [- ~i] of hilly terrain from the center of the
'- -j" area population, vtiizn nakas pulping and pipeline costs very
< -h. Also, the asslnilj.rv.'e capacity of the local receiving waters
• :-",'i»t Sound) off Manc'-.:-;- = r is higher than that of any other loca-
-ions, providing_adcn.'j2.:-= ij-lurion ana aispersion.
3. At present, Sisjlsir Inlec is a Class A water with n spec'-liT"
Condition allowing higher-ihan-nornal coliform level. Upgrading
iro.itment levels to sec.c-d.3.ry treatment should cause more effective
solids removal, thereby =ilowing sore effective disinfection. Also,
elimination of serious overflows and bypasses presently discharging
into Sinclair Inlet and Pert Washington Narrows would remove major
sources of f ccal con tj=_~ i-j_t ion. Thus all alternatives will remove
the special discharge condition fron the Class A rating of Sinclair
Inlet and Port Washingrcn Narrows.
4. Excessive infiltration/inflow will be removed from the sewer
systems in the study araa. Preliminary evaluations of the sewer sys- f
lens have indicated excessive infiltration/inflow in many areas, which]
will be removed before ar.y treatment facilities are designed'.
5. Bremerton must agree to serve KCSD No. 1 and all entities
nust agree to serve undeveloped areas draining to their facilities.
Thus, Gorst and other areas are projected to be sewered by the year 2000.
6. Wastewater solids (sludge) from each facility, will be de-
watered in covered drying beds at each site and disposed to a private
', or county landfill. Hauling of liquid sludge for reuse on land appli-
cations was considered cost-effective within a 32-k.m [20 mi] haul dis-
tance for Charleston and a 20-kr.i [12 mi] haul distance for Retsil and
Manchester. Land application would be an attractive alternative if an
acceptable agreement can be reached with a local landowner(s) to handle
the material.
Alternative 2 (Charleston Rogional/Retsil Regional/Manchester)
The treatment plant locations and pipeline routes in Alternative
2 are depicted in Figuro 16. With this alternative, three treatment
plants will be operated: a 0.42 m3/s [9.8 mgd I facility at Charleston;
a 0.08 m3/s [1.9 mgd] plant at Retsil, both discharging to Sinclair
Inlet; and a 0.02 m3/s [0.5 mgd] plant at Manchester, discharging to
•'uget Sound. The existing treatment plant at Charleston will be up-
graded to secondary treatr.-.cnt and expanded to the design capacity in .(! ffj^
order to handle all of the flow diverted from the Mnnette plant. Ql'he ^' --
existing Manette facility will probably be retained in the event that
additional capacity is needed in the future.7 From die Miinette pump-
ing station across Port Washington Harrows ," wast ewa tor will flow
243
-------
Groundwater Q'.iality
a
The primary anticipated long-terra impact on groundwater quality
will be a reduction in the contanination of local groundwaters by nu-
trients and pathogens released by malfunctioning septic systems. As
stated earlier, the magnitude of beneficial effect for this type of
impact is heavily dependent on the total numbers of septic system
usars hooking up to an available sewer line.
Sludge-drying beds are proposed for the Charleston, Retsil and
Manchester facilities. Specific design details for sludge—drying
beds have not been made yet by the facilities planner. If the drying
beds have impermeable, lined bottoms, there will be little or no
threat to local groundwater quality. If the beds are unlined, de-
gradation of local groundwater could result to some degree. The de-
gree would be determined by such factors as the design of the beds,
the physical properties of the underlying soils, raicroclimatic evapo-
ration rates, the volume of supernatant in the sludge and the depth
to groundwater.
The facilities planner recommended that all sludge be dried
and disposed to a landfill. However, cost com;- risons were also made
for sludge hauling distances that would be competitive with sludge-
drying and disposal. In the Facilities Plan: Volume II-Part 3, it
was determined that hauling of liquid sludge, to distances of within
32 km [20 mi] of the Charleston plant and 20 km [12 mi] of the Retsil
uf Manchester plants was cost competitive. This ^ssiime? ch?t an ac-
ceptable agreement can be reached with one or more landowners- to re-
ceive liquid sludge in a storage lagoon on their property. With this
ir.sthod, the sludge may be recycled to the land as a fertilizer and
soil amendment.
A liquid sludge storage lagoon and indiscriminate application
upon land surfaces may have a potential for groundwater contamination
through leaching of nitrogen and heavy metals into the soil. A degree
of 'icrrpact cannot be estimated without site-specific and operational
details.
Mitigation Measures. Infiltration of dissolved solids and trace
pollutants into the groundwater table under the sludge-drying beds
can be avoided with design techniques. An impervious liner in the
drying beds will eliminate percolation and perimeter ditches around
the beds would collect any surface run-off or overflow.
Adverse effects from storing and applying liquid sludge at a
private site are- more difficult to mitigate. An impervious liner
in the storage lagoon would eliminate percolation. Health and ground-
water quality hazards from sludge application would fall under the
jurisdiction of the County Department of Public Health.
244
-------
IRRETRIEVABLE WATER AND KL'TRIEMT RESOURCE LOSS
During the drought of 1976-1977, considerable attention has been
focused upon the use of water and possible uses of reclaimed treated
effluents to offset depleted water supplies, primarily for industrial
uses. The project would collect, treat and dispose of 16.7 >; 106 ra3
[4,400 mil gal.] per year. This water is irretrievably lost for fu-
ture human uses, and such human uses would depend on extracted ground-
water or surface runoff. Unfortunately, energy and capital costs to
provide the treated water to a limited local industrial or agricultu-
ral market would far exceed the costs of extraction from present fresh-
water sources or of use of marine waters for industrial processes and
cooling.
Nutrient resource within the treated wastewater and sludge would
also be lost from beneficial reuse. Trace minerals, particularly ni-
trogen and phosphorus would be disposed in the effluent to marine wa-
ters where it would be superimposed upon existing high seasonal levels
of dissolved nutrients. Sludge reuse as a fertilizer and soil amend-
ment is a strong consideration. Unless the municipal entity "or sani-
tary district can make the appropriate arrangements, the sludge re-
source would be disposed to a landfill and irretrievably lost.
245
-------
X (y/S
1 ZCO GuctM
S*«rs«. WJ
NISQUALLY DELI
FLO BRODIE
1321 SO, WATER ST.
•
WA 98501
Holiday Issue 1977
This year-end edition of NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENT is being sent to you with the hope
that 1977 has been as good to you as it has been to EPA.
That's not to say that 1977 has been without challenges, hard work and new problems.
We've had our share, or maybe more than our share. But what has made our year so
satisfying has been the reaffirmation by Congress of EPA's legislative mandate. It
has been a busy year on Capitol Hill, and two pieces of landmark legislation stand
out: the amendments to"the Water Pollution Control Act and to the Clean Air Act.
Both new laws essentially keep EPA right on course in our efforts to clean up
water pollution and to improve our Nation's air.
Once the water pollution amendments are signed into law by President Carter, their
enactment will have completed the mid-course corrections in America's fight to
protect its environment, and should give EPA a base of legislative stability
without which policy decisions and rigorous enforcement could have been delayed.
We're looking forward to 1978. We think it will be a productive 12 months for
everyone concerned with protecting the environment in Alaska and the Pacific
Northwest.
The entire staff of EPA's Northw
wishes for a prosperous, happy
ffice extends to you its best
year.
Regional Administrator
246
< rf yow OO NQT «noA »o '•£*•** (
-------
ALASKA, WASHINGTON AMD OREGON SITES More than a dozen sites along the coast of Alaska,
NOMINATED FOR MARINE SANCTUARY.STATUS Washington and Oregon have been reco-mended by
EPA's Northwest regional office as candidates for
official designation as marine sanctuaries under
Federal law. The designations will be made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA) under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the designation process is
one in which many residents of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest may wish to participate.
Becuase of tight deadline pressure, EPA's regional office made its recornendaticins with
the benefit of only limited consultation with State agencies and other interested parties.
Since everyone won't agree with the EPA recommendations, or may have additional sites they
want to nominate on their own, here -- for the record -- is the list of nominations EPA
came up with:
In Alaska:
Tukedni Bay, the Beaufort Sea, the Yukon Delta, the Copper River Delta,
Glacier Bay, Kachemak Bay and Kvichak Bay
Cape Arago, Boiler Bay and Cape Lookout
Tn Washington: Nisqually Delta and Rsach, Willapa Bay, Cape Hattery to Queets. Dungeness
Bay and Padilla Bay. (Also, EPA recommended twcf^arger areas from which a
marine sanctuary could be selected —^.Hood Canal and the San Juan Islands.)
V
If you want to take part in the designation process, LUirCaTtComniander Phillip Johnson,
Marine Sanctuaries Program, Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, 3300 Whitehaven
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20235. Johnson's office can provide you with a list of all
sites nominated so far, can tell you the status of the- designation process, and let you
know how you can submit nominations of your own or make comments about the nominations
already made by others.
THEY MAY NOT SOUND LIKE VERY MUCH
BUT PARTS PER BILLION ADD UP FAST
More and more, because of new instrumentation and
detection techniques, EPA and other pollution control
agencies are defining permissable limits of certain
discharges in terms of parts per billion. While
a part per billion doesn't sound like much, it can add up fast. NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENT is
indebted to the Ames Laboratory at Iowa State University for the following perspective.
If lead, for example, were present at a one part per billion level in the water used in the
Los Angeles area each year (3 million acre-feet), there would be enough lead to cast one
million bullets. Some other illustrations:
Substance
One part per billion in 3 million acre-feet per year
would provide enough to
Chromium plate 50,000 car bumpers
Mercury fill 4 million rectal thermometers
Phenols produce 250,000 bottles of Lysol
Herbicides kill all the dandelions in 100,000 lawns
Insecticides fill 5 million aerosol cans of bug killer
Gold .• support 50 average families for eternity (or run
the Federal government for 20 minutes!)
Some other useful comparisons are that a part per million is the equivalent of one ounce
of salt in 31 tons of potato chips, and a part per trillion is equal to a six-inch leap
on a journey to the sun.
247
-------
Responses to letter from Hood Canal Environmental Council:
1. The facilities plan currently proposes a program for hauling
sludge to private lands for land application, as discussed in
the alternatives description. Pending a trial period of
several years for the effectiveness of this program, no sludge
would be disposed at the County Landfill. Control of site-
specific effects of sludge-application would require agree-
ments between the sanitation districts and each farm contract-
ing to receive sludge. Public health and groundwater quality
aspects would fall within the jurisdiction of the County Health
Department. The Union River and the Hood Canal would not be
adversely affected under this program.
In the situation that the County Landfill is used for sludge
disposal, additional discussion has been added to the EIS.
2. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. A copy of the
draft EIS was mailed to Mason County and the comment period ex-
tended 2 weeks to allow for their comments. Mason County has
also been added to the mailing list for the final EIS.
248
-------
SECTION IX
-------
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
1. CH M-Hill, Inc. Sinclair Inlet Sewage Facilities Plan, Vol. I:
Planning Background, Bremerton/Kitsap County,
June 1976.
2. CH M-Hill, Inc. Sinclair Inlet Sewerage Facilities Plan, Vol. II:
Alternatives, Bremerton/Kitsap County, June 1978.
3. The URS Company. Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities
Plan, Technical Report, Seattle, Washington,
March 1976.
4. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Wastewater Facilities, Kitsap County
Washington, Prepared by Engineer ing-Science, Inc.
and Socio-Economic Systems, Inc. for Environmental
Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington,
1976.
5. State of Washington Department of Conservation, Division of Water
Resources. Water Resources and Geology of the Kitsap
Peninsula and Certain Adjacent Islands, Water Supply
Bulletin No. 18, 1965.
6. Snyder, D.E., A Supplement to Soil Survey, Kitsap County,
Washington, 1939, with Soil Interpretations for
Planning and Development. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 82 pages, 1972.
7. Kitsap County Board of Supervisors. Kitsap County Conservation
District Renewable Natural Resource Program; 47 pages,
1975.
8. Wildermuth, R. et aj . Soil Survey of Kitsap County, Washington.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau Chemistry &
Soils, Soil Survey Service 1934, No. 12, 41 pages,
1939.
9. Koxworthy, B. L. and Richardson, D. Climatic Factors Related to
Land-Use Planning the Puget Sound Basin, Washington,
U.S.G.S., Map 1-851A, Washington, D.C., 1973.
10. Lyttle, Lee and Johnston, Michael. A Draft Statement on Impact.,
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, Kitsap County
Planning Department, Port Orchard, Washington, January
1977.
249
-------
11. Water Information Center, Inc. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Climates of the States, Vol. II—
Western States, Port Washington, New York, 1974.
12. Pace Corporation. Kitsap Basin Water Pollution Control and
Abatement Plan, WRA 15, 1973.
13. Sceva, Jack E. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Kitsap
County, Washington, Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1413, United States Geological Services in
cooperation with Washington State Department of
Conservation and Development, Water Resources
Division, Washington, D.C., 1957.
14. Kitsap County Conservation District. Kitsap County Rural
Development Committee, Renewable Natural Resource
Program, Port Orchard, Washington, October 9, 1975.
15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Environmental
Resources Section. Washington Environmental Atlas,
January 1972.
16. USDA Forest Service. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington,
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report,
PNW-8, 1973.
17. State Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species of
the Continental United States, Federal Register,
Vol. 40, No. 237, 1 July 1975.
18. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. United
States List of Endangered Fauna, May 1974.
19. State of Washington Department of Game. Rare Mammals of
Washington, 1 June 1973.
20. Collias, Eugene E, Lincoln, John H., Richard, Francis A. An
Oceanographic Study of the Port Orchard System,
Final Report, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, November 1975.
21. Kitsap County Planning Department. Basic Data and Related
Sources to Shorelines, Port Orchard, Washington,
February 1973.
22. Water Resources Engineers. Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound
and Adjacent Waters, prepared for EPA, Contract
No. 14-31-001-3385, April 1975.
250
-------
23. Kitsap County Planning Department. People and Kitsap - A Data
Profile of Kitsap County, Port Orchard, Washington,
October 1976.
24. Tracy, James, Director of Planning, Kitsap County Planning
Department, City of Port Orchard, Washington.
Personal communication, April 1977.
25. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Sinclair Inlet Population Projections,
Revised March 1977.
26. Kitsap County Planning Commission. Kitsap County Comprehensive
Plan (revision), Port Orchard, Washington,
March 1977.
27. Employment Security Department, State of Washington, Annual
Planning Report for Kitsap County, Washington,
July 1976.
28. Port Orchard, City of, 1977 Budget, Port Orchard, Washington,
1976.
29. U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Manpower
Profile Kitsap County, Washington, September 1972.
30. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Retail
Trade Area Statistics, 1972a.
31. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of
Manufacturers, 1972b.
32. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Wholesale
Trade Area Statistics, 1972c.
33. Bogucki, David, Fiscal Analyst, Trident Office, Port Orchard,
Washington. Personal communication, April 1977.
34. Rutherford, Fran, County Assessor, Kitsap County. Assessed
Valuations with Levies and Taxes for 1974-1977
Port Orchard, 1973-1976.
35. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Related
Service Industries, Area Statistics, 1972d.
36. Dehn, William, Project Officer, CH M-Hill, Bellevue, Washington.
Personal Communication, April 1977.
37. Caldon, Peggy, South Kitsap Chamber of Commerce Port Orchard,
Washington. Written communication received
April 1977.
251
-------
38. Medbury, Ann, Real Estate Sales License, City of Bremerton,
Washington, Personal communication, April 1977.
39. Mack, George, Partner, Roberts, Schefelman, Lawrence, Gay, and
Moch, Seattle, Washington. Personal rommunication,
April 1977.
40. Faulk, Lynn, Examiner for the State of Washington, Port
Orchard, Washington. Personal communication,
April 1977.
41. Kitsap County. L977 Budget, Port Orchard, Washington, December
10, 1976.
42. Goodpasture, Dick, Treasurer, City of Bremerton, Washington
Personal communication, April 1977.
43. Puget Sound Power & Light Company. Annual Report for the year
1975. Bellvue, Washington, March 1976.
44. Kingsbury, John. State of Washington Department of Natural
Resources, South Puget Sound Area. Personal
Communication, 9 July 1975.
45. Snyder, A. W., Division Manager, Puget Sound Power & Light
Company, Bremerton, Washington. Personal
communication, April 1977.
46. Boughner, Richard, U.S. Department of the Navy, Seattle,
Washington. Personal communication, April 1977.
47. Bremerton, City of. Official Budgt?t, 1977, Bremerton, Washington
October 6, 1976.
48. Northwest Environmental Consultants. Letter from Henry C.
Leon to Robert Smiley, Kitsap County Planning
Department, 30 April 1973.
49. Macon, Conrad. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Coastal Zone
and Estuarine Division, Seattle, Washington,
Personal communication April 1976.
50. Cummins, Joseph M. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Regional Support Laboratory, Clam Bay, Washington.
Personal communication April 1976.
252
-------
51. Cummins, Joseph M. , Bauer, R;jlph R. , Rieck, Robert H, Schmidt,
William B. and Yearsly, John R. Chemical and
Biological Survey of Liberty Bay, Washington,
for Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-910/9-76-029, September 1976.
52. Hill, Ingletnan, Chase & Co. Comprehensive Water and Sewerage
Plans for Kitsap County, Washington, 1970.
53. The URS Company. Central Kitsap Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Financial Plan for Kitsap County, Washington,
May 1976.
54. PACE Corporation. "WRIA 15, Kitsap Basin Water Pollution
Control and Abatement Plan," 1975.
55. Kitsap County Planning Department. Kitsap County, Washington, Basic
Data and Related Sources to Shorelines, February 1973.
56. Engineering-Science, Inc., Draft Environmental Impaci- Statement
on Management Plan for Wastewater Sludge l«y Metro-
politan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1,
Denver, Colorado, U.S.E.P.A., Region V1IT, Denver,
1976.
57. U.S. STORE! Retrival Date 13 April 1977.
58. Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc. Comprehensive Sewerage System
Improvement Plan for the City of Bremerton, 1974.
59. Water Quality Criteria, Report of the National Technical Advis-
ory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
April 1, 1968.
60. "Draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Toxic Pollutant
Effluent Standards," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, November 12, 1974; 40 CFR 129.
61. Brockway, D.R., "Metabolic Products and Their Effects." Prog.
Fish Culturist 12, 126 (1950).
62. Reish, D.J., The Effects of Varying Concentrations of Nutrients,
Chlorinity, and Dissolved Oxygen on Polychaetous
Annelids, Research, Pergamon Press 1970. Vol. 4,
PP 721-735.
63. Annon., "Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Sub-
committee on Toxlcities, Metal Finishing Industries
Action Committee." Report No. 3, 1950.
253
-------
64. Jones, J.R.E., "The Relation Between the Electrolytic Solution
Pressures of the Metals and Their Toxicity to the
Stickelback, (Castergsteus aculeatuls)"
Jour. Exp. Biol., 16, 425 (1939).
65. Fujiya, M., "Studies in the Effects of Copper Dissolved in Sea
Water on Oysters." Bull. Japan Soci. Fisheries
(Japan) 26:5, 462 (1960); Jour. Water Pollution
Control Fed. 33, 250 (1961).
66. McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H.W. "Water Quality Criteria" California
State Water Resources Control Board, Pub. 3-A, 1974.
67. Buckley, J.A. and Matsuda, R.I., Toxicity of the West Point
Treatment Plant Effluent to Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus
Kisutch, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
December, 1972.
68. Gill, J.M., Huguet, J.H. and Pearson, "Submarine Disposal System
for Treated Chemical Wastes." Journ. Water Pollution
Control Fed. 32, 858 (1960).
69. Gooding, D., "Pollution Research, Toxicity Studies." 64th Annual
Report, Washington State Department of Fish. (1954).
70. Corcoran, A.N., "Treatment of Cyanide Wastes from the Electro-
plating Industry." Paper Presented to Michigan
Sewage Works Association, Traverse City, Michigan
(May 25, 1949).
71. Anon., Washington State Department of Fisheries (1944).
72. Angelovic, J.W., Siegler, W.F. and Nevhold, J.M., "Temperature
and Fluorosis in Rainbow Trout." Journal Water
Pollution Control Foundation 33, 371 (.1961).
73. Washington State Research Council, Research Council's Handbook,
Olympia, Washington, 4th Edition, 1976.
74. Thompson, Terry, Financial Advisor to the City of Port Orchard,
Seattle, Washington, Personal Communication,
April 1977.
75. Mack, George, Partner, Roberts, Schefelman, Lawrence, Gay, and
Moch, Seattle, Washington. Personal Communication,
April, 1977.
76. Randall, Jack Manager, Bremerton District, Cascade Natural Gas
Company, Bremerton, Washington. Personal Communica-
tion, April and May, 1977.
254
-------
77, Brincken, Glenn, Assistant Manager, Market Service, Pugct
Sound Power and Light Company, Bremerton, Washington.
Personal Communication, May, 1977.
78. Schoneman, Fred, Commissioner of Public Works, Bremerton,
Washington. Personal Communication, April, 1977.
255
-------
-------
APPENDICES
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
WATER QUALITY REGULATION AND STANDARDS
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) established
water quality standards for all waters in the State of Washington
pursuant to.the Federal'Water Pollution Control Act of 1965. The
standards included a general classification of water courses con-
sistent with present and anticipated water uses considering exist-
ing water quality, together with water quality criteria or limits
on the values.of important physical, chemical and biological charac-
teristics for each water course class, as well as implementation
and enforcement requirements for existing waste discharges. In ad-
dition to the water quality standards, the State of Washington has
declared an antidegradation policy which says, in part, that when-
ever the natural conditions are of a higher quality than the cri-
teria assigned, the natural conditions shall constitute the water
quality criteria (Reference A-l).
Washington State waters are classified into five categories
ranging from class AA Extraordinary to class C Fair, with a special
"lake" category established for lakes and impondments. Table A-l
lists the classes of surface water in the study area and its sur-
roundings.
Table A-l. CLASSIFICATION OF SURFACE WATERS IN THE STUDY AREA
Assigned
Water body class
Puget Sound AA
Except Dyes and Sinclair Inlets, west of longitude Aa
122°37'W and south of latitude 47°35'20"N
All lakes
All lake feeder streams
All other surface waters
a
Water quality shall conform to the standards for this class with the
following Specia1 Conditions; total coliform organisms shall not ex-
ceed median values of 1,000 with less than 20 percent of samples ex-
ceeding 2,400 when associated with any fecal source.
Source: Reference A-l.
A-l
-------
Some of the more significant water'quality criteria are shown
in Table A-2. These standards apply throughout the water body ex-
cept within a limited initial mixing zone surrounding a wastewater
discharge in marine waters (Reference A-2).
Table A-2. WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
" . - -
Characteristic
Total coliform
Dissolved oxygen
PH
Temperature
Unit
MPN/100 ml
mg/1
PH
°F
Class
AA Extraordinary
<70
>7.0
7.0 - 8.5
<55
A Excellent
<70
>6.0
7.0 - 8.5
<61
Within the initial mixing zone surrounding a wastewater discharge,
State of Washington standards prohibit acute biological shock, which
means "that does or circumstance which has been demonstrated by field
or laboratory observation to directly result in mortalities of food,
game, or commercial fish species".
In order to meet the water quality standards, point sources of
wastewater are regulated by means of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) or permit system. Permits define the mini-
mum quality of discharge effluent that will maintain compliance with
water quality standards. Under the provisions of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, publicly-owned treatment
plants must provide at least secondary treatment by mid-1977 and Best
Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT) by mid-1983. Secondary
treatment is defined numerically as shown in Table A-3. Within the
Sinclair Inlet portion, the NPDES limitations are further defined to
require 85 percent removal from present conditions. These slightly
more restrictive requirements are also shown in Table A-3 for each
facility. Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology is presently
defined as secondary treatment plus any additional treatment required
to meet water quality standards. Thus it is apparent that all alter-
natives will require secondary treatment; however, some may require
further treatment in order to meet water quality standards.
Recently, EPA proposed a change in the regulations defining
secondary treatment; the change involved elimination of the fecal
coliform standard. The implication of the proposed change is that
in view of potential environmental and public, health problems as-
sociated with chlorination, the most commonly used disinfection
method, the bacteriological requirements for effluent discharge
should be established on a case-by-case basis.
A-2
-------
Table A-3. FEDERAL SECONDARY TREATMENT EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
Secondary effluent BOD^aSS5Fecal coliform
requirements (mg/1) (mg/1) no/100 ml pH
All Municipal Facilities,
General Requirements
Monthly average 30 30 200C 6.5-8.5
Weekly average 45 45 400C 6.5-8.5
Bremerton Facilities
Charleston (Monthly) 20 20
average)
Manchester (Monthly 20 20
average)
Port Orchard
(Monthly average) 25 25
KCSD No. 3-Manchester
(Monthly average) 25 25
KCSD No. 5-Retsil
(Monthly average) 25 25
•3
Five day biochemical oxygen demand
Suspended solids
£„
Geometric mean
References:
A-l State of Washington Water Quality Standards
Effective 19 July 1973; Amended 20 August 1973,
Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
Chapter 173-201 WAC
A-2 Environmental Protection Agency
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Wastewater
Facilities, Kitsap County, Washington, Prepared by
Engineering-Science, Inc., and Socio-Economic Systems,
Inc. for Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,
Seattle, Washington, 1976.
A-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
B-l BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Coniferous Forest
The Coniferous Forest unit on the Kitsap Peninsula is dominated
by Douglas-fir, primarily because of climate and human activity in
Puget Sound. Although western hemlock is considered to be the climax
species in this coastal vegetation zone, Douglas-fir is better adapted
to local climatic conditions such as less precipitation, hotter sum-
mers (and thus more evaporative stress) and a shorter growing season
(because of colder winters). Additionally, Douglas-fir is a pioneer
species, becoming established in open conditions after logging, fire,
land-clearing or other land disturbances. Other major tree species
found within this unit are western hemlock, western redcedar, western
white pine and red alder. Salal, ocean spray and evergreen huckle-
berry are among the major shrubs, with shade-tolerant herbs and ferns
comprising the understory. Animal life in this community is abundant,
harboring many nut- and insect-eating birds such as chickadees, nut-
hatches, creepers and jays. Larger birds include the blue and ruffed
grouse and predators such as Cooper's hawk and screech owls. Mammals
include several species that occur in more than one habitat, such as
the black bear, coyote, raccoon and red-backed vole.
Broadleaf Forest
The growth and development of deciduous hardwood forests is gen-
erally limited by climatic conditions. The mild Washington coastal
winters enable coniferous species to continue tissue growth at a time
when the deciduous trees are dormant. The relatively dry summers are
also unfavorable to broadleaf trees, which must channel large amounts
of energy and nutrients toward foliage production at a time when evap-
orative stress is high. Consequently, within Kitsap County, deciduous
trees and shrubs are more common in lowland areas which retain higher
soil moisture. The impact of human activities over the years has
stimulated and broadened the range of the Broadleaf Forest. Fast-
growing deciduous vegetation invades and successfully competes with
conifers in recently cleared areas, second-growth zones and urban and
auto traffic areas. Deciduous vegetation is also aided and stimulated
by human activities such as irrigation and on-site disposal systems.
B-l
-------
Red alder is a pioneer species on moist, disturbed land, and
big-leaf maple is a major component of the Broadleaf Forest unit.
Other tree species include cascara, Pacific willow, madrona, western
hemlock and Douglas-fir. Understory species are salmonberry, black-
cap, red elderberry and sword fern, as well as common herbaceous
species.
The Broadleaf Forest habitat generally has a lower tree canopy
and more intermittent open areas than does the Coniferous Forest.
The thicker understory of flowering vines, berries and shrubs in
the Broadleaf Forest is attractive to many fruit- and seed-eating
birds, such as mourning doves, juncoes, migratory warblers, thrushes
and sparrows. In addition to the larger mammals mentioned in the
discussion of the Coniferous Forest, smaller fruit- and seed-eating
mammals such as striped skunk, cottontail rabbit, townsend chipmunk
and deer mouse are prevalent. Under rocks and rotting logs are
found several salamander species: rough-skinned newt, northern
alligator lizard aad northwestern garter snake.
Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest
Much of the forested land within the study area contains a mix-
ture of the major coniferous and broadleaf species found in each of
those respective units. Soil moisture and human activity are the pri-
mary factors allowing the establishment of hardwoods among conifers.
Major tree species are Douglas-fir, western redcedar, bigleaf maple,
Pacific dogwood, red alder and western hemlock. This unit contains
some open upland areas that are being invaded by Scotch broom, red
alder, willow, madrona and Douglas-fir. The understory is lush, con-
taining thick growths of salal, red elderberry, Indian plum, swamp
gooseberry, blackcap, salmonberry, sword fern and common herbaceous
species. The fire potential in this unit is extremely high since in
many areas there is a continuous layer of fuel from ground to canopy.
Riparian vegetation along perennial creeks and watercourses can
be considered a sub-unit within the Mixed Coniferous-Broadleaf Forest.
This vegetation has a continuous supply of water that supports thick
vegetative growth and moisture-loving species. Major tree species
found in riparian zones are western redcedar, vine maple, red alder,
bigleaf maple and western hemlock. Dense growths of shrubs and herbs,
such as devil's club, blackcap, thimbleberry, stinging nettle, skunk
cabbage, sword fern and bracken fern, are found along with other char-
acteristic species. Birds particularly favoring the riparian habitat
are mourning dove, olive-sided and Traill's flycatchers, Bewick wren,
B-2
-------
all vireos, song sparrow and many warblers. Amphibians such as
boreal toad, rough-skinned newt and salamander, which occur sea-
sonally in many habitats, all return to the water habitat to mate
and spawn. Mammals frequenting the riparian habitat include the
raccoon, woodrat, deer mouse, all shrews and most bats.
Pas ture/Meadow
The pastures and meadows within the study area are fairly open
areas primarily under agricultural use. Woody vegetation scattered
throughout and on drier margins includes red alder, willow, Douglas-
fir and western white pine. The meadow species include a variety of
grasses, salmonberry, blackcap, ox-eye daisy, sword fern, rushes,
self-heal, buttercup and other common species. Land areas utilized
as rural residences and developments are also included within this
unit. Grazing, agriculture and residential activity serve to check
the invasion of the drier areas by brush and woody species.
The Pasture/Meadow habitat generally is favored by seed-eating
birds such as western meadowlark, mourning dove, Brewer's blackbird
and savannah sparrow. Secretive and burrowing mammals such as white-
footed mouse, Pacific jumping mouse and pocket gopher would be common.
Varying with the degree of moisture, the boreal toad and garter snake
are also found.
Freshwater Marsh
An upland marsh area created by springs and a high water table may
be found in areas such as the head of Beaver Creek west of Manchester.
The marsh is probably associated with the Alderwood soil series, which
is characterized as a soil with a cemented hardpan in the lower part of
the soil profile. This hardpan is impervious, preventing penetration
by plant roots and water. Since it is an area of subdued gradient, a
temporary or perched water table exists, to create marsh conditions.
This wet lowland area supports a variety of grasses, rushes, cattails,
horsetails, skunk cabbage and watercress, with occasional red alder,
willow and Douglas-fir in the drier areas.
Marsh habitat animals may include red-winged blackbird, killdeer,
barn and cliff swallows, fox and song sparrows, vagrant and other water
shrews, raccoon, Pacific treefrog and red-legged frog.
B-3
-------
Residential
The area in the vicinity of Bremerton is characterized as resi-
dential and/or urban. Vegetation within this unit consists of native
and exotic species growing in lawns, gardens and orchards and along
roadsides and other locales. Common animals include the robin, mock
ingbird, house sparrow, house finch, barn and cliff swallows, boreal
toad, garter snake and occasional raccoon and black-tailed deer.
Marine Shoreline
Sand-gravel-cobble beaches are typical of most shorelines in
Puget Sound. The extent of the beach area is dependent upon the
amount of beach drift material, current strength and degree of wave
action. Minimal or no back beach areas on eroded shores occur along
the eastern Mannette Peninsula. These shorelines have steep slopes
and bluffs resulting from a constant undercutting wave action. Vege-
tation may hang over the water, or slides may occur that expose the
underlying soil. On the other hand, accreted shorelines with moderate
to extensive back beach areas are divided into two zones: the upper
zone, generally consisting of heavier materials, with moderate to
steep slope; and the lower zone, generally consisting of lighter
materials and a shallow slope.
Shore vegetation found on the beach and upper beach areas is
exposed to the air but requires a saline water environment. Pickle-
weed, cord grass, cat's ear, rush and bulrush are common in the shore
area. These beach plants are often found on protected accreting shore-
lines which provide a gravel back beach area of sufficient width for
the plants to survive and germinate. Cord grass, rush and pickle-
weed help to stabilize accreted shorelines and act as a barrier
system against severe storms which erode shorelines. This shore
vegetation also provides food and shelter for migratory waterfowl,
shorebirds and other shoreside animals, as well as for juvenile
fish.
The predominant wildlife covers a wide range of shorebirds and
waterfowl. Resident species include killdeer; great blue heron;
sandpiper; yellowleg; dabbling ducks such as mallards, green-winged
teal, American widgeon; diving ducks such as bufflehead, goldeneye
and red-breasted merganser; and various gulls. The primary food
items for these birds are the associations of small crustaceans,
worms and molluscs in the interstices of gravel, cobble and sand.
B-4
-------
Appendix B-2
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Biotic
communities
4J
tn
01
M
£
Common name Scientific name
m
3
O
K
01
U-l
•H
C
O
0
1
Uo Broadleaf Forest
LJ Mixed Coni. -Broad
-e~ Pasture-Meadow
ui Freshwater Marsh
cr. Residential
l-j Marine Shoreline
Trees
Alder, red
Adler, Sitka
Bitter cherry
Black hawthorn
Cascara
Douglas-fir
Madrona
Maple, bigleaf
Maple, vine
Pacific crabapple
Pacific dogwood
Pacific willow
Pacific yew3
Western hemlock
Western redcedar
Western white birch
Western white pine
Shrubs
Blackberry, evergreen
Blackberry, Pacific
Blackberry, trailing
Blackcap
Devil's club
Hardhack
Hazel
Honeysuckle, orange
Honeysuckle, purple
Huckleberry, evergreen
Huckleberry, red
Indian plum
Ninebark
Ocean spray
Alnus rubra
Alnus sinuata
Prunus emarginata
Crataegus douglasii
Rhamnus purshiana
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Arbutus menziesii
Acer macrophyllum
Acer circinatum
Maius diversifolia
Cornus nuttallii
Salix lasiandra
Taxus brevifolia
Tsuga heterophylla
Thuja plicata
Betula papyrifera
Pinus monticola
Rubus laciniatas
Rubus ursinus
Rubus vitifolius
Rubus leucodermis
Oplopanax horridus
Spiraea douglasii
Corylus cornuta var, californica
LonJcera ciliosa
Lonicera hispidula
Vaccinium ovatum
Vaccinium pa^vifolium
Osmaronia cerasifor mis
Physocarpus capitatus
Holodiscus discolor
X X X X X
X
X X
X
X X
XXX XX
X X
XXX X
X
X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X
XXX
X X
X X
XXX
X X
XXX
X X
X X X X
X
XXX
X X
XXX
X
X X
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
B-5
-------
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Common name
Shrubs, cont'd
Oregon grape
Red currant
Red rhododendron
Redberry elder
Rose
Rose, wood
Salal
Salmonberry
Scotch broom
Swamp gooseberry
Thimbleberry
Twin-flower
Waxberry
Willow, Hooker
Willow, Scouler
Willow, Sitka
Herbs
Agoseris
Bedstraw
Bulrush
Bur-clover
Buttercup, creeping
Buttercup, western
Cat-tail
Choiaomile
Clover
Common horsetail
Conrnon St. Johnswort
Curly dock
Drummond rush
False Solomon's seal
Scientific name
Mahonia nervosa
Ribes sanguineum
Rhododendron macrophyllum
Sambucus callicarpa
Rosa sp.
Rosa gymnocarpa
Gaultheria shallon
Rubus spectabilis
Cytisus scoparius
Ribes lacustre
Rubus parvif lorus
Linnaea boreal is
Symphoricarpos albus
Salix hooker iana
Salix scouleriana
Salix sitchensis
Agoseris sp.
Galium boreal e
Scirpus sp.
Medicago hispida
Ranunculus repens
Ranunculus occidentalis
Typha latifolia
Anthcmis sp.
Trifolium sp.
Equisetum arvonse
Hypericum perforatum
Rumex crispus'
Juncus drunmondii
Smilacina amplexicaulis
Biotic
communities
•u -a
o> 4j co /^ Q)
01 0) C B G
h i) )-, 3 lj -H
o u oa o ra -H
tn O i -o S M U
O M •*•* cd )-i G> nj
1234567
X XX
XXX
XXX X
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
XXX
XXX X
X X
XXX
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
XX XX
X XX
X X
XX XX
XX X
X
B-6
-------
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Common name
Herbs, cont'd
Field mint
Fireweed
Forget-me-not
Foxglove
Gump 1 ant
Hairy cat's ear
Lupine
Monkey flower
Morning glory
Mountain sweetroot
Ox-eye daisy
Pea, beach
Pea, purple
Pickleweed
Plantain, common
Plantain, English
Prickly lettuce
Self-heal
Siberian miner's lettuce
Silver beachweed
Skunk cabbage
Small-flower alumroot
Snakeroot
Spring gold
Starf lower
Stinging nettle
Thistle
Vetch
Violet
Watercress
Western trillium
Scientific name
Mentha arvensis
Epilobium angusti folium
Myosotis sp.
Digitalis purpurea
Grindelia sp.
Hypochaeris radicata
Lupinus sp.
Mimulus sp.
Convol vul us sp .
Osmorhiza chilensis
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Lathyrus maritimus
Lathyrus nuttallii
Salicornia virgmica
Plantago major
Plantago lanceolata
Lactuca serriola
Prunella vulgaris
ssp. lanceolata
Claytonia sibirica
Franseria chamissonis
Lysichitum americanum
Heuchera micrantha
Sanicula sp.
Lomatium utriculatum
Trientalis latifolia
Urtica lyallii
Cirsium sp .
Vicia sp.
Viola sp.
Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum
Trillium ovatum
Biotic
Communities
"-1 Coniferous Forest
f° Broadleaf Forest
w Mixed Coni. -Broad.
** Pasture -Meadow
*•" Freshwater Marsh
&• Residential
X
X X X X
X
XX X
X
X X
X
X X X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
XX X
X
X
XXX
X X
X
X X
X X
X X X X
X X
XXX X
X
X
X X
X
•^ Marine Shoreline
X
X
X
X
X
B-7
-------
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT 'D)
Common name
Herbs, cont'd
Wild Lily of the valley
Yarrow
Youth-on-age
Ferns
Bracken
Lady
Licorice
Sword
Grass
Alkali cordgrass
Bent grass
Bluegrass
Fescue
Fescue, western
Perennial ryegrass
Prairie wedgegrass
Wheatgrass
Wildrye, blue
Wildrye, dune
Scientific name
tfaianthemum dilatation
Achillea millefolium
Tolmiea menziesii
Pteridium aquilinum var . pubescens
Athyrium filex-femina
Polypody sp.
Polystlchum munitum
Spartina gracilis
Agrostis sp.
Poa sp.
Festuca sp.
Festuca occidentalis
Lolium perenne
Sphenopholis obtusa
Agropyron sp .
Elymus glaucus
Elymus mollis
Biotic
Communities
-U "O
J B5 O C8 ft
In O 1 "D X tU
til • ft) l— 1 V4
CO -H CU M nj O
3 <*-i C 2 CU -H f.
O « o I *J u to
^ cu cj a) cd C
HI rH U 3 d) 'U
«-l 13 T3 3 J3 T3 C
•H «
-------
Appendix B-3
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Biotic
communities
CU
0
Common name Scientific name
3
O
(j
CU
U-l
1-1
c
5
1
CO
\*
o
U-l
<0
cu
H
•a
CO
o
to
2
cfl
eg
n)
~^
C
CO
i-l
^
CO
O.
•H
OS
3
3
O
•o
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Biotic
communities
ConHoon name Scientific name m
o
j-i
OJ
•H
c
3
i
&.
a)
.-(
CO
o
>-,
set
2
a
c
CD
•H
^(
CO
a
•H
3
1
t
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Bio tic
communities
41
H
O
Common name Scientific name M
s
8
41
•rt
I
1
0)
D
(4
o
£
S
r^
•o
0)
O
«
2
in
4)
O
J
e
a
•H
g.
•H
at
3
§
T3
1
I
IV
3
4J
CO
S,
u
—
•H
U
a
n
j:
n
u
a
5
rH
n
•H
C
T3
•H
a
tu
fi
•H
r-l
ai
o
«
41
e
-H
C9
7
Land-associated birds (cont'd)
Screech owl
Short-eared owl
Anna's hummingbird
Rufous hummingbird
Belted kingfisher
Red-shafted flicker
Hairy woodpecker
Downy woodpecker
Say's phoebe
Traill's flycatcher
Western flycatcher
Olive-sided flycatcher
Horned lark
Violet-green swallow
Barn swallow
Cliff swallow
Steller's jay
Common crow
Black-capped chickadee
Chestnut-backed chickadee
Common bushtit
Red-breasted nuthatch
Brown creeper
Dipper
Bewick's wren
Robin
Varied thrush
Swainson's thrush
Townsend's solitaire
Golden-crowned kinglet
Water pipit
Cedar waxwing
Button's vireo
Warbling vireo
Orange-crowned warbler
Yellow warbler
Myrtle warbler
Audobon's warbler
Black-throated gray warbler
Townsend's warbler
MacGillivray's warbler
Wilson's warbler
House sparrow
Western meadowlark
Red-winged blackbird
Otus asio
Asia /Jammeus
Calypte anna
Selasphorus rufus
Megacezyle alcyon
Colaptes cafer
Dendrocopos villosus
Dendrocopos pubescens
Sayornis sayos
Empidonax tralllii
Empidona difficilis
Nuttallornis borealis
Eremophila alpestris
Tachycineta thalassina
Hirundo rustica
Petrochelidon pyrrlxinota
Cyanocitta stelleri
Corvus caurinus
Parus atricapillus
Paius rufescens
Psaltriparus minimus
Sitta canadensis
Certha familiar is
Cinclus mexicanus
Thryomanes bevickii
Turdus migratorius
Ixoreus naevius
Hylocichla ustulata
Myadestes tovnsendi
Regains satrapa
Anthus spinoletta
Botnbycilla cedrorum
Vireo huttoni
Vireo gilvus
Vermivora celata
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica audonboni
Dendroica nigrescens
Dendroica townsendi
Oporornis tolmiei
Wilsonia pusilla
Passer domesticus
Sturnella neglects
Agelaius phoeniceus
0 C 0
0 C 0
0 0
0 0 C
000
C C 0
C 0
CO 0
00 0
0 C
C 0
C C C
C 0
000 0
C C C 0
0 0 C
CO 0
coo
0 C C
C C
0 C C
C
C
0
00 0 C 0
C C
C
C C
C
C
00 0
000
0 0
C C
C
CO 0
0 C
C 0 C
C
C
0 C
COO 0
0 C
C
0 C
B-ll
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
key to occurrence
C • common or seasonal resident
0 - occasional
Riotic
communit ies
Common name
Land-associated birds (cont'd)
Brewer's blackbird
Bullock's oriole
Western tanager
Evening grosbeak
Pine grosbeak
Purple finch
House finch
Pine siskin
American goldfinch
Red crossbill
Rufous- sided towhee
Slate-colored junco
Oregon Junco
Savannah sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
Golden-crowned sparrow
Song sparrow
Scientific name
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Icterus bullockii
Piranga ludoviclana
Hesperiphona vespertina
Pinicola enucleator
Carpodacus purpureus
Carpodacus mexicanus
Spinus pinus
Spinus tristis
Loxia curvirostra
Pipilio erythrophthalmus
Junco by emails
Junco oreganus
Passerculus sandvichensis
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Zonotrichia atricapilla
Helospiza melodla
CO
01
M
O
Pu
CO
s
o
M
O>
U-l
1-1
C
3
i
c
c
c
0
c
0
0
0
4J
CO
11
0
u.
IM
It
HI
,_4
CO
O
2
C
C
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
c
0
CO
^
3
^.
c
co
•H
to
a.
•H
ti
3
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
C
o
T3
o
s:
GJ
^i
tj
CO
0)
(X
4
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"us
•H
o a)
to *H
M C
-~- 0)
£ T3
01 -H
U CO
S CJ
5 6
0
0
0
0
C
c
c
C 0
-------
Appendix B-4
MAMMALS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Biotic
communities
Common name
Dusky shrew
Vagrant shrew
Water shrew
Marsh shrew
Masked shrew
Scientific name
Sorex obscurus
Sorex vagrans
Sorex palustris
Sorex bendirii
Sorex cinereus
W -u .C 0)
DO) 01 C
M 0) C 3 M -H
O M
-------
MAMMALS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Biotic
communities
Common name
Scientific name
Coniferous Foresi
Broadleaf Forest
Mixed/Riparian
Pasture Meadow
Freshwater Marsh
Residential
Marine Shoreline
1234567
Bushy-tailed wood rat
Northern bog vole
Capper red-backed mouse
Long-tailed meadow mouse
Oregon meadow mouse
Townsend meadow mouse
Musfcrat
Pacific jumping mouse
Coyote
Black bear
Racoon
Ermine
Long-tailed weasel
Fisher
Mink
Mar ten
Striped skunk
Spotted skunk
River otter
Sea otter
Mountain lion
Bobcat
Harbor seal
Black-tailed deer
Canadian elk
Neotoma cinerea
Synaptomys borealIs
Clethrionomys gapperi
Microtus longicaudus
Microtus oregoni
Microtus townsendii
Ondatra zibetnica
Zapus trinotatus
Canis latrans
Euarctos americanus
Procyon lotor
Mustela erminea
MusteJia fernata
Martes pennant!
Mustela vison
Martes americana
Mephitis mephitis
Spilogale putorius
Lutra canadensis
Enydra lutris
Pel is concolor
Lynx rufus
Phoca vitulina
Odocoileus hemionus columbianus
Cervus canadensis nelsoni
x x
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X X X X X
XXX
X X X X X X
X
XXX
X
X X
XXX
X X X X
X X X X
X
XXX
X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X
B-14
-------
si-a
co C O*
O 00 f
ft\ rt ET
H* C
n en re
O CO
M C rt
c 3 ro
rr a. if
a* 3
re f
if (0 00
ex to
O" 1 If
o co rt
O. ft
fD
CX CD
3
00 CU
5s"
(1)
If
co
g
ID
O "-3 '-a
IM 5 S
I-- 3 3
S O O
81 •§••§•
tr I*. I-.
s ordinoi
s sirtali
ottae bot
n- ia a
Bl It
it •« (n
h>.
a o
Pr ft
(D CX
h«. a
3 O
^*. (X
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X
X X
j?
ro
JJ
CO
^«l
p.
00
Co
It
o
If
J '
p.
N
CO
ex
C?
1-1
§•
§
rt
us coeruJ
n>
c
01
•a
^,_
»3
rj
i-.
•a
OJ
X
X
X
z:
ro
tn
re
3
CO
•o
0
rt
rt
re
ex
?
o
00
oi
3
Bi
•J?
ID
rt
K>.
0
0)
Bl
"8
n>
rt
o"
fil
X
X
X
C? i?
If If
CO 3"
i-" ro
rt 3
O
CO If
ex re
a.
re
oa
OQ
re
ex
1^1
r-|
o
OQ
to So
C fll
H, 3
O Bi
ty fll
^
IB O
ra aurora
as boreas
X
X X
X
X
X
H CD
p. P--
I--* h-~
ro f**
ex if
o
i-n OQ
if
0
OQ
0) Bl
0 3
Bi Bi
•§•0
C Bi
Oi rt
n>
sbelana
truei
X
X X
X X
13
B)
o
i-h
P-
O
rr
re
ro
if
o
05
5
Ctl
h
i
^
l-l
Oi
X
X
X
PC
c
c
OQ
1
CO
^*
P-
3
ro
ex
3
re
(T
If
K*>
o
Bi
U5
ranuJosa
X
X
X
X
co"
3
O
^
77*
ft
••
01
01
CO
f
3
CO
3
ex
re
ra
rt
rj
§•
3
vand'Jkei
Bi
a
^«
n>
p.
X
X
X
flf fl>
CO O
rt p-
ro HI
ft P-
s o
if OQ
ro P-
CX CO
I 3
0- rt
Co
o co
*- co
ro M
ft. CO
3
in co
Co 3
I-1 CX
co ro
3 ^
CO
3
CX
re
n
5 £>
h-J h*.
(tt 0
rt fy
0 ^
fi, rt
O O
3 CX
on ensatu,
vehicului
g 01
X X
X X
X X
o' o
H f
rt rt
u n"
ro C
f re
3 in
rt
o ro
1— H
><: 3
3
"O CO
p. Co
n i-1
CO
tn 3
CO CO
M 3
CO CX
3 ro
Co If
a
ro
if
tc &•
Bi 1C
stoma
cotri
gracile <
ton olymp
grraci.
icus (
U l~.
KJ (Q
>E
3
•a
P.
0
c
(0
X X
X X
X X
s
ro
en
rt
ro
If
3
h-»
O
3
TO
1
rt
O
ro
ex
01
CO
i — >
S
3
CO
3
a.
ro
if
tr
*c
stoma
macrodac
n-
3
ftj
O
a
Bi
O
rt
X
X
X
M
ro
w
*-
0.
01
o
o
3
g
Coniferous Forest
<•«> Broadleaf Forest
Mixed/Riparian
Pasture-Meadow
Freshwater Marsh
Residential
Marine Shoreline
o
o
c o
3 rt
re
CO
(D
3
W
Ui
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
MODELING OF WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
To relate effluent quality and the water quality standards, it is
necessary to consider the mechanisms that affect marine wastewater dis-
posal. Discharged wastewater, being less dense than the surrounding
ocean water, ascends from the point of discharge in the form of an ex-
panding plume. As the wastewater rises, it mixes with the adjacent
ocean water until the density of the wastewater-ocean water mixture
becomes equal to the density of the surrounding ocean water.
Dilution effected during this process is called initial dilution
and results from the mixing induced by the dissipation of energy as
the initial and buoyant momentums of the discharged wastewater are ex-
hausted. The degree of initial dilution depends on the diffuser de-
sign, the height of the rising plume, and the rate of transport of di-
luted wastewater away from the area above the diffuser. The rising
plume may stabilize at or below the ocean surface, depending on the
discharge depth and the prevailing density structure of the ocean. As
the wastewater-seawater field moves away from the discharge point, it
is subject to further dilution due to horizontal dispersion. Concen-
trations of nonconservative waste constituents are still further re-
duced by decay or disappearance.
Because the purpose of the diffuser system is to induce rapid mix-
ing of effluent with seawater in order to minimize the possibility of
contact between marine organisms and high concentrations of wastewater,
it is apparent that the initial dilution is the most important of the
diminution processes. Effective initial dilution depends on two phenom-
ena: rapid momentum-induced mixing of wastewaters with seawater, and
transport of clean dilution water across the site. The former phenom-
enon can be controlled by the system designer, provided an adequate
depth of water exists, while the latter is an uncontrollable natural
characteristic of the discharge site. In general, it is the latter
phenomenon that controls the degree of initial dilution obtainable at
a specific site.
Once initial dilution is completed, further waste concentration
dimunition depends on horizontal dispersion and decay mechanisms. For
waste constituents that do not decay rapidly, the degree of flushing
or residence time of waters within the boundaries of the receiving
area determines the steady-state concentrations of waste constituents
that will remain.
C-l
-------
Thus it becomes apparent that with respect to both initial dilu-
tion and horizontal dispersion a key issue in comparing candidate
sites is the degree of mixing that occurs at oach site. Another key
issue—the relative sensitivity of the biological community in the dis-
charge area—is considered elsewhere in this report.
In the course of facilities planning activities, tvo models were
used to study water quality and mixing within the study area: mathemati-
<"al ecologic model applied by EPA to a part of Puget Sound, and the
University of Washington's physical model of Puget Sound. Each of the
models is described briefly below, together with a discussion of its
limitations.
The Ecologic Model
A mathematical model was used to simulate and link together ecologic
succession from primary producers through successively higher levels in
the marine environment. The ecologic model was combined with a hydro-
dynamic model in order to predict water quality and biological character-
istics that might occur as a result of waste discharge.
Due to limitations in the data base for verification and the fact
that the relationships between different trophic levels are only poorly
understood, the model is of limited use in simulating the effects of
waste discharge upon water quality and biological characteristics in
Puget Sound at the present time. To quote the modeling report "The
ecologic model can only be considered as a preliminary tool for
evaluating water quality effects of waste discharge upon Port Orchard.
The simulations should be evaluated principally in terms of relative
effects." For these reasons it is concluded that the ecologic model is
of little or no value in comparing outfall sites for the Sinclair Inlet
planning area.
The Physical Mode]
The second model used in the studv was the ITniversitv of Washington
hydraulic model. The final report on the hydraulic model studies of the
possible outfall locations within the Port Orchard System and its
connecting passageways and inlets was submitted to the URS Company in
November 1975. Some measurements of water movements in the field were
made with vessel-mounted current meters and drogues in order to verity
the model results.
The study area for the physical hyrdaulic model encompasses an
area about 12 miles wide, from the edge of Dyes Inlet eastward to Point
C-2
-------
Jefferson, and about 16 miles long, from Sinclair Inlet eastward to
Point Jefferson and beyond. Given the horizontal scale ratio for the
Puget Sound model, this area represents a rectangular grid 19 inches
wide by approximately 25 inches long. Hydraulic modeling of such a
physically small area can give erroneous results if extensive care is
not taken to assure precise measurement of all controllable parameters.
Vertical and horizontal scale ratios were adjusted to reduce possible
side effects of surface tension and laminar flow, thus producing better
results. In general, model results can be regarded as accurate, but
there are limitations to this model which raise questions regarding the
ability of the model to simulate water circulation in relatively shallow
waters such as the lower part of Sinclair Inlet.
There are three major limitations of this model which cannot be
avoided. Because of the effects of surface tension and land topogra-
phy it was not possible to incorporate the effects of wind into the
modeling of the study area. Winds and the waves caused by winds
contribute significantly to mixing. Surface drag between wind and water
interfaces can modify tides, surface transport of the effluent and water
exchange processes.
Surface tension is also an important factor in the scaling of any
large body of water with a relatively shallow depth. Its effects
strongly influence water movement in shoals or near the shoreline,
especially in areas where current velocities are low enough that the
water in the basin remains relatively undisturbed. As a result of
surface tension, estimations of current velocities are unreliable
where real tidal currents are weak.
Viscosity is another factor that cannot be scaled; thus, the pos-
sibility of laminar flow in the model exists where turbulent flow
actually occurs in the area under consideration. This limitation, like
that relating to current velocity, is due to scale effects of the model.
C-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
D-l BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
The Marine ecosystem within the waterways, inlets and passages of
Puget Sound is a complex system with myriad links and multiple affect-
ing factors. The Kitsap County marine environment has been described
in detail in Basic Data and Related Sources to Shorelines by the Kitsap
County Planning Department. The inventory was compiled from marine
biological records of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife,
Department of Interior in conjunction with Evergreen State College and
the North Kitsap Marine Environmental Center, Poulsbo, Washington.
Portions of this report are quoted extensively below.
Marine Vegetation
Vegetation in saltwater and estuarine areas of Puget Sound
and connected waterways is very important to the marine environ-
ment. Marine vegetation can provide the following benefits:
stabilization of the beach shore system and the subtidal shore
system; an environment for wildlife, benthic and other marine
life; energy through the photosynthesis process; increased pro-
ductivity in the marine environment; food for all forms of marine
life. Examples of marine vegetation are kelp, eel grass (Zostera),
green and brown algae—commonly known as seaweed—and other
forms of floating plants.
Eel grass and kelp are important dominants and are discussed below.
Eel Grass
Eel grass can be found in areas with high water salinities,
moderate water currents and semistable sandy bottoms, and usually
at depths lower than one foot below mean lower low water. Eel
grass is a cyclical (seasonal) plant that thrives in warm water
temperatures ... (from 10°-20 C during the summer, being dormant
in cooler fall and winter water temperatures, below 10 C). Eel
grass is a food source for black brant, detritous feeders such
as limpets and snails, and other marine life.
D-l
-------
The heavy beds of underwater eel grass provide ... (excellent)
photosynthetic food production capability. They aie used by
spawning herring and provide nursery areas for small shore
fishes and salmonids. The eel grass beds also provide habitat
for certain benthic organisms and crustaceans.
Kelp beds can be readily seen at low tides along rocky
shorelines where current flow is swift and water salinities
are high. A long, whip-like cord, anchored at one end to a
rock or other object, ... (extends upward 30 to 60 feet toward
the surface to a mass of long, tough fronds). Kelp beds pro-
vide a dense, jungle-like environment at mid-depth in the water
column, like large underwater trees. Kelp beds are prime habi-
tat areas for fish such as copper rock cod; kelp cod, kelp crab,
perches and other small fish.
Marine Habitat
The marine shorelines of the study area can be grouped into three
habitat zones. This classification provides a basic understanding of
the general character of shorelines and the associated marine life.
River-Creek Mouth
The river-creek mouth may either be an open system (e.g.,
Chico Creek on lower Dyes Inlet) or be enclosed by a system of
sand spits ... {or one that has resulted from human interven-
tion (Clear Creek on upper Dyes Inlet)}. Sand and silt usually
comprise the bottom materials. For anadromous fish (salmonids)
spawning in tributaries to these areas, the salt/fresh water
area is used by descending young salmonids for feeding, as a
transition zone between fresh and saltwater, and as a refuge
from predators. The substrate in these areas provides and har-
bors organisms that are extensively grazed upon by juvenile
pink and chum salmon. Other fish make extensive use of these
areas for feeding and as a nursey area. Such fish include
starry flounder, stickleback, eulachon, surf perch, sculpin,
Pacific herring, surf smelt and various species of flounder
and sole. Some fish may spawn in these areas. At depths
greater than one foot below mean lower low water, eel grass may
be present. (Pacific herring and surf perch may spawn here.)
D-2
-------
Dungeness crab (particularly juveniles) feed extensively in this
type of habitat during the summer and fall months. Shrimp
usually inhabit the bottom substrate. If bottom conditions are
favorable, clams may be found in the sediment.
Steelhead salmon and cutthroat trout have been observed in the lagoon
at the mouth of Clear Creek.
Wildfowl, particularly heron, are attracted to estuarine environ-
ments and sandy beaches. Herons are common in these areas, yet the
Pacific Flyway population is small. Shore birds feed on the numerous
snails, worms and insects of the estuaries and shorelands. Some species
also nest in the near vicinity, under the protection of cover and trees.
The river-creek mouth areas are also important for food and shelter to
all wildfowl during climatic stress conditions such as prolonged cold
periods, strong winds and severe storms. Marsh grasses usually border
the shoreline areas of estuaries. Nutrients produced by these plants
feed the food chain mechanisms and associated plant and animal commu-
nities in other types of habitat adjacent to river and creek mouths.
Open-Mud Bays
Open-mud bays without fresh water source (e.g., lower por-
tions of Dyes Inlet and Liberty Bay) are characterized by an
extensive intertidal zone, large mud flat areas and marsh
grasses around the periphery. Sand and silt usually make up
the bottom materials. Lack of fresh water ... (limits) use of
these areas by juvenile salmonids as a transition zone between
fresh and saltwater; however they still provide rich feeding
areas for juvenile salmonids. Shallow water provided by this
type of habitat also provides refuge for young salmon from
larger predatory fish. Other fish make extensive use of these
areas for feeding and as a nursery area. Such fish include
starry flounder, stickleback, eulachon, surf perch, sculpin,
Pacific herring and various species of flounder and sole. At
depths greater than one foot below mean lower low water, eel
grass may occur, ... (providing spawning conditions for Pacific
herring and surf perch). Dungeness crab, oysters and oyster
drills are found in Chico Bay.
Salmon and cutthroat trout are found along the entire shoreline of Dyes
Inlet. Smelt historically have spawned on the shoreline from Chico Bay
to Silverdale. Littleneck and butter clams may be found at the head of
Dyes Inlet, while bent-nose clams and other clams, shore crabs, barna-
cles, snails, tube worms and sand dollars are found in the general area.
Nutrients produced by the marsh grasses and algal communi-
ties of this habitat serve to sustain food chain mechanisms and
associated communities in other types of habitat adjacent to
these areas.
D-3
-------
Sand-Gravel-Cobble Beach
Sand-gravel-cobble beach are typical of most shorelines in
Kitsap County. Most of the beaches in Puget Sound fall into
this category. Marsh grass is usually not present or is found
in very limited distribution in association with this type of
habitat. Rockweed and sea lettuce are the types of vegetation
usually found in the middle of low tide zones. Eel grass might
be present at depths greater than one foot below mean lower low
water. At about this depth, the bottom will usually be of a
sandy type, with less rock ... (except at protruding points of
land). Anadromous fish utilize these shorelines as migrating
areas, for feeding and as protection from predators. Cutthroat
trout, salmon and rockfish can be found along the shoreline.
Benthic examination off Point Herron revealed periwinkles, lim-
pets, shore crabs and barnacles. Herring also spawn off Point
Herron. Subtidal geoduck are found from Ilahee to University
Point. Subtidal geoduck are found from Ilahee to University
Point. At Ilahee, butter, littleneck and bent-nose clam, barna-
cle, shore and butter crab, tube worm, mussel and periwinkle
have been found.
Wildfowl also utilize this type of habitat. Use is usually depen-
dent on the presence of some type of vegetation on the bottom inter-
face, fish concentrations or presence of aquatic vegetation in areas
where fresh water crosses the beach. Bars, spits and gravel beaches
are favored by wintering black brant, which travel in great numbers
along the Pacific Flyway.
Vertical Zones
Plant and animal life within the marine environment normally exhi-
bit a vertical stratification representing three ecological niches.
They are the benthic, water column and surface zones, which are dis-
tinct and yet interact with each other. The benthic zone includes the
bottom sediments and the associated immediately overlying areas. The
water column zone is that portion of the marine environment where the
water column meets the benthic zone to two feet under the water sur-
face. The surface zone is that portion of the water environment above
the water column zone to six feet above the surface of the water body.
The Benthic Zone
The benthic community essentially covers all bottom-dwelling plants
and animals. These include infauna living within the substrate, such
as clams and worms, and epifauna utilizing the zone above the substrate,
such as crabs, barnacles, mussels, limpets and snails.
D-4
-------
Man places a direct value on some of the benthic organisms,
such as clams, oysters, other edible molluscs and crustaceans.
Others, while not seeming to be of value, are actually of great
indirect importance through various food-chain and food-web
relationships. Barnacles, which are abundant in the intertidal
zone are often considered a nuisance, at worst, and of no im-
portance at best. They are actually an important source of food
for several species, including the pile perch. The bent nose
clam, while it seldom attains a size large enough for people to
feast on, is the victim of an interesting feeding relationship
in which the English sole bites off the siphon of the clam if
the fish finds it sticking up from the sand. Both the perch
and the sole are food for man.
Other seemingly unimportant benthic organisms, such as
isopods, amphipods, polychaete and nemertean worms, should not
be overlooked, as they too are part of intricate food-web re-
lationships that may involve man.
Many of the worms and crustaceans play an important role
in the ecology of the benthic community by acting as scaven-
gers, eating dead plants and animals on the bottom and helping
to convert them back to nutrients for the algae.
The numbers and types of benthic organisms that inhabit a particu-
lar area are dependent upon factors such as degree of slope, substrate
composition, tide level, wave action and influences of man.
Within the planning area, baseline benthic data for Puget Sound
are currently being collected at Shoreline Community College. Limited
data on sampling stations in Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet, Port Orchard,
Rich Passage and Puget Sound near Bainbridge Island have been extracted
from studies by J. C. Serwold (Reference D-l). Benthic sampling loca-
tions are shown on Figure 11-11. Preliminary benthic data for selected
locations are given in Table 11-16.
In the shallow portions of Dyes Inlet—less than 20 feet deep—are
found Washington clam (Saxidomonas gigantus), manila clam (Venerupis
japonica), cockles (Clinocardium nuttalli), lean dog whelk (Nassarius
mendicus) and over 15 species of polychaete worms, of which the lumber-
inerids, ampharetids, orbiniids and trichobranchids are most common.
In the lower end of Sinclair Inlet—less than 30 feet deep—are
Washington clam, the small clams Axinopsis serricatus and Psephidia
lordi, lumberinerid and cirratulid polychaetes and some unidentified
cumaceans.
At the mouth of Rich Passage offshore of Manchester, in water
depths greater than 60 feet, were found large concentrations of the
small clam Axinopsis serricatus and some Macoma carlottensis. Poly-
chaetes were generally scarce.
D-5
-------
Benthic fishes in the general study area include spiny dogfish;
bay goby; great, rough-back and Pacific sculpins; speckled sanddab;
starry flounder; and flathead, rock, slender, English, C-0 and sand
sole. A more complete listing of probably occurring fish species is
given in Appendix D-3.
The Water Column Zone
Marine life in the water column zone is extremely complex and dif-
ficult to comprehend completely. It has been observed that many ani-
mals, including salmonids, rockfish, bottom fish, herring, oysters and
shrimp, utilize the water body. These life forms each have a life
cycle in which from birth to maturity there are strict requirements or
limits within their migratory or territorial ranges for survival.
The intertidal and the subtidal zones, where the process of
photosynthesis is carried on, is important to the existence of
these fish. The intertidal zone is visited by many fish, es-
pecially at nighttime, to feed on the collected waste, decom-
posed plant life, smaller shore life and other smaller fishes
on the bottom. During the daytime, the larger fish retreat to
safe deeper waters. Shallow bay and shoreline areas are neces-
sary during the infant state of development for many fishes.
Important local fish species in the water column include stickle-
back, eulachon, bay pipefish, pricklebacks, shiner and pile perch,
striped and white seaperch, sturgeon and pygmy poacher. Fishes favor-
ing algal and other vegetative associations include northern clingfish,
plainfin midshipman, blackbelly eelpout, whitespotted greenling and
longspine combfish. Other pelagic fishes include Pacific herring, sal-
mon, Pacific cod, Pacific hake, walleye pollock and Pacific tomcod. A
more complete list of probably occurring fish species is given in.
Appendix D-3.
The Surface Zone
The surface zone is used for navigation, water contact
sports and visual and aesthetic appreciation; as a resting area
for wildfowl; and for protection of small fish, predation by
larger fish and swimming by mammals such as seals and otters.
(This zone is utilized by all life forms, including—indirectly
—benthic life in the intertidal zone.) Phytoplankton require
high percentages of light transmission to carry on the photo-
synthesis process.
D-6
-------
Increased water turbidity or any activity which occupies the
total surface zone hinders any other use of that zone and halts
phytoplankton production. Since the surface zone consists of an
interface of water element and air element, it is important to
consider this zone as an edge environment which is affected by
activity or development on either side.
Algal concentration studies for Sinclair and Dyes Inlet were
performed in Ecologic Modeling of Pugct Sound and Adjacent Waters
(Reference D-2). Although limited phytoplankton data were avai-
lable for the calibration, the algal concentrations were studied
for their value as an indicator of productivity in the marine
environment and as an indicator of other factors, such as nutrients,
light, certain growth coefficients and zooplankton. Computed algal
biomass concentrations in Dyes and Sinclair Inlets are shown in
Figure 11-12. A species nonspecific algal biomass was computed,
based on 80 mg biomass corresponding to one mg chlorophyll a.
In winter, the model computed the lowest algal biomass with an
average of 800 yg/1 in Port Orchard. Spring values were higher,
presumably due to increased light (heat) energy and upstream
nutrient inputs. Concentrations exceeding 1,500 ug/1 were computed
for Sinclair Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, Dyes Inlet and Liberty
Bay. Model results show that summer algal concentrations dropped
to approximately 500 pg/1 in the bays and inlets while remaining
relatively high in Port Washington Narrows and near Bremerton.
By contrast, the main channel of Puget Sound, near Bainbridge
Island, ranges from 5 yg/1 in the winter to 348 pg/1 in the spring.
Model results can only approximate true conditions, which could
vary from those predicted.
The seasonal pattern of variation in algal concentration tends
to infer that phytoplankton in Puget Sound are primarily limited
by light and secondarily by the input of nutrients. Continuously
high concentrations from spring to summer in Port Washington Narrows
reflects the nutrient loading from the Manette Sewage Treatment
Plant wastewater outfall on the western shore of East Bremerton
and the return of much of that wastewater at each tidal cycle.
REFERENCES
D-l. Serwold, J. C., Marine Technician Training Program, Unpublished
(1973-74).
D-2. Water Resources Engineers, "Ecologic Modelling of Puget Sound
and Adjacent Waters," prepared for EPA Contract No. 14-31-
001-3385, April 1975.
D-7
-------
Appendix D-2
ESTIMATED SALMON NUMBERS IN STUDY AREA STREAMS
Stream
Name
Chico
and tributaries
Blackjack
and tributaries
Illahee
Ross
Gorst
Anderson
Annapolis
Mosher
Sullivan
Accessible
length
(km)
14.5
14.6
2.3
2.6
1.0
0.6
0.2
1.3
Blockage
Potential
Run Size
Coho Chum
1,800 8,400
1,384 2,400
170
200
220 1,000
40 200
40
40
at mouth, no salmon use
Potential
Outmigration
Coho Chum
22,000
17,000
2,000
2,400
2,700
500
500
500
1,764,000
504,000
-
-
215,250
43,000
-
-
Source: Washington Department of Fisheries, Mr. Gordon Zillges,
October 1977.
D-8
-------
Appendix D-3
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Common Name
River lamprey
Sixgill shark
Basking shark
Salmon shark
Brown cat shark
Pacific sleeper shark
Spiny dogfish
Pacific angel shark
Pacific electric ray
Big skate
Longnose skate
Ratfish
White sturgeon
American shad
Pacific herring
Pacific sardine
Northern anchovy
Pink salmon
Chum salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon
Chinook salmon
Cutthroat trout
Rainbow trout
Dolly Varden
Surf smelt
Longfin smelt
Eulachon
Longnose lancetfish
California headlightf ish
Northern lampfish
Plainfin midshipman
Northern clingfish
Pacific cod
Pacific hake
Pacific tomcod
Walleye pollock
Red brotula
Pallid eelpout
Shortfin eelpout
Black eelpout
Wattled eelpout
Blackbelly eelpout
Tube-snout
Threespine stickleback
Bay pipefish
Shiner perch
Striped seaperch
White seaperch
Pile perch
Scientific Name
Laaipetra ayresi
Hexanchus griseus
Cetorhinus inaximus
Lamna ditropis
Apristurus brunneus
Soroniosus pacific us
Squalus acanthias
Squatina California
Torpedo California
Raja binoculata
Raja rhina
Hydrolagus colliei
Acipenser transmontanus
Alosa sapidissiwa
Clupea harengus pallasi
Sardinops sagax
Engraulis mordax
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus tshawytseha
Salmo clarki
Salmo gairdneri
Salvelinus malma
Hypomesus pretiosus
Spirinchus thaleichthys
Thaleichthys pacificus
Alepisaurus ferox
Diaphus theta
Stenobrachius leucopsarus
Porichthys natatus
Gobiesox maeandricus
Gadus macrocephalus
Merluccius productus
Microgadus proximus
Theragra chalcograrma
Brosmophycis marginata
Lycodapus mandibularis
Ly codes brevipes
Ly codes diapterus
Ly codes pa Jeans
Lycodopsis pacifica
Aulorhynchus flavidus
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Syngnathus griseolineatus
Cymatogaster aggregata '
Embiotoca lateralis
Phanerodon furcatus
Rhacochilus vacca
Central
Puget Sound
+
+
+
*
0
+
+
*
0
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
*
*
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
+
*
*
0
*
A
*
0
0
0
Port
Orchard
0
+
*
*
*
+
+
0
-L
*
*
+
+
+
0
*
0
+
0
*
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
0
*
*
0
0
0
+
0
Seattle
+
+
+
+
*
+
0
+
+
*
0
+
*
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
*
+
*
0
*
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
*
*
+
it
+
0
0
*
0
0
0
•f
0
D-9
-------
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Central
Port
Puget Sound Orchard
Seattle
Pacific barracuda
Northern ronquil
High cockscomb
Hogshead warbonnet
Decorated warbonnet
Daubed shanny
Snake prickleback
Ribbon prickleback
Bluebarred prickleback
Whitebarred prickleback
Black prickleback
Penpoint gunnel
Crescent gunnel
Saddleback gunnel
Rockweed gunnel
Wolf-eel
Quillfish
Giant wrytnouth
Dwarf wrymouth
Pacific sand lance
Arrow goby
Blackeye goby
Bay goby
Pacific bonito
Pacific pompano
Ragfish
Brown rockfish
Copper rockfish
Darkblotched rockfish
Splitnose rockfish
Greenstriped rockfish
Puget Sound rockfish
Yellowtail rockfish
Quillback rockfish
Black rockfish
Tiger rockfish
Bocaccio
Canary rockfish
Redstripe rockfish
Yelloweye rockfish
Stripetail rockfish
Sharpchin rockfish
Shortspine thornyhead
Sablefish
Kelp greenling
Rock greenling
Whitespotted greenling
Lingcod
Painted greenling
Longspine combfish
Sphyraena argentea
Ronquilus jordani
Anoplarchus purpurescens
Chirolophis nugator
Chirolophis polyactocephalus
Lumpenus maculatus
Lumpenus sagitta
Phytichthys chirus
Plectobranchus evides
Poroclinus rothrocki
Xiphister atropurpureus
Apodichthys flavidus
Pholis laeta
Pholis ornata
Xererpes fucorum
Anarrhichtnys ocellatus
Ptilichthys goodei
Delolepis gigantea
Lyconectes aleutensis
Ammodytes hexapterus
Cleveland!a ios
Coryphopterus nicholsi
tepidogobius lepidus
Sarda chiliensis
Peprilus simillimus
Icosteus aenigmaticus
Sebastes auriculatus
Sebastes caurinus
Sebastes cratneri
Sebastes diploproa
Sebastes elongatus
Sebastes emphaeus
Sebastes flavidus
Sebastes maliger
Sebastes melanops
Sebastes nigrocinctus
Sebastes paucispinis
Sebastes pinniger
Sebastes proriger
Sebastes ruberrimus
Sebastes saxicola
Sebastes zacentrus
Sebastolobus alascanus
Anoplopoma fimbria
Hexagratmnos decagramnus
Hexagranmos lagocephalus
Hexagrammos stelleri
Ophiodon elongatus
Oxylebius pictus
zaniolepis latipinnis
*
*
0
•f
4-
0
*
•f
•f
0
*
D-10
-------
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Common Name
Scientific Name
„ Cent"1 „
Puget Sound
nPo« J
Orchard
Seattle
Padded sculpin
Scalyhead sculpin
Smoothhead sculpin
Puget Sound sculpin
Rosylip sculpin
Silverspotted sculpin
Roughback sculpin
Sharpnose sculpin
Calico sculpin
Mosshead sculpin
Spinyhead sculpin
Buffalo sculpin
Soft sculpin
Red Irish lord
Northern sculpin
Threadfin sculpin
Spotfin sculpin
Longfin sculpin
Pacific staghorn sculpin
Great sculpin
Sailfin sculpin
Tidepool sculpin
Saddleback sculpin
Tadpole sculpin
Slim sculpin
Grunt sculpin
Cabezon
Manacled sculpin
Roughspine sculpin
Ribbed sculpin
Northern spearnose poacher
Sturgeon poacher
Smooth alligatorfish
Gray starsnout
Spinycheek starsnout
Bigeye poacher
Blackfin poacher
Pygmy poacher
Tubenose poacher
Blacktip poacher
Bluespotted poacher
Ribbon snailfish
Marbled snailfish
Tidepool snailfish
Slipskin snailfish
Showy snailfish
Tadpole snailfish
Pacific sanddab
Speckled sanddab
Arrowtooth flounder
Petrale sole
Rex sole
Flathead sole
Pacific halibut
Artedius fsnestralis
Artedius harringtoni
Artedius lateralis
Artedius meanyi
Ascelichthys rhodorus
Blepsias cirrhosus
Chitonotus pugetensis
Clinocottus acuticeps
Clinocottus ernbryum
Clinocottus globiceps
Dasycottus setiger
Enophrys bison
Cilbertidia sigalutes
Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus
Icelinus borealis
Icelinus filamentosus
Icelinus tenuis
Jordan!a zonope
Leptocottus armatus
Myoxocephalus
polyacanthocephalus
Nautichthys oculofasciatus
Oligocottus maculosus
Oligocottus rimensis
Psychrolutes paradoxus
Radulinus asprellus
Rhamphocottus richardsoni
Scorpaenichthys marmoratus
Synchirus gilli
Triglops macellus
Triglops pingeli
Agonopsis emmelane
Agonus acipenserinus
Anoplagonus inermis
Asterotheca alascana
Asterotheca infraspinata
Asterotheca pentacanthus
Bathyagonus nigripinnis
Odontopyxis trispinosa
Pallasina barbata
Xeneretmus latifrons
Xeneretmus triacanthus
Liparis cyclopus
Liparis dennyi
Liparis florae
Liparis fucensis
Liparis pulchellus
Nectoliparis pelagicus
Citharichthys sordidus
Citharichthys stigmaens
Atheresthes stondas
Eopsetta jordani
Glyptocephalus zachirus
Hippoglossoides elassodon
Hippoglossus stenolepis
*
0
0
0
0
0
*
D-ll
-------
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Butter sole
Rock sole
Slender sole
Dover sole
English sole
Starry flounder
C-0 sole
Sand sole
Ocean sunflsh
Isopsetta isolepis
Lepidopsetta bilineata
Lyopsetta exilis
Micros tomus pacificus
Paeophrys vetulus
Platichthys stellatus
Pleurorichthys coenosus
Psettichthys melanostictus
Hola mola
+
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
+
+
0
0
*
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
Key to occurrence:
+ = fewer than 10 reports
* = 10 to 49 reports
0 = 50 or more reports
D-12
-------
APPENDIX E
ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL AND
OTHER CULTURAL RESOURCES
The archaeological, historical and other cultural resources of
southern and central Kitsap County generally consist of a cultural
history and the remains of original occupation by native Americans
followed by European colonization and settlement and later urbaniza-
tion and industrialization. For the purposes of the environmental
evaluation, however, only the physical remains and potential for as
yet unknown remains and sites are most important and will be the fo-
cus of the following discussion. Archaeological and historical re-
sources were reviewed through a survey of the proposed sites for fa-
cilities, a review of known sites located in Kitsap County by the
State Historical Preservation Office and reconnaissance of the gene-
ral vicinity of Bremerton, Port Orchard and Manchester. A limited
potential for palentological remains (fossils) has been reviewed
through an evaluation of the known geological formations.
Archaeological Resources
The central and southern portions of Kitsap County contain no
archaeological sites which have been listed on the Federal Register
of Historic Landmarks or sites. Several archaeological sites have
been recorded with the State Historic Preservation Officer (Washing-
ton State, Department of Parks and Recreation), and these are gene-
rally isolated sites scattered along the shore of the various inlets
and bays (see Figure E-l). The precise location of these sites is
not generally available but may be reviewed by qualified persons
either at the Kitsap County Planninng Department or at the State His-
toric Preservation Office. No recorded archaeological site lies with-
in the alternative sites for treatment facilities and pumping stations
or within a 100 m [300 ft] wide corridor along the alternative pipe-
line routes.
The alternative project sites and corridors were surveyed but
no additional archaeological sites or remains were found. Absence
of sites was not unexpected, since all sites and most of the corri-
dors have been disturbed by previous excavations or filling over the
natural soils. Some areas lie totally over deep artificial fill
which has been placed over mudflats.
Potential for archaeological sites generally reflects the associ-
ation of known sites with physiographic and hydrological features and
with probably biotic resources. Even areas presently below sea level
should not be disregarded as possible sites since the sea level has
E-l
-------
risen about 10 m [30 ft] over the last 7,000 years. This may be im-
portant for an alternative crossing of Sinclair Inlet which passes
down to -10 m [-30 ft]. Known sites have generally been located a-
long the shoreline where prehistoric and later historic transporta-
tion and access were best, where waterfowl, fish and shellfish were
most abundant and where the warmth of sunlight would be greatest in
the early morning. Abundant rainfall diminished the importance of
the freshwater streams for water supplies, but the marshes of such
streams attracted waterfowl and hunters. The boggy ground along
many streams and scattered through the uplands reduced the movement
of Indians away from the coastal areas. Areas with the highest po-
tential for prehistoric activity and artifacts generally lie along
high ground near expansive mudflats and, if possible, near the raouth
of creeks which can be reached without passage through large areas
of boggy ground. A two-value map of the project vicinity reflects
the above factors. The areas west of the Manette treatment plant,
at or near the Charleston treatment plant, at Ross Creek, at the Ret-
sil treatment plant, at several creek mouths south of Waterman, a-
long Little Clam Bay and near the Manchester treatment plant have
moderate to high potentials for archaeological remains in the sub-
surface. The general shoreline area would normally have a moderate
to high potential, but the extensive excavation and filling has de-
stroyed or buried most remains and exclude any remains from possible
disturbance due to project excavations.
Past disturbances of the general urban areas of Port Orchard and
Bremerton and the general shoreline areas have virtually destroyed
all surface indications of possible archaeological sites or remains
in these areas. Placement of large fills for existing treatment fa-
cilities, commercial development and roads have buried the natural
ground under at least 3-5 m [10-15 ft] of sterile fill. Along most
corridors, the alternative pipelines would lie within paved streets.
At the Charleston treatment plant, existing residential structures
occupy the alternative expansion area to the south, and the struc-
tures, driveways and parking pavement have eliminated all surface
exposures. The alternative corridor along Hilldale Road between Wa-
terman and Manchester has been least disturbed by construction of
the existing roadway, but bedrock lies close to the ground surface
and no indications of archaeological remains were observed either
along the road or in the fields immediately adjacent to the roadway.
In general, the severe disturbance of the surface at all alternative
facility sites along the alternative pipeline routes has probably
destroyed most surface archaeological remains and buried any that
were below the zone of disturbance. No clear evidence exists for
significant archaeological remains along the alternative project
corridors.
E-2
-------
Historic Resources
The historic resources of the alternatives larguly involve the
existing structures and possible remains of earlier structures or
significant remains which may have been demolished and buried under
later fill or structures. The alternatives generally involve exist-
ing treatment plant sites, their immediate vicinity and the streets
and roads along which the pipelines would pass. The latter corri-
dors presently have no structures and their surfaces are typically
paved. An accurate assessment could be done only at the time of the
actual excavations. However, some general aspects of the corridors
and the plant and pump sites will provide the basis for the effects
assessment of the alternatives.
No Federally or state registered historical landmarks or sites
in the vicinity of the pipeline routes have been placed on the Fede-
ral Register of Historic Landmarks: The Battleship Missouri ("Big
Mo") and the Navy View Apartments of Sidney Hotel (relocated to its
present site in Port Orchard). Both landmarks have been brought from
other areas to their present sites as shown in Figure E-l. Conse-
quently, the landmark sites are only significant for the structures
themselves and not to the local environs. These landmarks lie more
than 100 m [300 ft] from alternative facilities.
Numerous structures have been recognized by the Kitsap County
Historical Society (not part of the Kitsap County government) in Bre-
merton and surrounding towns. Most buildings listed by the Society
were built from 1885 to 1916 (more recent structures are not listed)
and are four to eight room residences. A large number of these resi-
dences are concentrated in the easterly portion of Bremerton south
of the Port Washington Narrows. The proposed corridor for the Ma-
nette-Charleston pipeline does not pass any structure currently listed
by the Society but does pass through an area with residences of equal
or greater historic interest which have not been nominated for the
Society's list.
Central Kitsap County was initially settled in the 1860's and
1870's following the Civil War and during the great European migra-
tions of that period. Most local development focused on the timber
industry and the waterways for transportation from some small farms.
Following the plat approval for Bremerton, the U.S. Navy approved
the shipyard site and began constructing the Puget Sound Shipyard.
Major development of the shipyard also generated considerable de-
velopment in Bremerton and Port Orchard (or Sidney) which acceler-
ated during the Spanish-American War. Many historic residences of
Bremerton date from this period of 1890 to 1916, while those of Port
Orchard follow somewhat later, from 1900 to 1916.
E-3
-------
Structures in the Manette vicinity and East Bremerton pipeline
segment date from the World War IT period or later, while the main
segment of the Bremerton pipeline passes a mosaic of a few structures
which may date from the late 1800's mixed with a large number of 1900
to 1930 houses and a scattering of replacement housing of the World
War II period or later. Commercia] structures along Callow Street,
Naval S reet and State Route 21 include some buildings from the 1900-
1916 period which have been extensively renovated and many buildings
from 1941 to date. Residences along the creek south of the Charles-
ton plant were constructed after 1916 and largely after 1940. These
structures do not appear to have any significant historic or archi-
tectural importance.
In the Port Orchard area most of the buildings, both residences
and commercial buildings, along the corridor were constructed from
1900 to present date. A fire in 1895 destroyed many buildings along
the route, and others were built following relocation of the county
seat to Port Orchard and the beginning of the active operations of
the shipyard across the inlet both during the Spanish-American War
and World War I. The site of the Port 0 chard plant lies on fill
over tidal flats which was placed after 1940 and thus determines the
dates of the earliest sturctures. Many houses and a few commercial
buildings between Port Orchard and Manchester, along Beach and Hill-
dale roads, date from the 1900-1930 period, while additional houses
and shopping centers (on post-1940 fill) have been added since 1940.
Along the east end of Beach Road south to the Manchester plant, struc-
tures are well back from the road and from the Manchester plant.
Excavations of pipelines commonly penetrates below the level of
modern construction of post-1940 (e.g., 1-2 m depths) and ma> en-
counter remains of earlier structures. The. potential for such sub-
surface remains may be inferred from the location of oxtant struc-
tures of the early period, maps and photos. In the Bremerton area,
greatest potential would lie along the waterfront near Evergreen
Park, along 8th Street and along the perimeter of the shipyard on
First Street and Farragut Street. Along State Routes 21 (south of
Bremerton) and 160 (in and near Port Orchard), deep Pill for the
roads and railroad preclude finding significant historic remains be-
low road grades. Depending on the precise routing of the pipeline
from Port Orchard to Retsil, the potential for some historic remains
increases towards Bay Street. The potential may reflect the prob-
ability of finding remains left from the structures destroyed during
the fire of 1985. Such potential may extend to Retsil, but the deep
fill north of Retsil precludes encountering significant historic re-
mains. No potential existis along Hilldale and Beach roads due either
to substantial grading in the Naval reservation at Little Clam Bay
or the shallow bedrock and absence of surface accumulations.
E-4
-------
LEGEND
A REGISTERED LANDMARKS
Q RECORDED SITES
JllgiJ DISTRICT WITH NUMEROUS STRUCTURES OF HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE
E$$$$fl AREAS WITH POTENTIAL ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
FIGURE EH ARCHEOLOGICAL a HISTORICAL RESOURCES
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
E-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
CITY AND COUNTY BUDGETS
The budgets of Kitsap County, Port Orchard and Bremerton are
presented in summary form in Tables F-l through F-6. Expenditures
and revenues by source are presented separately for each munici-
pality. A review of the budget expenditures reveals the various
activities of each.
The revenue tables indicate sources of funds. It must be
noted that in each case, an "Other" category was created to simpli-
fy the information presented. This "Other" category represents
a large proportion of total revenues for both Bremerton and Port
Orchard. However, in both cases, "Other" represents either the
sum of a number of smaller sources or has been defined as "Other"
in the budget itself.
State-imposed limitations on property tax collections, to-
gether with a review of recent trends, are discussed in the
section "Tax Base-Assessed Valuation."
The State of Washington imposes a 4.6 percent retail sales
tax on a broad base of retail and wholesale transactions, including
rentals, leases and certain services (Reference F-l). Counties
are permitted to levy an additional 0.5 percent, which is rebated
to the city or county where the sale is made (Reference F-2).
Little detailed information is available on sales tax histories
for the cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard.
Retail sale in Kitsap County doubled in dollar volume between
1971 and 1974 (See Table F-7). However, it should be noted that a
portion of this increase is attributable to the sizeable inflation
rate experienced during this period. While the proportion of
wholesaling has increased and service retail sales decreased,
the percentage distribution of other sectors has remained stable
(Reference F-6).
F-l
-------
Table F-l. KITSAP COUNTY-1977 BUDGET-EXPENDITURES
Department
Administration Building
Assessor
Auditor
Central Services
Clerk
Commissioners
Co-op Extension
District Courts
Fair
Juvenile
KCARP
Non Departmental
Parks
Planning
Prosecuting Attorney
Sheriff
Superior Court
Treasurer
Building Code Compliance
Boundary Review, Coroner, Board
of Equalization, Noxious Weed
Control, Central Reproduction,
and Civil Service
TOTAL
Expenditures
$ 224,842
666,033
289,555
207,261
158,310
192,010
62,893
286,316
167,235
343,172
527,278
700,224
170,390
334,598
404,156
938,361
320,690
230,598
372,802
95,950
$ 6,692,674
Percent of
Total
3.4
10.0
4.3
3.1
2.4
2.9
.9
4.3
2.5
5.1
7.9
10.5
2.5
5.0
6.0
14.0
4.8
3.4
5.6
1.4
100.0
Source: Reference F-3.
F-2
-------
Table F-2. KITSAP COUNTY-1977 BUDGET-REVENUES
Source of Revenue
Property Taxes
Retail Sales & Use Tax
Building licenses & Permits
Departmental Fees & Charges
Motor Vehicle Licenses
Other (Miscellaneous Revenue,
Community Events, Non-Revenue)
Intergovernmental Revenue
Investments and Interest
Other Taxes and Earnings
TOTAL
Revenue
$ 2,151,709
900,697
315,423
702,399
220,000
612,181
1,418,615
340,000
31,650
$6,692,674
Percent of
Total
32.1
13.5
4.7
10.5
3.3
Source: Reference F-3.
F-3
-------
Table F-3. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 1977 BUDGET - EXPENDITURES
Fund
Current expense fund
Firs
Police
Library
Finance & administration
Other
Expenditures Percent of
Total
$ 64,356
175,020
23,384
45,908
183,701
Total current expense fund $ 492,369 27.5
Street &
Arterial
Federal
Water -
street
street
Shared
sewer,
improvements
fund
Revenue
utilities & bonds
Miscellaneous
Total
178,
91,
145,
656,
227,
$ 1,791,
672
703
800
100
002
646
10
5
8
36
12
100
.0
.1
.1
.6
.7
.0
Source: Reference F-4.
Table F-4. CITY OF FORT ORCHARD - 1977 BUDGET - EXPENDITURES
Sources of revenue
General property taxes '
Retail sales tax
Business taxes
Licenses & permits
Inter-government revenue
Charges for service
Fines & forfeits
Water charges
Sewer charges
Miscellaneous revenue
Other (services, interest,
non-revenue receipts, etc.)
Total
Revenue
$ 221,
160,
101,
13,
439,
19,
19,
136,
100,
93,
489,
$ 1,791,
077
000
075
772
043
040
000
000
000
113
526
646
Percent of
Total
12.3
3.9
5.6
0.8
24.5
1.1
1.1
7.6
5.6
5.2
27.3
100.0
Source: Reference F-4.
F-4
-------
Table F-5. CITY OF BREMERTON - 1977 BUDGET - EXPENDITURES
Fund
General fund:
Fire
Police
Park
Treasurer /Account ing
Other
Percent of
Expenditures Total
$ 1,111,564
1,347,020
458,522
291,474
2,291,007
Total general fund S 5,'t99,5S7 37.1
Street i. parking
Water/sewer fund
Other water/sewer (bond funds,
cumulative bond reserve and
redemption funds, construction
funds)
Municipal transit
Federal Revenue Sharing & CETA
Cumulative reserve general
municipal purposes
Library bond G.O.
Pension, police & fire
Miscellaneous funds
Total
2,134,
2,634,
1,616,
561,
631,
611,
44 ,
361,
717,
$ 14,810,
124
130
365
000
260
450
199
000
764
879
14.4
17.9
10.9
3.8
4.3
4.1
0.3
2.4
4.3
100.0
Source: Reference F-5.
Table F-6. CITY OF BREMERTON - 1977 BUDGET - REVENUES
Sources of revenue
Property tax
Retail sales tax
Business tax
Other tax
Parking revenue
Motor vehicle fuel & excise tax
Other state shared revenue
Licenses i permits
Other intra-government revenue
(includes state £. federal
grants & revenue sharing)
Non-government grants
Transit revenue
Water/sewer sales
Other (includes bonds, interfund
transfers & miscellaneous)
Total
Revenue
$ 1,038
d50
963
:03
245
372
766
lOb
1,659
1S2
250
2,239
5,433
$ 14,810
,693
,000
,500
,000
,000
,854
,175
,390
,240
,665
,000
,900
,462
,879
Percent of
Total
7.0
5.7
6.5
1.4
1.7
5.9
5.2
0.7
11.2
1.2
1.7
15.1
36.7
100.0
Source: Reference F-5.
F-5
-------
Table F-7, TAXABLE RETAIL SALES, 1971-1975
($1000)
Retail Sales
Percent
Services
Percent
Contract
Construction
Percent
Manufacturing
Percent
Transportation ,
Communication,
Utilities
Percent
Finance,
Insurance,
Real Estate
Percent
Wholesaling
Percent
Other
Percent
TOTAL
Percent
1971
$101,618
76.4
9,263
7.0
14,619
11.0
1,859
1.4
949
0.7
973
0.7
3,204
2.4
584
0.4
$133,069
100.0
1972
$161,758
75.8
12,406
5.8
24,661
11.6
3,960
1.9
1,340
0.6
1,533
0.7
6,242
2.9
1,514
0.7
$213,414
100.0
1973
$177,082
74.^
12,485
5.3
29,438
12.4
4,463
1.9
1,470
0.6
1,431
0.6
9,761
4.1
1,735
0.7
$237,863
100.0
1974
$205,520
73.1
14,743
5.2
39,197
13.9
5,185
1.9
1,863
0.7
1,861
0.7
10,773
3.8
1,989
0.7
$281,132
100.0
1975 l
$110,534
74.4
7,127
4.8
19,443
13.1
2,602
1.8
903
0.6
809
0.5
6,057
4.1
983
0.7
$148,458
100.0
1. First half-year
Source: (Reference F-6)
F-6
-------
APPENDIX F
REFERENCES
F-l. Washington State Research Council, Research Council's
Handbook, Olympia, Washington, 4th Edition,
1976.
F-2. Bogucki, David, Fiscal Analyst, Trident Office, Port
Orchard, Washington. Personnel Communi-
cation, April 1977.
F-3. Kitsap County. 1977 Budget, Port Orchard, Washington,
December 10, 1976.
F-4. Port Orchard, City of, 1977 Budget, Port Orchard,
Washington, 1976.
F-5. Bremerton, City of, Official Budget, 1977, Bremerton,
Washington, October 6, 1976.
F-6. Lyttle, Lee and Johnston, Michael. A Draft Statement
on Impact, Kitsap County Comprehensive
Plan, Kitsap County Planning Department,
Port Orchard, Washington, January 1977.
F-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
G-l MARINE ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
Pipeline Routes
Terrestrial pipeline construction and subsequent erosion and sedi-
mentation will have localized effects in Sinclair Inlet. The sediment
load in the water could have a short term effect on photosynthetic
plants and filter-feeding animals. These effects should be limited to
the construction period plus a few months to half-a-year for the bio-
regeneration lag time.
In most of the alternatives, pipelines could be laid across the
intertidal beaches of Sinclair Inlet instead of along proposed terres-
trial routes. The installation of pipelines would involve excavation
and dredging across intertidal and subtidal lands to an approximate
depth of l-2m (3-6 feet) below the surface of the substrate. A trench
of this depth would cause a horizontal surface disturbance of 2-3m (6-9
feet) on each side of the pipeline. Thus, pipeline construction would
disrupt the benthic community over a 4-5m (12-15 feet) wide corridor
over the length of the submerged pipeline.
Benthic Community Effects
The removal of the substrate will significantly disrupt the
benthic community within the pipeline corridor. Burrowing organisms,
such as clams and worms, that live in the area to be excavated will be
removed from their burrows and exposed to predatory organisms and/or
covered with sediment from the trenching process. Burrowing and at-
tached organisms living in the trenched area or next to it will be
disturbed by increased turbidity and silt. Some organisms may not be
able to feed or respirate. Generally, substrate removed in the trench-
ing process is replaced as close to its original location and condition
as possible unless further soils investigations indicate that a signifi-
cant change from original conditions would result. In that possibility,
special engineering could ensure the intrinsic properties of the
substrate.
Although it is not possible to quantitatively determine the extent
of construction impact upon benthic organisms, even the worst possible
case, which would be total elimination of benthic organisms, should
not last long after construction completions. The first to move into
the pipeline construction areas would probably be motile animals such
as starfishes, crabs, and other crustaceans. Burrowing and attached
G-l
-------
animals will begin to recolonize the area after the particular species'
spawning season. In most cases, recolonization would be within a year.
Algae will also recolonize within a year, usually during spring or
summer. If the pipeline route goes through eelgrass beds, the rooted
eelgrass adjacent to the disturbed areas will spread vegetatively as
well as by seeds. Once algae and eelgrass has recolonized, many animal
species will be able to recolonize also. The benthic community will
change in species composition, diversity and population for several
years following the construction, until it reaches a relatively stable
climax community determined largely by the type of substrate following
the construction.
The dredging, construction and backfilling of pipelines will create
a turbidity plume in the vicinity of, and downcurrent of, the construc-
tion area. Turbidity reduces the depth to which sunlight can penetrate,
therefore it will have an adverse effect on the photosynthetic proper-
ties of phytoplankton (one-celled, drifting algae) , benthic algae and
eelgrass. Another effect that the turbidity can have on phytoplankton
production has been researched by Sherk (Reference G-l). The floccu-
lation and aggregation of temporary suspensoids can mechanically trap
phytoplankton and carry them to the bottom.
The suspended sediments will also have some effect on animals in
the impacted area. Westley, et al noted that suspended sediments can
cause some disorientation of juvenile pink salmon (Reference G-2).
Studies in British Columbia indicate that silt loads above 4,000 ppm
will prevent salmonids from moving (Reference G-3). The suspended
sediment can also bring about a gill irritation that, while not lethal
in itself, can make the fish more vulnerable to infection by fungi and
pathogenic bacteria.
Turbidity and the resultant increase in temperature in the upper
water layers may have short-term effects on juvenile salmon. Optimum
conditions for juvenile salmon as determined by commercial salmon
aquaculture is 12.5 - 13.5°C in protected inlets with good circulation
(Reference 0-3). Temperatures above 15°C which seasonally occur in
the shallower part of Sinclair and Dyes Inlet increases the risk of
disease. Several species of salmonids are present in the study area
and would be affected by the above factors.
Dilution by tidal currents and the particle size of the sediment
will determine the intensity and duration of turbidity plumes. If
sediment size is assumed to be similar, the turbidity would be dispersed
fastest in those areas where tidal currents are fastest. Efficient
dilution will result in spreading the turbidity over wider areas in a
decreased concentration; however, turbidity will not be completely
eliminated.
G-2
-------
The settling of sediment from the turbidity mny hive some effect.
Sediment disposition should not be heavy enough to have an appreciable
effect on the benthic community except in the area close to the
construction.
During the construction period, there may be some impact if oil
or diesel fuel is spilled from the construction and dredging vessels.
Any such spills would be harmful to marine life and illegal. The
Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act provides for these contingencies.
Precautions against spills can be included in the construction con
tract(s) awarded.
Effluent Discharge
Most of the effects of effluent discharge from the outfalls will
be long term in nature because of the continuous nature of treatment
processes. These impacts are discussed in the section dealing with
long term impacts. Some short term impacts can be noted however and
include but are not necessarily limited to the following:
1. displacement of marine organisms, especially clam beds;
2. short term disruption of populations of littleneck, butter,
gaper and bentrose clams, mussels and barnacles;
3. slight vegetational effect on eelgrass and sea lettuce;
4. avoidance of central plume by salmonids and pelagic fish;
5. slight increase in turbidity and associated effects;
6. short term effect on photosynthetic plants and filter-
feeding animals by sedimentation-discussed in earlier
section;
7. nutrient increase in shallow areas, such as the head of
Sinclair Inlet, may cause algal blooms t^hich block light
to benthic plants and rob dissolved oxygen from the water
when they decompose; and
8. small vegetational mortality rate in central plumes
because of increased salinity and/or temperature.
C-3
-------
APPENDIX G-2
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Alternative 2
Adverse effects of this alternative may arise from the construc-
tion of an expanded treatment facility at the Charleston treatment
plant, and new and larger plants at the Retsil and Manchester sites.
Replacement of the Manette plant with a pumping station, reversing of
the existing Manette pipelines and construction of new pipeline through
Bremerton and south to the Charleston plant would involve existing fa-
cilities and construction within disturbed areas. Excavations in the
disturbed areas are not expected to pass below the existing disturbed
zone and, therefore, should not encounter significant prehistoric arti-
facts. The three treatment plant expansion sites lie along the banks
of creeks at their confluence with the inlet or Puget Sound; therefore,
such areas would have a moderate to high potential for discovery of
archaeological remains in the remaining undisturbed soils. No precise
plans for foundation excavations and site grading are presently avail-
able for the alternative planning, thus precise resolution of possible
impacts cannot be judged. If this alternative is selected, measures
should be taken to review the grading plans and monitor deep excava-
tions and the grading of areas before fills are placed.
Alternate pipeline routing through the subtidal zone between the
Port Orchard and Retsil plants would pass through areas of moderate
to high potential for encountering archaeological remains. This would
more seriously affect archaeological resources than the fully land
route. Mitigation could involve monitoring for remains in dredge
materials and controlled excavation of, or relocation away from, re-
mains in the proposed alignments.
Enlargement and extension of existing outfalls may pass through
relatively undisturbed areas offshore of the creek mouths at the three
treatment plants. Such areas during the past probably resembled the
natural state of the existing shoreline, therefore, the three outfalls
may pass across areas of moderate to high potential for submerged
archaeological sites. This potential exists because the sea level has
risen during the several thousands of years of Indian occupation of
the area. Excavations for such outfall modifications should be moni-
tored in order to insure that remains which may be found can be pre-
served. Monitoring of this type is necessary because water-logged
materials commonly require different preservation measures than those
from dryland excavations.
Alternative 2 represents a plan which may have some moderate to
moderate-high level of effect upon archaeological resources compared
to effects from other alternatives. The amount of pipeline excavation
G-4
-------
and possible effects is about one-third of that in Alternative 3 but
greatly exceeds that in the local concept of Alternative 4.
Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 involve substantial excavations and filling
at the Manchester, Retsil and Charleston treatment plants, therefore,
their effects upon possible buried resources remain the same. Alterna-
tive 3 would involve fewer construction effects at the Retsil site and,
therefore, would have somewhat diminished effects compared to Alterna-
tive 2. Alternative 2 would involve less excavation for outfall and
cross-channel connectors than Alternatives 3 and 4 and, therefore, less
potential for disturbing archaeological resources below sea level.
Alternative 3
Potential adverse effects associated with this alternative arise
largely from the expansion of the Charleston and Manchester plants and
the long distance of new pipeline excavation required. Little or no
adverse effects would arise from the replacement of the Manette, Port
Orchard and Retsil plants with pumps, reversing of flow in existing
pipelines and much of the pipeline excavation through Bremerton and
south to the Charleston plant. Expansion of existing facilities at the
Charleston and Manchester plants would require excavation and filling
in areas of moderate to high potential for archaeological remains. The
submerged connector pipeline across Sinclair Inlet would involve
excavation through previously undisturbed sediment which was the shore-
line of the inlet when sea level was much lower than at present.
Bathymetry of the connector corridor suggests that Gorst Creek may have
had a small valley along the northern bank of the inlet and a broad
floodplaiu may have existed on the southern bank. Such an area
should have a moderate to high potential for archaeological remains
more than 3,000 years old. Underwater excavation for the connector may
disturb and destroy such remains without being seen on the surface. If
the pipeline would be placed on the bottom without excavation no effects
should arise, except for some current scouring.
Excavation for pipelines along the southeast shore of the inlet
should generally have little adverse effect upon archaeological remains.
The southern segment of the pipeline has slight to moderate potential
for archaeological remains along the base of bluffs on Ross Point and
at Ross Creek. Depending upon the depth of excavation, trenching could
pass below the disturbed roadway zone and encounter archaeological
remains. The remainder of the pipeline excavation would lie in arti-
ficial fill and along existing subsurface utility corridors; these
corridors have little or no potential for archaeological remains,
especially those which have not been disturbed. An alternate routing
in the subtidal zone between Ross Point, the Port Orchard plant and the
Retsil plant would involve large areas which have moderate to high
potential for archaeological remains. Such a route would create far
more serious effects than the land route.
G-5
-------
Expansion of the Manchester plant would Involve the excavation
and filling along a small creek, and such an area may have a low to
moderate potential for archaeological remains, although, again, the
boggy character of the area and distance to open shoreline may reduce
the potential.
Alternative 4
The local treatment concept of this alternative would eliminate
all potential adverse effects from pipeline construction, but would
increase possible effects from treatment plant expansions. Expansion
of the Manette plant would have little potential of effect due to the
highly disturbed character of the residential land use adjacent to the
plant. Expansion of the Charleston plant could result in potential ad-
verse effects from deep excavation, grading of undisturbed areas and
filling over the natural soil surface and possible archaeological re-
mains. Replacement of the Port Orchard treatment plant would have no
effect since the entire area of the plant site lies on deep artifical
fill. If piling or very deep excavations were required for foundations,
some possible adverse effects may result by encountering archaeological
remains below the fill which would date from a time when sea level was
2 to 4 m (6.5 to 13 ft) below present sea level. Construction activity
at the Retsil plant would have a moderate to high potential for encount-
ering archaeological remains, depending upon the depth of excavation
and area of filling. The plant is on Annapolis Creek and is close to
shellfish and other natural resources which would have attracted early
occupation of the area. The degree of disturbance for the existing
plant and the nearby roadway may reduce the potential for effects, al-
though deep excavations may pass through the fill and penetrate the
buried, but relatively undisturbed, natural soil which may contain
archaeological remains.
The absence of pipeline connectors in this alternative greatly re-
duces the total area of possible adverse effects and concentrates the
effects at existing treatment plant sites. Inclusion of the Retsi]
plant site increases the level of potential adverse effects in Alter-
native 4 compared to Alternatives 3 and 5 but would be equal to or
less than that of Alternative 2. The overall effects of Alternative 4
should be less than those of Alternative 2, similar to those of Alter-
native 3 and perhaps greater than those of Alternative 5.
Alternative 5
The long pipelines for this alternative would pass through some
areas of moderate potential for archaeological remains below the
surface. Replacement of the Manette plant with pumps, reversing of
existing pipelines and construction of new pipeline through Bremerton
and south to the Charleston plant should have no adverse effects on
archaeological remains. Expansion of the Charleston plant, pipeline
G-6
-------
excavation along Beach Road and expansion of the Manchester plant would
occur in areas of moderate to high potential for arclueologica] remains
and, therefore, possible adverse effects would be greatest in these
areas. Pipeline construction on land between Port Orchard and Waterman
should have only a low potential for encountering archaeologi
-------
APPENDIX G-3
HISTORICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Alternative 2
Replacement of the Manette and Port Orchard treatment plants, re-
versing of flow in existing pipelines and expansion of the Manchester
plant should have no direct effect upon historic resources of the area.
Construction of the Charleston plant expansion would require the remov-
al of 15 residences (11 rental units) which have little historic im-
portance but may have replaced earlier structures. Four separate resi-
dences closest to the plant may date from the early 1900's probably
World War I, but the others date from the World War II period. Expan-
sion of the Retsil plant would not involve direct effects upon any
existing structure of historic interest. Excavation of the pipeline
between the pump replacement at the Port Orchard plant site and the
expanded Retsil plant would follow Bay Street in Port Orchard and
Waterman (Beach) Road. Such excavations would have a high potential
for encountering historic remains from the 1880 to 1900 period.
Excavation of the 6,000 m [20,000 ft] pipeline across Bremerton
from Evergreen Park to the west end of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
would pass through the older portions of Bremerton. Since the town
was platted before most of the residences along the route were con-
structed and most older buildings conform to the existing street plans,
excavations within the street right-of-way would not affect any ex-
isting structures or remains of earlier strucutres. However, some
non-structural historic remains could be expected along sucn a long
expanse, which is more than 2 km (1 1/4 mile) within the town area.
Excavations in the subtidal zone should have little effect on historic
resources.
The structures and potential historical and other remains below
ground surface appear to have no national or state importance and
very little local importance. No strucutre of unusual architectural
features would be destroyed or greatly disturbed by the alternative
construction. Most structures near the plant sites and along the pipe-
line corridors are representative of other structures found throughout
the area. Remains, which may come from subsurface excavations, o.g.,
bottles and coins, would be similar to better preserved specimens.
Therefore, the significance of possible losses of historic remains and
short-term disturbance appears to be low or slight.
Alternative 2 would have similar effects to those of Alternatives
3 and 5, since plant expansions and pipelines would be similar in those
Go
— o
-------
areas of greatest historic importance. This alternative would have the
potential for greater, but still slight, adverse effects compared to
Alternative 4.
Alternative 3
The replacement of the Manette, Port Orchard and Retail plants, ex-
pansion of the Manchester plant and reversing of the flow in existing
pipeline north of Port Washington Narrows would have no adverse effects
upon the historic resources of the area. Expansion of the Charleston
plant would require the demolition or removal of two rental houses built
after 1940 and four residences built after 1900. Excavations for the
pipeline through Bremerton, and along Bay Street and Beach Road in Retsil
and Port Orchard has moderate potential for encountering historic re-
mains. The pipeline excavations in Port Orchard may encounter some
structural remains below ground surface, dating from 1880 to 1900 which
preceded replacement construction following the fire of 1895. Excava-
tion along the subtidal alternative route would have little or no effect
on historic remains.
The structures along the alternative corridors and at facility
sites are largely of local interest, and remains from excavations would
generally be represented by better preserved examples. Therefore, the
significance of possible historic effects is low or slight, both in de-
gree of effect and in the affected remains.
This alternative would have similar, slight effects as found in
Alternatives 2 and 5, and a somewhat greater effect than in Alternative 4,
The longer pipeline excavation in the Port Orchard area would contribute
to greater potential effects in this alternative compared to Alternative
2, while the effects of pipeline construction on the south side of Port
Orchard in this alternative may be somewhat greater than the longer
pipeline excavation on the north side of Retsil in Alternative 5.
Alternative 4
Local expansion of treatment facilities at existing sites would
cause removal or demolition of additional structures at the Manette
plant site. The residences near the Manette plant which would be af-
fected were constructed after 1940 and have little historic or archi-
tectural importance- They are similar to many other residences in the
general area. Similarly, residences that would be affected at the
Charleston plant site consist of two rental houses constructed after
1940 and four that date from 1900 to 1940. No structures would be
affected by expansion of the Retsil and Manchester plants. The local-
ized construction would not tend to involve areas of high potential for
G-9
-------
subsurface historical remains since the areas have been highly disturbed
and contain deep fills. Possible effects have little or no significance
to local or larger interests.
This alternative would affect the largest number of structures.
However, the structures' lack of historic and architectural significance
and the absence of any major pipeline construction renders this alter-
native to be the least damaging of the four considered alternatives.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 contain pipeline excavations in the Bremerton
and Port Orchard areas and similar plant expansion at the Charleston,
Retsil and Manchester plant sites.
Alternative 5
Replacement of the Manette, Port Orchard and Retsil plants, expan-
sion of the Manchester plant and reversal of flow in existing pipelines
would have no effect upon historic resources of the area. Expansion of
the Charleston plant would involve the removal or demolition of 11
rental houses built after 1940 and four residences built between 1900
and 1940. Subtidal or land excavation of the Bremerton and Port
Orchard-Retsil pipeline segments may penetrate areas with some potential
for historic remains below ground surface, while the Retsil-Waterman-
Manchester segment of Pipeline does not pass through areas with poten-
tial for significant historic remains below ground surface. The signi-
ficance of effects arising from the plant expansions and the pipeline
excavations is low since the buildings do not preserve any significant
historic or architectural features; most remains from excavations would
be damaged examples of better-preserved specimens found in museums or
family collections.
This alternative would have similar and perhaps somewhat lesser
effects compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 would probably
have less adverse effect compared to this alternative.
G-JO
-------
APPENDIX G-4
SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Public Fiscal Effects
Public revenues associated with the project are expected to be
minimal. Construction of the proposed project will generate revenues
to Kitsap County and to the cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard. The
main source of income will be sales tax collections generated by payroll
spending and construction material purchases. Table G-5 in the section
titled Indirect Business Effects presente estimates of local payroll and
materials costs, representing spending in Kitsap County. If all these
dollars were spent on taxable transactions, $11,700 to $13,600, depending
on the alternative selected, in sales tax revenues would accrue to
jurisdictions within Kitsap County (See Table G-l).
Sales tax is collected by the State and rebated to the city or
county where the sale occurs. Therefore, some portion would be collected
by the two cities and the rest would accrue to the county. Sales tax
rebates projected in the 1977 Kitsap, Bremerton and Port Orchard budgets
total $1.9 million. The tax revenue associated with construction spending
would represent an increase of 0.6 percent, for Alternative 4, to 0.7 per-
cent, for Alternative 5.
Cities and counties do not generally charge their own sewer depart-
ments for building permits or plan checking. At the Charleston site,
however, the City of Bremerton will be creating improvements on county
land and will be required to obtain a permit (reference G-4). The charge
will be based on the application of two formulas to the total construc-
tion cost exclusive of alnd (see Table G-2). Income to the county will
range from $22,400 for Alternatives 2 and 3 to $26,900 for Alternative 5.
These amounts represent a potential increase from 5.6 percent to 6.2 per-
cent over Kitsap County 1977 budget estimates for building permit and
plan check fees.
Project Employment - Construction
It is estimated that an average construction force of about 140
employees will br required for each of the various alternatives pro-
posed. Alternative 5 may require a slightly larger workforce than the
other three alternatives. Discussions with the facilities planner in-
dicate that the contractor is likely to be based in Seattle or Tacoma.
As a result, about 80 percent of construction workers will commute from
outside Kitsap County. Total construction payroll is projected to range
G-ll
-------
Table G-l, PROJECTED SALES TAX REVENUES TO ALL JURISDICTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION (IN THOUSANDS)
-------
Table G-2 . KITSAP COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT AND PLAN CHECK FEES TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON (IN THOUSANDS)
o
i
Capital Cost
Charleston
Manchester
Transmission Lines
Transmission Pump Stations
Total Cost to Bremerton System
Building Permit Feesb
Plan Checking Feec
Total Revenue to Kitsap County
2
$ 9,574
992
1,962
686a
$13^214
$ 13.6
8.8
$ 22.4
Alternative
3 4
$11,087 $ 7,125
992 6,049
1,962 0
68 6a 0
$14^727 $13,174
$ 15.1 $ 13.6
9.8 8.8
$ 24.9 $ 22.4
5
$ 9,574
3,702
1,962
686a
$15,924
$ 16.3
10.6
$ 26.9
a. Includes Manette to Charleston and Park Avenue
b. Building permit fees are charged on capital costs as follows: $887 for the first $500,000
and a dollar for every additional $1,000
c. 65% of building permit fee (Reference: G-6)
-------
from $4,850,000 to $5,600,000, depending on which alternative is selec-
ted. Approximately 20 percent of payroll, ranging from $970,000 to
$1,100,000 is expected to be paid to Kitsap County residents. The
following table indicates the number of job years created in Kitsap
County:
Table G-3. JOB-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT CREATED BY PROPOSED PROJECT
Estimated Payroll
Kitsap County3 Estimated Workforce
Alternative ($000) Kitsap County^
a
b
2
3
4
5
See Table G-5
Assumes 1 job-ye;
968
1,025
963
1,112
ir costs, $50,000, in
19
21
19
22
eluding payroll burden.
Direct Business Effects - Construction
Table G-4 presents an estimated allocation of capital costs for
each alternative. It is estimated that capital costs (less land costs)
represent approximately 50 percent labor and 50 percent materials. It
is probable that a non-local contractor would be used for construction
and that about 20 percent of materials would be locally purchased.
Project payroll, including indirect labor (security and mainten-
ance) is expected to range from $4.8 million (Alternatives 2 and 4) to
about $5.6 million (Alternative 5). Only about 20 percent of these
workers will reside in Kitsap County.
According to the facilities planner, approximately 50 percent of
all capital costs (other than land) represents labor costs, including
payroll burden and all indirect labor (such as maintenance and security)
Indirect Business Effects - Construction
Project construction will generate indirect business effects in
the Kitsap County economy as the result of (1) local spending by the
contractor for materials and (2) local payroll spending by the construc-
tion workforce. This spending will create additional jobs locally.
G-14
-------
Table G-4: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND LABOR COSTS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
($1,000)
o
I
Alternative
Cost Components
Capital Costs3
Less land & easement costsa
Less 16 2/3% engineering, legal,
environmental costs, & taxes^
Costs of improvements
Labor cost @ 50% of improvements0
Payroll @ 70% of total labor costd
Payroll spent in Kitsap County @ 207.
oi total payroll6
Materials @ 50% of total costs of
improvements
Materials purchased in Kitsap County
1? 20% of total material costs£
Total payroll & materials spending
in Kitsap County
2
16,778
187
16,591
_?j765
13,826
6,913
4,839
968
6,913
1,383
$1.35!
3
17,742
163
17,570
_2j930
14,659
7,325
5,127
1,025
7,325
1,465
$2,490
4
17,769
1,263
16,506
JL151
13,755
6,878
4,814
963
6,878
1,376
$2,339
5
19,411
186
19,225
-JjJLQi
16,021
8,011
5,607
1,112
8,011
1,602
$2,72.3
a. From facilities plan
li . Engineering, legal, environmental costs are estimated at 20% of costs for treatment plant equip-
ment, pipelines, pump stations (including building, controls, pumps, motors, support facilities).
It follows that costs for engineering etc. are 16 2/3 of total construction costs.
c. From facilities planner (Reference: 4).
d. Assumes 30% of labor cost for burden.
e. Assumes that 20% of labor force will reside in Kitsap County and spend payroll locally Cor goods,
services, housing, etc.
f. Assumes that 20% of materials will be purchased in Kitsap County.
-------
Table G-5. INDIRECT JOBS CREATED IN KITSAP COUNTY BY LOCAL SPENDING FOR CONSTRUCTION
o
i
Components
Payroll Spent in Kitsap County ($000) a
Materials Costs, Spent in Kitsap County
Total Spending in Kitsap Countyb
Total Job-years of Employment Created
Alternative
2
968
1^383
2,351
67
3
1,025
1^465
2,490
71
4
963
1,376
JL339
67
5
1,121
1,602
2.723
77
a. From Table G-5.
b. Assumes that $1 million of additional income in Kitsap County produces an additional
28.7 service jobs; estimate based on analysis provided by David Bogucki, Trident
Coordination Program (Reference G-5).
-------
Based on data supplied by the facilities planner, 20 percent of
construction materials is expected to be purchased in KLtsap County.
Depending upon contractor sources of construction materials and local
availability at the time of construction, the actual proportion may be
as high as 50 percent or as low as 10 percent. Indirect employment due
to construction purchases should be scaled accordingly.
It is assumed that local construction workforce employment will be
about 20 percent of total employment. This estimate assumes a Seattle
or Tacoma-based contractor will be selected. As the current unemploy-
ment in the Kitsap County area is about 8 percent, this project would
have a beneficial effect upon local employment.
This analysis assumes that 50 percent of construction costs, less
land purchases, represents labor and 50 percent represents materials.
Details of the analysis discussed above can be found in Table G-5. Job
years of local indirect employment generated by construction activities
are projected as follows for each alternative:
Alternative Job Years of Employment
2 67
3 71
4 67
5 77
G-17
-------
REFERENCES
APPENDIX G
Short-Term Impacts
G-l. Sherk, J. Albert, Jr., 1971. The Effect of Suspended &
Deposited Sediment, on Estuarine Organisms. Contri-
butlon #443. University of Maryland Natural Re-
sources Institute.
G-2 Westley, Ronald E., et al, 1973, Evaluation of the Effects of
Channel Maintenance Dredging and Disposal on the
Marine Environment in Southern Puget Sound, Washing-
ton. Washington Department of Fisheries, Research
and Management Division. Olympia.
G-3 Bell, Milo C., 1973. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Re-
quirements & Biological Criteria. Fisheries Engi-
neering Research Program, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland.
G-4 Perkowitz, Ron Kitsap County Building Department, Port
Orchard, Washington. Personal communication,
April, 1977.
G-5 Bogucki, David, Fiscal Analyst, Trident Office, Port Orchard,
Washington. Personal communication, April, 1977.
G-6 International Conference of Building Officials. Uniform
Building Code (Library of Congress Catalogue Card
No. 73-79247), Whittier, California, 1973.
G-7 Dehn, William, Project Officer, Ct^M Hill, Bellevue,
Washington. Personal communication, April, 1977.
G-18
-------
APPENDIX H
ALTERNATIVE 2A (ENETAI, RETSIL, MANCHESTER)
H-l
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2A {ENETAI, RETSIL, MANCHESTER)
Land and
Capital Easement Operation and Salvage
Component Cost3 Costb'c Maintenance Cost Valued
Treatment Plants
Enetai $11,456,000 $234,000 $477,000
Retsil (including Port
Orchard) 2,658,000 24,000 141,000
Manchester 992,000 7,000 43,000
Transmission Lines
Bremerton System
New Narrows crossing 421,000
Existing crossing to $ 77,000
Narrows PS 173,000 - - 32,000
PS No. 7 to new crossing 1,032,000 - - 189,000
Narrows PS to Enetai 894,000 - - 163,000
Port Orchard to Retsil 500,000 - - 92,000
Transmission Pump Stations
Bremerton System
PS No. 7 466,000 - 49,000
Park Avenue 28,000 - 8,000
Manette 270,000 - 8,000
Narrows 1,167,000 - 80,000
Port Orchard to Retsil 224,000 11,000
TOTALS $20,281,000 $265,000 $817,000 $553,000
Grant-Eligible Capital
Costs6 $20,016,000
Anticipated Crantsf $18,014,000
Net Capital $ 2,002,000
Amortized Net Capital $ 204,000
Average Annual Cost $ 1,021,000/yr
Total Present Worth1"1 $29,004,000
* January 1977 dollars.
20 percent engineering, legal, and taxes added.
j Land and easement costs are not grant eligible but are included in the "Capital Cost" column.
Present value of salvage in year 2000. Assumes straight-line depreciation.
, Total capital costs less total land and easement costs, which are not grant eligible.
90 percent of the grant-eligible capital costs.
* Amortized over 20 years at 8 percent (0.10185).
The sum of 20 years of operation and maintenance costs discounted at 6-1/8 percent
plus the total capital costs less the present worth of the salvage value of the
transmission lines.
Source: Facilities Plan, Volume II
H-2
-------
APPENDIX I
BREMERTON COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW ANALYSIS
Municipal sewer systems today are of two types—combined systems and
separate systems. Many of the older sewer systems, such as Bremerton's,
are a combination of these two types. Combined sewers serve a dual
purpose in transporting both sanitary sewage and storm runoff in the
same pipe. This approach requires construction of overflows to relieve
the system when rainfall is intense and system flow capacities are
exceeded. Bremerton's sewer system is about 25 percent combined
sewers.
Separate sanitary sewers and storm drains are the common design practice
today. In such a system, separate pipeline systems are developed for
sewage and storm runoff. The separate concept does not require over-
flows in the sanitary sewers, and discharge of sewage into receiving
waters only occurs in the event of unusual equipment failures. The
remaining 75 percent of Bremerton's sewers are separate sewers and all
new construction is of the separate-sewer type.
Combined sewer overflows (CSO's) occur in the portion of the Bremerton
system that is combined. CSO's discharge a mixture of storm water and
sewage to receiving water. Because these overflows can potentially
degrade water quality in the receiving water, the Washington Department
of Ecology (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
are interested in the cost-effective control of CSO's.
Evaluation of the Bremerton sewer system in late 1976 identified
approximately 30 sewer overflow sources in the system. The DOE evalu-
ated the 30 sources on the basis of frequency and magnitude, and
eliminated 14 from further study because they were considered nondetri-
mental to the receiving waters.* The 16 remaining sources were tar-
geted for further evaluation related to their detrimental effects on
aesthetic uses of the receiving waters. Once aesthetic use effects
were identified, these remaining CSO's were analyzed to determine the
most cost-effective alternative for controlling CSO's and to determine
the amount that could be cost effectively controlled. The procedures
for and results of this work are reported in this appendix.
BENEFICIAL USES OF RECEIVING WATERS
The issue of beneficial use of the receiving waters has been a critical
one in determining the eligibility of proposed CSO control techniques
for grant funding. Consequently, it was important to assess the beneficial
uses, related to aesthetics only, of the receiving waters of the study area
and to relate the impact, if any, to the CSO's.
* See the letter from the State Department of Ecology (18 February 1977) in appendix B.
1-1
-------
The 16CSO sources, shown on figure 1-1, are:
• Sewage Treatment Plants No. 1 and 2
• Pump Stations No. 1, 2, 3, 3A, 1, and 8
• Overflows No. 2, 3, 4, 10, 10A, 11, 12, and 17
Overflows No. 10 and 10A have been considered as one overflow because
they are located close together. The CSO source identified as Sewage
Treatment Plant No. 1 is the gravity sewer system flowing into the
Charleston Treatment Plant. This source is identified as "gravity" in
the analysis.
Combined sewer overflows impact two separate bodies of water—Port
Washington Narrows and Sinclair Inlet. Of the two receiving waters.
Port Washington Narrows receives by far the largest number of CSO's
although the present quantity of overflow is roughly comparable in
both receiving waters (based on gross approximations) . Of the CSO's
listed above, all but Sewage Treatment Plant No. 1, Pump Station
No. 8, and Overflow No. 17 discharge to Port Washington Narrows or
affect water uses in the Narrows.
Port Washington Narrows
Port Washington Narrows has become a focal point for recreational
activity in Bremerton. As evidence of this fact, the following is a
list of recreational facilities located on or affected by water quality
in Port Washington Narrows:
• Lion's Community Playfield adjacent to both the Manette
treatment plant and Pump Station No. 2. This facility is
located directly on Port Washington Narrows and includes
public boat docking and launching facilities. The park,
with over 2,000 feet of waterfront, is oriented to public
recreation of all types including water-related activities.
• Sheridan Park, also on the north side of Port Washington
Narrows, serves as headquarters for the Park Department and
includes about 800 feet of waterfront.
• Evergreen Park on the south side of the Narrows has a variety
of recreational uses and includes about 300 feet of waterfront.
This park will be incorporated into 1 .2 miles of proposed
waterfront park along the south side of the Narrows that
will stretch from the ferry terminal to just east of the
Warren Avenue bridge. Such a park, as now conceived, would
include public walkways for viewing activities in the Narrows
as well as commercial establishments and a restaurant near
the ferry terminal and a marina at the northern terminus.
Such a plan, if implemented, would provide extensive opportun-
ities for public viewing of the water and beaches of Port
Washington Narrows as well as the expanding recreational
activities now enjoyed there.
1-2
-------
i
OJ
Pump
Station Overflow
A ft
l-l
bREIMERTON COMbJNed
SEWER OVERFLOWS
-------
• The Rota Vista, east of the south end of the Warren Avenue
bridge, now provides people with an opportunity for a distant
view of the Narrows and parts of Sinclair Inlet.
• Bachmann Park is at the southern tip of Manette Point and
adjacent to Pump Station No. 1 . This park, while small in
size, provides a beach access and a gazebo intended to
further the public's enjoyment of the waters of Sinclair
Inlet and the boating traffic passing in and out of Puget
Sound.
As noted in the Bremerton Area Council of Neighborhood's letter to EPA
in January 1978 (appendix B), the communities bordering on Port Washing-
ton Narrows are concerned about the localized effects of CSO's on
several recreational activities that would occur in the marine waters
if CSO's were not present. Such activities that are presently not
practiced, but which would be encouraged by greater control or elimina-
tion of the overflows include:
Swimming
Skin diving
Waterskiing
Shellfish taking
Fishing
Beachcombing
General beach recreation
Observing marine life
The shoreline of Port Washington Narrows is lined with private homes,
all of which are highly valued in part for their view of the water
(aesthetics) . Their owners would use the water and adjacent shorelands
for many of the aforementioned uses if CSO's and the sewage treatment
plant outfall were not present.
Boating is a growing recreational sport in the Puget Sound area.
Boaters from communities all over the Sound use the waters of Sinclair
Inlet and Port Washington Narrows for weekend or daily outings. The
enjoyment from these activities is discounted by floating debris from
CSO's.
Sinclair Inlet
Although the recreational resources of Sinclair Inlet are not as
developed as those of Port Washington Narrows, there are, nonetheless,
beneficial uses of Sinclair Inlet that are impacted by CSO's.
The U.S.S. Missouri, moored at the west end of the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, is a national landmark that annually draws thousands of
visitors. The moorage is located near the discharge point of Overflow
No. 17, one of the largest CSO's in the Bremerton system. Visitors to
1-4
-------
the U.S.S. Missouri stroll on the deck of the ship and view the sur-
rounding area. The aesthetic impact of floating debris from the CSO's
in the area affects the enjoyment of the U.S.S. Missouri and its
tourist attraction.
Notwithstanding its comparison to Port Washington Narrows, Sinclair
Inlet does support moderate recreational activities that would be
impacted by any CSO's discharging there. The Port Orchard Marina
moors hundreds of pleasure craft just across Sinclair Inlet from tne
three CSO's. Tidal patterns, although weak in the inlet, do show a
net flow eastward; such a flow would carry floating materials past the
marina and into the waters used recreationally by its boaters.
Beaches in Sinclair Inlet, particularly on the south side, are con-
ducive to the recreational activities noted above for Port Washington
Narrows. Presently, these beaches are posted against shellfish har-
vesting. Control of CSO's, combined with treatment plant upgrading
proposed for the Charleston facility, will allow normal beach recrea-
tion to resume once again.
In summary, there are clear though unquantifiable beneficial use
improvements to be gained from CSO control in Bremerton. These im-
provements justify further evaluation of CSO control at the 16 CSO
sources.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The procedures for conducting the analysis to determine the most cost-
effective alternative for handling CSO's included conducting an infil-
tration cost-effective analysis, estimating flows, selecting and
developing CSO control alternatives, estimating and allocating costs
for control, determining the frequency and volume of overflow, and
comparing the cost and frequency of overflow. These procedures are
discussed in the following sections.
Infiltration Cost-Effective Analysis
EPA regulations require that the transportation and treatment system
be sized to convey sanitary sewage plus all infiltration that is not
cost effective to remove without any overflows. Therefore, an analysis
was conducted to determine what amount of infiltration was cost effec-
tive to remove. The conclusion was to correct infiltration in one
stretch of sewer line (project No. B-53--see Volume III) in the area
tributary to Pump Station No. 1, which would amount to removal of
0. 10 mgd of infiltration. Volume III discusses the analysis leading
to this conclusion. With this removal, the peak sanitary flow plus
infiltration flow at the Charleston Treatment Plant was determined to
be 15.0 mgd.
1-5
-------
Flow Development
Design flows were developed for each CSO source for the base flow
condition (peak sanitary flow plus infiltration and without inflow)
and for the base flow condition plus inflow resulting from rainfall of
three different intensities. The peak sanitary flow for this analysis
was the average sanitary flow based on 100 gallons per capita per day
times the population tributary to each CSO source times an appropriate
peaking factor.
The peak sanitary flow includes sanitary flows originating from in-
stitutions or commercial establishments. The infiltration flows
tributary to each CSO source were determined from the sewer system
evaluation survey data reported in Volume III. Storm water inflow
rates were estimated using the rational formula for storm intensities
of 0.06, 0.15, and 0.50 inch per hour. Catchment area, runoff coef-
ficient, and appropriate correction factor were obtained from the
sewer system evaluation survey data (see Volume III) . Design flows
were developed for four conditions at each CSO source. Each condition
included the base flow plus inflow from 0.00, 0.06, 0.15, and 0.50
inch per hour storms. A summary of the flows from each of these
conditions is in table 1-1 .
Table 1-1. CSO ANALYSIS FLOW SUMMARY
Flow (gpm)
CSO Source Point .
PS No. 1
OF No. 4
OF No. 3
PS No. 2
STP No. 1 (Manette)
OF No. 2
PS No. 3A
PS No. 3
OF No. 10 and
No. 10A
OF No. 11
OF No. 12
PS No. 4
OF No. 17
(PS No. 7)
PS No. 8
Gravity3
Otherb
Tributary
Population
5,295
5,370
3,710
2,335
4,015
1,200
550
1,150
550
500
150
4,000
8,050
735
1,400
13,990
Base Flow +
0.00 in/hr
Base Flow + Base Flow + Base Flow +
0.06 in/hr 0.15 in/hr 0.50 in/hr
Storm
1
1
2
,140
.060
820
450
960
800
180
230
180
100
250
910
,310
150
340
--C
1
1
1
1
2
4
3
Storm
,910
.710
,080
510
,050
900
190
410
280
380
430
,010
,500
270
,450
--C
Storm
3,
2,
1,
1,
1,
3,
7,
3,
070
680
460
600
170
050
200
680
440
800
690
660
790
440
450
--C
7,
6,
2,
1,
1 ,
1,
1,
2,
1,
10,
20,
1,
3,
Storm
560
470
950
950
670
620
250
710
050
420
740
090
550
120
450
--C
Total
53,000
15.0 mgd
23.9 mgd
37.3 mgd
89.4 mgd
Flow based on 10-year frequency, 30-mmute duration storm of 1.05 inches/hour. Corresponds to STP No. 2
(Charleston) CSO source.
Includes other portions of transmission system.
c Not applicable to CSO analysis.
1-6
-------
CSO Control Alternatives
Four alternative methods of CSO control were considered at this level
of analysis: transportation and treatment; storage, transportation,
and treatment; screening, disinfection, and discharge; and complete
inflow removal.
Transportation and Treatment
The transportation and treatment method includes transporting the base
flow plus inflow to the Charleston Treatment Plant for secondary
treatment and discharge into Sinclair Inlet. The transmission system
and treatment plant would be sized for each storm event with the
exception of extremely large storm-related flows (a 0. 50-inch-per-hour
storm) . The largest treatment plant feasible for an average sanitary
flow of 9 mgd is approximately 40 mgd. A plant larger than this would
provide unreliable treatment and be difficult to operate.
Therefore, the transportation and treatment alternative for high-
intensity rainfall under this alternative includes a facility at the
treatment plant to store flows in excess of 40 mgd. The stored flows
would be treated during the time that the plant is operating at less
than peak capacity.
Storage, Transportation, and Treatment
The storage alternative is a modification of the transport and treat-
ment method of CSO control. The purpose of providing storage is to
reduce the peak flow that the pump stations, pipelines, and treatment plant
must handle, thereby reducing the capital cost of the system. It is important
to note that domestic wastewater flow is not constant but varies throughout
the day; it is maximum during early morning and remains at a high level
through the day, and drops to a minimum after midnight.
At the maximum flow (diurnal peak) , the system would have no capacity for
inflow. The sewers would be full with sewage. However, at diurnal minimum
flow, there is capacity for inflow. The storage concept allows the inflow
to be stored during the period of diurnal peak flow and then be transported
and treated during diurnal minimum flow and other times when the full
capacity is not being used. This alternative is most attractive under
conditions where the transmission system for the base flow is of adequate
size to handle the stored inflow. However, in most alternatives for Bremerton,
additional pump station and pipeline capacity was required to permit the
storage reservoirs to be emptied during minimum diurnal flows.
The storage, transportation, and treatment alternative includes an on-site
buried concrete reservoir to store potential overflow. The influent line
to the storage reservoir would be designed to admit only the flow rate
associated with the design storm intensity being considered. Flow rates
above this would be discharged untreated through the existing overflow
1-7
-------
outfall. A small low-head pump station is provided to empty the storage
reservoir when the flow into the main pump station is less than the pump
station capacity.
Storage volume requirements were determined from an analysis of rainfall
data. The storage reservoir was sized to handle the inflow resulting from
the design intensity for a duration of up to 7 days. Rainfall data from
the climatological handbook* indicated that rainfall could total 10 inches
over a 7-day period. Likewise, the data indicated that the maximum 2-day
rainfall was 5 inches. During the worst 6-hour period, 3 inches of rainfall
accumulated. Using these data and the catchment area for each CSO source,
mass hydrographs were developed for the design rainfall intensities of
0.06, 0.15, and 0.50 inch per hour.
These hydrographs indicated that the 7-day storm determined the design
capacity of the main pump station. If the pump station capacity was greater
than the rate at which inflow from the 7-day storm reached the pump station,
additional pumping capacity was not required. However, a storage reservoir
is required because the pump station would have no capacity for inflow
during periods of diurnal peak flow. For the design intensities of 0.15
and 0.50 inch per hour, the storage volume was determined by the difference
between the average pumping capacity available for inflow (after modification
of capacity to handle the 7-day storm, if required) and the quantity of
flow resulting from the design-intensity storm.
Screening, Disinfection, and Discharge
The screening and disinfection method of CSO control includes on-site
treatment of the inflow resulting from the design-intensity storms and
discharge through the existing overflow outfall at each source. All flow
greater than the pump station capacity would overflow to the screening and
disinfection facility. For this alternative, it was assumed that the
treatment facility was located on-site, above ground, near the existing
pump station. The facility included a low-head pump station to lift inflow
to the treatment facility; a stationary screen to remove floating and
suspended solids; and a chlorine feeding and mixing system for disinfection.
The solids removed by the screens would be sluiced back to the main pump
station wet well where they would be transported to the treatment plant.
Complete Inflow Removal
A fourth method of control is complete inflow removal, which provides
protection for all rainfall intensities because the sources of inflow such
as catch basins and roof drains are separated from the sanitary sewer.
This alternative was used only as a check against the cost of other control
methods at this poirlt in the analysis. Partial inflow removal was also
considered as an optimizing step later in the analysis once a particular
control method had been selected.
* Columbia Basin States Precipitation, Volume II, September 1967.
1-8
-------
Cost Estimates
Capital costs were developed for each method of CSO control. These costs
were based on EPA cost curves with modifications to account for specific
conditions at each of the source points for CSO's. All costs, in January
1977 dollars, include construction contingency and engineering, legal, and
administrative fees. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were excluded
from the CSO analysis because of the cost of developing reliable information
and because the difference in these costs among alternatives would be
minimal.
Pump station cost curves were developed for custom package and submersible
stations. A curve was also developed for modifying existing pump stations.
A custom pump station is an individually designed cast-in-place concrete
structure. A package station is one that is delivered pre-made to the
site. Submersible pump stations consist of units with pumps fit into
manholes; operation is below the water surface. Standby power and additional
cost for tight-site conditions, high groundwater, or special architectural
treatment were provided for each of the individual CSO sources, where
required. The pump station capacity used for estimating the cost was the
required pump station capacity for year 2000 flows, assuming the largest
pump unit was out of service.
The cost of custom pump stations was estimated using EPA cost curves
developed by Black & Veatch.* These costs were increased to account for
high total dynamic heads and the provision of standby power at each of the
pump stations.
Cost curves for both package pump stations and submersible pump sta-
tions were estimated in a similar manner. The curves were developed
considering the station capacity, total dynamic head, and difficulty
of installation. Basic costs were derived from equipment vendor
quotes for duplex-type stations with capacities from 250 to 20,000
gallons per minute and total dynamic heads from 10 to 150 feet.
Discussions with the equipment vendors and with CH2M HILL cost-
estimating engineers indicated that the installation cost was ap-
proximately 100 percent of the equipment vendor quote for ordinary
installations. If difficult site conditions such as high groundwater
were anticipated, the installed costs of the station could be as much
as 200 percent of the quoted purchase price.
The cost of modifying existing stations was estimated using the EPA
cost curves cited above. Modification costs were assumed to include
contract move-in and move-out; increasing wet well capacity; and
replacement of pumps, electrical equipment, and controls. These costs
were estimated to be 50 percent of the EPA cost curves for new custom
stations. Costs were increased for high total dynamic heads.
' Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for Conventional Wastcwatcr Treatment rocilities.
1-9
-------
Alternative-type pump stations were used based on the following
criteria:
*
• Existing custom pump stations were modified when adequate
room was available within the structure for the new pumps
and the existing piping was large enough to handle increased
flows. Velocity in the suction piping was limited to 6 feet
per second; discharge velocity to 8 feet per second.
• New custom pump stations were used when the existing station
was inadequate and total design flow exceeded 2,000 gallons
per minute. Total dynamic head was restricted to 150 feet
or less except for Pump Station No. 4 where the total
dynamic head was restricted to 200 feet or less.
• Package pump stations were used where the total design flow
was between 500 and 2,000 gallons per minute. Toal dynamic
head in package pump stations was restricted to 150 feet or
less.
• Submersible pump stations were used when the total design
flow was less than 500 gallons per minute and the average
sanitary flow was less than or equal to 200 gallons per
minute. Submersible pump stations were restricted to the
CSO sources serving one drainage basin only. Total dynamic
head was restricted to 100 feet or less.
Standby power facilities were provided for those pump stations where
the average sanitary flow exceeded 200 gallons per minute. Cost
curves for standby power systems were developed from discussions with
equipment vendors. The standby power costs include an engine generator
set, electric controls, transfer switch, fuel system, and a building
to house the equipment.
Pipeline costs were estimated for three types of pipeline: (1) those
installed in streets within the City of Bremerton, (2) those installed
along a beach, and (3) those for underwater use. The costs include
excavation, backfill, pipe material, installation, and surface restora-
tion, if required. The costs are based on using concrete cylinder
pipe for installation in city streets, ductile iron pipe with push-on
joints for beach pipeline, and ductile iron pipe with ball joints for
the underwater pipeline. Pipelines were designed for a maximum velo-
city of 8 feet per second and a minimum of 3 feet per second. A
C-factor of 100 was used in the hydraulic analyses.
Cost of buried concrete reservoirs for the storage alternative were
based on EPA costs from figure 20 in the report titled Cost Estimating
Manual: Combined Sewer Storage Overflow and Treatment. The cost of
the pump station required to empty the reservoir was estimated using
the curves previously described.
1-10
-------
The cost of the screening and disinfection facilities was estimated
using the EPA reference cited above. The treatment process includes a
stationary screen, flow measurement, chlorine storage and feeding
system, and a chlorine rapid-mix basin. All components were assumed
to be included within an enclosed structure. The cost of a pump
station to pump flow from the main station to the screening facility
was estimated using the same cost curves. The minimum size screening
and disinfection facility was assumed to be 100 gallons per minute.
The costs for inflow removal, which were taken from the draft of
Volume III of this facilities plan, were estimated by the City of
Bremerton and reviewed by CH2M HILL.
Cost Allocation
The costs for each control method at each design rainfall intensity
were estimated for the entire transmission and treatment system and
then allocated to each CSO source. Allocations were necessary because
some facilities, such as the treatment plant and pipelines, served
more than one source point. This allocation was accomplished in two
phases. The first phase involved allocating the base costs, defined
as the cost of providing transportation and treatment for the peak
sanitary and infiltration flow only with no inflow included. The
second phase of allocation was incremental cost allocation. The
incremental cost was the difference in cost between providing CSO
control for the design storm intensity and the base cost.
Base costs for the treatment plant were allocated on strength and flow
characteristics. A differentiation between strength and flow was used
because some components of the treatment plant, such as the secondary
process and sludge handling facilities, are designed on the basis of
strength of the sewage and not necessarily the flow. Other components,
such as the chlorine contact chamber, are designed on the basis of
flow rate. Strength costs were allocated using population within the
area contributing to each source point; costs associated with flow
were allocated using the base flow.
All incremental costs were allocated based on flow. (Population
remains the same; therefore, strength costs remain unchanged.) Flow
relates directly to the catchment area tributary to each CSO source.
Therefore, catchment area was used as a basis for allocating incremental
costs.
Frequency and Volume of Overflow
Overflow frequency and volume were chosen as those parameters most
closely related to aesthetic impacts of combined sewer overflows. Of
these, frequency was considered the more important. Unit hydrographs
were developed for each CSO source using the peak flow rate for various
storm intensities as estimated from the rational formula and the time
of concentration within each node.
1-11
-------
The average number of hours that each rainfall intensity occurred was
estimated for Bremerton using Seattle data collected for the period
1948 to 1964 because no hourly intensity data are available for the
City of Bremerton. The Seattle data were adjusted to Bremerton based
on the average annual precipitation of the two areas. This adjustment
was checked using both average and wet and dry years for Seattle and
Olympia. Average annual hourly rainfall intensity data for Bremerton
are presented in table 1-2.
Table 1-2. AVERAGE ANNUAL HOURLY RAINFALL INTENSITIES
FOR BREMERTON
Hourly
Rainfall Annual
(in/hr) Hours
0.015 580
0.035 230
0.055 120
0.075 65
0.095 40
0.130 30
0.180 10
0.230 2
0.380 1_
Total 1,078
A computer model was developed to estimate the frequency and volume of
overflows. The model uses the unit hydrographs and number of hours
that the various rainfall intensities occur. It estimates the proba-
bility that a given storm event will occur at the time that wastewater
flow into the pump station is at a diurnal peak or minimum condition.
Overflows will occur at any CSO source point when the inflow rate plus
the wastewater and infiltration flow exceed the pump station capacity.
During diurnal peak flow, overflows will occur at all rainfall inten-
sities greater than that intensity for which the station has been
designed. The model estimates the intensities required and determines
the probability of the rainfall occurring during diurnal peak flow.
During minimum diurnal flow, a higher intensity rainfall is required
because less wastewater is entering the station. The model estimates
this intensity and the probability of occurrence.
The total number of hours of overflow per year is equal to the number
of hours during the year that the rainfall intensity is equal to or
greater than that required to produce an overflow times the proba-
bility of this rainfall occurring during the time of diurnal peak (or
minimum) flow. The volume of overflow is equal to the number of
overflow events per year times the volume per overflow at each of the
rainfall intensities.
1-12
-------
i should be noteed that an overflow is considered to occur whenever
r~>e deration is 1 hour or less. The diurnal curve for each CSO
source was considered to be a block diagram in which the diurnal peak
and minimum flovw rates were assumed constant for their respective
rortic-ns of the daay. The duration of each is proportional to the
peaking factor.
Comparison of Cst and Frequency of Overflow
Following the development and allocation of capital costs and the
estimation of over-flow frequency, a plot was made of the capital costs
versus frequency/ for each method of control at each CSO source point
(figure 1-2, whicrh will be found at the end of this appendix) .
Although volume of overflow was also determined, the frequency of
overflow was judged to be the better indicator of aesthetic impacts;
thus, frequency cof overflow was plotted against cost. The volume of
overflow indicates a relative magnitude of the overflow and, there-
fore, the magnitude of the aesthetic problem.
Following development of these curves, a meeting was held with the
City of Bremerton to discuss the methodology of CSO analysis and to
review the method or methods of CSO control that appeared most eco-
nomical at each erf the source points. As a result of this meeting,
screening and disinfection, although appearing economical at some
points, was not p>ractical from a public acceptance standpoint or from
an implementation standpoint because of site constraints.
The screening an-d disinfection alternatives required aboveground
structures, whichi were not practical at Pump Station No. 1, Overflow
No. 11, or Pump Station No. 4. A screening and disinfection facility
at Overflow No. '•! would require agreement between the city and Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard for connection to the overflow point and for
location of the treatment facility on shipyard property. Such arrange-
ments were not possible. Therefore, screening and disinfection was
eliminated from consideration at Overflow No. 17 and transportation
and treatment was selected.
Also resulting from this meeting was preliminary selection of the
transportation and treatment method of control as the most feasible
method for all CSO sources except Overflow No. 4 and Pump Station
No. 2. Screening and disinfection appeared feasible at Overflow
No. 4, and the costs were close to that of transportation and treat-
ment. Thus, both methods were analyzed further. Screening and dis-
infection was the most economical at Pump Station No. 2 and the city
felt that the general public in the vicinity of this pump station
would accept an aboveground facility.
COST-EFFECTIVE CSO CONTROL
Following the meeting with the city, a cost-effective analysis was
performed to identify the optimum combination of inflow removal and.
control at each CSO source (figure 1-3, at the end of this appendix) .
1-13
-------
The inflow cost-effective analysis was performed individually for each
of the design rainfall intensities of 0.06, 0.15, and 0.50 inch per
hour. For each of these analyses, the single most cost-effective
control point was determined. This analysis indicated the lowest cost
of achieving CSO control and providing inflow removal for each design
intensity.
The frequency and volume of overflow were recomputed following the
cost-effective analysis and the cost versus frequency of overflow
curves were replotted. The optimum combination of inflow removal and
CSO control in the cost-effective analysis is indicated on the curves
by the minimum point (lowest cost) on the total cost curve. This was
the point which identified the amount of control and inflow removal
to be provided at each CSO source. These curves are in Volume III.
The results of the cost-effective analysis are in table I-3, which
shows the minimum, maximum, and recommended CSO control levels. The
minimum control level corresponds to that situation in which no control
of overflow is provided. In that case, all CSO sources would be designed
to handle the peak sanitary flow plus infiltration flow. No capacity
would be provided to handle storm water inflow. Under the minimum
control level, over 8,000 overflow events per year would occu/ in the
design year.
Under the maximum control level, the number of overflow events would
be reduced to practically zero through either complete removal of the
inflow source or transportation and treatment or screening and disinfec-
tion of the inflow resulting for 0. 50-inch-per-hour storm. The dif-
ference in capital costs between maximum and minimum control is ap-
proximately $6.6 million.
The recommended level of control is the point of inflection on each of
the cost-effective curves. Implementing the recommended level of
control will reduce the frequency of uncontrolled overflow events by
an order of magnitude from over 8,000 per year to slightly over 600
per year. This reduction in overflow can be accomplished through
spending approximately $2.8 million over the costs to handle the base
flow alone.
The recommended CSO control method will be transportation and treatment
at all CSO nodes except Pump Station No. 1, Overflow No. 4, and Pump
Station No. 2, and the gravity source point. Complete inflow removal
is recommended at Pump Station No. 1, Overflow No. H and the gravity
source. In the case of Pump Station No. 1 and Overflow No. 4, com-
plete inflow removal truncates the curve before an inflection point is
reached. Thus, complete removal is less expensive than providing
other methods of control. Screening and disinfection is the most
cost-effective method of control at Pump Station No. 2.
Complete inflow removal is recommended for both minimum and maximum
control levels at the CSO source point titled gravity: An overflow
structure and bypass pipeline around the treatment plant would be
1-14
-------
Table 1-3. CSO ANALYSIS
COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
-Mimmum Control Level
Recommended Control Lcvrl
CSO Node
Point
PS »1
OF »U
(PS B)
OF »3
PS *2
STP 11
(Manctte)
OF »2
(PS A)
PS I3A
PS 13
OF »10 6 10A
H (PS C'
|i. OF #11
Ui (PS E)
OF 112
(PS D)
PS *«
OF »17
(PS »7)
PS *8
Gravity
Otherb
Total
Base TST
Cost
Net CSO
Control
Cost
Al located
Capital Control
Cost Method3
$ 1.575,000 None
1.1483.000 None
939,000 None
592,000 None
1,082,000 None
6145,000 None
211.000 None
327.000 None
201.000 None
1146,000 None
187,000 None
1.020.000 None
1,760.000 None
197.000 None
106.000 CIR
3.3214.000 TST
$13.795,000
13.975.000
0
Uncontrolled
Overflows
Percent Frequency Volume of
Inflow of Overflow Overflow
Removed (hr/yr) (mg/yr)
0 660 16.1
0 510 11 <4
0 500 <4.3
0 UUO 1.0
0 1490 '15
0 510 1 "4
0 390 01
0 730 3.6
0 710 2 U
0 670 6.14
0 360 21
0 790 26.0
0 670 145 9
0 720 2.6
100 0 0
99 C 0 N/A
8,150 1214 8
Allocated
Capital
Cost
$ 2, 119.000
1.883,000
1.111.000
669.000
1,132.000
718.000
218.000
1422.000
286.000
3414.000
251 ,000
1.362.000
2,7146.000
251.000
106.000
3. 32U. 000
$16,9142.000
13,795.000
$ 3. 147, 000
Control
Method3
CIR
CIR
TET
SED
TET
TET
TET
TET
TET
TET
Tf.T
TET
TST
TET
CIR
TET
Uncontrolled
Overflows
Percent Frequency Volume of
Inflow of Overflow Overflow
Removed (hr/yr) (mg/yr)
100 0 0
100 0 0
114 140 0.1
0 10 0
29 10 0
7 1140 0.3
147 20 0
59 UO 0.1
12 190 0 3
0 100 0.6
0 50 02
21 30 05
14 30 12
20 30 0
100 0 0
99 C 0 0
690 3.3
Allocate-!
Capital
Cost
$ 2.098.000
1 ,859,000
1,206.000
730.000
1.223.000
876,000
2142.000
1437,000
14141 ,000
771.000
1409.000
1,829.000
14. 1120. 000
1130.000
106 000
3,3214.000
$20.U03.000
13.795.00')
$ 6. M8.000
Control
Method'1
(,IR
CIK
CIR
SED
TST
CIR
TET
CIR
CIR
CIR
CIR
CIR
CIR
CIR
CIR
TET
Percent
Inflow
Removed
100
100
100
0
90
100
59
too
100
101)
100
100
100
100
101'
99 C
Uncontrolled
Overflows
Frequency Volume of
of Overflow Overflow
Ihr/yr) (mg/yr)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
TST = Transport and Treat
StD = Screen and Disinfect
CIR = Complete Inflow Removal
Includes all other portions of transmission
Removal of inflow from PS 1*13 nrn,] only
N/A - Not Applicable
tST = Cslimate Based on Interpolation
not included in CSO analysis
-------
required to provide any method of CSO control for the gravity system.
Because no other bypass exists, this pipeline and overflow structure
must be sized to handle all flow generated to avoid damage to treatment
plant components or flooding at the treatment plant site. A design
storm with an intensity of 1.05 inches per hour was selected as the
minimum storm for which protection is required. This corresponds to
the 10-year frequency, 30-minute duration storm and is consistent with
the design storm used for the inflow analysis of separate systems (see
Volume III) .
The cost of complete inflow removal for the gravity system was the
least costly method of control when compared to the cost of the overflow
structure and pipeline. Because removal or control is required as a
minimum to avoid damage to plant components, complete inflow removal
is recommended as the minimum level of control.
1-16
-------
Pump Station No. 1
Overflow No. 4
3.5
M
W
ID
=5 3.0-
Q
"5
c 2.5-
0
12.0-
r*.
o>
^
S 1'5'
o
0
| LO-
CI
O
0.5-
0-
/
/
•/ /
/ /
X s
Complete .X^ X^
Inflow Removal ^^ ^^
^^x«»*^. *•"* S '
^^*0*^^^^^ -_— ^»«* • ^^^
^^^r^^S^^'^^^L^*"* • """^ *— * *
^^^ff^&**~^^* * jjf
II 1 1 I |
3.5-
t_
CO
^3.0-
0
H-
o
£2.5-
o
^2.0-
•^
0)
r~
i. 1.5-
S
o
O
ff 1.0-
'5.
n
O
0.5-
0-
__^ ^» ^^** ^^^i
^_^^^^tf^^^?«S«^^ * ^""^^"^ f
.^^^^K^^U— • |
*
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
. Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year) Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year)
Overflow No. 3 Pump Station No. 2
1.4-
—
" 1 2-
0
0
| 1.0-
O
1 0-8-
o>
T 0.6-
+^
M
0
O
3 0.4-
'5.
to
^j
0.2-
0
Complete ^^^
Inflow Removal ^^^^ »
1000-
M
JO
O *'**^'
Q
"S
^ 800-
i
| 700-
~
W600-
•
tn
O
V 500-
CO
+•*
'5.
0 400-
Complete
Inflow Removal
J
-tss^^^^-^^l
***^*^'^' 1
*
1 1 1 1 1 1
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year)
—7 Transport and Treatment
— Storage, Transport, and Treatment
• — Screening and Disinfection
Preliminary Control Level
Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year)
1-17
1-2
CSO CONTRol
MErhods ANAlysis
-------
STP No. 1
1600-
"g 1200-
3
§
H 1000-
r-
* 800-
S
o
^ 600-
400-
Complete
Inflow Removal
200-1 1 1— 1 1 1 r
700 600 500 400 300 200 100
. Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year)
Overflow No. 2
1.1-
n
o 1-0-H
o
0.9-
o
I 0.7
o
u
a
CJ
0.5-
0.4
Complete
Inflow Removal
/
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year)
Pump Station No. 3A
0.34-
^ 0.32-I
o
O
| 0.30H
o
0.28-
0.26-
o
O
Q.
n
U
0.22-
0.20
Complete
Inflow Removal
700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year)
Pump Station No. 3
0.2
0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year)
. — Transport and Treatment
— Storage, Transport, and Treatment
-•— Screening and Disinfection
* Preliminary Control Level
FiquRE 1-2
(cONTINUEd)
1-18
-------
Capital Cost - 1977 (Millions of Dollars)
Capital Cost - 1977 (Millions of Dollars)
? M ¥2
~ n -*
— re aj
— 2 (O •
<= H -
a' -< ^
^ ^ 3
— 2 D.
OX H
re ^
p
ISJ
o-
o
O)
_ o-
T o
I S-
o O
O 2-
o w
S O-
* e-t
•o o-\
-C
ro _.
O A.
p
U)
I
01
I
p
en
I
o
2
o
Q>
Q.
O
>
Capital Cost • 1977 (Millions of Dollars)
S 3!
B
Capital Cost
o o i
1977 (Millions of Dollars)
-------
Overflow No. 17
7-
o
Q
"5 5
M
.O
I 4
o>
3
•5 2
a.
5
1-
Complete
Inflow Removal
700 600
500
400
300
I
200
100
Pump Station No. 8
Complete
Inflow Removal
o
Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year)
Transport and Treatment
Storage, Transport, and Treatment
Screening and Disinfection
Preliminary Control Level
700 600 500 400 300 200 .100 0
Frequency of Overflows (hrs per year)
1-2
(cONTINUEd)
1-20
-------
•*•
33
o
o
o
3
3
n
3
Q.
n
CL
0
o
3
o_
r~
re
re_
i
i
c/)
o
re
3
3'
to
0)
3
Q.
a
5'
re
o
5'
D
(/»
O
-t
(0
re
—I
"ranspon
*
a
3
Q.
H
re
01
3
re
3
|
1
H
a:
3
•S
O
J"^
Q)
Q.
H
fD
tu
3
CO
£
•n
^
^quency
o
o
re i
^
O
S
?
•o
re
^
01
^~
VI
O
O
O)
O
o
Ul
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
N)
o
0
0
0
Capital Cost- 1977 (Thousands of Dollars)
Capital Cost • 1977 (Thousands of Dollars)
M *> en t» o M *»
0 0 0 O O 0 0
= 0000 000
1— 1 1 1 1 1
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
2,"
CD <0
3
o
0)
o
n
p
00
o
o
T, g
JO
C
•<
re
S
o
O
O
O -
PO
O
O
o
o
_t -1 M r\j w w
tn o ui o ui o
r-t
5'
3
Z
O
Capital Cost- 1977 (Thousands of Dollars)
Capital Cost - 1977 (Thousands of Dollars)
VI
O
O
o
o
^p I
a-
>
l-o
•< H
S£l.<
3Tm
I 8
N)
"C 0
50
?
?
?
?
?
?
i°
o 3
S "2.
-D
c
3
T3
CO
o
3
Z
O
o
en
•n ° -
-, o
c
re ui
3 O -
« 0
1 s.
3 °
° w
S o -
— o
3"
V*
T3 M
re o-
^ O
re
0)
O -
o
00 0000 0
3OO OOOO O
II 1 1 1 1 1
1
\
I
!\
1 .
l\
1 I
\\'
3~£
3, o
o 3
S "5.
CD
fC ^
1
01
o
^
^
0
S
Z
p
-------
STP No. 1
Overflow No. 2
1500-
O 1400-
I 1300-
o
t 1200-
o
7 1100-1
a
o
O
3 1000-
"5.
<3
900-
Complete
Inflow Removal
700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Frequency of Overflow (hrs per year)
1100
(§1000-
£ 900-
3
|
t 800-
T 700 H
M
O
o
2 600
'5.
3
500-
400-
Complete
Inflow Removal
700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Frequency of Overflow (hrs per year)
Pump Station No. 3A
Pump Station No. 3
340-
_ „
- 770
0 32° "
O
*»—
o
| 300-
31
3
^ 280-
t
f«^
5 260-
M»
o
0 240-
~S
'a.
o 220-
£.\J\J —
Complete
Inflow Removal
* I
I
*
i i i i I i
800-
i/> -j f\f\
!. 700—
fg
"5
o
•g 600-
"* •
o
i 500-
s
f*K
0) 400-
o
0 300-
5
5.
o 200-
Complete
Inflow Removal
^SiS^f*
1 . •• lr^-= I
*
1 1 1 1 1 i
700 GOO 500 400 300 200 100 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 6
Frequency of Overflow (hrs per year)
Transport and Treatment
Storage, Transport, and Treatment
Screening and Disinfection
Recommended Control Level
Frequency of Overflow (hrs per year)
I-J
(cONlJNUEd)
1-22
-------
Overflow No. 10 and 10A
Overflow No. 11
700-
•A
CO
"o 600-
D
H-
o
•5 500-
a
3
jf 400-
? 300-
0
- 200-
CD
" 100-
0-
7C
Complete
Inflow Removal
y
— — -"\
i i i i i i
)0 600 500 400 300 200 100 C
CO
£200-
0
- 1977 (Thousands
0) CO 0
o o o
o o o
i I I
o
o
- 400-
(o
'a
re
0 200-
0-
) 7(
Complete
Inflow Removal
/
/
•• ""** \
)0 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Frequency of Overflow (hrs per year) Frequency of Overflow (hrs per year)
700-
n
£ 600-
"o
1 500-
S
3
O
K 400-
m
T 300-
o
0
TS 200-
*-»
'a
TO
° 100-
0_
70
Overflow No. 12
Complete
Inflow Removal
--- -^""""V
1 1 1 1 1 if
D 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
_3500-
TO
£ 3000-
o
1 2500-
5
3
O
H2000-
^ 1500-
*-•
0
O
^1000-
'5.
" 500-
70
'ump Station No. 4
Complete
Inflow Removal
__X'
*
I II I i i 1
0 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
. Frequency of Overflow (hrs per year)
— Transport and Treatment
— Storage, Transport, and Treatment
•— Screening and Disinfection
* Recommended Control Level
Frequency of Overflow (hrs per year)
1-23
1-5
(CONTINUEC!)
-------
Overflow No. 17-
Pump Station No. 8
_ 8000-
h.
JS
D 6000-
"5
M
| 5000-
3
H 4000-
t-.
a>
7 3000-
s
o
O
•5 2000-
*-
'a
o
1000-
70
Complete
Inflow Removal
.
J
. """"H
*""" *
0 600 500 400 300 200 100 I
_ 700-
_a
Q 600-
•s
| 500-
o
H 400-
r*.
o>
T 300-
t;
o
O
"a 200-
'5.
o
100-
) 7C
Complete
Inflow Removal
.
1
K
1 i i i i i
10 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Frequency of Overflow (hrs per year)
Transport and Treatment
Storage, Transport, and Treatment
Screening and Disinfection
Recommended Control Level
Frequency of Overflow {hrs per year)
FiquRE l-J
(cONTJNUEd)
1-24
------- |