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

-------